I do believe in inerrancy. But maybe not how you define it. No, I am not trying to redefine anything, but the fact is that when it comes to this issue there is a spectrum of belief in those who confess the doctrine. I am sure, no absolutely sure, that there would be those out there would would see my view of inerrancy as a liberal compromise.
I remember when I first began to read the Gospels I was rather confused about the repetition of the story of Christ. I was further confused that there seemed to be many places where the same event was told in different ways, using different words, and sometimes with different people involved. Whether it was Christ’s encounter with the demoniacs (Luke 18:27ff; Matthew 8:28ff) or the words written above the cross (Mark 15:26; Mark 19:19), there were differences. I noticed that differences of this type were the primary criticism to which skeptics would refer when attacking the reliability of Scripture and the truth of Christianity. This disturbed me. If the Bible was inspired, these differences should not be there. Isn’t the Bible inerrant? If it is, it cannot have discrepancies. How could God have gotten it wrong? As I sought answers, I found initial comfort in those who would explain these “discrepancies” in some very creative ways. Most would say that the parallel accounts that I was having problems with were not really parallel at all. They were different encounters all-together.
These types of explanations satisfied me at the time. I thus, unknowingly adopted a strict view that I call “technically precise inerrancy.” This means that all the writers of Scripture, by virtue of their ultimate source of information (God), recorded everything precisely as it occurred. Â
I later came to realize that this methodology was not only unnecessary but was actually birthed, I believe, out of a very Gnostic view of Scripture. I was so emphasizing God’s role in the writing of Scripture that the role of man could not be found. Yet if God used man in writing Scripture, and Scripture was intended for man, then would not have God used a common means of communication that did not require technical precision in communicating events.
To make a long story short, I began to adopt a view that I call “reasoned inerrancy.” “Reasoned inerrancy” is a definition of inerrancy that recognizes that the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the rules of interpretation governed by genre, historical accommodations, context, argument, and purpose. In other words, the modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regards to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that – a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and an faulty hermeneutic.
Let me further define the faulty presupposition of the “technically precise view of inerrancy.” The presupposition is this: All writers of Scripture, by virtue of divine inspiration and inerrancy, must have recorded everything in a technically precise way. I take issue with this presupposition. I do not believe that inspiration and inerrancy require technical precision. Why would it be so difficult to believe that the authors of Scripture would take liberties in their recording of the Gospel narrative? Does taking “liberties†in the way someone recounts an event mean that they are producing fabrications or lies? Can’t people tell the same story different ways and even nuance that story according to their purposes and still be accurate?
We would never place these types of restraints upon people today. The Gospel writers were simply telling the story of Christ as enthusiastic reporters of good news who were emotionally committed to the truths upon which they were reporting. This happens every day in our own news reporting system and we don’t hold their feet to the fire of technical precision.
Let’s do a test. Let’s have two reporters report the news. We will take two reporters’ accounts of the president’s recent warning to Iran concerning its nuclear program and see how they fare.
Original statement from the president (not actual):
â€We are winning the war on terror. The terrorists are on the run. We are dealing with each new threat in a decisive yet unique way. We have warned those regimes that seek to produce weapons of mass destruction that their time is short and they better comply with the will of the coalition or face serious consequences.â€
Reporter: Bill O’Reilly
Context: Debate concerning whether or not we should turn our attention from Iraq to Iran.
Nuance: O’Reilly is defending the president to a leftist who believes that Bush is not focusing on the right war.
Statement: “You are not being fair. The president said today that we are dealing with each situation individually and that serious consequences will befall all the defiant even if this is in a different manner.â€
Notice, O’Reilly represents the president’s speech truly, but in a particular nuanced fashion that is expedient to the moment. O’Reilly chooses to focus on the fact that the president says the threat will be dealt with in different ways. There is no untruth in the O’Reilly comment although it, technically speaking, is not exactly what the president said and it is nuanced according to the intent of O’Reilly.
Reporter: Sean Hannity
Context: Arguing with Allen Colmes concerning the president’s involvement of other nations in what Colmes believes to be American maverick tendencies to arrogantly make threats without the backing of other nations.
Nuance: Hannity is disagreeing with Colmes and is an avid Bush supporter.
Statement: “You don’t even listen to the president himself. He said today that there is a coalition of forces that are going to bring swift destruction upon the enemy.â€
Once again, we do not have a technically precise statement from the president, but it is true nonetheless. Hannity, in this case, like O’Reilly, only focuses in on the issues that are expedient to his cause and then nuances the statement to his own purpose. Yet his purpose, while more focused than the president’s, could not be said to have strayed from the president’s original intent. Notice particularly that Hannity changes “serious consequences†to “swift destruction.†Some may say that you cannot turn the ambiguous “serious consequences†to a more definite “swift destruction.†In some cases this may be uncalled for, but (and listen to this carefully) what if Hannity had recently heard the president say in other contexts that all in this coalition were prepared to do whatever is necessary in a timely fashion? What if in other speeches he had heard the president say that all those who seek weapons of mass destruction will share the same fate as Iraq? You see, Hannity may know the president well enough to read into his statements the fuller intent. He is at liberty to do so as long as it is accurately representing the president’s intent.
This is the same when it comes to Scripture. We must allow the biblical authors this right. We must allow them to have a particular purpose in writing. We must allow for this type of freehanded, yet all-together accurate (inerrant), nuanced method of recounting the events. This liberty is part of inspiration. We believe that the Bible is a product that involves 100% man’s input and 100% God’s, don’t we? If we don’t, then we might as well take man out of the picture all together and admit we hold to mechanical dictation (that God simply used the human authors’ hands in writing the Scripture, not their head—sometimes called biblical docetism). If mechanical dictation is true, then we should not care who the authors were writing to and we certainly should not care why they are writing since their motives do not influence the interpretation.
Some may accuse me of adopting “redaction criticism.” Redaction criticism is the critical method of study that assumes the Gospel writers changed the events surrounding the life of Christ to fit their purpose. I do understand that people have taken this type of redaction criticism too far. Some have gone to the point of denying the truthfulness of the event based upon the expediency of the moment. But this is not what I am doing. I am just giving the authors liberty to write an accurate account of the events, while not having to be technically precise with the wording or structure. Therefore I do believe in a limited use of redaction criticism. I would just not go so far as to say that the writers of Scripture ever produced fabrications, even if they did choose what to include due to the perceived needs of their audience.
Scholars refer to these issues by referring to the difference between ipsissima verba (the very words) and ipsissima vox (the very voice). Did the writers record the very words of Christ or the spirit of truth that his words represent? I would say any inductive approach to arriving at a hermeneutical method demands the latter. Only if we deductively deduce that our theology of inspiration demands a strict level of preciseness within Scripture in order to be true, will we adopt the former. I believe that I have demonstrated that this is not only all-together unnecessary and naïve, but misleading and dangerous.
Now, having said all of this, it is important for me to allow the same fairness that I hope to receive from others. There are good scholars who disagree with me and are well able to defend their position. I encourage you to wrestle with their views as they have important representation within evangelicalism.
Do I believe in inerrancy? If you mean “technically precise inerrancy,” the answer is no. But if you mean “reasoned inerrancy” that holds to an authorial intent hermeneutical method which includes ipsissima vox, then the answer is yes.
I look forward to your comments.
55 replies to "Do I Believe in Inerrancy? It Depends . . ."
Good post, Michael. I want to encourage you to come a little further.
I ran into big problems with inerrancy from two directions. The first came from problems with the definition of inerrancy. I had to abandon a theological prolegomenon I was writing as I couldn’t get over this point. I found I had to keep qualifying inerrancy; “No, it doesn’t mean this, and no, it doesn’t mean that, and no, that’s not actually an error.” You can see this problem in the Chicago Statement and discussions on it. Ultimately, the term dies the death of a thousand qualifications. If it’s so difficult to nail down, perhaps it’s not so useful a term after all.
(BTW, I am completely comfortable with affirming the biblical term for Scripture, which is “inspired.” Most people can figure out what that means just fine. I am also mostly comfortable with “infallible,” although that one allows us to be a little weaselly if we aren’t honest with ourselves. The progressive hardening of the evangelical position from inspiration to infallibility to (total) inerrancy is, historically speaking, a rather recent development.)
***I’m having a lot of power interruptions today so I’ll break my post here to avoid losing it. Please excuse.***
***Continuing.***
The second problem I had was when, well, I discovered errors in Scripture. Not big ones but real ones. (And no, I’d prefer not to give a list here.) After intensive study and soul-searching, I found that I couldn’t accept all of the proffered harmonizations. The whole discussion that goes on around inerrancy exhibits a lot of circular reasoning. If a new problem is discovered, inerrancy is redefined to cover it. If anyone can conceive of any possible harmonization at all, that is to be accepted over the possibility of error. (I’m not so skeptical that I reject harmonization entirely; many explanations are good and quite reasonable. Others are not.)
There’s a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty and circling of wagons in this issue. I do not genuinely think that most evangelicals are open to the possibility of actual errors in the Scriptures; after all, it will get you booted out of the ETS. Could it be, possibly, that some of those “evil” liberals abandoned inerrancy, not because they wanted to destroy faith, but because they found problems they could not honestly harmonize away? A little flexibility from the side of the orthodox might have helped to restrain some of their excesses, but it was not forthcoming. Even Karl Barth, the greatest theologian of the 20th century, has been demonized in many conservative circles. Barth wanted to accept both verbal inspiration and historical criticism but said that if he had to make a choice, he’d go with the former. But even that wasn’t good enough.
A little more honesty and charity would help the Body. I commend Michael for trying to open minds and arms a little. Can evangelicals at least consider opening them a little wider?
***
After all this negativity, let me state this: As a Christian and a theologian, I believe the Scriptures are trustworthy. I believe they are given by God to equip in every way we need (2 Tim. 3.16-17). I believe they are the one reliable source we have for doctrine and practice. We need to remember, however, that our relationship of saving love is with God in Christ, the subject of our faith, and not the Book.
Sean,
You said “A little more honesty and charity would help the Body. I commend Michael for trying to open minds and arms a little. Can evangelicals at least consider opening them a little wider?
Yes, I agree and ditto your thanks to Michael. I for one, admit to have been a little troubled by the nuanced difference between Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13, among others. It’s tough to argue that there are no contradictions in the bible when these differences appear. But for the essentials of faith and practice, there are no contradictions and that’s what matters. It does beg the question, though of how far you go before falling off the inerrancy wagon (um, thinking about a certain nameless seminary)
I also think what may be overlooked sometimes is that the gospels, while absolutely being inspired scripture, is still an historical accounting of the life of Jesus. Could other historical accounts from multiple sources measure up to the hard-lined scrutiny of accuracy given to gospels? I don’t think so.
Note: I am not a liberal and hold to a conservative view of orthodoxy. But I don’t think we can say “yes” and still have questions.
Thanks for the encouragement to come further Sean! But I do want to challenge you as well. There are some very honest scholars who do hold to inerrancy (Wallace, Schreiner, Bock, etc) and do not see the problems as significant enough to abandon the confession. Yes, there are going to be hermeneutical qualifications for many things, yet these are necessary qualifications even without the doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t see people having THAT much trouble. I just think it takes some common sense. And I don’t think that these people confess it simply to keep signing the ETS statement of faith. 😉 . . . I don’t.
While I would disagree with your suggestion to abandon inerrancy, I would agree that the term inerrancy is somewhat misleading. I like to say this: The Scripture is true in everything it says. “Says” is the key word because it assumes a proper understanding.
Hope that makes sense.
Hi Michael,
“Scripture is true in everything it says.” Yeah – that “says” word is the real kicker, isn’t it? I’m sure I could sign on to that – but I wonder if it’s too generic to be as useful as we might like.
A few probing questions, if I might.
When we read the book of Job, we have verses of Holy Scripture that comes from the mouth of characters we know to be wrong. These verses say things that are false, or at best misleading. So, to get at what scripture “says”, you need to read the entire book, and integrate those parts into the message of the whole. Which means that what that specific verse says is not true in and of itself, correct?
When we come to Genesis, you have much that it shares with ancient works like the Enumma Elish. In order to get at what Genesis is “saying”, does one need to distinguish between what was common to the time and where it has a unique message challenging common notions? (man created from the earth in the image of god, vs man created as a slave of the gods from the blood of a rival god)
Finally, is there a sense of what “scripture” as a whole is saying as opposed to the messages of individual authors? Could the messages of various books be in tension, and the message of scripture as a whole come through the tension itself? Might this actually require reading scripture in the OT in different ways than their authors intended (like the cursing psalms in the light of Christ’s overcoming the curse of sin and death)?
I see all three of those statements as consistent with your definition of inerrancy. The problem is that this perhaps opens the door too wide – giving weasel room for liberalism. Perhaps that’s OK – perhaps liberalism needs to be opposed on the grounds of specific arguments, rather than with the silver bullet of inerrancy. But I know many will begrudge the loss of this weapon.
I wrote a blog a while back about fighting with scripture based on my reading of the book of Job. I think some of it relevent to this discussion. I’d be really interested in your reaction to such an approach to scripture.
To clarify, perhaps I should emphasize that what the word “it” means is just as important as the word “says”. When does “it” refer to the verse in isolation? Or the author of the book? Or the canon as a whole?
Wonders, awesome looking blog. Thanks for the comments.
You said:
“Finally, is there a sense of what “scripture” as a whole is saying as opposed to the messages of individual authors? Could the messages of various books be in tension, and the message of scripture as a whole come through the tension itself? Might this actually require reading scripture in the OT in different ways than their authors intended (like the cursing psalms in the light of Christ’s overcoming the curse of sin and death)?”
I really think that this is a important thing to realize. Again, it has to do with your hermeneutics. I think we have the same issue with Eccl as we do with the Psalms and Job. I think the Scripture can accurately record false information and without teaching this false information, whether it be the imprecatory Psalms, Eccl, or Job.
so…you’re basically a moon bat liberal?
lol
Interesting that the Book of Job is introduced here in this post, what came to mind from that is Job chapter 28: 12″But (B)where can wisdom be found?
And where is the place of understanding?
13″(C)Man does not know its value,
Nor is it found in the land of the living.
And Job goes onto to say in verses 20″(H)Where then does wisdom come from?
And where is the place of understanding?
21″Thus it is hidden from the eyes of all living
And concealed from the birds of the sky.
And finally in verse 28″And to man He said, ‘Behold, the (P)fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;
And to depart from evil is understanding.'”
Here’s the deal, I am fairly new to the world of theology and have gained great understanding from that perspective (Thanks Michael for the TTP) of the theological world, but that’s it, of the world. Now, I am not saying we can not search out the answers we all desperately desire to know, I have in fact read the likes of Dr. Robert H. Stein, Joachim Jeremias and others with regards to the text of scripture.
It all comes down to one thing, do you believe?
Whether we chose to believe in inerrancy and infallibility and to what degree, we have to hold it in our hearts as believers what is truth.
It all comes back to the word FAITH, nothing else matters.
We just do not know with certainty how the scriptures were penned and by whom for the most. We can only surmise they (the texts of scripture) were passed down with all intensity to insure the never ending story went to ends of the earth and to the end of the ages. Maybe we are here or soon to be at the end of all we know. Where else is wisdom to be found from petition, prayer and obedience in faith to God. Thanks my 2 cents
Michael (and others),
If inerrancy is working for you, fine. I have no desire to get people to drop it–that’s why I’m not dumping my list here, (or elsewhere, for that matter). I am very interested, though, in lessening its potential for becoming the “all or nothing” stumbling block that we’ve talked about before. That, I think we agree, is a very real danger.
My question is: why did this have to become the dividing line? In 1846, the Evangelical Alliance was happy with “inspiration, authority, and sufficiency.” In 1951, the WEF was o.k. with “infallibility.” Today, with the ETS and others, it’s inerrancy, which has to be qualified so tightly that you’re concerned (hopefully not too much) of being accused of “liberal compromise” when bringing out a nuance. From outside, the incessant quibbling over this has been highly entertaining to some parties. It’s a large part of the reason why evangelical scholarship still has to struggle so hard to be taken seriously. And it has not had that great of an impact in restraining the real excesses of theological liberalism. In that department, Karl Barth accomplished far more, but he still wasn’t good enough. The old Evangelical Alliance affirmation was quite good. If it had been kept, I think evangelicalism would be a wider camp than it is today. Even though I affirm many of the same things, especially the most important things, I find myself outside that camp.
So in other words, I’m somewhat miffed that I can’t join the ETS. Can you tell?
***
Perhaps that’s OK – perhaps liberalism needs to be opposed on the grounds of specific arguments, rather than with the silver bullet of inerrancy. But I know many will begrudge the loss of this weapon.
Wonders“The silver bullet of inerrancy.” I love that. Can I borrow it?
Sean, I agree with the dangers that you have expressed. I think the issues has to do with reactions that conservatives have to challenges. It does not matter whether it is inerrancy or creationism, conservative bite at the instigation and provocations of unbelievers and end up over defining the issues to the point that they end up being misrepresented and misdefined. This is one of the dangers of apologetics that I have mentioned before. It keeps people from thinking clearly (and I can be held guilty for such reactions as well!).
This is why I think the issue needs to come down to the truthfulness of Scripture and a solid hermeneutical method. Theology is neglected in these issues (ironically enough) and people start with presuppositions about inspiration and the hermeneutics that they uncritically suppose must follow. We are experiencing an epidemic in critical thinking in the evangelical church, yet evangelicalism itself has critical thinking as its foundation. I just hope we can return to our roots without vilifying them by a misunderstanding of what we originally stood for. Remember, while there is a group of people we want to gain, there are also those we don’t want to lose.
Michael,
Let me ask you one thing. I’m playing devil’s advocate (ha!) here, but this is not meant to be a trap. There’s not a GOTCHA! coming. My question:
1. Do you think it’s possible for there to be a genuine error in the autographs (i.e., something that can’t be explained textually or through good hermeneutics)?
2. If you would discover such an item that you personally were convinced was an error, how would you respond? How would your understanding of inspiration etc. change?
And that’s more than one thing. Again, this isn’t a trap. I’m genuinely interested in how you feel about this–it’s a journey I had to walk alone–but I would understand if you don’t feel it’s appropriate to address.
Sean, these are good questions. I would not think of them as baiting at all 🙂
1. Yes, I think it is possible . . . I could most certainly be wrong about my stance on inerrancy. If this were the case, I would hope that I would follow the evidence rather than my presuppositions. Who knows? There are two primary problems that I have that I can’t resolve with much confidence (I don’t want to get into them or this blog will go in a new direction). Yet, with these small issues I have to bring humility to the table. If I were to redefine my view of inspiration (i.e. from inerrancy or infallibility) based upon these issues, this would mean that I am confident that these issues are clear enough for me to change. Knowing that we must approach our interpretation with humility causes me to give my view of inspiration the benefit of the doubt. In other words, it would be, in my mind, more arrogant to deny inerrancy based upon these problems than it would to continue to hold to it.
2. If there were a problem (or many problems) that we could say with a large enough degree of certainty that these were true errors, I would simply change my view of inspiration, but not my beliefs. I don’t know of any proposed discrepancy that effects any major doctrine.
What I would say in the end (going back to my conservative bent) is that those who do not hold to inerrancy need to approach this with humility as well. Just as the inerrantist could be wrong, so could those who deny it. Inerrancy might be correct. Therefore, nonadherents must be careful not to vilify those who hold to a reasoned inerrancy just as much as those who hold to inerrancy need to stop vilifying those who don’t hold to it.
Michael,
That’s a great response.
I don’t know of any proposed discrepancy that effects any major doctrine.
That’s worth repeating. Neither do I.
Sean
Sean,
I don’t want to answer for Michael, but perhaps you might clarify what you mean by “error” and give a fictitious example.
Here’s an example I came up with.
Let’s pretend the gospel of John talked of Jesus healing seven lame sheep on the way to Jerusalem. The gospel of Matthew talks of him healing twelve lame goats. Let’s say we have a time machine and what we see is actually four sheep and a goat.
Would you consider this an error?
Michael (or others)
So here’s my question. Is discrepancy the same thing as inerrancy? Because if we are talking about the discrepancies in historical accuracy, can’t that be summed up you suggested earlier that people writing about the same event will nuance it differently. And it doesn’t negate the accuracy of the information just the accounting of it, which doesn’t necessarily make it inerrant.
Oh – and yes – feel absolutely free to borrow anything I say and pretend you came up with it. 😉
Oh, and I should have added, especially when weighed against the whole counsel of scripture.
Wonders: I love it! We have to invent a time machine before we will REALLY consider something as an error. That is great!
Lisa, you are right. I discrepancy does not amount to error, just a difficulty. I agree that we really need to allow historians to nuance the events without saying that they are in error. This makes interpretation the key issue, not simply defending inerrancy.
Right, Michael – but assuming the time machine for sake of argument, as well as the passages in Matthew and John, my question is – are the gospels (in this thought experiment) in error? If their purpose is to speak to exactly what type of animals and what number of them were healed, I suppose it is. If it is to emphasize the deeper reality (jesus bringing new creation/jesus healing israel) through the lens of his healing of animals, I would say that the gospels are not in error even though the details aren’t quite accurate.
Wonders, exactly! See Article XIII of the Chicago statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
The strange dichotomy which results from a certain type of fundamentalist inerrancy is that it can lead to the militant atheist and the extreme fundamentalist insisting on the same reading of Scripture. The one to set it up for easy dismissal, and the other for “firm” reliance.
What the extreme version of inerrancy does is ask of the Scripture what it was never intended, and subject it to a type of scrutiny that is simply inappropriate. While it does provide a certain level of simplicity for the believer (“God said it and I believe it and that settles it!”), all it does is create these strange bedfellows at the two extremes who start with same textual presumption of literalness, for example, then battle over whether than literalness can hold up historically or scientifically.
Vance, well said.
I love your point about the intent of the text controlling errancy.
Let’s take, a book like Lord of the Rings. Is this book historically accurate? Of course not. But, would we, in any sense, say it was in error? Of course not. The reason is simple: it was not making any historical claims.
A text can be in error only to the extent that it fails to do what it intends, or claims, to do. And we must be sensitive to the fact that this intent or claim is not always easy to determine, since sometimes it is on a spectrum, not an absolute.
If a text intends to convey strict literal historical narrative (and I think Acts would the closest example of this), and then just gets the history wrong, it is in error. But, if a book intends to give a general summary of events, an overview, for the purpose of discussing God’s goodness over a period of time, then it MAY be making LESS of a claim to that type of strict narrative. And, thus, may not be “in error” if there are minor factual errors.
Other texts have other issues. Job and Esther, for example. Are they actually making a claim to strict literal historical narrative? Well, Calvin, for one, believed that Job was NOT making such a claim and should not be read historically. Others have raised the same possibility regarding Esther. IF this is true, then if to assert they are in error because they have historical inaccuracies is to cry “error!” where this can be none.
The early Genesis stories are another, but unique, example. Here are texts that are definitely attempting to give us a true accounts about what happened in the past. They are discussing LITERAL events, and are thus historical. BUT, we must look to the culture and literary styles and genres prevalent at the time these stories were first spoken and first written. At that time, people in the ancient near east (ANE) simply didn’t give accounts about their past using strict literal historical narrative (there is a reason why Herodotus, centuries later, is called the “father of history”). They preferred to give their accounts of things like creation and similar foundational events using a very different literary style, using figurative language, symbolism, poetic structures, etc. They would still consider them TRUE accounts of ACTUAL events, but simply preferred this literary genre and style to what we prefer in historical writing in modern times (which they would find boring and, actually, insufficiently powerful and evocative of such momentous events). Thus, to read them as strict literal historical narrative would be to violate the basic rule of exegesis, which is to get back to the intent of the author. So, for a skeptic to look at Genesis 1 and 2 and point out that it is not conveying accurate history on the grounds that it claims the universe was created in six literal 24 hour periods (or for the fundamentalist to buy into this and fight that battle) is to miss the point.
And in scientific areas, it is the same, whether it is Galileo and geocentrism, or Joshua’s sun standing still (when it would instead be the earth stopping in its rotation), or the various descriptions of the earth being flat or unmoving, to read the Scriptures as even CLAIMING to make scientific statements with those passages is to create “error” when it simply is not error at all.
CMP,
WOW! I think that this is perhaps the second time I’ve actually agreed with you!
Each text should be interpreted in the light of its genre. Applying 21st century, American biographical standards to 1st century, Hebrew Rabbinical literature is a bit silly.
As to the person who cited the Enuma Elish:
You’re assuming that the Biblical story was written after this and perhaps copycated from it. Isn’t it possible that the Biblical story was the original passed down from generation to generation, and the Enuma Elish was the distortion of this original story?
I’ve read portions of the Babylonian creation myth, and it seems much more likely to me that this story was a distortion of the original one that was codified in Genesis.
The Enuma Elish has political overtones which would cause a post-modern to scream out, “Meta-narrative!” In contrast, the Biblical account is focused upon actual history, not upon which city’s king deserves the greatest political power.
Vance,
There are much better Biblical defenses of YECism than what AiG puts out.
Saint and Sinner, I would agree completely that AiG is not the best proponent of YEC teaching. As far as creationists in general, I think Hugh Ross (and OEC) is very good. I may not agree with him on all points, but as a real scientist, he is definitely worth listening to.
My approach on that particular issue is to attempt to move away from center-stage where it seems to be lately in believer/non-believer debates. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs among Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians, and it is dangerous to insist on one’s particular interpretation in a dogmatic way. It can be a stumbling-block when presented in an “either-or” manner, and there is no reason to take it to that point.
Sorry, I meant to say “(an OEC)” merely stating that Ross held that view, rather than promoting that view.
Well to solve this problem Michael I cannot recommend that you stick with Reformed theology. That may have helped in another post, but for this post you need to jump ship and go to the Roman Catholics, then the problem just disappears!… lol
I have a curious question for all those who have posted so far:
What do you do with the texts where Jesus or the Apostles “re-interpret” OT texts to point to Christ or refer to something that the Jews at that time would have never even considered?
And if scholars (i.e. scribes and such) who were trained since they were small children were unable to discern the meaning of such texts, what, if any hope do you think we have to understand them?
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Michael,
Thanks so much for your very interesting and well-thought-out post.
You may have already responded to this somewhere, and, if so, I apologize for not being up to speed on your position.
My questions: Would your view keep you out of the Evangelical Theological Society? Are you at odds with the Chicago Statement?
When I taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the matter of inerrancy was more important than anything else. We were afraid of the “slippery slope” of Fuller and talked fearfully about the Gordon-Conwell controversy.
For those who have forgotten the old inerrancy debates I quote this from an online site:
“Despite its scholarly adherents, evangelicalism never lost the combative edge it inherited from fundamentalism. Such polemicists as Harold Lindsell sprayed conservative seminaries with charges that neo-evangelical scholars had departed from the Bible. In self-defense, Fuller Seminary dropped the controversial language of inerrancy from its documents and moved toward a more mainstream position. At Gordon-Conwell, critics forced the very able Ramsey Michaels from the faculty, and the Evangelical Theological Society expelled the irenic biblical scholar Robert Gundry.”
I remember those controversies so well, and I’m wondering where you stand in relation to these historical incidents and in relation to ETS today.
If you’ve already responded to such matters, please ignore this.
I appreciate your work so much.
Ruth
josh7,
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Exegesis-Apostolic-Richard-Longenecker/dp/0802843018/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9945172-2093417?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188871733&sr=8-1
They are called Pesher and Midrash, two completely legitimate *teaching* (not interpretive in the grammatico-historical sense) methods of that time period.
You’ve set up a very nice straw man about what you believe inerrancy to be, and then done a nice job, through dialectic thought, at destroying it. The problem is, you’ve not really described inerrancy as I understand it, or many people I know and listen to understand it.
Inerrancy means the Scriptures have no mistakes. That doesn’t mean they don’t capture incorrect things, for people, acting as characters within the Scriptures, say, and believe, incorrect things. It also doesn’t mean all things that were said were recorded. In fact, John tells us that if all the things that Jesus said and did were recorded, they would fill all the books in the world–and I’m fairly certain this is true of just about anyone’s life, much less the life of God Himself.
I do believe that God has intended every word in the original autographs. Stepping away from that belief is a dangerous thing–it means you must rely on what you “feel,” and “tradition,” to come to an understanding of what the Scriptures say, because you must try and figure out from among various possible renditions of a story, which one is “true.”
Now, I’m certain you’ll backpaddle and say: “That’s not what I said, I said that I believe they are all the same story, told from different angles.” Yes, but then you say that contradictions can be handled more satisfactorily by stating that not every write told the truth, in essence–that they embellished, perhaps, certain stories, in order to make a point.
And isn’t the entire point those who doubt the veracity of the Scriptures make from the beginning? Certainly Paul spoke of eyewitnesses–but what if he just embellished his story of Jesus’ ressurection a little here, and a little there? Those eyewitnesses would agree with at least some parts of his story, right?
What you are doing is saying: “Truth is in the eye of the beholder. These people are humans, so lets not judge them too harshly if they didn’t tell what we would consider the truth.” And you have walked directly into the arms of the Jesus Seminar.
Russ
Ruth, I don’t think my views would effect my membership in ETS. In fact, many of the members that I know would hold to the same view of “reasoned inerrancy.” Darrell Bock, who was the ETS President a few years ago, wrote a chapter in the book “Jesus Under Fire” explaining the need to hold to an ipsissima verba view of inerrancy.
As for the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, I would say, as I have said before, that I could sign it while holding my nose. The biggest problem that I have with it is the implications that it suggests about the spiritual state of those who don’t hold to inerrancy. I think it needs to be rethought. I think the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics presents a very well reasoned approach to interpretations that assumes a “reasoned inerrancy.”
Thanks for the comments
Russ, thanks for the comments.
However, I am puzzled. I never said that the authors did not tell the truth. In fact, this is what the post was about. How the authors DID in fact tell the truth, even if they told it different ways with different purposes.
Neither do I think I have created a straw man. I said that the doctrine of inerrancy presents a spectrum of belief that cannot be thought of as monolithic. I once held to those beliefs that I described at the beginning. I know people who still do. More importantly, I think a is the technically precise view is the most common out there among evangelicals who approach the Bible in a very docetic way.
Hope that helps.
I would say that Michael’s view of inerrancy, though described slightly differently, is a very mainstream evangelical position. The more restrictive, technically precise position would be best characterized as fundamentalist and finds virtually no support among evangelical scholars.
Thankfully, there is a huge space between a nuanced understanding of inerrancy (Michael), or a moderate acceptance of sane historical criticism (me), and the total wackiness of the Jesus seminar. That is the real straw man.
I didn’t read all the responses so I don’t know if anyone asked these questions or not
1. In John 20:30-31 we have a statement that Jesus did a lot of things, signs, miracle in front of His disciples that were not written in the gospel. Does that mean all similiar events with different discriptions mentioned in Scripture are one event with writers liscense to express purpose?
2. 2Peter 1:20 says no prophecy is of private interpretation. How much does this play in our understanding of the reliability of the Scripture?
I am asking these questions to ask, not preach anything. I appreciate being challenged on this subject. It helps to think these things through to be able to understand God’s Word better. I know in the natural world we do not have inerrancy in anything. Eyewitnessed events can be misreported. I was in a car with five other Seminary students when there was an accident right in front of us. After helping the injured, we all gave eyewitness reports to the police. I thought they must all be Baptists, because there were about eight different accounts. I really wondered what accident the others had witnessed. I was the only one to get it right (in my mind anyway).
David
“However, I am puzzled. I never said that the authors did not tell the truth.”
What you are saying, in effect is: “The writers recorded what they believed they heard, not necessarily what they heard.” Your example shows this quite clearly. Hence, the job of the reader isn’t to read and understand, but to read, separate what the writer thought he heard from what Jesus actually said, and then try and understand what you believe Jesus said, based on how you separated things, Jesus said.
These are completely different concepts. In fact, you did say the writers “lied,” only that you don’t want to use that un-PC word, so you’re dancing around it. What you’ve done is made an opening in the middle, a point where multiple people can parse the Text in different ways, and come to different conclusions, based on what they think the writer actually heard.
This concept is precisely what the Jesus Seminar uses as the basis of their entire project–that the writers of the Gospels heard Jesus, but misplaced the thrust of what He was saying, and hence, we must go back, and sort out what Jesus actually said, verses what the writers wrote. After all, they were human, right? The chain of reasoning you use here is specifically the same chain of reasoning the most liberal commentator on the Bible uses.
You decry the slippery slope, but your own example IS a slippery slope. If God isn’t big enough to have His message accurately written down, in both the technical and the historical senses, then He is no God.
BTW, I would point out a simple incident that specifically declaims the reasoning you’re using here. In Matthew 22:29ff, Jesus’ argument turns on the actual words of God, from the Burning Bush, being recorded accurately. The correct answer, if you believe that the writers might have changed the words, to Jesus’ argument is: “Just because Moses though he _heard_ “am,” doesn’t mean that’s what God actually said. It could be that God said “was,” and Moses injected something different, quite understandably, into the written record.”
Jesus took the words written as correct in a technical sense. We should, as well.
Russ
“However, I am puzzled. I never said that the authors did not tell the truth.”
What you are saying, in effect is: “The writers recorded what they believed they heard, not necessarily what they heard.” Your example shows this quite clearly. Hence, the job of the reader isn’t to read and understand, but to read, separate what the writer thought he heard from what Jesus actually said, and then try and understand what you believe Jesus said, based on how you separated things.
These are completely different concepts. In fact, you did say the writers “lied,” only that you don’t want to use that un-PC word, so you’re dancing around it. What you’ve done is made an opening in the middle, a point where multiple people can parse the Text in different ways, and come to different conclusions, based on what they think the writer actually heard.
This concept is precisely what the Jesus Seminar uses as the basis of their entire project–that the writers of the Gospels heard Jesus, but misplaced the thrust of what He was saying, and hence, we must go back, and sort out what Jesus actually said, verses what the writers wrote. After all, they were human, right? The chain of reasoning you use here is specifically the same chain of reasoning the most liberal commentator on the Bible uses.
You decry the slippery slope, but your own example IS a slippery slope. If God isn’t big enough to have His message accurately written down, in both the technical and the historical senses, then He is no God.
BTW, I would point out a simple incident that specifically declaims the reasoning you’re using here. In Matthew 22:29ff, Jesus’ argument turns on the actual words of God, from the Burning Bush, being recorded accurately. The correct answer, if you believe that the writers might have changed the words, to Jesus’ argument is: “Just because Moses thought he _heard_ “am,” doesn’t mean that’s what God actually said. It could be that God said “was,” and Moses injected something different, quite understandably, into the written record.”
Jesus took the words written as correct in a technical sense. We should, as well.
Russ
David, I would clarify and say that my view of inerrancy is that the writers of Scripture always told the truth. The nuance has to do with their purpose in telling the truth, not fabrication in any sense.
I am not sure I understand your first question, but I think that it is correct..
You second question helps us to define inspiration which, in turn, defines inerrancy. The reason why I hold to inerrancy is not inductive. I inductively believe in inspiration but deductively believe in reasoned inerrancy.
God bless
Michael – great discussion! What do you think about the following definitions?
Inspiration refers to the fact that God directed the scripture to be in the exact form which He desired. (God was intimately involved and the end result was exactly what He desired.)
God certainly could have mechanically dictated the scripture – but it does not appear that He did. He could have had the scripture be completely free from even the hint of discrepancies – but it does not appear that He did. And yet, this is His Word. So what is God up to? Perhaps we need to rethink the purpose of His Word. It appears to me that God’s Word is to communicate God’s truth, and His truth is that which is clear. When we read God’s Word, is His truth being conveyed? I would say yes. The minutia of numbers and exactness of events does not form the essence of truth which is absolutely in tact.
Inerrancy then simply refers to the relationship between the written word and God’s standard of truth – the autographs were inerrant if they accurately represented what God desired to be written.
Of course, with these definitions, the writings are necessarily inerrant if they were indeed inspired.
I have a follow-on post regarding a view on the inspiration and inerrancy of our current Bibles but I will hold off.
Thanks again for all you do!
Steve, I like it. I believe that it says enough without saying too much. The problem with so many definitions of inerrancy is that they broach into issues of hermeneutics. This is fine, but it must be recognized that hermeneutics plays a defining role in your understanding of inerrancy, not so much your confession of it.
Thanks Michael! Now let me stretch this definition a little.
If we say that God was intimately involved in the creation of His Word – and that this defines the terms inspiration and inerrancy – do we then believe that God “created” His Word and then walked away? Or do we believe that God has also been intimately involved in the transmission of His Word? And if He has been intimately involved such that our Bibles are in exactly the form He desires, are they not also inspired and inerrant?
This thought process leads me to believe that our current Bibles are inspired and inerrant – of course, within the context of the given definitions.
Wow, just a thought ….. I guess this implies that God worked through people such as Dan Wallace in the same manner He worked through Paul and Peter – dare I say such a thing?
Sounds like a lot of worldly wise men trying to discover the truth apart from
faith and God Himself. Ever learning and never able to come unto the
knowledge of the truth.
Marty, what particular thing are you talking about that sounds like “worldy wise men” and why. You need to qualify your statement greatly.
Steve, I think that God is in providential guidance of all things. I believe that our view of the preservation of Scripture can be held to with great confidence due to the evidence. In other words, I don’t think He ever creates anything and walk away. Everything is coming about according to His sovereign will (Eph 1:11). While I don’t believe in a pure doctrine of preservation in the sense that any one manuscript or translations represents the Scriptures without error, I do believe that God had had providential oversight to make sure that the message is preserved with a high degree of accuracy.
Michael, I agree with you. But you are using language which slips into a different vocabulary. Stay with me just for fun.
No manuscript can ever be said to be error free if the definition of error is an exact representation of the original – I understand that. But if the basis for comparison is that which God desired to have communicated, then His continual involvement ensures a freedom from “error” because it continues to be what He wants to be communicated. Does this make sense?
Isn’t the real issue with inspiration and inerrancy the validity of the Bible I hold in my hands? If so, it seems that for our “statements” to have any value they ought to lead us to this end. My Bible (and I’m currently holding five different translations) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God (given the above definitions of inspired and inerrant).
Thanks for letting me blog with you – I’ve missed the interaction of TTP.
You bet brother.
I believe inerrancy is true. Yet at the same time I don’t believe it is true because for the Christian faith to be true, the Bible must be inerrant. I simply believe that the Bible, in the autographa, is inerrant because it is inspired. They are connected.
With this knowledge, we pursue textual criticism so that we can faithfully represent God’s word. Yet at the same time we know that we are trying to preserve the message. It is the message that matters. Many messages can be communicated using different words. Just as “I hit Steve” is the same thing as ” Steve was hit by me,” or even “I punched Steve.” (Sorry, just seemed like a good illustration – while I do want to hit you, that is irrelevant right now).
The key here is that the message is the important factor, not the EXACT wording. Yet at the same time, words do make sentences, sentences to make paragraphs, paragraphs do make arguments, and arguments do give the message. This is why we need to be very diligent about seeking to establish the text as accurately as we can.
Hope this helps.
And since the message is what is relevant … since we, through the guidance of the Spirit and a lot of diligent hard work (thanks Dan!), are preserving the message, then the inspiration of the message can be said to remain in tact. Therefore, in a sense, our current translations remain inspired.
I’ll stop now – thanks!
I like it!
Michael,
Sorry, I’m still trying to understand your position on innerrancy.
Are you saying that two accounts of the same event might contain details that contradict, but that it doesn’t matter because the authors weren’t trying to be “technically precise?”
Or are you merely pointing out that two accounts of the same event might contain different details, that don’t contradict?
Sam