The Inerrancy of Scripture

[Jereth]

The inerrancy of Scripture has been raised on the other thread by Phool, but I think it would be best to have this important discussion separately from Rik Watts and women in ministry etc. (also, that thread had more to do with sufficiency which is a slightly different topic)

What do (Anglican) people think about inerrancy? Is the Bible fully inerrant in all that it asserts? (allowing of course for ancient standards of exactness as Luke has pointed out) Should Evangelical Anglicans, and especially evangelical Anglican ministers/ordinands/bishops/etc. be expected to agree with a doctrine of Inerrancy as outlined in the Chicago Statement of BIblical Inerrancy?

Chicago Statement wrote:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

This is the 5 points of the "short" statement -- the full statement can be read:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Here are some more notable parts of the Chicago statement:

WE AFFIRM  that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.  

WE DENY  that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY  that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

WE AFFIRM  that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY  that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

WE AFFIRM  the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY  that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

WE AFFIRM  that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY  the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

[angusj]

Jereth wrote:

What do (Anglican) people think about inerrancy?

In relation to the Bible, it's an unhelpful word which paints evangelicals into awkward corners and achieves exactly the opposite of its intent (ie it makes liberal Christianity appear more intellectually rigorous). What's wrong with simply claiming that the Bible is inspired by God's Spirit and is authoritative in all matters of Christian faith? Why add a burden to scripture that it doesn't claim of itself (eg 1 Corinthians 7:12)? There is no evidence that any of the NT writers believed that what they were writing was scripture let alone inerrant.

Anyhow, we need to define what is inerrant, and just saying 'the Bible' is a gloss. We'll assume that the 66 books of Protestant Bible are 'the' canon (while ignoring those very small sections in those books that are still disputed). However this/these Bible(s) we have is not the original, but copies and translations of the original texts and oral traditions. We don't have the 'original autographs' and we almost certainly never will, so we're pinning 'inerrancy' onto something that doesn't exist.

Secondly, 'inerrancy' is loaded with ambiguity and means different things to different people.

Finally, 'inerrancy' is a defensive doctrine intended to prevent scriptural interpretation from sliding down a slippery slope to liberalism where any authority of scripture is questioned or abandoned. However, if we use the slippery slope argument to justify doctrine then we might just as well join those who believe in a literal six days of creation.

[Andrew Stagg]

angusj wrote:

Why add a burden to scripture that it doesn't claim of itself (eg 1 Corinthians 7:12)? There is no evidence that any of the NT writers believed that what they were writing was scripture let alone inerrant.

2PET 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

angusj wrote:

However this/these Bible(s) we have is not the original, but copies and translations of the original texts and oral traditions. We don't have the 'original autographs' and we almost certainly never will, so we're pinning 'inerrancy' onto something that doesn't exist.

2PET1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.     19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

[angusj]

Andrew Stagg wrote:

2PET 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Hi Andrew. Even if we accept that Peter considered Paul's letters Scripture, there's no evidence that Paul believed his letters were scripture when he wrote them.

2PET1:16[-21] ...

I'm not sure of your point in quoting these verses.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hi,

This is a link between Evangelism/preEvangelism and Inerrancy (i didn't know where to put it):

If we are seeking to evangelise in the post-modern era (which we are) then we know that the Bible is "just a book" to those to whom we are likely to be speaking, and possibly a book used to judge people or a "book full of errors and inconsistencies". It tells us that homosexuals are evil and other such un-PC things. People up to the age of 45 (and perhaps older!) are unchurched and go with the postmodern creed of "That's good for you but it doesn't work for me".

I know that people such as Steve Weickhardt (refer The Melbourne Anglican) are having really good results with community based activities and opening dialogue. I also know of a group of churches that organised a door knock in their area to ask "We are from the local churches. How can we help you?". It was very effective! They found out that the needs related to family and family relationships.

I am involved in a ministry area where I am there to minister by having conversations. Because I represent the church I get all sorts of responses, some people swear more when I am around, to see how I respond. Some people apologise for swearing. Some people ask questions about christians. Some people are happy to see me and chat. Few of these people would understand the concept of a "divinely inspired Bible" and they are more confused about what the media tells them that churches are doing than anything. A colleague in a similar role was greeted with "You're not with the church that has poofs as ministers are you?"

I have to stop now but I hope that it is some helpful thoughts,

Phool for Christ (I hope)

[Jereth]

Thanks Phool, you're dead right that we have a big challenge to convince postmodern non-Christians that the Bible contains absolute, inerrant truth in all that it asserts.

What worries me however is that seemingly some "evangelical" Christians need convincing of this...

eg. The Chicago statement was written not as a polemic against non-Xian society, but as a polemic directed at the Church.

How can we expect non-believers to submit fully to Scripture in everything when even Christians have trouble with it?

Jereth

[Luke Isham]

Hello Phool,

I'm sorry if I was gruff with you on the other thread.

Your seem to be arguing that because 'irrenacy' is a difficult topic to explain to unbelievers we shouldn't worry about it.  But your argument is faulty.  There are lots of tricky and hard to explain doctrines in Christianity such as the Trinity, should we not worry about them just because they are hard to explain?

I'm still interested in your response to my earlier question:

So my question for you Phool is why is the Bible errant?

[Luke Isham]

Hello again Angus,

Why add a burden to scripture that it doesn't claim of itself?

But does Scripture claim about itself, that it contains errors? (The burden of proof works in both directions.)

[Jereth]

Luke Isham wrote:

Hello again Angus,

Why add a burden to scripture that it doesn't claim of itself?

But does Scripture claim about itself, that it contains errors? (The burden of proof works in both directions.)

Um, Scripture does claim inerrancy of itself.
Furthermore, Jesus claimed inerrancy of Scripture -- "the Scripture cannot be broken", "not an iota, not a dot shall pass from it until all is fulfilled".

Jereth

[angusj]

Luke Isham wrote:

But does Scripture claim about itself, that it contains errors? (The burden of proof works in both directions.)

Hi Luke. I think 'errors' is the wrong word just as I wouldn't describe a painting as having or not having errors. We have to acknowledge minor inconsistencies or textures (if I may reuse the painting metaphor) within the Biblical accounts where different authors report events from different perspectives and with different emphases. This doesn't undermine the intent or deny the overall historical accuracy of the bible, but it does sensibly accommodate minor inconsistencies within the biblical record. For one trivial example, did Jesus talk about the destruction of the Temple at the end of his ministry (Synopic Gospels) or at the beginning (John)? Even the bible authors themselves accommodate ambiguity in their own narratives. For example, in the flood story in Genesis the author evidently wasn't concerned about the exact number of animals that accompanied Noah into the ark, nor the duration of the flood. (It's quite clear on close inspection that he's carefully combined two separate flood stories which contradict each other on these minor points.) By claiming 'inerrancy' we have to heavily qualify what we mean by it otherwise we end up doing gymnastics (eg explaining how Judas hanged himself and also died after falling and having his guts split open). Even then inerrancy is pinned onto 'the original autographs', things that don't exist.

Finally, what does this doctrine achieve? It inevitably puts us evangelicals in a corner and makes liberal Christians seem more intellectually honest, thus the very opposite of its intent. Why not stick with much more rigorous doctrines of scripture such as its sufficiency, inspiration and its authority in matters of faith?

[Andrew Stagg]

Hi Angus,
I kinda understand you struggles with inerrancy, its a difficult concept, and it's one that has taken me many many year to accept. The curious thing is that as the years tick by I have come to understand that God really values his word and I am often amazed at the power that God's word truly has to completely change people for the better (when nothing else helped).

We've all heard from 2 Tim 3:16 that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" but for myself I've come to realise that this statement really is true. Scripture really matters. When Jesus is tempted in the wilderness - he counters Satan by quoting scripture - word for word. When he prays for his disciples in John 17 his upholds scripture "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

angusj wrote:

Hi Andrew. Even if we accept that Peter considered Paul's letters Scripture, there's no evidence that Paul believed his letters were scripture when he wrote them.

Earlier on you told us "There is no evidence that any of the NT writers believed that what they were writing was scripture let alone inerrant.". Isn't this a bit like what the liberals do - confidently assert stuff that can be easily disproved. And after it's disproved you shift your ground. Isn't that what the liberals do too??

angusj wrote:

2PET1:16-21We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.     19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
-----------------------

I'm not sure of your point in quoting these verses.

I guess my point is that there is a really strong feel in the new testament that people were going to question this stuff. As such, it's really encouraging to read verses like this which show that the writers who were 'supposed to be there' were actually there. Its really encouraging these writers were remembering what they saw vividly. Earlier you argued that "However this/these Bible(s) we have is not the original, but copies and translations of the original texts and oral traditions. We don't have the 'original autographs' and we almost certainly never will, so we're pinning 'inerrancy' onto something that doesn't exist.". This seemed to read (I might be wrong here) that we don't have to take scripture as seriously as we might because we don't know if it's fully accurate. In contrast, reading this (and other verses) helps show that we can really rely on this stuff.

One point worth making is that it's not always wrong to question stuff - especially when logical problems seem to appear. For myself I have a questioning mind (up to a point) - but what I've found for myself in this process is that the logical problems that bothered me in the past have all resolved themselves and the answers make sense. I've learnt that the Bible is actually really sound and I can actually rely on it. Now comes the harder bit - I have to learn to trust to put that into action!!!

angusj wrote:

Finally, what does this doctrine achieve? It inevitably puts us evangelicals in a corner and makes liberal Christians seem more intellectually honest, thus the very opposite of its intent. Why not stick with much more rigorous doctrines of scripture such as its sufficiency, inspiration and its authority in matters of faith?

I'm not sure what to say to that. Scripture can be relied upon. It is solid. In the words of Greg Laurie "When God says something, you can take it to the bank". Wouldn't it seem "intellectually [dis]honest to  claim scripture is something less than what it really is? In doing this wouldn't we be doing exactly what the liberals want us to do. The reason that 'evangelical' has lost so much of it's meaning today is because too many folks (who should have known better) have already started down this road.


And finally (although it's probably irrelevant) I kinda suspect that many of the new testament writers did actually suspect that what they were writing was important. They certainly knew the reason why they were writing it.
John30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

ANDREW

[angusj]

Andrew Stagg wrote:

Earlier on you told us "There is no evidence that any of the NT writers believed that what they were writing was scripture let alone inerrant.". Isn't this a bit like what the liberals do - confidently assert stuff that can be easily disproved. And after it's disproved you shift your ground. Isn't that what the liberals do too??

Hi again Andrew. Please note that I said "what they were writing" not "what others were writing" so, where Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture, it isn't Paul asserting his own writings are scripture. However, perhaps there was some quite unintended ambiguity and I could have made my original statement more explicit by saying "there is no evidence that any of the NT writers believed that what they themselves were writing was scripture let alone inerrant". Nevertheless, I thought that my reference to the 1 Cor 7:12 passage - where Paul clearly differentiates between the Lord's commands and his own - would have made clear my point that Paul felt it necessary to distinguish his advice from the Lord's because evidently he wasn't presuming to put it on an equal footing with scripture. I really can't see how I've shifted ground here.

angusj wrote:

I'm not sure of your point in quoting these verses.

...
Earlier you argued that "However this/these Bible(s) we have is not the original, but copies and translations of the original texts and oral traditions. We don't have the 'original autographs' and we almost certainly never will, so we're pinning 'inerrancy' onto something that doesn't exist.". This seemed to read (I might be wrong here) that we don't have to take scripture as seriously as we might because we don't know if it's fully accurate. In contrast, reading this (and other verses) helps show that we can really rely on this stuff.

I really don't see how my claim that the scriptures are inspired, authoritative and sufficient could be construed as anything but taking them very seriously.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hi Luke,

I do not intend to say whether the Bible is errant or inerrant.

I am worried that we are arguing about minute details. I was taught that Pi equals 3.14 (rounded to two decimal places). I have heard that some christian schools rounded pi to one figure (3) because the bible taught it was 3 - the example of the molten sea that I used would support a value of 3 but the Hebrew writers were fond of round numbers - hence 10 across and 30 around cf. 10 across and 31.4 around.

If we were to be truly orthodox we would not defy any bishop (or even the Victorian Government) as Paul exhorted the Romans:  

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

There are things that scripture outlines eg.  "If you eye causes you to sin pluck it out" that we do not do:

I have found the Bible to be tremendously true - especially the book of Leviticus. If one reads about disease in Leviticus and one understands microbiology one can see the basis for God's instructions from a public health point of view.

I once argued for truth in a church context and was told I was wrong. I spoke the truth but I spoke it in the wrong way, that made me wrong. It took five years to realise this, and tolerating abuse from the minister (we were both wrong)!

Luke I will review your post to check that I have answered you.

Phil

[Jordan]

angusj wrote:

Hi Luke. I think 'errors' is the wrong word just as I wouldn't describe a painting as having or not having errors.

Perhaps that's because we wouldn't turn to a painting for absolutely dependable, saving Truth.

angusj wrote:

We have to acknowledge minor inconsistencies or textures (if I may reuse the painting metaphor) within the Biblical accounts where different authors report events from different perspectives and with different emphases. This doesn't undermine the intent or deny the overall historical accuracy of the bible, but it does sensibly accommodate minor inconsistencies within the biblical record. For one trivial example, did Jesus talk about the destruction of the Temple at the end of his ministry (Synopic Gospels) or at the beginning (John)?

To show that there is an inconsistency here, you would have to prove that each gospel writer intended to write everything chronologically, and if they did, you would then have to prove that Jesus didn't talk about the destruction of the Temple twice. Do you think you can manage that?

On the other hand, those who believe in inerrancy don't have to explain exactly how everything works - they are merely satisfied that a contradiction can't be proven!

angusj wrote:

Even the bible authors themselves accommodate ambiguity in their own narratives. For example, in the flood story in Genesis the author evidently wasn't concerned about the exact number of animals that accompanied Noah into the ark, nor the duration of the flood. (It's quite clear on close inspection that he's carefully combined two separate flood stories which contradict each other on these minor points.)

Angus, can you please quote these contradictions for our benefit?

angusj wrote:

By claiming 'inerrancy' we have to heavily qualify what we mean by it otherwise we end up doing gymnastics (eg explaining how Judas hanged himself and also died after falling and having his guts split open).

Angus there are many points of Christian truth that we believe simply because the bible teaches them, even if we can't explain all of the details. We're happy to leave areas of mystery in the hands of God. But regarding Judas, neither account mentions the exact time of his death. You've sneaked something in that is not found in either account.

'So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.' (Matt 27:5)

'With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.' (Acts 1:18)

These two accounts give different information to be sure, but where is the contradiction? Are you suggesting that it is impossible for these two accounts to be reconciled?

angusj wrote:

Even then inerrancy is pinned onto 'the original autographs', things that don't exist.

Are we only going to believe that which we can verify with our own eyes and hands? Then why do we believe in the risen Christ?! Why do we believe in the second coming? If you believe the Scriptures generally, then why is it so hard to also believe these few words:

'Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him' (Prov 30:5)?

Will you only believe this if you can inspect each individual word in the bible against the original autograph for yourself? You remind me of another man in Scripture who would not believe without overwhelming empirical evidence! (Jn 20:24-25)

angusj wrote:

Finally, what does this doctrine achieve? It inevitably puts us evangelicals in a corner and makes liberal Christians seem more intellectually honest, thus the very opposite of its intent. Why not stick with much more rigorous doctrines of scripture such as its sufficiency, inspiration and its authority in matters of faith?

There's as much debate on sufficiency, inspiration and authority as there is on inerrancy. And besides, do you really believe that liberals will think you to be more intellectually honest if you deny the parts of the bible that speak of the flawlessness of God's every word, yet continue to believe that same bible when it speaks of salvation through a crucified Christ? Modern day liberals aren't talking much about inerrancy, but they are mocking us a great deal for believing in a crucified Christ who rose from the dead to save us.

Jordan  

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

"Modern day liberals aren't talking much about inerrancy, but they are mocking us a great deal for believing in a crucified Christ who rose from the dead to save us.

Amen Jordan.

They are also calling us narrow, intolerant and other things. Some of them have a theology of the Eucharist as central to christian life. They DO NOT understand or accept penal substitution or substitutionary atonement (by which we are redeemed and born again. Not in our own strength but through Christ.)

They DO NOT understand grace: All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of the Lord. The wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life.

I have been told by a liberal that Paul was an opinionated prat (or even opinionated and misogyinistic)! It's a bit hard to debate inerrancy if Paul is seen to be unreliable. That is what we are up against if we wish to debate with liberals. I would rather wipe the dust of my feet and go to a town that accepts the message than waste my breathe debating.

I have also been told that long-term homosexual relationships are just as loving or more loving than some heterosexual unions. My naughty response was: "Well does that mean a person can have intercourse with animals and be OK?" (look up Leviticus 20: 13, 15, 16)

Seek to save the lost

Phool

[angusj]

Jordan wrote:

angusj wrote:

Even the bible authors themselves accommodate ambiguity in their own narratives. For example, in the flood story in Genesis the author evidently wasn't concerned about the exact number of animals that accompanied Noah into the ark, nor the duration of the flood. (It's quite clear on close inspection that he's carefully combined two separate flood stories which contradict each other on these minor points.)

Angus, can you please quote these contradictions for our benefit?

"And to him on board the ark went  one pair, a male and a female, of all animals, clean and unclean, of  birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,  two by two, as God had commanded....Those which came were  one male and one female of all living things; they came in as God had commanded Noah...the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days."  (Genesis Chapter 7 verses 15, 24)

"Take with you seven pairs, a male and a female, of all ritually clean animals, and one pair, a male and a female, of all unclean animals; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird-to ensure that life continues on the earth. For in seven days I am going to send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2)

Also have a look at this link. It helpfully separates out the two flood narratives in Genesis 6-8 and asks some probing questions. (nb: It also mentions source critics and the Documentary Hypothesis, neither of which I'm defending.)

(Here's another link which helpfully separates the two narratives and also colour codes them so we can see how they've been carefully joined to create one story.)

Anyhow, I don't see much point in my continued participation in this thread so I'm going to stop. It seems unlikely that I'll succeed in persuading you that inerrancy is an unhelpful doctrine so further posts will most likely be wasted effort on my part. I'm happy to agree to disagree over what is really a non-salvation issue.

[Luke Isham]

Hi Phool,

I am worried that we are arguing about minute details.

I'm a child of post-modernism so I'd say it's that's your opinion and without an arbitrator there is no way of discerning whether your right or not.

I was taught that Pi equals 3.14 (rounded to two decimal places). I have heard that some christian schools rounded pi to one figure (3) because the bible taught it was 3 - the example of the molten sea that I used would support a value of 3 but the Hebrew writers were fond of round numbers - hence 10 across and 30 around cf. 10 across and 31.4 around.

You are of course the master of your own opinion but I wonder, are you saying Scripture gets it wrong with the Pi example or is it only an apparent error until we figure out the explanation?  

I have found the Bible to be tremendously true

 
If Scripture contains errors and we'll never know when they'll pop up especially given all the new developments in Science and Literature, why should we trust it at all?  What good is some-what or even tremendously true if ultimately as a coherent whole the Bible has flaws?

I once argued for truth in a church context and was told I was wrong. I spoke the truth but I spoke it in the wrong way, that made me wrong. It took five years to realise this, and tolerating abuse from the minister (we were both wrong)!

I didn't understand this paragraph.

Cheers, Luke

[Luke Isham]

Well put Angus,

Hi Luke. I think 'errors' is the wrong word just as I wouldn't describe a painting as having or not having errors. We have to acknowledge minor inconsistencies or textures (if I may reuse the painting metaphor) within the Biblical accounts where different authors report events from different perspectives and with different emphases. This doesn't undermine the intent or deny the overall historical accuracy of the bible, but it does sensibly accommodate minor inconsistencies within the biblical record.

Two responses:

1) I think you believe in 'inrreancy' and don't realise it yet!  The clues are in the way you duck away from using the word "error."  An excellent test I've used at Ridley College, are so-called Biblical errors.  For example "Jesus saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed."  If someone calls it an error then they believe in 'erracy', however if they say, well we don't know, or it's a scribal mistake or maybe it's a Hebrew expression etc then they believe in 'inrreancy', even if they don't realise it because they want any explanation except that it is an error.

2)

Finally, what does this doctrine achieve? It inevitably puts us evangelicals in a corner and makes liberal Christians seem more intellectually honest, thus the very opposite of its intent. Why not stick with much more rigorous doctrines of scripture such as its sufficiency, inspiration and its authority in matters of faith?

Your premises are wrong.  We shouldn't not believe something just because it's complex or hard to explain.  Also the liberal doctrine of Scripture is just as hard to defend.  It requires lots of faith to believe God would not reveal himself truthfully through Scripture. Finally your conclusion doesn't quite make sense.  How can authority be rigorous without being completely true? Until we deal with these things we can't answer your question of what does it achieve.

[edit: quote inserted]

[Jordan]

angusj wrote:

"And to him on board the ark went  one pair, a male and a female, of all animals, clean and unclean, of  birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,  two by two, as God had commanded....Those which came were  one male and one female of all living things; they came in as God had commanded Noah...the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days."  (Genesis Chapter 7 verses 15, 24)

"Take with you seven pairs, a male and a female, of all ritually clean animals, and one pair, a male and a female, of all unclean animals; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird-to ensure that life continues on the earth. For in seven days I am going to send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2)

Angus, I've looked up several translations, and I'd be interested to know what translation you are quoting from, because neither NIV, NASB nor ESV have 'one pair' in verse 15 as you've quoted. They mention 'pairs', or 'two by two' without specifying how many lots of 'two by two'.

'They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.' (ESV)

'Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.' (NIV)

'So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.' (NASB)

Verse 15 tells us that they went into the ark by pairs, or two by two, but it doesn't specify how many pairs of each kind of animal went in.

Regarding your second point, I confess I don't see a contradiction between the fact that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, yet at the same time the water increased on the earth for 150 days. You seem to be assuming that all the increase of water on the earth was coming from rain alone, and that water could only increase on the earth while it was raining, but the physical facts presented are more complex if you read through to chapter 8.

angusj wrote:

Anyhow, I don't see much point in my continued participation in this thread so I'm going to stop. It seems unlikely that I'll succeed in persuading you that inerrancy is an unhelpful doctrine so further posts will most likely be wasted effort on my part. I'm happy to agree to disagree over what is really a non-salvation issue.

Whether or not it is a salvation issue depends on how 'errant' you allow Scripture to be. If there are small discrepancies, why can't there be larger ones? How do you draw the line? As I said earlier, if you accept by faith that the Scriptures are basically reliable, is it such a large step of faith to believe those few words of Scripture I quoted earlier, 'Every word of God is flawless'?

I'm not unwilling to listen to reason Angus, but so far your attempts to show errors or contradictions have proved abortive, and you haven't yet seriously engaged with Scripture's self testimony.

Jordan

[Jereth]

Andrew Stagg wrote:

I kinda understand you struggles with inerrancy, its a difficult concept, and it's one that has taken me many many year to accept. The curious thing is that as the years tick by I have come to understand that God really values his word and I am often amazed at the power that God's word truly has to completely change people for the better (when nothing else helped).

I can identify with this. There was a period in my Christian walk when I shied away from the word "inerrancy" and went with "infallibility" instead. 2 main reasons -- because inerrancy seemed to be associated with a brand of ultra-fundamentalist, young earth creationist, dispensationalist view of Scripture; and secondly because "inerrancy" seemed (at the time) to force upon me the view that Scripture must be "inerrant" to the point of a rigorous, inflexible and indeed unrealistic accuracy by modern scientific standards.

It turned out my understanding of the word "inerrancy" was faulty -- as the Chicago Inerrancy Statement explains:
WE DENY  that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Now that I have a better understanding of inerrancy, I'm eager to affirm the doctrine. If God is truth, and neither lies nor errs, then the same must be true of his Word inscripturate.

Jereth