Biblical Inerrancy

From SkepticWiki

1 Definition
2 Nuances of Inerrancy
3 Basis of Biblical Inerrancy
4 Contradictions
5 External Sites

[edit] Definition

Biblical Inerrancy is the doctrine that the Christian Bible is completely true.

[edit] Nuances of Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy is often confused with Biblical Literalism, which holds that only direct, literal interpretations of the Bible are true. The doctrine of inerrancy generally admits the possibility of allegory and poetic imagery within the Bible, and in many cases even admits that the truths of the Bible are represented within the intellectual context of the time of writing. While inerrancy is a cornerstone of Protestantism and Christian Fundamentalism, belief in literalism is fairly rare, particularly with respect to the book of Revelation.

Inerrancy is often found in conjunction with its converse, sufficiency or plenariness; the doctrine that the Bible contains all truth, or at least, all truth worth knowing. Inerrancy is also related to the notion of infallibility, which asserts that the Bible is not mislead or deceive.

[edit] Basis of Biblical Inerrancy

In theological argument it is frequently assumed that the inerrancy of the Bible follows from the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. According to the hypothesis of divine inspiration, an omnipotent God would be willing and capable of communicating with His creations, and would not permit any false teaching to presume His authority. Given the existence of such a God then, we should expect to find a trustworthy scripture. As criticism of this idea, one only needs to point out the multiplicity of scriptural traditions in the world (and within Christianity) that all claim divine or supernatural authorship.

Both the existence of God and the doctrine of inerrancy are used as “first principles” in theological argument, and to the believer, require no further justification. Nevertheless, there have been efforts to place the doctrine of biblical inerrancy on a foundation more acceptable to empiricists and rationalists. The following are often cited:

Prophetic accuracy, (which tends to rely heavily on the fallacies that justify prophecy in other pseudoscientific disciplines.)
Concordance with extra-biblical historical records
Structural perfection (e.g.: lack of internal contradiction(!), numerological coincidences, existence of Bible Codes)
Recommendation from the Bible itself (e.g.: 2Tm 3:16, 1Cor 4:6)
Recommendation by vehicles that evidence divine favor (e.g.: through verifiable miracles).[1]

[edit] Contradictions

The Bible is replete with apparent errors, both in contradiction to itself, and to later empirical knowledge. However; the skeptical debater should not be so naïve as to think that the demonstration of any contradiction will somehow bring down the Christian faith like a house of cards. The apparent contradictions of the Bible have been exposed for centuries, and for centuries Christian apologists have been devising various explanations.

[edit] Attribution to Inexact language

Many apparent errors in the Bible can be resolved by attributing them to the use of inexact, and often figurative, language. The following are main types of claims in support of inerrancy which fall under this method of excuse:

The apparent error is an idiom. Reference to the “four corners of the earth” (Rv 7:1) is just an idiom, meaning “from all directions”.
The apparent error is figurative language. Thus when God tells Adam that he will die immediately upon eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17), we may interpret “die” in a spiritual sense to explain how Adam continues for several more centuries.
The apparent error is poetic hyperbole. When Jesus refers to the mustard seed as being the smallest of all seeds(Mk 4:31), he is making a dramatic point about relative sizes, not factually lecturing on botany.
The apparent error comes from representing truth in the intellectual context of the time. Thus the identification of the bat as a type of bird (Lv 11:19) or the suggestion that the sun moves around the earth (Jos 10:12) were necessary for the understanding of the original audience. Furthermore, what modern science or culture considers a concept does not necessarily reflect ancient usage. That bats are not "birds" reflects modern taxonomic classification rather than perhaps a more ancient concept of birds being anything warm-blooded that flew; such distinctions reflect our understandable modern chauvanism. Consider: Peanuts are not considered nuts by modern science. Would we be justified in being outraged if the Bible were to call peanuts "nuts"?
The apparent contradiction results from a bad translation. Thus, when the Bible says that Achan is the son of Carmi (Jos 7:1), and later, that Achan is the son of Zerah (Jos 7:24), this can be resolved by assuming that the Hebrew word “בן” might have been better translated as “descendant”, rather than “son”. Note, however, that some apologists extend the inerrancy through certain translations, suggesting the translators were guided by God, and hence the translated Bibles retain the full and proper scripture.
The apparent contradiction is a falsity for the purposes of example. Some apologists have explained the entire book of Ecclesiastes is written from the “human” (rather than godly) point of view, in order to demonstrate the futility of such a view.[2]

[edit] Shoehorning

Another technique of resolving apparent errors is to infer additional information that would resolve the contradiction. For example, the Bible suggests that the age of the universe is around six thousand years. Yet, we are able to detect light from stars millions of light-years away. This would appear to be a contradiction. It may be resolved by positing that the light from the distant star was created “in transit” six thousand years ago.

The practice of devising bizarre explanations for the purpose of defending a particular world-view is known as shoehorning. When using biblical inerrancy as an unquestioned first principle, this seems like logical reasoning. The method of science proceeds instead from the basis of observation, and has no need to suppose that light was created in transit.

[edit] Rejection of Observation

Finally, an apologist for biblical inerrancy may claim that empirical knowledge that contradicts the Bible is ipso facto incorrect. Historically, bible-supported notions such as the Sun revolving about the Earth have not withstood the accumulation of scientific evidence. But in areas where science is still young or poorly understood by the layman, the Bible may be widely preferred as a resource of truth. This is especially evident in the areas of Biology, Cosmology, and Geology, whose findings are in contradiction to the tales of the book of Genesis.