11.13.2013 ARE THERE ANY ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?

taken from 'the new evidence that demands a verdict' by josh mcdowell p333f

this is all about whether or not we can trust that the bible is God speaking directly to us, whether the bible is the most objective means to know what God wants, whether we can trust it...actually whether we can trust God...can come to know Him on a personal level and come to have an intimate personal relationship between Him and ourselves. my prayer is that you would find what i have found....all of the above PLUS the realization that truly knowing Him is the same as surrendering yourself, your very life and everything you have, hope and desire, to God...to spend all your being on doing what He says to do in this book.
far from a historical book about things that, mostly, happened to ancient people,

(primarily the jews, as the one people directly chosen by God to be His people..ie. a beautiful picture of what He desires..that you would be His son and, so becoming, join others who He has made his children to show the world what God can do in the lives of a person/group of people who have become His own possession!)

and how God sent His Son, Jesus Christ...God Himself in human flesh, to make a way for persons from every tribe, tongue, nation and people, to be His. so it is really, at core, a REVELATION (God revealing who He is) to every person He created. but much more than that it is His way of revealing to every person their deep rebellion against and rejection of Him...but much more than that it is the revelation of how He wants each of us to live our lives here...starting with a growing horror at our the true nature of our heart (which He reveals is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked...who can know it!) leading to a crying out for Him to change us and make us to
not only come to want to
but to actually
love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.
what does that look like?
Jesus said it this way. 'if you love Me KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS'. john 14.15
if you are not keeping/agonizing in prayer that He would help you keep what He commands here.
..chances are you are right now, every minute you are alive here, a nanosecond away from
eternal hell.
 ...so at the ultimate level this book is a 'lifesaver' of sorts thrown to you and i to see if we will come/be brought to the place where we
DO what God says
rather than read or ignore a book or even 'HEAR' a (so called) message from a (so called) God
who (supposedly) holds our eternal destiny in the palm of His hand.
He leaves each of us the choice. may i, may you, make the right choice.

'not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven,
but him who DOES THE WILL  of My Father who is in heaven.
not one of us wants to do what God commands in the Bible at any time...apart from JESUS..
APART FROM ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING is what He said.
may God, in His grace, move us with FEAR (if LOVE 'doesn't work..) TO OBEY HIM.
ecclesiastes 12.13-4

note: you and i and every human being is a rebel against God. we, in the warp and woof of our being know that we are totally 'in His hand'..bound to, created for one purpose..TO OBEY HIM. there has never, nor will there ever (as long as this creation continues) any person who died without the realization of these things for God says,
'for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS;
bedcause that which may be known of God is manifest in them
FOR GOD HATH SHOWN IT UNTO THEM.
for the invisible thing of Him from the creation of the world ARE CLEARLY SEEN
BEING UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead
SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE...
who knowing the judgment of God,
that they which commit such things ARE WORTHY OF DEATH,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.  romans 1.18-20 ,32




1A WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS

in many places the bible claims to be the 'word of God.
but just what exactly does this mean?
and if it is God's word, then just how did God communicate it to humanity?

paul tells us that: all scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. II timothy 3.16
this passage is the key text for the doctrine of inspiration.
the greek word theopneustos is usually translated 'inspiration'.
in other words the bible is 'inspiried' by God.
the term simply means...'God breathed.
the bible is from the breath of God.

inspiration can be defined as the mysterious process by which God worked through human writers,
employing their individual personalities and styles
to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings.

it is important to be careful in how we use the term 'inspiration.
this word is part of our everyday vocabulary.
'that artist was inspired, we say,
or 'that music was certainly inspired.'
 this is a very general use of the term
and it is understood today as meaning something that is well done or of great value.
but when we apply this word to the bible we intend a different meaning.
the bible was not inspired the same way in which a singer or artist may be inspired.
the bible has been breathed by God.
the bible claims to be His very word;
it has come from His very mouth.

2B NEW TESTAMENT CLAIMS TO INSPIRATION

the new testament also claims to be the 'word of God.
from the very time it was being written the people of God knew that the writings were special.

in a real sense, Christ is the key to the inspiration and canonization of the scriptures.
it was He who confirmed the inspiration of the hebrew canon of the old testament;
and it was He who promised that the Holy Spirit would direct the apostles into 'all truth',
the fulfillment resulting in the new testament.

remembering how highly esteemed the old testament prophets were
and how divinely authoritative their writings were considered to be,
to compare the new testament message to the old testament scriptures
amounts to a claim to the same authority and inspiration.
such is confirmed in hebrews 1.1-2:
'God, who at var5ious times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,'
and the message was 'at the first...spoken by the Lord
and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him (heb. 2.3)

in other words, the message of Christ as given by His disciples
is God's voice today just as much as the message of the prophets was in time past.

according to ephesians 2.20 the church is
'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets'.
the word 'apostle' should not be limited to the twelve apostles.
paul was an apostle galatians 1; II corinthians 12,
as was barnabas acts 14.14
james wrote with divine authority james 1.1,
and there were others with prophetic gifts (for example agabus in acts 11.28.
the gift of either an apostle or a prophet would qualify one to receive a revelation (c ephesians 2.20
and several new testament writers qualify as 'prophets' (for example mart, luke, james and jude.

acts 2.42 records that the believers 'continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship'.
the authority of apostolic teaching, then, is seen not only by virtue of its equality with the prophets
but by its fundamentality to the church.
what the apostles taught is the authoritative foundation of the church.
therefore the new testament is the authoritative foundation of the church.

peter refers to paul's writings as 'scripture' II peter 3.16,
and I timothy 5.18 draws from both luke 10.7 and deuteronomy 25.4
in applying the phrase 'for the scripture says'.
if the writings of luke, who was not an apostle,
are quoted as scripture, and peter, who incidentally was rebuked by paul (galatians 2.11),
considered paul's books to be scripture,
then it follows that the new testament as a whole should be regarded as scripture.
it would be included in the statement 'all scripture is inspired by God II timothy 3.16

3B IS GOD'S WORD INERRANT?

the bible claims to be inspired by God.
and if it is from God, then we can logically assume that the bible is without error or inerrant.
the words 'inspired' and 'inerrant' are usually linked together.
in order to understand inerrancy let us consider the following issues:
God's character,
what inerrancy means and
what inerrancy does not mean.

   1c GOD'S CHARACTER
a proper understanding of the inspiration of scripture must include its inerrancy.
the bible is the word of God...and God cannot err (hebrews 6.18; titus 1.12)
to deny the inerrancy of scripture is to impugn
either the integrity of God
or the identity of the bible as God's word.

the character of God demands inerrancy.
if every utterance in the bible is from God and God is a God of truth,
as the bible declares Him to be,
then the bible must be wholly truthful, or inerrant
Jesus said of God's utterances, 'Your word is truth' john 17.17
the psalmist wrote, 'the entirety of Your word is truth' psalm 119.160.
solomon declared, 'every word of God is pure' proverbs 30.5.
paul wrote to titus, 'God..cannot lie' titus 1.2.
the author of hebrews declared, 'it is impossible for God to lie' heb. 6.18.
in the final analysis, then, an attack on the inerrancy of the bible
is an attack on the character of God.
every true christian will join with pau in saying, 'let God be true but every man a liar; romans 3.4

  2c WHAT IS INERRANCY?
inerrancy means that when all the facts are known,
the scriptures in their original autographs,
properly interpreted,
will be shown to be wholly true
in everything they affirm,
whether this has to do with
doctrine or morality or with the social, physical or life sciences.

the bottom line is that the bible has been breathed by God.
He used men to write out exactly what He wanted them to write.
He kept them free from error but at the same time used their unique personalities and styles
to convey exactly what He wanted.

peter tells us that 'holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. II peter 1.21
the idea conveyed is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat,
so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the bible.
the end result was exactly what God intended.

      1d GOD USED A VARIETY OF EXPRESSIONS
inerrancy does not mean that every word in the bible is the same.
because God is creative (He is the Creator),
He said the same thing in different ways,
from different viewpoints,
and at different times.
inspiration does not exclude diversity of expression.
the four gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people.
they sometimes even quote Christ as saying the same thing, but using different words.

compare, for example, peter's famous confession at caesarea philippi:
   matthew records it: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' 16.16
   mark records it:       'You are the Christ' 8.29
   luke records it:        'the Christ of God' 9.20

even the decalogue is recorded in a variety of ways:
   'written by the finger of God' deuteronomy 9.10 is stated differently the second time God gave it
(compare exodus 20.8-11 with deuteronomy 5.12-5)
for example, exodus cites creation as the reason that israel is called to rest on the sabbath,
while deuteronomy gives redemption as the reason.

if such important utterances as peter's confession of Christ and the inscription on the cross
(see matthew 27.37; mark 15.26; luke 23.38; john 19.19),
and such permanent and special laws as the one 'written by the finger of God'
can be stated in different ways,
then there should be no problem extending the concept of inerrancy to
the diversity of expression in the rest of scripture.

     2d GOD USED DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES AND STYLES
 inspiration can also include God's use of different personalities
-with their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies
-to record His word.
one need only compare the powerful style of isaiah
with the mournful tone of jeremiah in the old testament.
in the new testament, luke manifests a marked medical interest,
while james is distinctly practical,
paul is theological and polemical (involving disputation, controversy)
and john writes with simplicity.
God has communicated through a multiplicity of human personalities,
each having unique literary characteristics.

the traditional biblical authors include
a lawgiver (moses), a general (joshua), prophets (samuel, isaiah, et al.), kings (david and solomon),
a musician (asaph), a herdsman (amos), a prince and statesman (daniel), a priest (ezra),
a taxcollector (matthew), a physician (luke), a scholar (paul), and fisherman (peter and john).
god used the variety of occupations and circumstances represented by biblical writers,
as well as their unique personal interests and character traits, to reflect His timeless truths.

    3d GOD SOMETIMES USED NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES
undoubtedly the doctrine of inspiration does not exclude the sue of human documents
as a source of divine truth.
such use is exactly what the bible does claim.
luke's gospel was based on research he had done using written sources of his day (l.1-4)
the writer of joshua used the book of jasher for his famous quotation about the sun's standing still
joshua 10.13
the apostle paul quoted freely from a heathen poet acts 17.28 in his well known mars hill address.
jude cited a noncanonical saying about the prophecy of enoch v14.

the use of nonbiblical sources should not be thought incongruous with inspiration
-it is to be remembered that 'all truth is God's truth'.
the God who commanded 'light to shine out of darkness' II corinthians 4.6
is able to speak truth through
a pagan prophet numbers 24.17,
an unwitting high priest john 11.50
and even a stubborn donkey. numbers 22.28.

  3c. WHAT INERRANCY IS NOT

     1d NOT STRICT GRAMMAR
inerrancy is defined in terms of truth
and truth is a property of words organized in sentences.
therefore, a modern grammatical error does not preclude an inerrant bible.
this is as it should be.
the rules of grammar merely represent normal usage of language.
every day skilled writers break these rules in interest of superior communication.
why should we deny the writers of scripture this privilege?

     2d FIGURES OF SPEECH ARE PRESENT
we should not assume that an 'inspired' book must have been written in one-and only one-
literary mold.
humankind is not limited in our modes of expression;
there is no reason to suppose that God is limited to
one style or literary genre in His communication to man.

the bible reveals a number of literary devices.
several whole books are written in the poetic style (eg. job, psalms, proverbs).
the synoptic gospels are filled with parables.
in galatians 4, paul uses allegory.
the new testament abounds with metaphors (II corinthians 3.2-3;james 3.6)
and similes (matthew 20.1; james 1.6);
hyperboles may also be found (colossians 1.23; john 21.25; II corinthians 3.2)/\Jesus Himself on occasion used satire (compare matthew 19.24 with 23.24)

the claim for inspiration, as understood in the light of the character of the inspired record itself,
reveals that 'inspiration' must not bve viewed as a mechanical or wooden process.
it is a dynamic and personal process that results in a divinely authoritative and inerrant product
-the written word of God.

      3d HISTORICAL PRECISION?
it is often asserted that the doctrine of inerrancy cannot be accepted
because the bible does not reflect the canons of historical and linguistic precision
recognized and required in the modern world.
like so many words used in the debate between inerrantists and errantists,
the definition of precision is ambiguous.
to some, imprecision implies error.
this surely need not be so.
as some of the wise men of past ages put it,
all that is necessary is that statements be adequate.
i interpret this  in terms of truth.
almost any statement could be expressed more precisely than it appears
any historiography, even a detailed chronicle, is still only an approximation.

let me illustrate.
if we record an event as having transpired in 1978,
we could obviously have said it more precisely
-in the month of may, on the fifteenth day, at the hour of 10 pm, and so on.
but the original, simpler statement would still be true.
the essential criterion, as i see it, for inerrancy is this:
is the sentence as stated true?
if so, there is no problem for the doctrine.
why should the modern criterion of precision be absolutized:
should we not expect scripture to reflect the standards of its day?
is it not arrogant to think that our standards are right and theirs wrong?

      4d  THE BIBLE USES NONSCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE

inspiration certainly does not require the use of scholarly, technical, or scientific language.
thebible is written for the common people of every generation
and it therefore uses common, everyday language.
the use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific; it is merely prescientific.

the scriptures wee recorded in ANCIENT times using ancient standards.
it would be anachronistic to superimjpose modern scientific standards upon the biblical texts.
it is no more unscientific to speak of the sun standing still (joshua 10.12)
than it is to refer to the sun rising. (joshua 1.16
contemporary meteorologists still speak daily of the times of 'sunrise' and 'sunset'.
the scritpures say that the queen of sheba 'came from the ends of the earth' matthew 12.42
since 'the ends of the earth' were only several hundred miles away, in arabia,
it appears that this is observational language.
in like manner, the scripture records that on the day of pentecost
there were people 'from every nation under heaven' acts 2.5
these nations are identified in acts 2.9-11,
and the do not include all the world (eg, north and south america are excludedd.

thus universal language is used in a geographical sense and is to be taken generally to mean
'the then known world.'
the bible was written for a nonscientific people in a prescientific age.
it is not reasonable for one to say the bible is scientifically INCORRECT;
it simply does not use modern scientific  vernacular.
but, in sacrificing scientific jargon, the bible has gained a perfection
in view of its universality and its simplicity of style.

the bible also uses round numbers. I chronicales 19.18; 21.5
it may be imprecise from the stanpoint of a contemporary technological society
to speak of the number 3.14159265 as the number three,
but this is not incorrect for an ancient nontechnological people.
three and fourteen hundredths can be rounded off to three.
this is sufficient for a 'cast bronze sea' II chronicles 4.2 in an ancienty hebrew temple,
even though it would not suffice for a computer in a rocket.
but one should not expect scientific precision in a prescientific age.

the bible speaks in the language of its day, in the mode that the people of that day will understand.
it must be judged by the very nature of the divine revelation.
the revelation came from God through men speaking human language and living in a cultural context.


to be meaningful, it had to come in the language of the prophets and apostles
and employ the cultural background of figures, illustrations, analogies, and other elements
generallyh associated with linguistic communication.
no artificial or abstract theory of inerrancy that imposes modem scientific or technical precision
upon the scriptures is warranted.

       5D EXACT WORDS?
inerrancy does not demand that the logia jesu (the sayings of Jesus)
contain the ipsissima verba (the exact voice).
this point is closely akin to the one just made about historical precision.
when a vew testament writer cites the sayings of Jesus,
it is not necessary that Jesus used those exact words.
undoubtedly the exact words of Jesus are to be found in the new testament,
but they need not be exact in every instance.

many of Jesus' sayings were spoken in aramaic and therefore had to be translated into greek.
moreover, as mentioned above, the writers of the new testament did not have available to them
the lingustic conventions that we apply today.
thus it is impossible for us to know which of the sayings are direct quotes,
which are indirect discourse,
and which are even freer renderings.
with regard to the sayings of Jesus, what, in light of these facts, would count against inerrancy?
if the sense of the words attributed to Jesus by the writers was not intended by Jesus,
or if the exact words of Jesus are so construed that they have a sense never intended by Him,
then inerrancy would be threatened.

an example of God's desire to communicate an accurate MEANING  to us
(rather than just mechanically precise words) is the fact that He gave us four gospels.
the slight variations in Jesus' words actually help us capture the accurate meaning He intended.
had each writer simply parroted the others, the text might be precise but the meaning might be misconstrued.

       6D COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTS?

inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account
or of combined accounts where those are involved.
this point is also somewhat related to the earlier statement on precision.
it must be remembered that from the stanpoint of any discipline, even theology, the scriptures are partial.
the word 'partial' is often taken to mean incorrect or false.
but this idea is false.
the bible is a complete revelation of all that man needs for faith and practice.
that is, there are many things we might like to know but that God has not seen fit to reveal.
it is also true that god has not seen fit to record evry detail of every account.

i think that this point has implications also for the gospel accounts.
the problems in the gospels can often be resolved when one realizes that
none of the evangelists was obligated to give an exhaustive account of any one event.
he had the right to record an event in light of his purposes in writing his gospel.
moreover, it must be remembered that the accounts of all four gospel writers together
do not exhaust the details of any one event.
there may be some unknown bit of information that would resolve seeming conflicts.
all that is required is that the sentences used by each writer be true.

       7D THE AUTOGRAPHS

inerrancy does not apply to every copy, only to the original text.
the view that has persisted throughout the centuries and is common among evangelicals today is
that inerrancy (or infallibility, inspiration) of the scriptures pertains only to the text of the original autographs.

in a letter to jerome (letter 82) concedrning anything he found in the biblical books
that seemed contrary to the truth, augustine wrote:
'i decide that either the text is corrupt,
or thee translator did not follow what was really said,
or that i failed to understand it.'

scripture has scattered indications of interest in or recognition of copies and translations of God's word
in distinction from the original manuscripts.
we can also draw useful inferences from various passages that tell us something of the scriptural attitude toward the then existing copies and subsequent translations.
what we primarily learn is that these nonautographical manuscripts were deemed adequate to perform
the purposes for which God originally gave the scriptures.
King solomon possessed a copy of the original mosaic law deuteronomy 17.18
and yet it was considered to contain,truly and genuinely,
'the charg of jehovah...according to that which was written in the law of moses' I kings 2.3.

the law of God that was in the hand of ezra was clearly a copy,
but nevertheless it functioned as authoritative in his ministry. ezra 7.14
when ezra read from this law to the people so that divine guidance might be given for their lives,
he apparently read to them by way of trnslation so they could understand  the sense in the aramaic
to which they had become accustomed in exile:
'and they read in the book, in the law of god, distinctly (with interpretation);
and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading' nehemiah 8.8
in all of these examples the secondary text performs the work of God's written word
and shares it original authority in a practical sense.

it needs to be reiterated quite unambiguously that evangelical restriction of inerrancy to the autographs
1. is a restriction to the autographic textg, thereby guarding the uniqueness of God's verbal message, and
2. does not imply that present bibles, because they are not fully inerrant, fail to be the word of God.
the evangelical view does not mean that the inerrancy, or inspiration, of present bibles
is an all or nothing matter.

so if only the autographs are inspired, what about the translations?
if only the errorless autographs were God breathed,
and the translators were not preserved from error,
how can there be certainty about any passage of scripture?
perhaps the very passage that comes undr quiestion is a mistaken transcription or copy.
the scholarly procedure of textual criticism trats this problem
by showing the accuracy of the copies of the originals.
to borrow this conclusion in advance, the copies are known to be accurate and sufficient
in all matters except possibly minor details.
the resulting situation exists, then, that although only the autographs are inspired,
it may be said nevrtheless that all good copies or translations are adequate.
although no one in modern times has ever seen an infallible original,
it is also true that no one has ever seen a fallible one.

just why god did not see fit to preserve the autographs is unknown,
although man's tendency to worship religious relics is certainly a posible determining factor II kings 18.4

others have noted that God could have avoided the worship of the originals
by simply preserving a perfect copy.
but He has not seen fit to do even this.
it seems more likely that god did not preserve the originals
so no one could tamper with them.
it is practically impossible for anyone to make changes in the thousands of existing copies.

in seeking to avoid the two extremes  of either an unattainable original or a fallible one,
it must be asserted that a good copy or translation of the autographs
is for all practical purposes the inspired word of God.



2A OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS

the bible certainly claims to be the inspired word of god.
but some people object to the idea that the bible is the word of God and that it is inerrant.
in this section some of the major objections to inspiration and inerrancy will be addressed.


1B  ARGUING IN CIRCLES

some assert that to believe in inerrancy you have to argue in circles.
'you believe in inerrancy because you believe the bible teaches it,
but you believe the bible because you beleive in inerrancy', some will say.

but this is not the case. a logical presentation of the case for inerrancy is not circular.

the bible is a reliable and trustworthy document.
this is estaished by treating it as any other historical record, as, for inhstance ,
the works of josephus or the accouhnts of war by julius caesar.

on the basis of history recored by the bible,
we have sufficient grounds for beleiving tha the central character of the bible, Jesus Chrtist,
did what He is claimed to have done and therefore is who He claimed to be.
He claimed to be the unique Son of God
-in fact, God in human flesh.
as the unique son of god, the Lord Jesus Christ is an infallible authority.

Jesus Christ not only assumed the authority of the bible existing in His day, the old testament;
He taught it, going so far as to say that the scriptures are entirely without error and eternal,
being the word of God.

if the scriptures are the word of god, as Jesus taught,
they must for this reason alone be entirely trustworthy and inerrant, for God is a God of truth.

therefore, on the basis of the teaching of Jesus Christ, the infallible Son of God,
the church believes the bible also to be infallible.

this argument begins with the nature of the bible in general,
proceeds to the person and teaching of Jesus Christ,
and concludes by adopting His teaching concderning the nature of the bible.

2B INERRANCY IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE
'inerrancy is not taught in the bible' is the claim by those opposed to inerrancy.
they say that the bible does not teach its own inerrancy, but only teaches that it is inspired.

this claim is as incorrect as saying the bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity.
true, nowhere does the bible say in so many words,
'there are three persons in one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'
but despite tghis fact, the doctine of the trinity is clearly and emphatically taught in scripture.
how does one arrive at this?
by a logical deduction from two principles that are clearly taught in scripture:

1. there are three persons who are called God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and

2. there is only one God.
simple logic demands that from these two truths only one conclusion follows,
a conclusion that no orthodox christian fails to draw:
there are three persons in the one God.

now, by this same logic the bible also teaches its own inerrancy.
like the doctine of the trinity, nowhere do the scriptures explicitly say,
'the bible is inerrant in all that it affirms.'
nevertheless, the bible does clearly and emphatically teach two truths from which this conclusion is inevitable:

1. the very words of scripture, all of them, are the revelation of God.
paul wrote , 'all scripture is given by inspiration of god' II timothy 3.16
the word 'scripture' means 'writings'.
over and over the biblical prophets were comanded to record the very 'words' of God. ex. 24.4; rev. 22.19
david confessed on his deathbed, 'the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me and His word was on my tongue'
II samuel 23.2
jeremiah was told 'do not diminish a word' of God's  prophecy. jeremiah 26.2
the apostle paul claimed to teach 'words ...which the holy Spirit teaches' I corinthians 2.13.

2. the bible emphatically teaches that everything that God utters is true and completely without error.
Jesus said to the Fathe, 'Your word is truth. john 17.17
the psalmist declared, 'Your word is truth. psalm 119.160
the writer of hebrews stated emphatically, 'it is impossible for God to lie. hebrews 6.18
paul told titus that 'God..cannot lie' 1.2
proverbs assures us that 'every word of God proves true. 30.5
in short, the very character of God as true demands that when He speaks He must speak the truth.
at the same time, the scriptures are the very utterance of God.
hence, from these two clearly taught truths of scripture
one and only one conclusion logically follows:
everything the bible teaches is the unerring truth of God.

thus it is that inerrancey follows logically from inspiration.
if the bible is God's word, then it must be without error.
christians have often summarized the doctrine of inerrancy this way:
'what the bible says, God says.'
indeed the words 'God and 'scripture' are often used interchangeably in this regard.
for example, hebrews 3.7 declares 'the Holy Spirit says' with a reference to the old testament scripture.
psalm 95.7
this pattern is repeated elsewhere. acts 2.17; galatians 3.8; hebrews 9.8

the bible does indeed claim its own inerrancy as surely as it teaches that God is a trinity.

3B  INERRANCY IS NOT IMPORTANT

'inerrancy is not important' is the cry of some.
they believe that the bible does not have to be without error to be authoritative.

this objection raised by the opponents of inerrancy is easily dismissed in view of the point just made.
they argue that inerrancy is not an important doctrine.
inspiration is important, they claim, but not inerrancy.
but if whatever the bible teaches clearly and emphatically is important,
and the bible does teach its own inerrancy clearly and emphatically,
it follows that inerrancy is important.

to say that inerrancy is not important is like claiming that it is not important
whether or not God utters only the truth
the Lord Jesus taught that the bible was true right down to the smallest part:
'till heaven and earth pass away,
one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfulled' matthew 5.18
elsewhere Jesus declared,
'the scripture cannot be broken'. john 10.35
hence, inerrancy will be important as long as Jesuss is Lord?

(note: this whole subject is focusing on just one of many ways to get out of obeying,
one of many 'dodges' to justify ongoing rebellion against God...i refuse to do what You say.
in this case because i decide that what You have to say is either
1. mistaken and therefore false or
2. a lie or a whole pack of lies.)

4B   INERRANCY IS A RECENT INVENTION

those denying inerrancy often claim that inerrancy is a recent invention.
some say it originated with b.b. warfield at princeton in the late 1800s.
others, such as jack rogers of fuller, trace it back to the lutheraln theologian turretin
just after the reformation.

both of these views are mistaken.
inerrancy was taught in the bible long before luther or calvin.
and there is evidence that the earliest church fathers held to the doctrine of inerrancy.
augustine said, 'i have teamed to yield this respect and honor
only to the canonical books of scripture.
of these alone do i most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.

the great medieval theologian thomas aquinas said,
'nothing false can underlie the literal sense of scripture.
the great reformer martin luther repeated over and over,
'the scriptures have never erred'
and 'the scriptures cannot err'.
john calvin clearly endorsed the inerrrancy of scripture in his institutes when he wrote,
'error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God
(through scripture) has been implanted in it ( book I, chapter 6)
hohn wesley, the founder of methodism, was emphatic about the inerrandcy of  scripture.
'nay, if there be any mistakes in the bible there may as well be a thousand.
if there is one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth. (journal VI, 117)

these clear statements of the church fathers and reformers clearly indicate that inerrancy
was not a late invention of the post reformation period or of nineteenth century
american theologians.

5B   THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

some claim that we must give up the belief in inerrancy because there are errors in the bible.
davis offers as an example of error God's command to joshua to kill the canaanites.
what is his basis for calling this an error?
..'i speak for no one except myself, but i believe that killing innocent people is morally wrong.'

but davis forgets several points.
first, the canaanites were far from innocent. leviticus 18.25; deuteronomy 9.5
the practices of child sacrifice and other inhumane behavior were rampant in their land.
second, this command was unique.
it is not a biblical doctrine meant for all times,
but was a specific command for a specific  occasion at a unique time in history.
third, God is sovereign over all of life.
He gave life and He has the right to take it away. job 1.21; deuteronomy 32.39

there is an error here, but it is not in God's action or His word to joshua.
the mistake is in using human reason or sentiment as the basis for determining
what is true in the word of God and what is not.
as God spoke in isaiah 55.8,
'for My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord.

some alleged errors turn out to be discrepancies
introduced by the copyists who made handwritten copies of bible manuscripts .
an example is the age of ahaziah when he began to reign
(age 22 according to II kings 8.26, but age 42 according to II chronicales 22.2)
other supposed 'errors' are divergent but not contradictory accounts.
luke records that there were two angels at the tomb after the resurrection (24.4),
but matthew mentions only one. (28.2)
this is, of course, divergent, but it would be contradictory only if matthew had said
there was ONLY one angel at the tomb AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME that luke
declared two to be present.

such alleged contradictions are not new.
they have been recognized by biblical scholars down through the centureies.
and yet one gets the impression from reading current scholars who deny inerrancy
that some recent factual finds have forced them to the conclusion that they must now give up
inerrancy.
just the contrary is true.
more of the bible stands confirmed today
and more problems are explainable thana has been the case in centureies.
discoveries from the dead sea, from sumeria, from nag hammadi, and more recently from ebla
provide more support than ever before for the positions that evangelicals have long held.

why, then, is the impression left that 'facts' are just now leading men to
give up this crtucial doctrine of the christian faith?
i am convinced that it is not a FACTUAL matter at all;
it is a PHILOSOPHICAL issue.
paul warned,
'beware lest any man cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit' colossian 2.8
what has happened, i suggest, is that many of these fine christian scholars
have been seduced by philosophical presuppositions,
often adopted unconsciously during their graduate studies,
so that their conclusions are determined in part by rationalistic and existential thinking
rather than by the word of God.

davis unwittingly analyzed the problem of those who deny inerrancy when he wrote,
'what leads them to liberalism...is their acceptance of certain philosophical or scientific assumptions
that are inimical (adverse in tendency or effect) to evangelical theology
-eg, assumptions about what is 'believable to modern people'.

6B  LIMITED SCOPE

another objection to inerrancy is the claim that inspiration
covers only the doctrinal or moral areas of scripture,
but not necessarily the historical and the scientific areas.
'all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine'. Ii timothy 3.16

there are several serious flaws in the view of 'limited inspiration'.
first, the bible makes no such distinction between doctrinal and historical matters.
EVERYTHING  affirmed in the bible is true.
secondly, in many biblical teaching ther is no way
to separate the spiritual from the physical or historical.
for instance, Jesus' teaching about divorce is inseparable from His affirmation
that god created a literal adam and eve.  matthew 19.4
and how can one separate the spiritual and the historical in the cross or the resurrection?

thirdly, this false dichotomy between the spiritual and historical
shows no awareness of our Lord's statement to nicodemus,
'if I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,
how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?' john 3.12
that is, if we cannot trust the bible and our Lord when they speak of historical events,
how can we trust them when they speak of spiritual matters?

finally, those evangelicals who deny the inerrancy of the bible do not limit their denial
to purely scientific, chronological, and historical matters.
paul jewett denied the truthfulness of paul's teaching on women.
davis denied the validity of God's command to drive out the canaanites-a moral matter.
to allow for and errant bible is to allow anyone and everyone
to choose which parts of God's commands jthey are willing to accept and which they will refect.

7B  NONEXISTENT ORIGINALS

this objection contends that evangelicals who believe in inerrancy
retreat into an unfalsifiable position that rests in nonexistent originals. 
since only the original manuscripts were inspired by God
ans since there are no original manuscripts around today,
there is no way to prove an error in them.

in response, we do have highly accurate copies
that are perfectly adequate for christian teaching and life.
in fact, no major (or even minor) biblical doctrine is undermined by any copyist's mistakes.

the bible contains very little that evangelicals would say is in error due to copyist mistakes.
there is plenty in the bible for which critics are able to blast christians.

in short, the originals are not nonexistent for all practical purposes.
all essential teachings are preserved in the copies we possess.
just as no american's liberties would be jeopardized were the original constitution to be destroyed
-as long as we possess good copies of it
-so no christian need fear because we don't have the original texts of scripture.

8A  DOES GOD CARE?

some claim that if God did not provide error free copies,
He could hardly be concerned that the originals were without error?
or else, why did not God either keep the errorless originals from disappearing,
or keep the copyists from making any errors?

the answer to the first part of this question has to do with consistency in God's nature.
because God is perfect, whatever comes directly from His hand must be pedrfect.
an original bible with errors would imply that God can err.
this would be like saying that God created adam in an imperfect state.
the second part of the question can bed answered with another question:
why did God not preserve preserve adam from sinning?
humankind tends to corrupt what we touch, whether the bible or ourselves.
of course, God preserved both 'originals',
the bible and humankind,
from becoming distorted beyond recognition.
man is still substantially in God's image (though imperfect),
and the bible is essentially God's word
(though tere are minor errors in the copies.).

there are important reasons why God did not preserve the original manuscripts.
first humankind has a propensity to worship the creature rather than the creator. roman 1.25
remember the brazen serpent God appointed for israel's deliverance?
it was later worshiped. II kings 18.4
how much more would we worship the very original words from God
appointed for our salvation?
furthermore, by not preserving the originals
there is no way for sinful people to tamper with their contents.

9B  TOO MANY QUALIFICATIONS

a final claim is that defenders of inerrancy place so many limitations on the doctrine
that it dies the 'death by a thousand qualifications'.

this point is very much overstated.
basically there are only two qualifications to inerrancy:
1. only the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS are inerrant, not the copies;
2. only what the bible AFFIRMS is inerrant, not everything it contains.

to be sure, many complicated issues are involved in determining
precisely what the bible affirms in any given passage,
including meaning, context and literary form.
this, however, is not aquestion of inspiration but of interpretation.
allwould agree, for example, that the bible contains lies, including satan's lies.
but the bible does not affirm that these lies are true.
all inerrancy claims is that THE RECORD OF these lies is true.

not everyone would agree, on the other hand,
that everything contained in the book of ecclesiastes is true.
many christian interpreters of ecclesiastes view the statements in the middle of the book
as simply A TRUE RECORD OF THE FALSE VIEWS of natural man 'under the sun'.

there seems to be room for difference of opinion here and in other like situations
(the speeches of job's friends, for example).
christians may differ as to what the bible actually affirms in a given passage
and what it merely records,
but there should be no disagreement among us that what the bible does affirm is inerrant.
God cannot err.

along with the question of how to interpret scripture
there is nothing in the doctrine of inerrancy that dictates,
as has sometimes been charged, that every passage be taken literally.
it is surely wrong to take an allegory as literal. galatians 4.24-5
likewise, the bible no doubt speaks in round numbers at times.
but imprecision is not error.
math teachers do not consider their students in error
simply because they used 22/7 or 3.1416 as the value of pi.
but both are imprecise.

also, biblical authors spoke in the same manner in which
people speak today-even scientists-that is, in observational language.
it appears as though the sun 'sets',
and even a scientist will say, 'look at the beautiful sunset'.
but these are questions of interpretation, not of inspiration.
the real crux of the inerrnacy issue is this:
is it the case or is it not that WHATEVER the bible affirms is without error?
is the biblical teaching without error
whether or not
God created adam and eve,
a flood destroyed the world in noah's day,
jonah was three days in a great fish,
or Jesus rose from the dead?

3A CONCLUSION

what does the above discussion mean for the average person today?
do i or do i not have a bible that is the inspired and inerrant word of God?
can i be confident that what i read in the bible is truly from God?

the answer is a hearth 'Yes!
the bible that we have today is the inspired word of God.
recent archaeological discoveries have confirmed that the bibles we have today
are accurate transmissions of what exiwsted two thouswand years ago.
we simply have a translation in our current language of the God breathed scriptures
that were originally written in aramaic, hebrew and greek.

remember that the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original copies of the bible.
until the printing pres was invented
the bible  had to be copied by hand for at least one thousand years.
it is therefore possible that some transmissional errors crept into the text.
the abundance of manuscripts, however,
along with archaeological finds, textual notes and other devices,
have all helped to ensure an accurate translation of the inerrant word of God.