Problem with Strict Inerrancy Part 3

After reading my previous post on this matter, the reader might assume I don't adhere to inerrancy, and the reader would be wrong. I just question literal inerrancy, which doesn't allow for different details in the same story. Example:

The number of Angels at the tomb:

  • Matthew: One angel sits on the stone.
  • Mark: One young man sits on the right side of the tomb.
  • Luke: Two men in dazzling white stand beside the women.
  • John: No mention of angels.
Or

The presence of the witnesses:
  • Matthew: The women are first to witness the empty tomb.
  • Mark: Mary of Magdalene is the first witness, then the two disciples on the road.
  • Luke: The women are the first witnesses, then the two disciples on the road.
  • John: Mary of Magdalene was the first witness, then the disciples behind locked doors.

These are just two examples, there are many more. But, what does this mean? Does this make the bible untrustworthy? Of course not! It means there's a bit of a discrepancy in the details, but the narrative remains the same, which one would expect from four different biographies. These manuscripts were written decades after the events, minor details may have changed, but the narrative is still the same. Example:

The number of angles at the tomb varies, (detail) but, that there were angles at the tomb is correct. (narrative) Or, the presence of the witnesses. As one can see there are some discrepancies in the details. However, there is no discrepancy in the narrative, Jesus appeared to several after his resurrection.

When people adhere to strict inerrancy, they create for themselves a problem.

Historical and scientific inaccuracies:

  • Contradictions: The Bible contains internal inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly in accounts of the same events across different Gospels. For example, as mentioned before the number of angels at the tomb or the timing of the resurrection.
  • Scientific discrepancies: Critics claim that Biblical accounts of creation, cosmology, and historical events often clash with established scientific knowledge. To them, this raises questions about the Bible's literal accuracy and reliability as a historical source.

This also has theological implications:

  • Questioning divine inspiration: If the Bible is not entirely accurate, does that mean it is not truly inspired by God? This can raise theological concerns about the nature of divine revelation and the authority of scripture.
  • Limiting interpretation: Strict inerrancy can stifle critical thinking and open dialogue about the meaning and implications of scripture. It can also lead to fundamentalist interpretations that may alienate those who hold different views. Such as brethren from the Orthodox faith.
 I suggest a more nuanced approach to inerrancy, which I will cover in my next post.

Bro.Scott

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Biblical Inerrancy vs Moral Infallibility Part 2

While related, the concepts of biblical moral infallibility and biblical inerrancy differ in their scope and focus when viewed through the lens of the cross. Here's a breakdown: Biblical Inerrancy: Focus: Claims that the Bible is completely free from factual errors, including historical, scientific, and moral claims. This implies that everything in the Bible is literally true and divinely inspired. Challenges: This view faces challenges from historical and scientific discrepancies in the Bible, as well as passages that seem to contradict each other or condone morally questionable actions. Relationship to the Cross: The cross, as a symbol of God's radical love and forgiveness, doesn't directly address inerrancy. However, some argue that the cross's message of grace transcends literal interpretations and emphasizes the core message of love and redemption. Biblical Infallibility: Focus: Claims that the Bible's moral teachings are always true and reliable, even if the t...
Read more

Taking a Nuanced Approach to Inerrantcy Part 4

Taking a nuanced approach to biblical Innerantcy involves acknowledging its complexity, and engaging with it in a way that goes beyond simplistic interpretations. Here are some key aspects of a nuanced approach: Understanding context and historical background: Recognizing that the Bible was written over a long period by diverse authors with different agendas and audiences. Looking at things strictly through the lens of the twenty-first century can lead to misunderstandings. Considering the historical, social, and cultural contexts in which the texts were written. Imposing our current cultural norms over the backdrop of biblical times gives an unfair bias against biblical historicity. Understanding the literary genres used in different parts of the Bible (e.g., poetry, history, prophecy, law) and how they shape meaning. Recognizing diverse interpretations: Acknowledging that there are multiple ways to interpret biblical texts, both within and across different Christian traditions. Engag...
Read more

Words Matter, Definitions Matter

I am going to make a statement, words matter, definitions matter. It’s my opinion that words and definitions hold immense significance in the lexicon of Christian understanding and we should be meticulous in our understanding of them. The Bible, the foundational text of Christianity, the inspired word of God, it depends on the precise meaning of its words. Making it crucial for understanding God's character, nature, and plan for humanity. Throughout history, such theologians as Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and many others have meticulously examined and debated the meaning of specific terms and concepts found in the scriptures, as these words shape one's perception of God and faith. For instance, the definition of "love" in Christianity is not merely an emotional sentiment but encompasses a profound commitment to the well-being of others, as exemplified by God's sacrificial love for humanity. Similarly, the concept of "salvation" in ...
Read more