It's often said that the Bible is not science or history textbook. Neither is it a philosophical encyclopedia.
There's an important truth in these slogans. It cautions us against the temptation of being too fascinated with ransacking the Bible for scientific/historical data.
And forgot its primary purpose is to bring fallen humanity back into a redeeming covenant relationship with God.
Having said that, we should remember that whenever the Bible does speak about scientific and historical matters, such assertions are true.
In other words, Scripture is fully trustworthy in all that it says.
Put negatively, it is inerrant.
Today, however, it has become fashionable to say that the Bible is infallible when it comes to salvation, doctrinal issues only.
But statements about science and history may contain mistakes. Its purpose is not to teach us about these facts anyway.
It accomplishes its purpose to bring people into fellowship with God.
But as a document written through human beings, it also contains human shortcomings. The OT is said to be morally inferior than the NT, for example.
"Revelation is not propositional, but personal". (I wonder, how can we know who Christ is, if not for what the scripture says about Christ?)
According to some, the bible contains the words of men about their personal encounter with God, with human errors, but that doesn't mean we dun find it useful.
We still diligently read it as a record of our spiritual ancestors' experiences. It may serve as a vehicle of our own personal encounter with God too.
Still others would say that the inerrancy of Scripture is irrelevant. Focusing on minor discrepancy, trying too hard at harmonising 'contradictions' only distracts us from hearing what the bible is really trying to tell us.
What do you think? :)
I'm no bible scholar. IMHO, important theological theme like the resurrection depends on the historicity of whether Jesus really rose from the dead in space-time, 2000 years ago.
So it's not so easy to separate theology from history.
And a faith that is religiously infallible but empirically errant, at the end of the day, is 'privately engaging, publicly irrelevant'.
Comments
Ya, both liberals and fundamentalists probably have fallen into some abuses of the Bible :) and I think it's possible to hold a nuanced view of wat inerrancy is.
If not mistaken, the book deals more with the issue of authority of Scripture, rather than the issue of inerrancy
Some helpful reviews on the book here:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/862
http://www.somestrangeideas.com/wordpress/2006/03/18/the-last-word-2/
cuz if we take the Bible just as an answer book with universal truths and make it authoritative in that sense, then inerrency is a big issue?
But, as Wright proposes, we look at the Bible as a script for a play in which we are playing one of its parts, and allow the Bible to play an active role in directing the church towards God's purposes for the world, then factual errors (like conflict of numbers) and contextual errors (like mention of four corners of the earth) may not be that important?
But I think the definition for inerrancy in your post is helpful too... :)
Framed in this way, it become possible to hold a nuanced view of inerrancy (as defined earlier) *together with* the bible as movie script
i.e. the bible is not an 'oppressive' script. Nor does it cast us in 'errorneous' roles, rite?
There is also a story of redemption, of course, seen esp in 'covenant theology'. It happens in a specific particular context but is equally universal, relevant and 'true' in our context as well :) So no final dichotomy here
PS: imho 4 corners of the earth is not a contextual error, actually, perhaps it's more of a figure of speech like "You are salt of the world". It doesnt need to mean Jesus is not aware that we're not made of salt!
Yes, I do agree that some conflicts of numbers are not important, bcos only what the Bible affirms is inerrant (not necessarily what it reports from other sources, ie the bible also reports the views of bad guys!)... So a carefully articulated view of inerrancy can overcome some common objections
i'm curious why a figure of speech is considered as a contextual error?
i do have this serious misunderstanding that it is easier to apply a literal understanding of the text and exclaim that "hey, here's an error and there's another one."
i'm certain that you are not doing that so can you please help correct my misunderstanding? thanks :)
Well, actually, I'm not sure if 'four corners of the earth' is a contextual error (though I think it might be). So thanks for pointing it out!
Is 'four corners of the earth' a figurative language in Old Testament times? It is now... but, is it possible that the Jews also believed in a flat earth at that time? So in their context, there is nothing wrong with 'four corners of the earth'? Could it be that they were not using that term simply as figurative language but as what they perceived the world to be?
I'm not sure... so what do u guys think? :) I cited this example cuz i've encountered people who claim that the Bible, through this phrase, implies that the earth is flat and thus has errors in it!
Hedonese: agreed! the word innerancy needs to be carefully defined... just like how the catholics really need to make it clear what they mean when they say that the pope is 'infallible'. Otherwise, a lot of problems may pop up... :P
The question, then, is whether did the Bible affirm it or not?
Otherwise, we may wax eloquent abt how the Bible affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ and someone wud just shrug and "Well, ur absolutely right but the bible has an error here!"
Back to the FAQ abt 'four corners', perhaps we can do a word study on how the OT authors make use of the word 'kanaph'?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
my point is, it appears that the idea of inerrancy for some is a literalistic understanding of the text.
i am sure that while a spade is called a spade, poetry shall remain poetry etc.
i, for one, do not think that when a great religious figure purportedly said that he is the door, he meant that that he was a literal door with four erm.. corners :P
as hedonese implied, one should have a carefully nuanced view of inerrancy.