bees & inerrancy
I remember one summer evening when I was a kid, walking into a grove of bushes to fetch a baseball that had been hit foul into the thick of them. I retrieved the ball and on my way out of the grove, I noticed a strange humming, a dissonance of sorts.
Bees. Everywhere.
I had been taught to not run, but to calmly walk out of a situation like that. So slowly I moved, careful not to disturb any branches or otherwise incite the stingers. I made it out without getting stung, but I never forgot that experience.
And I sort of feel the same way in talking about Biblical inerrancy. Am I nuts? Like I’m walking into a thicket of trouble. I’m only after one thing. I will disturb a nest or two. But the misconceptions out there are staggering, and mis-defined “inerrancy” pulls as a dead anchor on the faith of Christianity. It can’t help.
So let’s talk about what inerrancy isn’t, or what inerrancy shouldn’t be. The term “inerrancy” is a recent one, and has not been with us throughout church tradition.
I’ll just come out and say it. The Bible is not “exact.”
But it is truthful.
Now that I’ve stirred up the hornet’s nest!, let me make a lateral move and ask you a question for you to answer yourself. Imagine I asked you this question in person.
What was your first car accident like?
You describe it to me. You tell me when it happened. You tell me about the intersection where it occurred. You tell me about your car’s speed, and the other car involved. You may mention weather, or whose fault you think it was. You might mention if anyone else was in the vehicle with you. And I would think your story was truthful.
But it wasn’t exact.
You probably didn’t mention how laws of inertia and perpetual motion factored into the collision. You didn’t mention the precise angle of the sun or angle of the oncoming car’s headlights, and how that may have hindered your sight. You didn’t provide VIN’s for either automobile. I heard nothing of the condition of your brake pads, and when you had them changed last, or the approximate weight of your vehicle. Do you have anti-lock brakes?
Now I wouldn’t say your answer was untruthful. You were truthful, but not exact. You communicated what you thought was important.
So does the Bible. Readers of the Bible must respect that it was written in a time period where scientific objectivism and precision were not priorities in communication. The Bible is a story. Stories absolutely can be truthful without being exact. A lack of precision doesn’t detract from their truthfulness.
Definitions of Biblical “inerrancy” should avoid any mention of exactness, lack of mistakes, science, original documents, all that. Do yourself a favor, and don’t go there. That implies that a) the Bible was written with these issues in mind (which it wasn’t), and b) our modern view of scientific “objectivism” is the best way to communicate.
One definition I like: “The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.” –Millard Erickson
(example: assertions made by people in the people in the Bible, such as the Pharisees, may not be true. But they are reported accurately)
Inerrancy should not be about a lack of textual errors. It’s not about science. Why would you read the Bible outside of the purpose for how it was written? Inerrancy is a confession of the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible.
Suggested Reading:
Far As The Curse Is Found, Michael Williams
A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, edited by Philip Satterthwaite & David Wright
Posts
Well said.
I really like this statement:
“Inerrancy should not be about a lack of textual errors. It’s not about science. Why would you read the Bible outside of the purpose for how it was written?”
Great thoughts on a contentious topic!
Nicely said. Cool to hear this perspective on the Bible.
The car-wreck comparison is a good one and accurately illustrates to me what it must have been like in certain very chaotic and contentious times to try to record “THE TRUTH.” The only thing is that, in recounting a car accident, I, personally, can usually admit that I don’t remember details properly and I would certainly never say, “ah, but my story is inspired by God.” I’m not contending that everyone who defends the Bible says these things, but there are a number of people who will defend certain passages of the Bible with such statements, which, I think, is part of why other view those people and their beliefs unfavorably.
But I’m having trouble grasping something. If it is okay to accept that the Bible is sometimes incorrect (or inexact), and if we are accepting that in a way because the times, cultures, and scientific ideas were so different, then what about the stories, morals, or laws that seem to be outdated or incorrect or inexact. Any student of law will tell you that the Devil (ha!) is always in the details, which to them means not only is it in the details that you can pick things apart, but that often falsehood in details will lead the path to seeing falsehood in the main moral argument.
That’s maybe a bit rambling. your thoughts?
Nice insights.
Tim
Kyle, you raise some interesting questions, and I will endeavor to answer you well.
I would prefer accepting the Bible was inexact, rather than sometimes incorrect, as you wrote. We should still absolutely upholding the truthfulness and reliability of the whole thing, while ditching “exact” as a fad of modernism.
As far as “stories, morals, or laws that seem to be outdated or incorrect or inexact” … there is no easy answer. What we cannot do is, “book of Leviticus … I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, so begone!” Some parts of the Bible may seem to be “outdated,” but that presupposes a whole lot. Are we certain they are outdated? And is our standard of judging the fixed place to start from? The only answer I can give is that each verse must be taken in its original context and carefully considered. We can’t lump any together, or make blanket judgments. That’s too careless.
What you will find is the moral arguments and laws did not arise as a response to narrative, but from a fixed law given outside of narrative. In other words, the law was given as law, not as an appendage to Biblical narrative.
With respect to what you said regarding my illustration of a car accident … I want to readjust the train of thought. In the illustration, I’m asking you recount your first accident. I’m not asking you to do it as it happened, but when you’re removed from it in time. The time when you answer it is not chaotic like the crash. The Biblical writers were not daily bloggers, following everything along and writing about it in the heat of the moment. They were writing with some retrospect, though not too much of it. They are writing from a point of view, and are truthful in what they affirm.
Hope this helps.
As a non-Christian, I really appreciate hearing this reasonable stance. I always wondered why people who claimed that every last word and phrase was 100% irrefutably precisely true didn’t seem to notice how Jesus used stories - parables - as teaching tools.
And as an historian, I agree with your assessment of these writings; as with any historical source of information, understanding cultural contexts is essential to understanding what is written. Reading between the lines is an important skill.
Excellent analysis, Jim. There’s no doubt many people try to apply a worldview to the Bible that simply is alien to it and then are left trying to patch things together. Glad you’re trying to straighten that out!
Jim, while I don’t 100% grasp what you mean when you say, “…while ditching “exact” as a fad of modernism…” the rest of all that makes sense. Especially the bits about Lev.
“What you will find is the moral arguments and laws did not arise as a response to narrative, but from a fixed law given outside of narrative.” - well put. Makes lots more sense.
As for the car accident, maybe I should have been clearer. I grasped what you were saying about displaced in time. I meant that as they wrote, when they wrote, in the times they wrote (times when their beliefs were still unconventional or controversial). We’ve been on the same track there.
I just hate words like inerrancy… I like it when someone seemingly steps aside of the inerrancy/infallibiility “debate” to say “The Bible is authoritative…”
BUT, I do recognize how important it is to wrestle so this was fun to read.
My experience simply says that most people who have significant issues with the Bible in this realm really have significant issues elsewhere. This certainly doesn’t take away from a very important topic (”what do you mean when you say “authoritative”), but I would so much rather talk with a person about them, about Jesus, etc.
And, I really wonder what this debate will look like in 20 years. Will we still be arguing without the other side in the room (Here I am accusing both sides), or could we maybe get back to discussing the wonderful story of God and the people of God?
Now I will wait for someone to dice up my comments…
No dicing here. I love it, Matt. While it is important to “wrestle” with this, as you say, it is even more important that we lost the forest for the trees.
Yea, Brad. Forest for trees…I hear ya.
Thanks, Brad, for giving a link to this on the de-Con site. It is very helpful.
Jim, the car accident is a great way to help explain. Thanks.
the bible has the truth but not the facts. we can have truth in a story that never factually happened. however we MUST take into effect the socio-historical settings. jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed… okay… that’s nice.
but what’s a mustard seed to a 1st century jew? An unclean weed that houses birds who eat up your plantings are are annoying. so in effect Jesus is saying the kingdom of God is pop’n up uncontrollably and the institutions of the day are trying to weed it out as it messes with their world… that makes a more powerful statement wouldn’t you think?