Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

The Bible Has Errors, What Do We Do?

by

Should our faith weaken if the Bible is proven to be with errors? Isn’t the Bible the core of Christianity? If the core of Christianity is erroneous, shouldn’t Christianity crumble? If these thoughts resonate in you, you are not totally off the mark.

To relentlessly assault the Bible is the fervent passion of many. To rattle the faith of the Christians is their vocation.

As if to add to this predicament, quite a few evangelical Christian scholars and institutions are migrating away from committing to inerrancy i.e. the Bible is without errors. But interestingly, they commit to Bible’s infallibility i.e. the Bible is incapable of failing.

Broadly there are two categories of Christians in the context of Historic Christianity and biblical inerrancy. The biblical inerrantists defend the view that the Bible is without errors.1 The other group, the non-inerrantists, is rather lenient in this position. They consider the Bible as a document that is susceptible to errors, but not in the matters pertaining to the redemptive (salvation).

For instance, the National Association of Evangelicals, in their statement of faith, do not commit to the inerrancy of the Bible, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” 2 In this view, biblical inerrancy is limited to matters pertaining to salvation and not the entire content of the Bible.

The limited inerrancy view offers room for the Bible to err in non-redemptive matters – matters that are not salvific by nature e.g. geographical, historical, scientific etc. The proponents of this view state that the main purpose of the Bible is “spiritual transformation” – to bring the lost man into a saving relationship with God. They then affirm that “If the Bible contains some errors, some discrepancies, that do not affect its power to transform lives through faith-filled communion with God, that is not important.” 3

But the unlimited or total inerrancy view does not offer any room for the Bible to err. The unlimited inerrancy view affirms that the Bible is true in all its content, be it redemption, history or science.

Those who defend total inerrancy state, “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science” (Art. 12). It further declares that: “The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own (A Short Statement, 5, emphasis added).”4

The picture becomes rather clear now.

Those who believe that the Bible contains no errors (the biblical inerrantists or those subscribing to the view of unlimited inerrancy) hold the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity.5  The non-inerrantists or those who hold to the limited inerrancy view do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy as a core tenet of Historic Christianity.

If the Bible is proven to be with errors, you and I could respond in two broad ways. These options are predicated on whether we hold to the doctrine of inerrancy as an essential doctrine to Christian faith or not.

If you consider inerrancy as an essential doctrine, and, if the Bible is proven to be with errors, then your faith could weaken. But if you consider inerrancy as a non-essential doctrine, and, you consider the Bible as a document that is not erroneous in the redemptive but otherwise susceptible to errors, then your faith would not weaken.

Easier said than done!

Those who consider the Bible to be without any errors (biblical inerrantists) argue against the argument that the Bible has errors but is infallible (biblical non-inerrantists).6 Their argument is predicated on two very strong facts:

  1. God cannot lie either intentionally or unintentionally. If the Bible is God’s Word, and if God cannot lie, then the Bible ought to be without error.
  1. Christ (God-incarnate) proclaimed that God’s Word is without any errors (cf. John 10:35 & Matthew 5: 18).

So it is quite plausible that the Bible cannot or should not err.

But think from another vantage point.

Would an erroneous Bible entail the non-existence of God? No, not by any chance!

God exists necessarily. God’s existence is not predicated or intricately linked to the veracity of the Bible. In other words, God will not cease to exist if the Bible is erroneous.

In fact, God existed even before the Bible was written. It was God who inspired the human authors to write the Bible. Bible reveals God. However, the Bible is not the only source that reveals God (cf. Romans 1: 19-20).

The Lord Jesus Christ, the means to salvation of mankind, existed independent of the Bible’s veracity. For instance, history affirms Christ’s existence and resurrection.

Dr. Gary Habermas asserts that Jesus’ death by crucifixion, HIS postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and Paul’s vision of the resurrected Christ, are the most affirmed historical facts by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. 7

Therefore, if the Bible is proven to be with errors, neither would God cease to exist nor would Christ. If history affirms Christ’s resurrection, then salvation through Christ is also a fact that remains independent of the Bible.

This is not an exercise to undermine Bible’s authority. This is a mere exercise to affirm the independent existence (apart from the Bible) of God, the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation of mankind through Christ.8

Therefore, even if the Bible is proven to contain errors, it would not and cannot undermine God, Christ and salvation of mankind. In other words, Christianity would not crumble if the Bible is proven to be with errors.

God is at the core of Christianity. Christ and the salvation that HE offered to mankind are at the core of Christianity.

But inerrancy of the Bible need not be at the core of Christianity. If inerrancy of the Bible is to remain at the core of Christianity, then it would presuppose that inerrancy of the Bible is far superior in value to God, Christ and salvation. However, since God is the source of the Bible, God ought to be at the core of Christianity and not the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy is the corollary of God’s nature.

Unfortunately, this is not what Bart Ehrman thought. Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, lost his faith in Christ because he apparently discovered one minor error in the gospels. It seemed Professor Ehrman held the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as the core of Christianity.

When a particular passage in the Gospel of Mark befuddled Bart Ehrman, his strong belief in inerrancy of the Bible was shaken. He became a liberal Christian and then ended up as an agnostic atheist after being unable to reconcile the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.9

So should inerrancy be an essential doctrine of Christianity? Maybe so. However, God, who is the source of the Bible, ought to be at the core of Christianity and not the inerrancy of the Bible. Disputing inerrancy would not and cannot damage God or Christ or salvation of mankind.

This article is intended to impact Christians, who are not into serious Christian pedagogy or academics. The full blown wrath of Christianity’s detractors, such as the New Atheists, is aimed to rattle the faith of these Christians. At the first instance, when you hear the relentless tirades of these detractors, your faith in Christ may shake.

Inerrancy of the Bible is not the beginning and the end of Christianity.

So, fear not!

God is at the core of Christianity. Christ and the salvation offered to mankind are at the core of Christianity. The Bible reveals our triune God. The Scripture cannot be broken. Let us continue to totally trust and study God and HIS Word. Amen.

Endnotes:

1 http://defendinginerrancy.com/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

2 http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

3 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/11/is-the-bible-inerrant-or-infallible/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

4 http://defendinginerrancy.com/unlimited-vs-limited-inerrancy/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

5 http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

6 http://defendinginerrancy.com/roger-e-olsen-is-the-bible-inerrant-or-infallible/, last accessed on March 21, 2016

7 http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/southeastern_theological_review/minimal-facts-methodology_08-02-2012.htm, last accessed on March 21, 2016

&

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm#ch5, last accessed on March 21, 2016

8 I personally subscribe to the 3-ins – inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.

9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman, last accessed on March 21, 2016

This article was published at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/03/the-bible-has-errors-what-do-we-do.html on March 21, 2016

About Rajkumar Richard

Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.

Comments

  1. scbrown_lhrm_MetaChristianity says

    Inerrancy, Historicity, Ehrman, Craig, 545 Comments In 5 Threads, and the Evenhanded Modality:

    545 comments housing all sorts of segues into and out of errors and misapplications of the term inerrancy:

    [1] “How to Respond to Alleged Bible Contradictions” is at https://www.str.org/blog/how-respond-alleged-bible-contradictions#.WetYtGiPJPY and is 95 comments.

    [2] “Bible Differences Aren’t Contradictions” is at https://www.str.org/blog/bible-differences-arent-contradictions-video#.WetY9WiPJPY and it has 50 comments.

    [3] “The Gospels Get It Right When It Counts—and When It Doesn’t” is at https://www.str.org/blog/gospels-get-it-right-when-it-counts-and-when-it-doesnt#.WetZJWiPJPY and it has 61 comments.

    [4] “Challenge Response: Jesus Wasn’t Crucified or Resurrected” is at https://www.str.org/blog/challenge-response-jesus-wasnt-crucified-or-resurrected#.WetZVmiPJPa and it has 160 comments.

    [5] “If My People, Who Are Called by My Name, Will Humble Themselves and Pray…” is at https://www.str.org/blog/if-my-people-who-are-called-my-name-will-humble-themselves-and-pray#.WetcumiPJPY and has 179 comments.

    Those 545 comments house all sorts of segues into and out of errors and misapplication of the term inerrancy.

    ~

  2. Greg Logan says

    “The Bible reveals our triune God.”

    Just to be clear – the Bible does not reveal anything re “triune God”. This is a complete fantasy fabricated primarily poor lousy exegesis combined with a love of tradition (rather than the Word of God).

  3. Tarek Alight says

    I believe that Gods word is not the literal letters and words we read on the Bible but rather it is the message those words hold within. The original bible wasn’t in English, it didn’t use the same letters or words as in english. Do we say that the Bible we have English is not Gods word then? No.

    So based on that, when we understand that Gods word is the message then we can view the differences (that you consider as errors) which don’t change the message as a change in the mechanism (the tool e.g. Letters, language, consequence.. etc) some are not errors but a lack of understanding on our part.

    Many times when I find that a whole verse is missing in one version I find it present in the same version but different place, I conlude that the message of the Bible as a whole is the same even if some verses that hold the same meaning are present in different places.

    For that reason and because I don’t hold the view that the literal words are Gods word (specially the Gods word is God) but rather the message then I dont believe in errors. I believe that apparent errors that don’t change the message are just differences in the tool(the words)

    I always give this example which I don’t necessarily think many will agree on but I will share it with you. Jesus is Gods Word. The flesh part is not the Word but rather the incarnation or the tool. That’s because Gods word is God and God can’t be a man (flesh). So I always say that if the tool here (the flesh) changed as he grew up or was damaged when he got crucified, that doesn’t make him erranious or change the message of salvation he represents. He is still Gods word in full.

    Hope this explains my position. I never read it anywhere but it really makes a lot of sense for me personally.

  4. Joe Thomas says

    Excellent article. We are converted to Jesus, not to the Bible.

    Having said that, the problem is with people’s definition of “error.” Scripture is without error in the sense that it includes exactly what God believes we need to have a relationship with him.

    The scriptures use MANY literary devices to preach the gospel. Hyperbole. Time compression. And so on. Those things are only errors if God did not INTEND to use them.

    If I say “I’ve looked everywhere for my keys” is it an error because I have not looked on Pluto? Of course not.

    There are errors in the MANUSCRIPTS but not in the message. Isa 55 tells us God’s word is exactly what God wants it to be. The details are precise in the places God thinks they need to be, and non-precise where they don’t need to be.

    • Adam says

      Ironically I looked at this last night. This article doesn’t even get why he became a nonbeliever right like he has said in numerous interviews and in his books he has written that could have easily been researched. Makes me question how much the author of this article actually knows what Ehrman really says in his work.

    • Greg Logan says

      Ehrman would roast this guy – sorry to say.

      The problem is that it takes an iota of thought to see the specious and disingenuous nature of these “arguments” – and if the person really does not want to see that – they will choose to accept and regurgitate (much as Raj does in general).

  7. scbrown(lhrm)2017 says

    5 Quotes On Biblical Inerrancy:

    Quote #1:

    “…..I think there’s a good argument that everything in the autographs is what God wanted there, at least unless you can come up with a morally sufficient reason for God to deceive in His revelation to man. He is the only one with sufficient knowledge, power and opportunity to correct any error in the verbalization of His inspiration in the autographs. Even the one who was inspired to write wouldn’t know how to correct what he was inspired to write. Once the inspiration is over, only God will know whether He got His message across in the writing, or whether He needs to inspire some more to fix it. If He doesn’t do that, that’s on Him.

    Contrast this with transmission.

    If I am copying a sentence, I know how to correct any errors I might make there…go back and check the original. If I don’t copy the sentence correctly, that’s on me. Likewise books that were inspired could get lost or destroyed. There are things we might have done to prevent that. If it happens anyway, it’s at least partly on us. One might argue that God also had the opportunity to prevent these errors that come in because of human use/abuse of freedom. And indeed He might have. This is answered as the problem of evil is generally answered: There is a morally sufficient reason for God to allow this use/abuse of freedom. I am not going into the details of that morally sufficient reason for now, as it takes us pretty far away from the original topic…..”

    End quote (by WL).

    And along those same lines that last item just for completeness:

    Quote #2:

    Oh, look! J. thinks the Bible was written by humans. Who would have guessed it?

    How do you think it should work J.? Suppose you were, right now, to copy down a passage of Scripture in this blog, but did it wrong (for whatever reason).

    What do you expect God to do? Leave you free to do that? Leave the regularities in place that we call natural law that governs how computer keyboards work, how networks work and so on? Or should He overturn Natural Law, or Human Freedom or perform some special miracle of creation to prevent the mistransmission of the text?

    Or do you think it might be enough that God made human beings with enough reason, curiosity and awareness to be able to correct errors of transmission?

    End quote. (by WL)

    For some added context, see the standard definition of inerrancy as articulated by the Chicago statement. The form of inerrancy which rejects the Non-Theist’s common 180-degree nonsense and instead remains even-handed is echoed in a few senses by the following:

    Quote #3:

    Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

    Article XIII We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

    Article XIV We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

    End quote.

    And, for more context:

    Quote #4:

    “Inerrancy (probably unjustly) has too much literalistic baggage associated with it that brings out ignorant objections like “the Bible says that the number PI is 3, and it is not exactly 3, therefore the Bible is not inerrant.” This baggage comes along with the claim “I believe the Bible”. Honestly Austin, if you are looking for the phrase that will satisfy irrational unbelievers so that they don’t associate idiotic views (that virtually no one holds) with Christianity, that phrase is “I give up, you are sooooo much smarter and more ‘scientificy’ than me!” I go ahead and embrace the phrase “inerrancy”.

    Should someone try to say that number of digits of precision given for the size of Solomon’s cast sea is germane, I point to the doctrine of inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement which is easily available online. If they persist, they are attacking some view, but it’s not the doctrine of inerrancy. I also take the time to answer the objection. First, no number given will correctly equal the ratio of circumference to diameter. Would 3.1 satisfy the Bible-denier? Probably not.

    What about 3.14? 3.142? 3.1416? 3.14159? 3.141593? Or this (a link to the first 100K digits after the decimal in PI) ? And if any of those do satisfy the Bible denier, why shouldn’t the approximation with one fewer significant digit serve as well? And if that, then why not 3, also a correct approximation of the ratio, serve? Or is it the contention of the Bible denier that in a description of a room, the God should have inspired the author to launch into a discussion of real numbers in order to avoid some dimwit construing an error at some later stage. Now, some, Bible-deniers may persist in saying that it should at least have said 3.14.

    Why? Because atheism.

    Well, even for these ‘thinkers’, it turns out that sea is described as having a flared rim. What would be the simplest way to measure the circumference of such a vessel? You would stretch a rope around the un-flared body and measure the rope. And what would be the simplest way to measure the diameter? Maximize the chord with the rope across the top of the sea (which would include the flared rim). Now measuring thus in the simplest way, the measurements come out to 10 cubits in diameter, or about 180 inches. And 30 cubits around, or about 540 inches. That’s assuming the typical 18 inches to the cubit. The flare of the rim is described as being one hand wide. That’s about 4 inches. When you maximize the chord, you’ll be measuring the width of the rim flare twice, so the inner diameter, given a measurement of 180 inches, is 172 inches. The ratio of 540 to 172 is about 3.14.”

    End quote. (by WL)

    With respect to the Chicago Statement:

    Quote #5:

    The Peril of Inerrancy

    The intent of the speaker is always important.

    If I tell you how to get to Paris, and, following them, you end up in Paris, Texas rather than Paris, France, it hardly follows that I’ve made an error or that I was trying to deceive you.

    Literary form also matters. I’m an inerrantist. But I do not subscribe to a dumb literalism. I do not think that the Scripture affirms that trees have hands to clap, even though Isaiah tells them to clap their hands.

    Bottom line, I think the doctrine of inerrancy is separate from the question of how one is to go about interpreting Scripture. Having said that, how one answers the interpretation question may well influence how well one can defend the doctrine of inerrancy. If you insist that trees do have hands because the Bible tells you so, you will have a tougher time defending the inerrancy of the Bible.

    I’m an inerrantist, but it’s important to recognize that Inerrancy is a perilous doctrine.

    What I gave in an earlier post, and what, I think, most inerrantists hang their hats on is a deductive argument from Scriptural principles. But the mere fact that one has a deductive argument for a given conclusion does not mean that the conclusion cannot be false. All that it means is that if the conclusion is false, then either the inference is invalid or one of the premises is false.

    And this is the peril of the doctrine.

    It is why I do not much hold to the blithe indifference that is sometimes paid to the doctrine, even by its adherents.

    Some apologists think it is enough to say that you can get reliable guidance from an errant document. Then they refer to a map or a phone book that certainly contains errors, but which still can be relied upon. But that is nowhere near enough.

    If you’re going to take the ‘easy route’ and say that the doctrine is not true, but the Bible is still reliable, that is not the end of the story. If you are willing to ‘fall back’ to the claim that the Bible is errant, that is not the end of the story. If you are going to compartmentalize the Bible into things it is inerrant about, matters of faith and practice, and things it is not inerrant about, matters of fact, that is not the end of the story. It is far from the end of the story.

    And the hardest job you face is not coming up with a way to distinguish faith and practice from fact (though that’s hard). The hardest job is not to prevent a fall back from becoming a rout (though that’s hard). The hardest job is not to distinguish what can be relied upon from what cannot (though that’s hard).

    The hardest job you face is acquitting God of the charge of deception without denying that He is God by limiting His Omnipotence, Omniscience etc.

    What you have to handle, if you deny inerrancy, is nothing less than the problem of evil. The one objection to Christian Theism that has ever had legs.

    I’d far rather argue about whether Jesus rode two donkeys, about the so-called conflicts in the sequence of events that surrounded his death and resurrection, about the circumference of Solomon’s Cast Sea and so on than take on that version of the problem of evil.

    In fact most of these ‘bible contradictions’ are fairly easy to handle. It often frustrates the heck out of skeptics that to their 100 lame arguments there are 100 pat answers. They attribute sophistry and casuistry (or some other bigworditry) to the theist rather than admit the obvious truth that they’ve got nothing.

    Even the marginally more difficult problems, like the dreaded tensions between science and Scripture seem far, far less difficult than the version of the problem of evil that arises from denying the doctrine of inerrancy.

    The doctrine of inerrancy has actually been pretty well expressed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. If you haven’t done so already, you should check it out. [ http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html ]

    BTW, the Chicago Statement basically agrees with Greg in identifying the doctrine as true, normative, useful and so on, but not as needed for salvation.

    End quote. (by WL) (…the specific comment should be at http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/11/is-inerrancy-necessary-video.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e2019b01af4d35970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e2019b01af4d35970d …)

    ~~~

    • Adam says

      This article would describe me in a lot of ways. I could deal with a few things that weren’t right historically. I just couldn’t keep believing when the contradictions and unproven historical claims kept piling on top of each other

      • scbrown(lhrm)2017 says

        Agree. Fortunately as Christians the 1% of Scripture that sums to Major Variants in fact mirror other historical recordings across time, as in, say, the case of Octavius. Parts + Parts is just an even-handed treatment. That there are no claims which rise or fall on *a* verse is also fortunate. Octavius’ case is the same, given said even-handed mirroring.

        As discussed in the linked thread. It’s long and tedious, but helpful. Real historicity is like that.

        As for the other 99% void of such Major Variants, well again we’re fortunate.