So many people try and define what the Bible is, including me. But where does the Bible talk about itself and clearly define for us what it is? In 2 Timothy 3:16 it says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (NASB). That word, “inspiration,” is pivotal. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is without contradiction and error. I personally believe that we find the voice of God and human beings in scripture. I believe the key is discerning which is which. John Calvin and other Reformers believed that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is the key in discerning the Word of God.
You may ask how one can make the current translations of Bible less than perfect and yet then believe some of its claims? The answer is simple. Faith. By the way, we all do the same thing. How can you select scriptures and interpretations that support your position on a subject while interpretively explaining away other scriptures that challenge your position? I am talking about scriptures that impact positions like: gifts of the Holy Spirit, women’s roles, sex, tithing, doctrine of the Trinity, baptism, end times, predestination, free will, alcohol consumption, child discipline, musical instruments in church, environmentalism, politics, racism, etc.
There is no end of topics we can divide over and have divided over. It is so ironic that we divide over the Bible when the Bible was made to unite us. And I believe this is conclusive to our misunderstanding of scripture’s place within our traditions. Scripture is not relative, but it is elastic; its truths fit all cultures and all people. God by His Spirit uses the Bible to guide and direct us and reveal His love and purposes, but ultimately it is God’s people that must discern what God is saying today from the text just as Jesus did in His day.
I read this in an article at relevantmagazine.com last night, and I have to say, it makes me nervous. The Bible is inerrant, right? Not the translations we read, I understand that there could’ve been (and probably were) mistakes made when translating the original texts to (insert the name of your version of choice here), but the original texts are inerrant, right?
I believe that the Bible is a difficult book to understand, and that interpretation of scripture is up to us. Somebody, somewhere has to decide what it means and how to live it out… but, at best, it’s still somebody’s interpretation and therefore it’s not inerrant. I get that scripture can be (and has been by many, myself included) misinterpreted… but are we ready to say that the original texts contian errors?
Are we simply engaging an attitude of “realism” with regard to our view of the text? Are we just admitting with “authentic transparency (both trendy words amongst believers)” that the text we believe is “holy,” isn’t? Or that it may be “holy,” just not wholly holy? Or are we taking part in something altogether different and completely wrong by destroying the foundation of our faith, our purpose and even our very existence? And, are we doing it under the banner of “progress” because we want so badly to be accepted by a society who refuses to acknowledge us as legitimate?
Am I wrong or does the whole thing fall apart if the original texts have errors? Maybe I’m just over-reacting, maybe it all wouldn’t fall apart if there were errors in the original texts… I mean, I guess I already believe that there may be discrepancies between actual events and recorded events in scripture. But even that makes me uneasy. I’m not worried that my faith is going to fall apart because it’s been built on an erroneous ancient text, but it does make me a little nervous because… where do you draw the lines?
I don’t think I’m ready to believe that just yet, and it may be a while before I ever (if ever) I do. Don’t get me wrong, I want to know if it’s erroneous in some of it’s parts. I agree with Rob Bell that this is still the best way to live even if it’s not legit, but I believe it is legit… so that’s not a question I really have to answer truthfully.
There are more implications to scripture that isn’t inerrant than I can blog about today, I really wanna hear what everyone has to say about this topic. You can read the entire article @ relevantmagazine.com.
June 26, 2007 at 4:39 pm
That article was definitely semi-scary. It seems to be a slippery slope when someone starts admitting the original text contained errors. I claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, am I wrong for doing that? If there are errors in the original text, then the Bible certainly cannot be called infallible, but can it still be called the Word of God if every word that God speaks is truth?
Another thing, what is people’s infatuation with John Calvin? Sure most denominations can say that he was the father of their faith during the reformation, but as many people as he burned at the stake for ‘heresy’, I don’t think I would be quoting him in many of my articles.
June 28, 2007 at 11:13 am
I was talking to a friend about this the other day and he said something to the effect of, “The Bible is a narrative in which God reveals himself to us.” I’ve been thinking about that a lot the last several days… maybe the text isn’t inerrant or infallible, maybe it’s full of mistakes, regardless it is an absolutley holy book, and in it (in spite of the errors) the God of creation reveals himself to us.
Here’s the deal, some of the stories we read in the text were written down hundreds of years after the fact. I believe completely, without any shadow of turning, that the text was inspired by God, that holy men wrote and spoke as they were prompted by the Holy Ghost; however, the chances of all of the details of an event being completely accurate 2 or 3 or 4 hundred years after that event are probably slim at best. So even if the details aren’t exact, if one verse says Satan incited David and another says the Lord did, it’s still a holy book… a supernatural book… it’s the book of God… and he reveals himself to us in its pages.
I’m still not sure what I believe about the details, but I do know that what I have experienced in the pages of the text is real, and supernatural… period.
June 29, 2007 at 12:15 pm
For what its worth, Websters defines “infallible” as “incapable of error,” and “inerrant” as “free from error.”
Last night I was thinking about this conversation and something occurred to me, Paul said on at least one occasion, possibly several, that what he was saying was not from the Lord at all…
“For all the others I say this (I am saying this, not the Lord): If a Christian man has a wife who is not a believer, and she is happy to live with him, he must not divorce her.” (1COR7:12)
It seems like he was making it clear to all who were listening or reading the letter, that what he was about to say WAS NOT FROM THE LORD, that it was all Paul. If indeed Paul was claiming no inspiration from the Lord in just this one instance, then at least the Pauline Epistles can’t be infallible or inerrant, right?
July 1, 2007 at 9:24 am
I use the word infallible occasionally to describe the Scriptures, but I would prefer to use the phrase that the Bible uses to describe itself: breathed-out by God.
The Bible is as much of a human book as it is a divine book. God’s story of redemption is found in the Bible because it is from the hands and hearts of people within whom God was at work. It’s not meant to be a perfect chronicle of human history. Yes, our history is there, but what matters most is God breaking through our history to create a transcendent story of redemption.
July 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm
You’ve inspired me… I had to blog on this.
http://mudshoteyes.com