For a time I was concerned that my website lacked a proof that the Bible is inerrant. But on further reflection, I decided that there are already many excellent defenses of biblical inerrancy, and there is little new that I could contribute. Instead, I think it might be more helpful to define more carefully just what inerrancy is and discuss a few of its implications.
Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible contains no errors. More specifically, inerrantists believe that every assertion made in the Bible is true in the sense intended by its authors. Put most simply, inerrancy says, "The Bible is true."
The Bible has been copied, recopied, and translated continuously since it was originally written. (See this page for a summary of how the Bible has come to us.) When inerrantists talk about the truthfulness of "the Bible," they most directly mean the Bible in its canonical form, in its original languages. Inerrancy arises from the fact that God inspired the writing of the Scriptures. A general way of explaining inerrancy by inspiration is to say that God superintended the composition of each part of the Bible as it was written. The final form of the book (i.e., the form that was left to the people of God and received as His word) is what we call the canonical form. Among Protestants, inerrantists believe that the church recognized God's hand in the writing of the sixty-six books that together form the Bible, and included them in the Bible because those books were inspired.
Since the Bible was written, men have copied the autographs (original drafts) to preserve them for all generations, and have translated them into many languages. However, at least since the times of the prophets and apostles ended, the Bible has been copied imperfectly. Both mistakes and intentional changes appear among the many manuscripts we have, and translations vary widely in their accuracy. This does not necessarily mean we cannot trust the Bible we read and hold in our hands today. Inerrantists say that a Bible is inerrant to the extent that it communicates the meaning intended by the author when it was written. It is certainly possible to produce a Bible that meets this standard today, because the original languages are known to us; the history, culture, and literature of the time are relatively well understood; and there are plenty of manuscripts from which to determine the original reading of the Bible wherever there are differences.
Even though the inspiration, intent, and writing of the Bible are all events in the past, we do not say merely that the Bible was true, but that it remains true. If what the Bible says about the events of history, God, His commands and desires, and His relationship to His creation and to His people, was true when it was written, it still is. And if its statements are false now, they were false back then as well. For inerrantists, the Bible's accuracy is nothing without its continuing truth and relevance. The Bible is "living and active," in the sense that its factual truth continues to penetrate and change lives today.
Nor do inerrantists mean that the Bible is "living" in the sense that its meaning is continually changing or multiform. The assertions of the Bible have the same meaning today that they did when they were written, and that meaning continues to be true.
Inerrantists believe in objective, universal ("absolute") truth. At least as far as the Bible is concerned, truth is not subject to personal feelings, preferences, or perspectives. For example, if Jesus physically rose from the dead with the same body that hung on the cross, that historical event took place even if no one believes or knows about it. That fact is and always will be true, and it makes no sense to say it is "true for me but not for someone else." If it is necessary to designate a perspective for the Bible, we would say it is God's perspective.
Authorial intent is also crucial to understanding inerrancy. It is not our interpretations of the Bible that are inerrant. What matters is not necessarily the bare, most concrete or superficial meaning on one hand, or some allegorical or parabolic meaning on the other. What matters is what the author desired to say to his audience. So, for example, if the author of the Gospel of Luke meant to present the parable of the Good Samaritan as a story that Jesus told during His earthly ministry, then Luke's account is inerrant only if Jesus actually told that story. Also, if Jesus intended His story only as a parable to illustrate loving one's neighbor, then Jesus' teaching remains true even if the Good Samaritan never actually lived. But... we must deal honestly with authorial intent, and not use it as a way to dismiss portions of the Bible by writing them off as parables or allegory without warrant.
The Bible is true because its ultimate author is God. God's hand in the writing of the Bible is called inspiration. Here are two key passages on inspiration:
The Bible does not go into detail as to exactly how God's inspiration fits with the fact that human authors penned the Scriptures. Too often we treat the Scriptures as if God simply dictated them. Certainly some portions of Scripture are a matter of dictation, such as the letters to the seven churches in Revelation and the instructions for the tabernacle in Exodus. But generally speaking, we see the writers' own distinct personalities, styles, goals, and word choices in the Bible. And yet the words of the prophets and apostles–including those preserved in the Bible–are treated as coming from the mouth of God. Peter's verse above denies that God gave some vague revelation that the prophets had to interpret, which would require us sorting out the true and false elements of the prophecy. On the contrary, the Bible places such heavy emphasis on the specific words of the Scriptures that we would say that inspiration extends to the words as well as the assertions they make. At a minimum, this implies that God can work through people's decisions to achieve His own goals, without having to override their freedom or compromise even His most detailed purposes. (The belief that God can ensure human decisions in this fashion is called compatibilism because it asserts that God's controlling power is compatible with genuine human choices. This has implications for many areas of Christian doctrine.)
Inerrantists generally recognize that the inspiration of Scripture goes beyond God's usual providential workings and is a miraculous act. God had words He wanted to use to communicate to His people. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, God saw to it that each human author, of his own free will, wrote those words. Thus there is a concursus between God and the human writer; they each chose the same word for the same purpose. Of course, God was more perfectly aware of the various implications and applications of what was written, but there is not a sharp divide between the human meaning and the divine meaning in Scripture.
What we have just described is called verbal plenary inspiration, which means that God inspired the very words chosen by the authors, and that every word in the Bible is so inspired. This differs from dynamic inspiration, in which God allowed the authors enough freedom in writing that their own errors or misunderstandings could slip into the Bible. Many other theories of inspiration have been proposed recently by non-inerrantists, all of which allow for error in Scripture by distancing God from the actual composition process.
The Bible's inspiration was accomplished in a variety of ways. In only three instances, God bypassed human authorship altogether and wrote with His finger (Exod. 31:18; 34:1; Dan. 5:5). At times, God spoke audibly (e.g., Matt. 3:17), sent angels who spoke for Him (Gen. 22:11-12), or gave His word to prophets in such a way that they could speak for God in the first person (e.g. Isa. 41). On occasion (though not often) the prophets would see visions and describe them (e.g., Zech. 1:7-17). But much of the Bible is written from the human author's perspective, usually by recounting events (historical narrative such as 1 Samuel) or giving instruction (didactic passages such as Phil. 4). Inerrantists reject any gradation of truth or reliability based on the manner in which the word was given. Since God is ultimately the author, all revelation is equally true and reliable.
Defenders of inerrancy are at their best when they make the Bible's own teaching about itself the foundation of their doctrine. Naturally, if the Bible is perfect and authoritative, our doctrine of inerrancy is self-defeating unless the Bible supports it. As I've stated, I do not wish here to make an airtight case for inerrancy. But it may be helpful to summarize the points made in the better inerrancy arguments. I should point out that these arguments are designed for people who are already willing to grant that the Bible is generally reliable. For those who dismiss the Bible totally or regard it as a merely human product, arguments alone will never persuade them. But for faithful Christians who have had their beliefs challenged, or for those who've been led astray and told they can't be intellectually honest with themselves while holding to inerrancy, these points may provide encouragement.
Stated mathematically, all A (what God says) is true; all B (what the Bible says) is A; therefore all B is true.
A common criticism of inerrantists is that they refer to the Bible as the Word of God. According to critics, Jesus is the only Word of God, not the Bible. However, as we look through the Bible, we see that the phrases word of God and words of God usually refer to that which God speaks–His verbal revelation. On four occasions, John refers to Jesus as God's "Word" (logos) metaphorically, but the literal reference is to words (written or spoken) that come from God. For reference, I've placed all the verses referring to the Word of God on a separate page.
Perhaps the most common accusation leveled at inerrantists is that they are worshiping the Bible rather than worshiping God. Making the Bible the standard for our faith somehow places the Bible above Jesus. Shouldn't we make Jesus our standard, and believe or discount what the Bible says based on how it measures up to our Savior's teachings? There are at least four reasons that this charge is unfounded.
First, how in the world can critics drive a wedge between God and His words? The charge of bibliolatry seems to suggest that believing and doing what God says is wrong, even idolatrous, and that we should instead believe and obey God directly. But how exactly does one believe or obey God without believing and obeying His words? To make this case, critics would have to demonstrate that the Bible falls short of reflecting what God would have us believe and do, and that we must hold the Bible up to some sort of corrective standard. Critics of inerrancy may suggest that Jesus (or modern scholarship) is the standard, but they have yet to make such a case based on Jesus' teachings.
The second reason is that Jesus Himself upheld the Scriptures in their entirety. He did not come to abolish or cancel out the teachings of the Old Testament; He confirmed and fulfilled them (Matt. 5:17-19). Lest we shrink from the "harsher" descriptions of God and His wrath in the Old Testament, we should remember that Jesus Himself made such statements (e.g., Luke 13:1-9). Jesus did not come to present us with a "kinder, gentler" God. Jesus also saw the Scriptures as a testimony to Himself, to which His life had to conform (and not the other way around), and that the belief in the Scriptures was necessary for belief in Him (e.g., Luke 16:31; 24:27; John 5:46; 15:8).
The third problem with the bibliolatry charge is that we know nothing of Jesus' teachings apart from the Bible. The Gospel writers selected portions of Jesus' life and teachings, translated them into Greek, and recorded them in a way that fit the intent of their books. Whether someone regards the Gospels as faithful witnesses to Jesus and His teachings or not, what else do we have to go on? Those who reject the Bible can rely only on speculative reconstructions or imagination, neither of which can then be held to be more authoritative than the Scriptures themselves.
Finally, if it is our personal experience with Jesus that takes precedence over the Bible's teachings, we have a major problem, since that "experience" differs so greatly from person to person. If we are truly Christians, the experience of knowing Christ is genuine, but we interpret it based on the circumstances of our lives, our own personalities and presuppositions, and by our acceptance or rejection of what the Bible says. Inerrantists rightly hold to the necessity of having a clear, written word from God that clarifies what our experience with Jesus is and how that relates to God, salvation, and how we should live our lives. This is precisely what the Bible claims itself to be.
Critics of inerrancy have often tried to support their position by finding mistakes in the Bible. After all, the Bible cannot be inerrant if it contains demonstrable errors. Books are available that list over a thousand supposed errors in Scripture. The vast majority of these appear simply from taking verses out of their context and reading them superficially so as to make them appear contradictory or ridiculous. Many others arise from problems in translation or copying, and therefore do not reflect problems in the Bible as it was composed. Quite a few arise from the fact that much of the Bible is not in chronological order and that parallel passages select different details to report. Allusions that are not direct quotations, the Old Testament's classification of animals, and the New Testament writers' handling of Old Testament verses are also ripe targets for errantists. There are a few points in Scripture where the resolution of alleged discrepancies is a little difficult. However, there are no proven errors or inconsistencies, and every claim of error has an explanation that is at least plausible.
Personally, I believe that inerrancy is a doctrine best approached "from above." Approaching inerrancy "from below," based on harmonization, puts us constantly on the defensive and makes it depend on our own wisdom and ability to straighten out what others see as problems. And even if we were to disprove everyone's counterclaims, there might still be an error no one's discovered yet. The Bible can never be "proven" to be entirely true by an empirical method. But if we instead trust the Bible's claim to be from God and absolutely authoritative, then God's truthful character guarantees the Bible's accuracy, even if we fail to find resolutions to difficult passages. This is, in part, a matter of submissiveness to God's wisdom in His composition of the Scriptures.
We have said that the autographs (original drafts) of Scripture were inspired, but that they have been copied and translated imperfectly. We have also said that a Bible is inerrant to the extent that it communicates the meaning intended by the author when it was written. But how can we know what that extent is if we don't have any perfect copies of the Bible? What good did it do for God to inspire a perfect Bible and then let its perfection disappear into history? These questions are raised not only by critics of inerrancy, but also by those who hold to the inerrancy of particular translations of the Bible, over against all the others, which they believe are corrupted.
Before answering the question, I'd like to clarify two things right away: (1) Certainty and truth are two different things. Even if we are not absolutely sure how the autographs read in a certain place, this does not invalidate the truthfulness of whatever that reading was. (2) If God had allowed the autographs themselves to be discovered or preserved, then we really would face the temptation of bibliolatry as the documents would be enshrined and worshiped. Like the snake Moses made in the wilderness, the autographs would no doubt become idols.
First of all, it is a demonstrable fact that no single extant copy of the Bible perfectly preserves the original text. First Samuel 13:1 is missing two numbers that are required to make sense of the text. We can determine what those two numbers were, but they do not actually appear in the Hebrew manuscripts. Hence the original reading is recoverable but not technically preserved in the manuscripts. Certain portions of the genealogical tables in 1 Chronicles also show evidence of names slipping out of the text. This is primarily an Old Testament problem; it appears that in every case where New Testament manuscripts differ, the original reading is one of those actually appearing in the witnesses. But even here, every manuscript contains obvious mistakes which must be corrected by comparison with another imperfect manuscript that manages to "get it right" in those instances.
Throughout church history, and especially since the invention of the printing press, scholars have tried to reconstruct the original text by comparing manuscripts. The product, called an edition, represents the scholar's best estimate based on the materials he had to work with. Using about seven local manuscripts, the Catholic priest Erasmus released four editions, each differing from the others in about a hundred places. Stephanus revised Erasmus' work four times, Calvin's successor Theodore Beza made eleven editions based on Stephanus' work, and the Elzevirs released a few as well. The Elzevirs named this family of editions the Textus Receptus (TR). Manuscript discoveries in later centuries led scholars away from the TR editions. Based on more ancient and careful witnesses (primarily from the Alexandrian family), the Tischendorff and Westcott & Hort editions took the first steps away from the TR tradition. Today's Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's editions give a much more accurate picture of the original text than was possible prior to those discoveries.
This historical overview is necessary to illustrate that there is no single edition of the Bible that has ever been recognized as the perfect preservation of the text. Even those who claim that the Textus Receptus is perfect have many editions of it to choose from, and they must admit that it was compiled from imperfect manuscripts. As for translations, the King James Version was based on several editions of the TR collated together, and some KJV readings do not quite match any known original-language source.
Second, we would say that while the Bible was imperfectly copied, it was nevertheless remarkably perserved. There are thousands of manuscripts of both testaments as well as thousands of witnesses in other languages–far more evidence than exists for any other ancient writing. Even the relatively recent works of Shakespeare rest on shakier manuscript ground than the Bible. The percentage of the biblical text that is firm (the same in all manuscripts) is almost unbelievable. Where there are variant readings, the manuscript evidence is such that we can almost always determine with confidence what the original reading was. In the few cases the reading is debatable, the change almost never affects the meaning of the passage in question. In no case does a debatable variant reading affect any doctrinal or historical teaching of the Bible. (If you're aware of any counterexamples, I invite you to let me know.)
Third, a translation can carry the authority of the Bible it translates. The writers of the New Testament often quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was made a couple centuries earlier. The biblical writers evidently saw no problem translating Jesus' teachings or Paul's speech in Acts 22, even though both were originally given in Aramaic. Early Christians had no qualms about translating the New Testament, provided it was done accurately. Of course, if a translator mistranslates a word or passage badly enough that he obscures the meaning or adds to or subtracts teachings from the Bible, his errors are not to be regarded as inspired Scripture. We must compare translations with one another and, as God gives opportunity, with the original languages to know that we have the true word of God.
Finally, God's promises in Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, and elsewhere are that His word will never fail. What this means is that God will carry out what He intends to do. His plans are inviolable, and His promises infallible. This does not necessarily imply that He will physically preserve every word of inspired text, much less do so in a single copy of Scripture, or even in the majority of copies. The word of God given to Peter at Pentecost is not preserved in its entirety (Acts 2:40), nor is Paul's letter to Laodicea, for example. However, I do believe God intended the Bible for all generations, and that He will preserve it well enough that we can determine what it has always said.
Taking these facts into consideration, we can say that God does preserve the Scriptures, but does so in the multiplicity of witnesses. The original text can be determined by collecting the evidence of all the various sources and working through it. This requires quite a bit of thought and effort, but so do such important tasks as biblical interpretation, sermon preparation, and disciplining one's self to live a godly life. It is not true, as is sometimes charged, that the imperfections in our English Bibles mean that only an elite group of scholars can determine what the Bible says. Most Bible translations are good enough to give us what is most important, and any one of us can learn enough to choose the best two or three versions and compare them. It doesn't really even take that much effort to buy some Bible reference materials or even learn a little Greek or Hebrew yourself to allow deeper insight into the Scriptures. And let's not forget one of your greatest resources: your pastor. A trained pastor ought to be able to work with the original languages and have some understanding of textual issues. If you have doubts about which Bible to follow where there is a difference, he can guide you.
Critics of inerrancy often claim that their faith is "stronger" because it holds up even if errors are discovered in the Bible–whereas we inerrantists, by making inerrancy central to our faith, will have nowhere to go if an error can be demonstrated. If the Bible contains even the tiniest inaccuracy, then our faith comes crashing down while the errantist's Christianity remains strong. Jesus' parable of the houses built on rock and sand is instructive here (Matt. 7:24-29).
The errantist has a faith that he believes will withstand all assaults because of its flexibility. His religion holds up even if there was no Adam and Eve, no exodus from Egypt, and no resurrection of Christ. But since it lacks a solid foundation, its independence from historical fact brings the purpose of its existence into question. What of Christianity is true, and why should we believe it, if the Bible is not reliable? Where does Christianity impact reality if it is not based on reality? Early liberals and neo-orthodox scholars tried to hold onto many of orthodox Christianity's teachings while denying biblical truth, but today we see such errors leading to very un-Christian ideas about God, salvation, and morality. The shifting sands of scholarship and philosophy have already reduced the errantist's castle to ruins, and yet he continues to dwell there.
We inerrantists build our faith on the foundation of God's faithfulness. Were that to fail, we would indeed be in trouble–as would everyone else, for that matter. But we believe that God's truth is unassailable, and do not fear whatever storms the enemy will bring against us. From time to time, our interpretations may require some tinkering as we discover we have not properly understood and submitted to Scripture on some point, but the grounding of our faith is firm and everlasting.
For a concise statement of my beliefs about the Bible, see my Declaration of Faith.
