Arguments in favour of Biblical inerrancy

[Bovril]

One of the great claims of the majority of Christian churches is that the Bible is in some sense infallible. This ranges from assertions of the literal truth of each word the Bible contains, to the vaguer idea that the Bible's theological claims are, once compiled, always true.

However, no where does the Bible claim to be infallible in its entirety, and there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus anticipated the writing of an infallible holy book, and he certainly didn't treat those parts of the scriptures that had already been written as infallible.

So I have two questions:

Why should/do Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible on whatever level?

What evidence is there that the Bible is infallible?

N.B. Please do not post arguments against Biblical inerrancy –there is another thread somewhere for that- though feel free to rebut those in favour.

[Greek Fire 19]

Fundementalist christians believe they should believe it is infallible because....it's the word of God. And You would expect God, as the creator of the universe, to avoid things like contradicting himself and getting the dates mixed up.

[Chiron202]

Why should/do Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible on whatever level?

What evidence is there that the Bible is infallible?

The Bible does say in more than a few places the it is either the word of God, who we would expect to speak without error and have supreme authority.

I'll just list them, and you can paste the reference into a decent bible site like Bible.com to view the text.

2 Peter 1:21
Deuteronomy 12:32
Revelation 22:18-19
2 Timothy 3:16

And I already put this link up,in a different thread, but its worthwhile to do it again. Authority of Scripture

I realize that this is circular reasoning: believing that the bible is infallible because it says it is. but that is because it is based on faith (so believing is the key word in the statement). And having this belief is crucial to the christian faith--Belgic Confession

[Bovril]

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Argument in favour of the inerrancy of the words of the prophets, hardly the whole Bible, or even the words of the prophets as they are recorded in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
This raps up a passage of commands explicitly said to be the word of God. I'm not convinced it is aplicable to the whole Bible (most of which could hardly be said to be the commands of god in any but the loosest sense).

Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This is a threat against those who would change the text of revelation. It does not imply the inerrancy of revelation itself, let alone the entire Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This is the classic quote used to argue for the Bible's view of itself as inerrant. Two things. This text only claims for 'scripture' theological inerrancy. Second, what Paul calls scripture is rather different to what we call scripture. For Paul, scripture was the corpus of Jewish holy texts that already existed. If Paul had wanted to talk about future books he would have had to phrase his words in a rather different way. Peter does refer to Paul's letters as scripture, but he is writing at a time when the new Christian texts are being called scripture as well as the old Jewish ones. The word has shifted in meaning, and it would be falacious to argue that Paul was refering to the New Testament in his letter to Timothy.We should also look at what 'inspiration' meant to Paul. Was it the sort of absolute possesion envisaged by the inerrancy school of thought? I suggest that it was rather more like the modern concept of artistic inspiration. In fact Greek usage at the time supports this idea. We are no longer in the age when only the oracles were 'inspired'.

Anyway, although this is interesting, as you pointed out, all these arguments are slightly circular.

Your link brough up the interesting issue of Biblical prophecy. If the Bible's prophecies that are due to have come true have come true then it would imply inerrancy. Of course, many of the prophecies in the OT seem to have been written after the events they prophecy. Still, it only requires one false prophecy to prove that the Bible is not inerrant. I'll let someone else take it from there.

[Chiron202]

@Bovril
The Key point is that beleif that the bible is inerrant is necessary to the chrisitan faith, and that is held mostly on faith, with more than a few verses to back it up. I would argue that the Revelation passage does argue for the entire bible, and that the statment implies that God both protects the bible, and says that we should treat the bible with utmost respect. (akin to saying its inerrant in a way. Same for Deuteronomy. The common interpretation of 2nd Peter is to say that God is the real author of the entire body of scripture, not just the prophets. Same with 2nd Timothy. I'm just stating that that is what the accepted hermeneutic of the passage are. They are subject to some interpretation, and If you see them that way I can't push you out of that position with sheer logic. (If i knew greek it might be a different story, your interpretation might not hold up in the greek, but again, i don't know.)

The most biblical prophecies concerned Jesus, and could be said to be fufilled. The other prohecies, like those in Daniel and Revelation, are subject to constantly changing opinions. It would be excruciatingly difficult to either prove or disprove that a prophecy like those happened, or happened in a way that goes against the prophecy, so I think that path is a dead end for those arguing both sides of the issue.

[Tom Paine]

Surely only the original Bible would be inerrant anyway, otherwise why would there be different translations into the same language floating around?

[Empyrean]

Squeakus brings up an important point. While the teachings of Christ were certainly correct in their original form, that does not preclude human error from messing things up in the time since then. For infallibility to be proven, it must be established that the words of the Bible were correct to begin with, and that they haven't changed at all since then. Even if the Bible is perfectly accurate, that also does not preclude the existence of other scripture.

If God planned for the Bible to exist in its current form, why does he never make mention of it in the Bible?

[Beetlecat]

The argument that usually follows this is that the people making the translations were specifically 'inspired' -to borrow this from earlier in the thread- and not subject to their own morals or or opinions when making crucial word choices, etc. These later 'revisions' being guided by a sort of holy copy editor.

I have a hard time believing this, although the act of translating an entire book certainly takes a great deal of inspiration of some kind.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The Bible does say in more than a few places the it is either the word of God, who we would expect to speak without error and have supreme authority.

'The Bible' is not a book - it's a collection of books. If some of those books say that 'scripture' is inerrant/the Word of God etc, they clearly aren't talking about 'the Bible' since 'the Bible' didn't exist when those books were written and wasn't going to come into existance in its current form for another 100-300 years.

So those passages clearly aren't talking about 'the Bible', which was a collection of books decided on as being canonical through a slow process of analysis and debate in the early Catholic Church between 150 and 400 AD. The 'scriptures' those passages are talking about are the Jewish scriptues - the ones that make up the Old Testament.

Surely only the original Bible would be inerrant anyway

What, exactly, is this 'original Bible'?

[Tom Paine]

What, exactly, is this 'original Bible'?

Precisely the problem. Certainly not the one I've seen quoted around the place though.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Precisely the problem. Certainly not the one I've seen quoted around the place though.

The one you've seen quoted around the place is 'the original Bible'. It's the collection of texts first laid out as being 'canonical scripture' by Athanasius in the early Fourth Century and accepted by all Churches at the Synod of Hippo at the end of that century. That's how 'the original Bible' came about. What you've seen quoted around the place are English translations of those original Greek and Hebrew texts.

[Tom Paine]

Not the original; copied out and translated, which will not be 100% accurate. Ever.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Not the original; copied out and translated, which will not be 100% accurate. Ever.

There are certainly going to be slight textual differences from manuscript to manuscript, which is why editors use multiple manuscripts and carefully footnote possible variants. And the Bible you read today is translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew the original texts were written in. Getting the precise sense of the originals can be tricky, but the idea that just because no translation can be 100% accurate so the translation is therefore inaccurate to any substantial degree is nonsense.

The Bible you read today is the 'original Bible'. If you want to get even closer to the original, feel free to spend years learning Hebrew and Koine Greek.

[Chiron202]

'The Bible' is not a book - it's a collection of books. If some of those books say that 'scripture' is inerrant/the Word of God etc, they clearly aren't talking about 'the Bible' since 'the Bible' didn't exist when those books were written and wasn't going to come into existance in its current form for another 100-300 years.

So those passages clearly aren't talking about 'the Bible', which was a collection of books decided on as being canonical through a slow process of analysis and debate in the early Catholic Church between 150 and 400 AD. The 'scriptures' those passages are talking about are the Jewish scriptues - the ones that make up the Old Testament.

To the vast majority of Theologians and people who have definitely struggled with this question over the centuries, it has been determined that the Bible acts as a codex of all available authoritative scripture. So while the inerency passages don't technically point to the bible as a whole, they do point to each and every one of the component books. This can be said of the new testament too, mainly because we know from solid historical sources that the NT books were largely circulated and utilized as scripture even by the apostles, and specifically Paul. This is why the argument that the scriptures mentioned are simply the old jewish literature isn't given much weight by theologians in all time periods scince. Beleive me, that specific argument has come up in a major way quite often in the church, and justified over and over again. Informal cannonization happened a tad earlier than you state. About 60-70 C.E. for most books. (Rev a little later) This had be be formalized only later as the church spread and false gosples showed up. I.E. There was accepted scripture of the early church including gospels and so on, and then much later new stuff was introduced that shouln't have been, so the problem ahd to be addressed. Formal canonization was a solution to a probalem the early church didn't have.

[Bovril]

Chiron: Interesting points. What sources are you reffering to?

[Chiron202]

To effectively answer that, you'd have to give me a day. (I have local family (uncle teaches this stuff at seminary) that could point me to the definite sources. What I worked of of for the post above was my college textbook stuff, which isn't very specific, but I'm assuming to be reliable, because otherwise why would a college allow its students to be so grossly mis-informed.)

This post will be edited as information comes.

Edit: Correction: books of Paul wern't read publicly and widley circulated as a collection among the churches until 100 C.E. But I would imagine that this means that they had quite a bit of authority centered around Jerusalem, because correspondence would have made its way back there frist, and then branched out. This does put a little water on the point of my above post, but not so much I think.

Also I should point out that some books (Hebrews, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, James, Jude and Revelation) were disputed as late as 200 C.E. as to their authority by some christian communities, but certainly well ago deemed authoritative in and around Jerusalem.

It appears that the writings of Ignatius (?-115 C.E.) confirm that the pauline letters and Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, 1st Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation were held in authority by the early chruch. (I am taking this at face value, again from my textbook, which i shall now give bibliographic info for : An Introduction to the Bible: A Journey into Three Worlds. (6th Ed.) Christian E. Hauser and Wiliam A. Young - Pearson Prentice Hall Pub. (2005)

Also my textbook points out that "other churches looked to it - (the Jerusalem Church) as the "mother church" and the arbiter of difficult issues." This means that we should focus on the stance and attitudes of the Jerusalmen Church when debating this issue.

Perhaps this is circular reasoning but I found a very helpful bible passage that explains how the early church viewed pauls letters (2nd Peter was written after the pauline letters):

2 Peter 3:15-16 (New International Version)
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (Emphasis added)

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

To the vast majority of Theologians and people who have definitely struggled with this question over the centuries, it has been determined that the Bible acts as a codex of all available authoritative scripture. So while the inerency passages don't technically point to the bible as a whole, they do point to each and every one of the component books.

No argument there. The fact remains that there was no 'Christian Bible' when these references to the inerrancy of 'scripture' was being written and no clear evidence that the 'scriptures' being referred to included any of the texts that were later to make their way into the canonical NT.

This can be said of the new testament too, mainly because we know from solid historical sources that the NT books were largely circulated and utilized as scripture even by the apostles, and specifically Paul.

We know that some were widely circulated. As were some works which never made it into the NT. And others weren't widely circulated. And when they came to be regarded as 'scriptural' is unclear, but it doesn't seem to have been before the early to mid Second Century at the earliest.

This is why the argument that the scriptures mentioned are simply the old jewish literature isn't given much weight by theologians in all time periods scince.

The argument that these references to inerrant 'scripture' can be applied to the OT/NT canonical books we call the Bible today, despite the fact that this Biblical canon was only in its earliest stages of development, still makes no sense, despite the ways some theologians try to juggle things.

Informal cannonization happened a tad earlier than you state. About 60-70 C.E. for most books. (Rev a little later)

The four gospels came to be regarded as canonical fairly early, though 60-70 CE is out of the question, since Luke and Matthew were only written about then and John hadn't been written at all. The date I gave - the Athanasian Canon - was the earliest date that the full Biblical canon of the NT as we know it was expressed. Earlier evidence - like the Muratorain Canon - show that a consensus was developing in the late Second Century. References to certain texts (later to become canonical) shows that certain works were given primacy over others as early as the early Second Century. But the whole process of developing the canon was very much a work in process and one which would not come to any degree of fruition until the Fourth Century.

So these references to inerrant 'scripture' are either (i) somehow referring to NT works which had yet to be recognised as 'scriptural' and, in some cases, had yet to be even written or (ii) referring to the Hebrew scripture of the OT. To pretend that there was some kind of set NT canon as early as the time when these references were written is pure fantasy.

Perhaps this is circular reasoning but I found a very helpful bible passage that explains how the early church viewed pauls letters (2nd Peter was written after the pauline letters):

2Peter is generally regarded as pseudepigraphical and estimates of its probable date range from 100 -160 AD. So it shows us that, in the ongoing process of determining which epistles were canonical/'scriptural', the Second Century writer of 2Peter considered at least some of the Pauline material to be so. That's all.

[Chiron202]

I simply don't agree, my arguments and sources still stand as counter to yours, in the end its a source reliability issue, and Isaid 60-70 C.E. for most books. This doesn't include John obviously. And we aren't arguing canonicity anymore. It's acceptance as scripture by the early Jerusalem chruch. Big difference there. So it is possible for a book to rapidly gain acceptance in the eyes of that localized, well defined body. You are referring to universal (or near universal) canons. Again I"m not talking about canonization, which I already posted was a defence move against gnostic and misleading gospels. Having the church identify all these books as a group in canonization and then recognize them as scripture my argument at all. I'm saying that it happend the other way around. (which should eb pretty obvious) Book-by-book basis by early church.

As to the fact that we lost books, that is admittedly the case. At least one is mentioned by paul: Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) and it is even likely that more were lost than survived. But this is in no way an argument that pauline letters aren't scriptural. If we had record of them, i'm sure they would have the same authority as his other letters. It's a travesty though.

And I still don't see the rational that NT references to scripture do not include NT books themselves. The hermeneutics here and the (very) common thological and historical understanding is much differnt from the straight english interpretation. I'm pretty sure my evidence for the adoption of most of the NT book-by-book by the early church as scriptural still stands. No evidence has been posted to actally counter that. I'm still in the process of gathering (more reliable info... going off the the seminary on campus tomorrow...)

[Major König]

Fundementalist christians believe they should believe it is infallible because....it's the word of God. And You would expect God, as the creator of the universe, to avoid things like contradicting himself and getting the dates mixed up.

And because it is the word of God, it is infallible. Jesus in some ways portrayed this. He said to follow the word many times.

[Empyrean]

And because it is the word of God, it is infallible.

Or was, when God said it. Human beings tinkering with it destroys that.

The reasoning I usually see for Biblical infallibility is that the Bible is the word of God, thus it must be infallible. The Bible must be the word of God because it is infallibile. Rotate argument in a circular fashion until driven insane. Repeat as desired. It's similar to the claim that the Bible must be the sum total of all scripture because it's everything we have, and it's everything we have because nothing else is authoritative. That's another argument that would roll if you put it on a slope.