Bible inerrancy and scriptural authority

Bible Inerrancy

The Bible for Christians every where is the Word of God. Those who attend daily or weekly services are necessarily treated to one or two readings from the Bible. Sunday Mass for Roman Catholics includes a reading from the Old Testament, One from the New Testament, either from the Acts of the Apostles or one of Paul's epistolatory reprimands (mostly), followed by a reading from either one of the four evengelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all of which precedes the sermon, which is optional -- though the biblical readings are a must.

This essay is about the notion of Biblical Inerrancy. In it will be discussed evidence for why Christians are called to believe in its inerrancy. This essay will also discuss how Christians, most of them have evolved either through teachings, variable doctrines, through experiences of modern life and through the inclusiveness of liberalism have come to believe that some instances in the bible might, after all, be outdated and not quite "with the times." It is important to recognize here that disbelieve in the inerrancy of the bible is not about atheism or disbelief in the existence of a Christian God who commands the ultimate deification. Many aver, and this number is growing, that it is okay to believe in the Goodness of God but not adhere to every tenet that comes from the Bible.

The basic premise of Biblical Inerrancy is that it is absolutely authoritative. It is the word of God. (Erickson 2001) That there are no errors in the bible, either in word or deed. That every instance in the bible is appropriate today as it was from the time the World was conceived by God and created in seven days, with Man being created to have ascendancy over all other living things. Inerrancy also indicates that nothing in modern science or natural history, or, indeed, the nature of man is misrepresented in the Bible.

In recognizing Inerrancy, one has to ensure that one does not confuse it with infallibility. Inerrancy is more rigid and makes no allowances. With infallibility, which more people believe than inerrancy, Christians are called to recognize that the Bible is not infallible, that it is not misleading and the intent is correct -- as edicts that come from a benevolent and loving God. But with infallibility also comes the acknowledgement that in instances of natural history and science (one example, might be the case of evolution, another would be issues of astronomy -- the spherical nature of the earth or the earth being the center of the universe, notions that have been debunked by people as early as Nicholas Copernicus) the Bible might be mistaken.

If a large part of Christian orthodoxy comes from Faith in a Loving God, why is the notion of inerrancy so important to many Christians? Simple because, one must reiterate here, that the belief stems from the idea that the Bible is a living breathing representation of God's direct words to man. (Miller 1992)

Christians, who do not espouse inerrancy, believe that, while inspired by God, the Bible, in large part, is a historical document that was written by man. And since man is by nature a sinner and prone to weaknesses, they believe that the Bible took on the meanings and nuances it did. This is because man brought into these writings his own failings, biases and idiosyncrasies. This is often seen in instances where the evangelical gospels that represent the life of Christ and his ministries are inconsistent. That the bible reflects the ignorance in science and natural history of the times it was written. This is why so many scientific facts that we know to be true are so diametrically opposite to those referred to in the bible. They also believe that the writers in the Bible believe that the socio-cultural mores of the times when each book and epistle was written are reflected in these books -- chapter and verse. Most of these people however, are very forgiving of these errors in the Bible. They believe that it does not impact their faith in anyway, because they cannot be swayed by the foibles of man and his writings.

So how do the inerrantists explain away the inconsistencies and glaring errors in the Bible that are so easily pointed out. They do so by using the concept of autographs. These are the original writings of the Biblical books. These writings are primarily in three languages: Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Henry 1999) the central belief is that God is perfect. And anything that comes from God has to be perfect. Inerrantantists will consider no middle ground.

Consider then the references in the bible itself, where over the period during which the Bible was written, the writers consistently echo one theme. They repeat that the Bible was the word of God. For example, we often hear the words "thus says the Lord. Exodus (20:1) uses the phrase "And God spoke all these words" Leviticus has several instances which refers to a direct verbal exchange between God and Moses. Two of these key references are Leviticus 4:1 and 5:14). Psalm 119 has several references to this. Consider the teachings of both Peter and Paul who echo the sentiments that all their edicts come directly from on high. The New Testament references of course have a direct bearing on Christian living, since these were used during the creation of Christianity in defiance of the fears of persecution, which the apostles and early Christians faced against those who would believe in pagan Gods.

Indeed, there are several other scriptural references that show that the Bible was not merely an inspiration that man accepted but these were direct words of God that were guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul exhorts his disciple Timothy to preach the word of God since it is God's word. The word inspiration here is directly translated as breathing out. And just as God created the universe and all living things, seemingly from nothing, his word in the bible seemingly comes from his breath. During the Exodus, God was ever present in the lives of the Israelites as they escaped slavery to the Promised Land. God appeared to Moses several times. But even in the New Testament, the story of the transfiguration as mentioned by Matthew and then referred to by Peter tells of how God spoke directly to Peter, James and John.

With God's coming to earth as Christ, as he proclaimed that "God became Man, so that one day, Man might become God," gives us pause to reflect on several other instances where the word of God as spoken became true. Consider the messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah and even John the Baptist (who averred that I baptize you in water but He (meaning Jesus) will baptize you in the Holy Spirit). These proclamations were made before Christ began his divine ministry. And yet, these words all came true. The notion of the Holy Spirit -- one of the divine trinity -- as a manifestation of the Word of God is critical here. And certainly this was felt by the Apostles and the latter day evangelists. Peter, once again, refers to the Holy Spirit, who guided David, who then foretold in the Old Testament, of the arrest and betrayal of Jesus.

In the book of Samuel, King David also proclaims that he spoke the words that were put into his mouth by the Spirit of God.

Inerrantists show that David did not spoke of what he thought were God's words or his interpretations there of. David is categorical in his choice of words.

Peter also, explaining the origins of the Love of God to the early Christians, claimed that writers, teachers and doctrinaires had to accept humility compared to the kind of message that God had called them on to convey. This was paramount. He gave examples of men in the Old Testament who did not possess the scholarship or the divinity needed to create the prophecies of the Messiah. They were guided by the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit acted as an instrument of God in the times after Christ's resurrection. The writings of the Holy Spirit inspired man to continue to the path to Christianity. Peter referred to it as the Holy Spirit speaking through one so humble as himself -- despite, Christ's proposition to build his Church using Peter as the foundation. Peter indicated that whatever came out of his mouth was beyond his own ken, but he offered himself up as a mere vessel for God's Word.

This marks an important departure from what those who do not agree with inerrancy would have one believe. And Peter presciently enough seem to have grasped that centuries later, many who believed would be so bold as to indicate that the biblical verses were colored by the biases and failings of man. Peter is so confident that he is merely espousing the will of God's Word that he unhesitatingly makes Paul his accomplice in this. He indicates that even what Paul writes to people through his epistles is the Word of God. He is (again presciently) aware that the words might be twisted and misunderstood). But he has no doubt that Paul's writings (more prolific that his own were) as well as his own are divinely inspired Scripture. Paul, writing in Corinthians sums up the closeness of the role of the Holy Spirit in the furtherance of God's Words. He indicates that what he preaches does not come from him. They are not his teachings, but directly the teaching of the Holy Spirit, which manifests itself in the form of words.

In recognizing Scriptures as the unadulterated Word of God, one must also consider biblical references of what Jesus, his apostles, prognosticators and epistle-writers thought of scripture. Simply put, what do the primary characters of the New Testament think of the Old Testament? Several centuries after the incidents of the Old Testament, it would not be possible for Jesus and his followers to be able to recount these instances with such specific detail. Consider the issue of Creation of Man in the Garden of Eden. Jesus echoes this through Matthew. Jesus also confirms the place of Noah in the restarting of humankind.

He condemned the sinful behavior of Sodom and the restorative powers of the suffering of Lot. Jesus also recast the story of Jonah and the whale as an example of faith in the saving and healing power of God. This was then echoed by Peter and also Paul through their epistles. Time and time again they showed that each of the Old Testament writings were true. Jesus confirmed this. And the evangelists echoed this. And there is no direct evidence to prove that each of these characters were present when Jesus spoke these words. Nor is there evidence that they were privy to material written and put forth centuries and, perhaps, millennia ago.

Indeed, for as many instances in the Old Testament that proclaims the coming of the Messiah and the Son of God, there are perhaps more instances in the New Testament when Jesus confirmed what the Old Testament has proclaimed. He teaches his followers to study the ancient scriptures because they are the Word of God, and they testify to the Messianic prophecies. He also indicates that the current Laws were found precedents in the Old Testament. He spoke of the Laws of the Prophet as his fulfillment of these laws. The same was for the laws of Moses and the songs in the Psalms.

Consider also that even if Jesus had access to the scriptures of old -- one might aver that since he was anti-establishment, he could not avail of the scriptures; also, the Pharisees and the Judaic high priest did not make this available to commoners, certainly, as one coming from a family of carpenters -- he could not merely pay lip-service to them to prove a point. In Christ's human life, he lived out the prophecies of the Old Testament, much to his detriment and faced the penalties of one of the most painful instances of suffering and death. This should stand alone as proof.

Paul confirmed the search for the Promised Land as mentioned in Exodus which could only be accomplished through a path created through the Red Sea, while also confirming that striking the hot, desert sand with a rod did bring forth a spring of fresh water that helped slake the thirst of the Chosen People., He also took two similar instances from the Old and New Testament -- this regarding of the elders of the Church receiving compensation from the Church treasuries and confirmed that these belonged to the Scriptural teachings.

Another interesting aspect of the inerrancy of the Bible is how the thesis of one person in how he or she interpret divine edicts and spread the message to Christians has never been challenged by another in his writings. In the evolutionary process of scientific discovery, one finds that scientists who do not agree with each other, often criticize each other, or, at least, build upon the work of others. Science is always evolving and changing, but Scriptures do not. This is another case of inerrancy.

Even those who argue with each other do not challenge each others writings. There are scores of instances where one group confirms the words of others. We have seen this well proved in the examples in several of the above paragraphs. One example is classic (there are probably several others; mentioning them all would be beyond the scope of this essay): Paul openly rebukes Peter in Chapter 2 of his letters to the Galatians. But Peter never challenges any of Paul's writings; on the contrary, he averred that Paul's writings could be considered as authoritative and inspired by the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps, the most powerful of Christ's proclamations that affirm Biblical inerrancy come from his proclamation about the law (reference already provided above, vis-a-vis Matthew 5:17-18) of God. He said that the all the laws as given by God would have to be fulfilled before eternity could set it. And these laws were as handed down to the people through Moses and the other Biblical patriarchs.