Tweet
Inerrancy Discussed
The teaching on the principle of Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Additionally, Sola scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today. It was sometime later, that inerrancy was loosely appended to the otherwise flawless position.
For the majority of Christians, the argument of inerrancy sounds quite convincing because many evangelicals lack knowledgeable historicity about the development of Scripture. They merely accept "inerrancy" because this is what they have been taught, and do not research to confirm details otherwise. A larger part of some tenets of Christianity is merely the "parroting" of what is taught, without any tangible research or knowledge to substantiate it. Clergy with 30-60 years in the pulpit will sometimes hold tenaciously to the traditions of the church based on what they have read or adapted to, maybe never to realize it was not cohesive with fact.
The insurmountable problem facing the inerrant position is the fact that scripture itself does not testify to its own exclusive authority. Many of the Scripture Fundamentalists quote, claiming that Jesus affirmed inerrancy, such as Mt. 4:4, 7, 10; Mt. 5:17-18, Jn. 10:35; Mt. 15:3, 5; Mt. 12:40; 24:37-38; Mt. 19:4-5; Jn. 3:12; Mt. 22:39; Jn. 17:17 do not once claim inerrancy, but divine authority, infallibility, supremacy, and reliability which are true. Combine that with Scripture’s own lack of a table of contents (canon) and you have an inability for those of that position to extra ecclesiam know what is Scripture, in precise limits. And, thirdly, once a Christian claims a certain set of texts as scripture, he still knows of his fallibility; thus, how can the fallible individual claim to know his Canon of Scripture is indeed Scripture?
In addition to this position, there are religious bodies that assert that it is the authority within their ecclesiastical institutions and traditions which establish what books are canonical in the Bible. In various forms, these groups include but are not limited to Roman Catholicism, various forms of Eastern Orthodoxy, and other unorthodox groups like the Mormons and Seven Day Adventists. In essence, they claim their 'true Church’ is the infallible source that answers the question of the canon. That without the sole magisterial authority of their organization, they argue that there will be theological disorder not only concerning the Canon but other theological areas as well.
One position esteems the Scripture free from any possible scribal error, and the other, that only their religious organization can properly decipher what is true. Both promote an implacable prostilization of error that has a history going back to the first and second century when the Manichaean’s and Ebonites promoted their own type of Gnostic heresies, which by today's standards seem divisive.
The Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church met in 25 sessions which made up the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. One of the over-arching topics was to define that the church's interpretation of the Bible was final. Any Christian who substituted his or her own interpretation was a heretic. Also, the Bible and Church Tradition (not mere customs but the ancient tradition that made up part of the Catholic faith) were equally authoritative. Few realize this same position in which Martin Luther protested, is now consistent within Protestant epistemology, lauding the ecclesiastical interpretation to be final, and traditions to be of equal authority.
My preamble is as follows, the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God, sufficient as a guide for life, but not wholly grammatically, factually or technically inerrant due to mankind's fallible involvement. To take any other stance is simply "Pirates Eye" apologetics, meaning to look at things with one good eye while the other is intellectually disabled. One cannot be an objective student of the Scriptures and come away with the view that it is inerrant. It simply is not possible. A little research reveals that the internet is rife with efforts to discount the evidence of textual problems, but the arguments in defense are often more flawed than the errors themselves.
Personally, I was raised with a closed-minded view of theology and biblical history. My understanding was limited to what mainstream teachers taught and I simply accepted their word for many years without asking questions. However, as Paul admonished the church to emulate the Bereans (Acts 17:11), we are to study to see if what is spoken is true. It takes a degree of boldness not to take every teacher's word as fact, even if backed by years of tradition. Conversely, in as much as Protestants may judge Catholics regarding their beliefs steeped in rigorous tradition, one can find similar fallacies in the Protestant church regarding long-held myths that fail simple tests of authenticity.
A student can easily become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions about translation. The claim of scriptural inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error but that their modern translations of the Bible are the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is immediately undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors.
Before I proceed any further, I will make it clear. One should not become consumed with the letter but with the meaning. One can express a thought in any number of ways, but the meaning does not change. I would like to propose, as many have through the centuries, that the Word of God is infallible in meaning and spirit as authored by the Holy Spirit. But where the hand of man moves, it will always be daunted with inaccuracy. To again state this differently as to reflect on the same thought, human kinds ability to organize and relay details is always subject to a margin of error, but the essence of God's truth revealed is pure and perfect. God does preserve his Truth whereas his precepts are unchanging.
To point out a few examples, there is the matter of translations from one language to another or transliteration. This aspect in the study of scriptural authenticity has been the center of heated controversy from the time of the early church. Below are a couple of examples.
The list below is a number of varied collaborations that are commonly overlooked or excused when clearly the storyline simply does not agree. Since there were some 30-35 years before some aspects of the New Testament scripture were actually written, oral accounts had already suffered some degradation, aiding in the discrepancies of accounts.
These are only examples to show that the Canon of Scripture is not a composite of contextual or grammar perfection as held in a concept known as the inerrancy of the autographa. Stepping outside the box of tradition and mainstream thinking presents a challenge to those who want to play it safe. There are a great number of website authors and scholars who strain in an attempt to explain away some of these conflicting passages. Some arguments may even have merit, however several of the above-listed conflicts are irrefutable and no manner of denial will make them disappear. Many Fundamentalists and Conservatives cannot face the stark reality that they could be subjugated to a false premise, but rather reject the possibilities and instead seek ecclesiastical cover behind the traditional teachings of the institution.
The Bible itself nowhere claims that it is inerrant (free of factual errors of any sort). One of the few verses in the Bible that even speaks about the character of Scripture defines its inspiration in these terms: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NRSV). Calling Scripture “useful” is considerably different than calling it inerrant. The fact of the matter is that no early Church council ever debated the issue of inerrancy, let alone pronounced favor of it. No ecumenical creed even addresses the topic—not the Apostle’s Creed, not the Nicene Creed, nor the Athanasian Creed.
Victor Tununensis, a sixth-century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Constantinople (506 AD), he “censored and corrected” the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth-century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries. These “corrections” were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ.
Sir Higgins who wrote "History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge," says: “It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland’s ‘Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury’, is the following passage: ‘Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam.”
In other words, the Christian scriptures were modified in certain places in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and even the writings of the early church fathers were “corrected” so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say, “The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: ‘Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels’.”
I might interject a question here, if the apostles were asleep, who heard the prayer and saw the angel in order to write it down? In Luke 22:41-45 we are told Jesus "withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." About a stone’s cast is fifty or sixty feet, between 15 to 18 meters. Even if the disciples were drifting in and out to accurately hear prayers at that distance, who would sleep if an angel was seen manifested? There is no quantifiable answer to this question, even though desperate speculations are made.
People today generally believe that there is only one Bible, and one version of any given verse of the Bible. This is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NAB, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one “ancient manuscript” but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209, and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent “ancient manuscripts.” There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the “Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript,” Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of “mount Gerizim,” while in the “Hebrew manuscript” the exact same verse speaks of “mount Ebal.” From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some “ancient manuscripts” mentions “Synagogues of Judea,” others mention “Synagogues of Galilee.” This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.
More recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard to questionable content. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the “woman taken in adultery” in John 8:1-11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus’ resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is included to confirm the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12).
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent conservative Biblical Scholars of the nineteenth century. He was also the staunchest, most adamant defender of the “Trinity” that history has known. One of his greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical Manuscript know, the “Codex Sinaiticus,” from Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Mount Sinai. From this came the devastating discovery that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were “injected” by the church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of “the resurrection of Jesus,” do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus, and Bobiensis. Originally, the “Gospel of Mark” contained no mention of the “resurrection of Jesus” (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church received divine “inspiration” to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel. Since Mark is the oldest Gospel and most likely the undefined "Q" document used as the model for the other three gospels, this was a substantial problem.
As it happens, Friedrich Tischendorf also discovered that the “Gospel of John” has been heavily reworked by the Church over the ages. For example, It was found that the verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery) are not to be found in the most ancient copies of the Bible available to Christianity today, specifically, codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. It was also found that John 21:25 was a later insertion and that a verse from the gospel of Luke (24:12) that speaks of Peter discovering an empty tomb of Jesus is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts. Much of the discoveries of Dr. Tischendorf regarding the continuous and unrelenting tampering with the text of the Bible over the ages has been verified by twentieth-century science. For example, a study of the Codex Sinaiticus under ultraviolet light has revealed that the “Gospel of John” originally ended at verse 21:24 and was followed by a small tailpiece and then the words “The Gospel according to John.” However, sometime later, a completely different “inspired” individual took pen in hand, erased the text following verse 24, and then added in the “inspired” text of John 21:25 which we find in our Bibles today.
None of the Reformed confessions that Calvinism adheres to asserts Scripture’s inerrancy, but rather its “sufficiency.” The great theologians of the Church, including Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin, had the highest regard for Scripture’s inspiration, authority, and truthfulness, and at times they used words like “infallible” and even “unerring” when affirming its truth claims. But they also acknowledged factual discrepancies and other problems in the Bible and recognized the cultural limitations of its human authors. The current insistence on inerrancy in some quarters of Protestant evangelicalism has its origins in the late 19th- and early 20th-century, an overreaction to modernism.
Indeed, the insistence on inerrancy represents a capitulation to the modernist framing of the debate, born of an all-or-nothing mentality in which the Bible is either completely accurate in every factual detail or completely untrustworthy in all of its theological claims to truth. This is a false dichotomy that many thoughtful Christians refuse to accept, and rightly so. In its report on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” the Christian Reformed Church makes clear that it does not support the notion of inerrancy (Acts of Synod 1972).
When today’s Christians turn to the historical narratives in the Bible, they see ancient authors who wrote according to the methods and cultures of their own day. By those standards, which involved the use of a variety of sometimes conflicting oral and written traditions. Nevertheless, they were very good historians. However, they made occasional errors of fact in areas like geography, chronology, and political history. To acknowledge this is not to demean Scripture but to accept it as it is. The errors don’t threaten the foundations of the faith or the assurance of salvation. And they needn’t undermine our confidence in the truth of the Bible. What they do is show that an infallible God-inspired fallible human beings to reveal his will in a manner able to lead people to faith and salvation.
Once again, despite these presented conflicts and any other possible contained errors, we are not to become consumed with the intellectual detail of how it is written, but rather what is written. It is evident that we are all in a fallen condition prone to error, never to realize perfection until we leave this physical realm and enter into the light of God's presence. It is true that we can live a lifetime in a vacuum of erroneous thinking and not be enlightened to realize it, even a devote Christian. Although in time, the Word of God can illuminate a confused or deceived mind, at the same time it can be bound by traditions taught by man superfluous of genuine truth. However, despite our error-prone and sometimes mislead position, anyone who has been touched by the hand of God cannot deny that the Scripture is indeed profound, a torch of light, THE inspired book of the ages.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12 KJV).
B.C. Goodpasture, the distinguished editor of the Gospel Advocate for almost forty years (1939-1977), wrote: "The nature and contents of the Bible are such that the rank and file of its readers in all generations have recognized God as its author. Man would not have written such a book if he could; and could not, if he would. It moves on a superhuman plane in design, in nature, and in teaching. It caters not to worldly desire and ambition. It condemns much which men in the flesh highly prize, and commends much which they despise. Its thought are not the thoughts of men (1970, p. 54)."
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
For the majority of Christians, the argument of inerrancy sounds quite convincing because many evangelicals lack knowledgeable historicity about the development of Scripture. They merely accept "inerrancy" because this is what they have been taught, and do not research to confirm details otherwise. A larger part of some tenets of Christianity is merely the "parroting" of what is taught, without any tangible research or knowledge to substantiate it. Clergy with 30-60 years in the pulpit will sometimes hold tenaciously to the traditions of the church based on what they have read or adapted to, maybe never to realize it was not cohesive with fact.
The insurmountable problem facing the inerrant position is the fact that scripture itself does not testify to its own exclusive authority. Many of the Scripture Fundamentalists quote, claiming that Jesus affirmed inerrancy, such as Mt. 4:4, 7, 10; Mt. 5:17-18, Jn. 10:35; Mt. 15:3, 5; Mt. 12:40; 24:37-38; Mt. 19:4-5; Jn. 3:12; Mt. 22:39; Jn. 17:17 do not once claim inerrancy, but divine authority, infallibility, supremacy, and reliability which are true. Combine that with Scripture’s own lack of a table of contents (canon) and you have an inability for those of that position to extra ecclesiam know what is Scripture, in precise limits. And, thirdly, once a Christian claims a certain set of texts as scripture, he still knows of his fallibility; thus, how can the fallible individual claim to know his Canon of Scripture is indeed Scripture?
In addition to this position, there are religious bodies that assert that it is the authority within their ecclesiastical institutions and traditions which establish what books are canonical in the Bible. In various forms, these groups include but are not limited to Roman Catholicism, various forms of Eastern Orthodoxy, and other unorthodox groups like the Mormons and Seven Day Adventists. In essence, they claim their 'true Church’ is the infallible source that answers the question of the canon. That without the sole magisterial authority of their organization, they argue that there will be theological disorder not only concerning the Canon but other theological areas as well.
One position esteems the Scripture free from any possible scribal error, and the other, that only their religious organization can properly decipher what is true. Both promote an implacable prostilization of error that has a history going back to the first and second century when the Manichaean’s and Ebonites promoted their own type of Gnostic heresies, which by today's standards seem divisive.
The Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church met in 25 sessions which made up the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. One of the over-arching topics was to define that the church's interpretation of the Bible was final. Any Christian who substituted his or her own interpretation was a heretic. Also, the Bible and Church Tradition (not mere customs but the ancient tradition that made up part of the Catholic faith) were equally authoritative. Few realize this same position in which Martin Luther protested, is now consistent within Protestant epistemology, lauding the ecclesiastical interpretation to be final, and traditions to be of equal authority.
My preamble is as follows, the Scriptures are indeed inspired by God, sufficient as a guide for life, but not wholly grammatically, factually or technically inerrant due to mankind's fallible involvement. To take any other stance is simply "Pirates Eye" apologetics, meaning to look at things with one good eye while the other is intellectually disabled. One cannot be an objective student of the Scriptures and come away with the view that it is inerrant. It simply is not possible. A little research reveals that the internet is rife with efforts to discount the evidence of textual problems, but the arguments in defense are often more flawed than the errors themselves.
Personally, I was raised with a closed-minded view of theology and biblical history. My understanding was limited to what mainstream teachers taught and I simply accepted their word for many years without asking questions. However, as Paul admonished the church to emulate the Bereans (Acts 17:11), we are to study to see if what is spoken is true. It takes a degree of boldness not to take every teacher's word as fact, even if backed by years of tradition. Conversely, in as much as Protestants may judge Catholics regarding their beliefs steeped in rigorous tradition, one can find similar fallacies in the Protestant church regarding long-held myths that fail simple tests of authenticity.
Man authored religion seduces while God's truth liberates.
A student can easily become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions about translation. The claim of scriptural inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error but that their modern translations of the Bible are the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is immediately undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors.
Before I proceed any further, I will make it clear. One should not become consumed with the letter but with the meaning. One can express a thought in any number of ways, but the meaning does not change. I would like to propose, as many have through the centuries, that the Word of God is infallible in meaning and spirit as authored by the Holy Spirit. But where the hand of man moves, it will always be daunted with inaccuracy. To again state this differently as to reflect on the same thought, human kinds ability to organize and relay details is always subject to a margin of error, but the essence of God's truth revealed is pure and perfect. God does preserve his Truth whereas his precepts are unchanging.
To point out a few examples, there is the matter of translations from one language to another or transliteration. This aspect in the study of scriptural authenticity has been the center of heated controversy from the time of the early church. Below are a couple of examples.
- The NIV translates Luke 17:21 to say "nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." In some out-of-context bible translations, the Greek word "entos" is translated to say "within". The NASB for one properly translates "in your midst". When used in conjunction with a plural noun, entos means "among" or "in the midst of." In Luke 17:21, entos is used with "you," and from the context, we can see that Jesus was speaking to a crowd of Pharisees, who had come to question Him about the kingdom of God (verse 20). "You," then, is plural. "The kingdom of God is among you" is the best translation. This one mistranslation has been proof doctrine for many Gnostic and New Age thinkers today, whereas it coincides with "The Gospel of Thomas" which is heretical Gnostic writing.
- The NIV translates Matthew 19:24 to say "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." This passage is also found in Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25. For two centuries it has been common teaching that there is a gate in Jerusalem called the eye of the needle through which a camel could not pass unless it stooped and first had all its baggage first removed. The Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning 'cable, rope', as some late New Testament manuscripts print. Since some rope was made of camel hair, this confusion of word usage is easier to understand. However, despite the actual word intended, the same meaning is translated to the hearer thus rendering the argument moot.
The list below is a number of varied collaborations that are commonly overlooked or excused when clearly the storyline simply does not agree. Since there were some 30-35 years before some aspects of the New Testament scripture were actually written, oral accounts had already suffered some degradation, aiding in the discrepancies of accounts.
- In the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus warns Peter that all three of his denials will take place before the cock crows once. The Gospel of Mark has a different account, it is written that he will deny Christ three times before the cock crows twice. Predictions: Matthew 26:31-35 / Mark 14:27-31 / Luke 22:34 / John 13:31-38 Peter's Denials: Matthew 26:69-75 / Mark 14:66-72 / Luke 22:54-62 / John 18:15-17,25-27. Since Mark is the first Gospel, is it right and the other three in error?
- Another conflict is about the story of Jarius' daughter and when she died. In Matthew 9:18, she had already died. In Mark 5:23, she was in the process of dying. It can't be both ways! The results will vary depending on what version you read. Newer translation like the ESV has corrected this.
- Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jesus overturns tables of the money changes and cleanses his Father's house right at the end of his ministry, and the leader decides to kill him. In the Gospel of John, chapter 2:13-19, Jesus does this act at the beginning of his ministry. Did Christ cleanse the temple more than once? Also, Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple. Conversely, Mark places the cursing before the temple was cleansed. It cannot be both, which is correct?
- In the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is to put to death on the day of Passover at 9 am. In John 19:14, this account has Jesus dying a day before the other gospels, the day of Preparation of Passover, just afternoon. This is a discrepancy that can't be reconciled.
- In the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus refuses to show signs and miracles as evidence of his authority and message preached. Even saying such is sacrilege, testing God. In the Gospel of John, Christ takes a different position and promotes signs and miracles as evidence.
- Another Old Testament error appears in 2 Samuel 24:13, God's wrath came as a multiple-choice, and it was proposed that 7 years famine was one choice of several. However, in 1 Chronicles 21:11-13, It was written like 3 years of punishment. Scholars still agree on this as an unresolved conflict.
These are only examples to show that the Canon of Scripture is not a composite of contextual or grammar perfection as held in a concept known as the inerrancy of the autographa. Stepping outside the box of tradition and mainstream thinking presents a challenge to those who want to play it safe. There are a great number of website authors and scholars who strain in an attempt to explain away some of these conflicting passages. Some arguments may even have merit, however several of the above-listed conflicts are irrefutable and no manner of denial will make them disappear. Many Fundamentalists and Conservatives cannot face the stark reality that they could be subjugated to a false premise, but rather reject the possibilities and instead seek ecclesiastical cover behind the traditional teachings of the institution.
The Bible itself nowhere claims that it is inerrant (free of factual errors of any sort). One of the few verses in the Bible that even speaks about the character of Scripture defines its inspiration in these terms: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NRSV). Calling Scripture “useful” is considerably different than calling it inerrant. The fact of the matter is that no early Church council ever debated the issue of inerrancy, let alone pronounced favor of it. No ecumenical creed even addresses the topic—not the Apostle’s Creed, not the Nicene Creed, nor the Athanasian Creed.
Victor Tununensis, a sixth-century African Bishop related in his Chronicle (566 AD) that when Messala was consul at Constantinople (506 AD), he “censored and corrected” the Gentile Gospels written by persons considered illiterate by the Emperor Anastasius. The implication was that they were altered to conform to sixth-century Christianity which differed from the Christianity of previous centuries. These “corrections” were by no means confined to the first centuries after Christ.
Sir Higgins who wrote "History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge," says: “It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland’s ‘Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury’, is the following passage: ‘Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam.”
In other words, the Christian scriptures were modified in certain places in order to conform to the doctrines of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and even the writings of the early church fathers were “corrected” so that the changes would not be discovered. Sir Higgins goes on to say, “The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: ‘Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels’.”
I might interject a question here, if the apostles were asleep, who heard the prayer and saw the angel in order to write it down? In Luke 22:41-45 we are told Jesus "withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." About a stone’s cast is fifty or sixty feet, between 15 to 18 meters. Even if the disciples were drifting in and out to accurately hear prayers at that distance, who would sleep if an angel was seen manifested? There is no quantifiable answer to this question, even though desperate speculations are made.
People today generally believe that there is only one Bible, and one version of any given verse of the Bible. This is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NAB, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one “ancient manuscript” but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209, and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent “ancient manuscripts.” There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the “Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript,” Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of “mount Gerizim,” while in the “Hebrew manuscript” the exact same verse speaks of “mount Ebal.” From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some “ancient manuscripts” mentions “Synagogues of Judea,” others mention “Synagogues of Galilee.” This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own.
More recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard to questionable content. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the “woman taken in adultery” in John 8:1-11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus’ resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is included to confirm the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12).
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf was one of the most eminent conservative Biblical Scholars of the nineteenth century. He was also the staunchest, most adamant defender of the “Trinity” that history has known. One of his greatest lifelong achievements was the discovery of the oldest known Biblical Manuscript know, the “Codex Sinaiticus,” from Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Mount Sinai. From this came the devastating discovery that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at verses 16:8 and not at verse 16:20 as it does today. In other words, the last 12 verses (Mark 16:9 through Mark 16:20) were “injected” by the church into the Bible sometime after the 4th century. Clement of Alexandria and Origen never quoted these verses. Later on, it was also discovered that the said 12 verses, wherein lies the account of “the resurrection of Jesus,” do not appear in codices Syriacus, Vaticanus, and Bobiensis. Originally, the “Gospel of Mark” contained no mention of the “resurrection of Jesus” (Mark 16:9-20). At least four hundred years (if not more) after the departure of Jesus, the Church received divine “inspiration” to add the story of the resurrection to the end of this Gospel. Since Mark is the oldest Gospel and most likely the undefined "Q" document used as the model for the other three gospels, this was a substantial problem.
As it happens, Friedrich Tischendorf also discovered that the “Gospel of John” has been heavily reworked by the Church over the ages. For example, It was found that the verses starting from John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery) are not to be found in the most ancient copies of the Bible available to Christianity today, specifically, codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. It was also found that John 21:25 was a later insertion and that a verse from the gospel of Luke (24:12) that speaks of Peter discovering an empty tomb of Jesus is not to be found in the ancient manuscripts. Much of the discoveries of Dr. Tischendorf regarding the continuous and unrelenting tampering with the text of the Bible over the ages has been verified by twentieth-century science. For example, a study of the Codex Sinaiticus under ultraviolet light has revealed that the “Gospel of John” originally ended at verse 21:24 and was followed by a small tailpiece and then the words “The Gospel according to John.” However, sometime later, a completely different “inspired” individual took pen in hand, erased the text following verse 24, and then added in the “inspired” text of John 21:25 which we find in our Bibles today.
None of the Reformed confessions that Calvinism adheres to asserts Scripture’s inerrancy, but rather its “sufficiency.” The great theologians of the Church, including Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin, had the highest regard for Scripture’s inspiration, authority, and truthfulness, and at times they used words like “infallible” and even “unerring” when affirming its truth claims. But they also acknowledged factual discrepancies and other problems in the Bible and recognized the cultural limitations of its human authors. The current insistence on inerrancy in some quarters of Protestant evangelicalism has its origins in the late 19th- and early 20th-century, an overreaction to modernism.
Indeed, the insistence on inerrancy represents a capitulation to the modernist framing of the debate, born of an all-or-nothing mentality in which the Bible is either completely accurate in every factual detail or completely untrustworthy in all of its theological claims to truth. This is a false dichotomy that many thoughtful Christians refuse to accept, and rightly so. In its report on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” the Christian Reformed Church makes clear that it does not support the notion of inerrancy (Acts of Synod 1972).
When today’s Christians turn to the historical narratives in the Bible, they see ancient authors who wrote according to the methods and cultures of their own day. By those standards, which involved the use of a variety of sometimes conflicting oral and written traditions. Nevertheless, they were very good historians. However, they made occasional errors of fact in areas like geography, chronology, and political history. To acknowledge this is not to demean Scripture but to accept it as it is. The errors don’t threaten the foundations of the faith or the assurance of salvation. And they needn’t undermine our confidence in the truth of the Bible. What they do is show that an infallible God-inspired fallible human beings to reveal his will in a manner able to lead people to faith and salvation.
Once again, despite these presented conflicts and any other possible contained errors, we are not to become consumed with the intellectual detail of how it is written, but rather what is written. It is evident that we are all in a fallen condition prone to error, never to realize perfection until we leave this physical realm and enter into the light of God's presence. It is true that we can live a lifetime in a vacuum of erroneous thinking and not be enlightened to realize it, even a devote Christian. Although in time, the Word of God can illuminate a confused or deceived mind, at the same time it can be bound by traditions taught by man superfluous of genuine truth. However, despite our error-prone and sometimes mislead position, anyone who has been touched by the hand of God cannot deny that the Scripture is indeed profound, a torch of light, THE inspired book of the ages.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12 KJV).
B.C. Goodpasture, the distinguished editor of the Gospel Advocate for almost forty years (1939-1977), wrote: "The nature and contents of the Bible are such that the rank and file of its readers in all generations have recognized God as its author. Man would not have written such a book if he could; and could not, if he would. It moves on a superhuman plane in design, in nature, and in teaching. It caters not to worldly desire and ambition. It condemns much which men in the flesh highly prize, and commends much which they despise. Its thought are not the thoughts of men (1970, p. 54)."
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Comment