Debunking the Myth of Inerrancy

One of the major controversies that has generated division within the Church of Christ has been that of the issue of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  For quite a long time, a good number of Christians, both lay and ordained, have subscribed to the belief and notion that the Bible as "the Word of God," is both inerrant and infallible.  This notion is based on the belief that since the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is no possibility of error either in what it says or what it teaches.  To admit to the slightest possibility of error, would result in either denying the divine inspiration of Scripture, or affirming the possibility that God could be mistaken.

Let us examine these two concepts. They are not exactly one and the same, though in mind of some believers, they are equated. 

1.  Inerrancy- The notion here is that the Bible is absolutely true in everything that it states, even in those areas that appear illogical to the human mind.  This would include the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish, and the sun stopping at Joshua's command.  Biblical literalists who subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, take the position of "The Bible says so, end of story."  There is no room in their mind for possible alternative explanations of those passages.  To even suggest another explanation of these, among other passages, is to amount to "unbelief" and to denial of the divine inspiration of Scripture.  In their thinking, nothing other than a literalist reading of the Bible can satisfy their notion of divine inspiration.  They will dismiss all other explanations as "liberal," "modernist," and even "creeping and subtle Satanic deception."  Their thinking is like that of a Baptist preacher that I heard on the radio some years ago saying "I believe the Bible from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover."  To them, divine inspiration excludes even the slightest degree of human error creeping into the text.

In recent years, some evangelical scholars have modified their position of inerrancy.  They have not abandoned the doctrine in its totality, but they have come to affirm that the Scriptures are inerrant only in the original autographs, but not in the manuscripts or the translations based on the manuscripts.  Because of the variations within the manuscripts, they allow for the possibility of human error within them.  They concede these possibilities when they compare manuscripts and translations, and see that they vary as to length, and also as to either containing or omitting what other manuscripts and translations have.  But they continue to affirm their belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs.

The major problem with this position is two-fold.  To begin with, the original autographs no longer exist, because they have deteriorated due to age and condition of the materials on which they were written.  None of us has ever seen or will see the original autographs.  Therefore, the affirmation that the concept of divine inspiration relates only to the original autographs, is a statement of blind faith. How can one affirm inerrancy for a document that they have never seen or will see?

The second aspect of this problem is that the manuscripts and the translations based on the manuscripts vary with each other relative to. Some are longer or shorter than others.  Some use the term "Lord" for God in the Old Testament, while others use the term "Yahweh" which is the name for God in the Hebrew language.   One translation has a shorter ending than other translations for the sixteenth chapter of Mark's Gospel account.  So which translation, then, most accurately reflects what the original autograph said?

2. Infallibility- The notion here is that the Bible is without error in what it intends to teach, regardless of whether it is historically and factually inerrant.  The emphasis here is not so much on historical accuracy or historical fact, but rather on the intention of God in giving us the Scripture. While this position, at some points, may allow room for the possibility of human error, its thrust is to affirm that in spite of human frailty and weakness, God cannot be mistaken in the intention and purpose of giving us the Bible.  This position, more so than that of inerrancy, speaks more to the concept of the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Please share with us how you would resolve this issue.  How in your mind, can we dismantle the doctrine of inerrancy, and yet sustain the doctrine of infallibility?  Can we do away with inerrancy and still believe that the Bible is our final court of appeal for establishing belief and practice?
Your contribution and input is very important and valuable.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona