I KISSED INERRANCY GOODBYE. After 36 years of believing Biblical inerrancy I finally rejected inerrancy last week. The Bible is more rich and beautiful now. I didn't really know how much stress the presupposition of inerrancy was putting on me (and the text) till I let it go. I loved the Bible before but I truly love it more now. I can now let the Biblical authors argue with themselves and let contradictory witnesses be just that... they remember differently and/or they believe a little differently, a scribe screwed up, or political influence changed the wording/beliefs, etc... I can finally let the prophets hold to their positions without forcing my presuppositions upon them. The Bible is an argument with itself. I want to add that I love apologetics. I turn to _Got Questions Ministries_ for many answers to my questions. I've also listened to every James White debate I can find and I follow David Wood and his ministry. I love to listen to Jeff Durbin, Doug Wilson, Todd Friel, and Ray Comfort. One of my favorite modern day preachers is Paul Washer. I'm not some charismatic mystic Christian. I didn't drop inerrancy lightly. I want to know what is TRUE and, like James White says, I want to be CONSISTENT with the text. Probably everyone I follow and highly respect would disagree with my rejection of inerrancy. Christians do not hold to the same hermeneutical principals when they judge other other religious works (Quran, Book of Mormon, etc.) as they do their own scripture. I know James White tries really hard to but at the end of the day there truly are problem-verses in the Bible. The Bible is littered with contradictions and the Christian, in the name of harmonizing scripture, is forced to jump through all kinds of hoops to explain them away. Some just cannot be explained away so they are simply filed away as "we'll never know this side of Heaven" and ignored. I discovered that I had _cognitive dissonance_ with the Bible. I held to Truth statements that contradicted each other. I viewed everything Biblical authors claimed as truth from God when they actually disagreed with each other, sometimes being completely opposite. The presupposition of inerrancy that I blindly applied to the text forced me to hold conflicting views and beliefs. Lost in this reality I found a book _"The Human Faces of God"_ by Christian author and scholar Thom Stark. He came to the same conclusion and makes a very good argument against inerrancy and proposes that we should simply let the Bible speak for itself with grammatical/historical understanding in mind. Every Christian who takes the Bible seriously and tries to be consistent should wrestle with this. I bet if you were honest with the text you too would kiss inerrancy goodbye.
I was saved in a very personal, meaningful way by Jesus Christ about 4 years ago. I hadn't gotten into theology by that point, but was consistently searching for meaning, truth, God, etc. for most of my life prior to that. I searched for God through meditation, new age, buddhism, looking inward, etc., but it wasn't until I came to the end of myself, fell to my knees and cried out in surrender to Jesus Christ, that I got an answer. It changed my life and quite literally saved my life. Since then, I've been pretty obsessively thinking about scripture, following many popular theologians, apologetics, etc., and I'm already getting to that point you've gotten to. Can the Bible really be inerrant, or can I just not understand? Is this part of the point? It's gotten a bit discouraging, the more I try to think about it. Even when I pray for clarity, I can't get around all the different denominations, interpretations, doctrines, contradictions. If you read the Bible like any other story is meant to be read, it ultimately points you towards a deeper and more profound truth that is more important than the validity of 100% of the claims that got you there. Or maybe the fact that it still endures despite differing interpretations, is a testament that God will always triumph over the Devil's attempts to distort the truth. I guess my question is, has your faith suffered at all because you gave up inerrancy? Do you still feel a personal relationship with our Savior Jesus Christ? Sincerely asking, a conflicted Christian brother. Thanks in advance.
@@mattr.1887 I appreciate your kind words. I guess I should update you. I left Christianity a couple weeks before Christmas 2022. I guess I won't be a pastor someday. lol. It was one of the hardest decisions I ever made because I had to admit I was wrong about Christianity. I was a diehard believer as well and I didn't go down without a fight. My faith could not survive the onslaught of evidence against fundamental Christianity. Luckily my doubts caused my wife to leave the faith three weeks before I did. I'll be honest, that was a rough three weeks because I thought I was going to be unequally yoked. Anyways, my wife and I have started a new chapter of our lives discovering ourselves apart from lifelong religion. It's both exciting and scary at the same time. I'm still deconstructing aspects of the faith each and every day. Our 8 children are taking it a little rough but we're talking it through with them. Luckily the older ones like Fortnite more than youth group. lol I would like to add that I'm still learning and researching origins of the Bible. I'm still going through scholarly books on the subject. I now have secular Biblical scholars on my bookshelf like Richard Elliot Friedman, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Bart Ehrman, and Dennis R. MacDonald to name a few. I even plan to read through my new NRSVue Bible and mark out the JEDP sources within the Pentateuch and highlight the "evil" verses for reference when talking with my believing family. Thanks again for your kind words.
@@spencer1854 Hi Spencer. I have been a Christian for over 40 years, and I KNOW in God as clearly as I can touch the nose on my face. I also know that the Bible is NOT inerrant. Don't be fooled by narrow minded fundamentalists who ignore the brain that God gave them and insist that you must believe in an inerrant Bible to be a Christian. Believe in GOD first and foremost and accept the Bible for what it is - and what it is not. You CAN believe it is the Word of God, but if you study carefully and logically at how it came to be, you are more than justified in believing (as MANY TRUE CHRISTIAN'S DO) that it is NOT entirely the words of God.
Here's a question you never thought of before: If an Arminian and a Calvinist both equally ascribe to full biblical inerrancy, exactly how does that commonality help them resolve their interpretive differences? Or maybe full biblical inerrancy's purpose is something other than assisting the believer in arriving at the correct interpretation?
Ok, so the bible is inerrant, though I am not agreeing or disagreeing. The problem comes in when it comes to interpretation of what the scriptures mean, as every church and preacher teaches so many different and contrasting doctrines from one another based upon their own interpretation of the scriptures. The fact is that the scriptures are authoritative, but only if you understand what they say from the original intent. Anything else is corruption. Therefore almost all preachers and churches teach falsehoods because they do not interpret the scriptures properly. Thus, when they say the scriptures are inerrant, they are giving themselves credibility where credibility is not deserved.
@@josephmungai1799 If correct interpretation was not an intended benefit of the inerrancy of the originals, what benefit did God intend with the inerrancy of the originals?
But is every book and chapter of The Bible God’s word? There appear to be some historical inconsistencies. Imperfect man determined which to include in The Bible. What were the Psalmist referencing when he said “The Word of God is Perfect”? The New Testament at that point was never written and the books were not chosen.
No, all words are not God´s words... this is where inerrancy brings us false claims. The bible is written by men! there CAN be inspiration from God to write them or some of them, but inspiration is NOT inerrancy. If I quote you and I am inerrant, there won´t be even ONE letter wrong. But if you INSPIRE me, then i can get some ideas from you, while I do not quote or do things 100% exactly as you would.
The doctrine claiming that the Bible is the perfect, complete and inerrant word of God is extra-biblical. By what authority is the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy declared?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33
@@bernardjackson6594 The scripture being referred to in this passage was the Old Testament, not of any New Testament writings, many of which weren’t even written when that verse was written.
@@bernardjackson6594 Please define _inspiration_ or _God-breathed._ Does it mean the Bible is 100% true in everything it claims? Does it mean God dictated every word? Does man have freewill? Did the Biblical authors give up their freewill to write the perfect word? Maybe God is a Calvinist God... Did God allow errors, contradictions, and confusion into the text? Did God perfectly preserve the Bible? Inerrancy is an assumption. It is presupposed onto the text. It is extra-Biblical. (Even the canon is extra-Biblical.) You have to presuppose inerrancy to even have the Bible support inerrancy until the Bible doesn't support inerrancy when you reach an error or contradiction. Inerrancy is obtained by circular reasoning and causes cognitive dissonance. The Bible, in many places, argues with itself and has competing truth claims.
It’s amazing that so many Christians think that the God they trust and worship some how lost the very word He gave us? The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore it is trustworthy, authoritative, and without error. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If any Christian thinks otherwise then you should ask yourself, are you truly a born again Christian?
I believe that Scripture as it was originally written is innerant. The problem I have is that when people read a given passage they come to drastically different interpretations all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Here's an example. The gospels mention that if a divorced person remarries they are committing adultery. But then there are clear reasons for divorce being permitted. But there are no specific verses allowing remarriage in those cases. So there is serious division within the churches over remarriage under any conditions! They claim it's a matter of salvation.
So my process is challenging that know certain issues of “translation” are just off (ie “eternity”, “hell” as Gehenna and not current teaching, and other terms either inaccurately translated or the term didn’t change with the times. The assumption that “if” inerrant “then” holds true for all times, people’s and situations. There are many things Paul wrote about that we assume we get but probably not because we assume “direct” change-over from one culture to another…simply not true. Having said that, is the Bible Gods Word for “life and godliness”…? Yes I believe it is, just not the way most Protestant, evangelicals think it is. For clarity, I’m not wanting to begin an argument, just collaborating with other ideas. Thx for your video and time invested.
I hope i understand you correctly (sorry my main language is not English!). If the bible WAS inerrant - it would be true for ALL TIMEs, ALL PEOPLE´s and ALL SITUATIONs (all context). - This is already problematic from several points. Jesus changes the laws and ideas of the Old testament. he says YOU HAVE HEARD - BUT I TELL YOU, and now the interpretation is new. *** In such a case, the "inerrant" text was ONLY FOR A CERTAIN TIME and PEOPLE (context). And Jesus changes it for a NEW TIME and NEW PEOPLE (a new context). Even the fundamentalists say that the Old Testament is the old law, and we follow the new one. Secondly, if inerrancy was true, there would NOT be errors in the bible - I am sorry to all who hope the opposite but there are. it does not help to try to minimize it by saying, well some of the errors are MINOR (which they are), but the WORD - INERRANT means there a 0 ERRORS, NONE! As you claim, we have translated "the kingdom of death/grave" to say "hell" for example in the King James version, which renders a FALSE - ERRATIC - outcome. * those suggesting inerrancy have problems with admitting that text and communication is never 100%. if I write to you, I saw a green car, it was beautiful! What do you think I saw, can you describe it? It might have been a green 4 wheel sports car, or it might have been a small toy car, or it might have been only a 3d model on a computer... and further was the whole car green, or did it only have green stripes? Where the tyres green? Was the car an old car from 1903 without roof? If I now claim that information (the green car) is inerrant... how will YOU know what I meant? here the fundamentalist add in the spirit, and then wonder why people STILL get different conclusions. Add to this, cultural ideas, men should not have long hair! (and as with the green car) what is long hair... how long? 10 cm, 15? 20? 25? the Jews who followed this had quite long hair rolled up! Or if this isn´t inerrant, then could it just be a text written by men in a certain culture? And nothing we HAVE TO follow? - Let me just add this thought: God, the biggest being in/and outside of the universe, the most intelligent being, the LOVE in the universe, creates a 80 billion lightyear big universe, creates/designs hair that grow on men and women, and is concerned with the length of the hair on men. - I REST MY CASE, MAYBE GOD HAS BIGGER ISSUES TO DEAL WITH!
In 2 Kings 13:1 in the 23rd year of Joash's reign over Judah, Jehoahaz begins his reign over Israel for 17 years. 17 + 23 is 40; but in 2 Kings 13:9-10 Jehoahaz dies and his son reigns over Israel in the 37th year of Joash''s reign, which is only 14 years, not 17. Explain.
I rejected inerrancy last week. I couldn't take it anymore. The Bible is what it is. It doesn't claim to have all the answers or claim to be perfect. It was written by men and canonized by men. The Bible disagrees with itself in many places. I actually love the Bible more now that I stopped forcing my presuppositions onto the text.
Inerrancy is a hypothesis (by fundamentalist Christians)... just as you show here, there is no room for inerrancy. The numbers (information) do NOT match up to inerrancy, therefore the whole hypothesis is wrong. in a normal Christian modern belief, there can be errors, because the bible was written by men. When MEN write text (information) one should EXPECT to find some errant data, as we remember incorrectly details, and so on. the sad thing is that a part of Christianity thinks that if you are not fundamentalist and believe inerrancy, then you are not a Christian. But people like Luther used the phrase "word of God" to point out that in the texts, there is a message from God. As if he believed as a fundamentalist "inerrancy" he would NOT have suggested that some books would be taken away from the current bible.
Maybe the fact that the Bible has some errors, yet still points us to God despite the devils attempt to lead us astray in some way, actually points to another deeper truth?
@@mattr.1887 I dunno, maybe it further emphasizes what Jesus did on the cross, basically that good always triumphs over evil. I've got my own ideas of why God would allow man to have conflicting interpretations of scripture, to dialogue about it for two thousand years, but it's too much to type out in a comment. I just know God is real, and I know He has a way of making a good thing out of what seems like a bad thing. Seems to be something about His nature.
The errors are proof that the hypothesis of inerrancy is wrong. It is then a totally different question, if some texts have a deeper meaning (like a allegorical interpretation, that Origen had). Inspired and inerrancy are 2 totally different things. If I am inerrant to quote you - THERE CANNOT BE EVEN ONE LETTER WRONG in my quotation. But if I am inspired by you, you did or said something that makes me want to do something SIMILAR to your ideas. It is totally possible that God inspired something in the bible. it is also totally possible that there is a deeper meaning. There is NO possibility for inerrancy in the bible, as it contains errors. So let us not fool ourselves.
Maybe we should base our beliefs in The Holy Spirit, the one thing in this world that The Bible claims to have come directly for us from the realm of God.
Well, the Bible can't even tell you whether the disciples met Jesus in Galilee or in Jerusalem after his resurrection. 💁♂ The Bible tells you there was a census by Caesar Augustus, when in reality, there was never a census done by the Roman Empire. 💁♂
You’re trouble is u pick the wrong examples it has errors and contradictions these r minors and as far as I’m aware the bible isn’t like the Muslims claim for the Quran,the bible can b relied upon in matters of faith and practice For example Ure using psalm 12:6 as an example of inerrancy but it’s about gods promises to protect his people from the evil around them
The hypothesis of inerrancy is wrong - the word means NO ERRORS! NO = NOT ONE! When in reality there are errors, it does NOT matter if they are big or small (they are both, mostly small), but that in itself says clearly - IT IS NOT INERRANT!
The only perfect word of God is the ones that come from his mouth. And we only have clues in my opinion. The Bible has a lot of clues, but we need the Holy Spirit for wisdom. I think the church has used it’s authority to determine what the word of God is. Maybe they did it in good faith, but to claim complete inerrancy is intellectually dishonest.
Psalms 12:6 is speaking about the Lord's words, and to loosely attribute any writings automatically to God's word is circular reasoning, and quite foolish, in terms of methodology
You didn’t answer from a biblical perspective. You answered from a philosophical perspective. There is no such thing as a “biblical” perspective. You bring plenty of unconscious or unspoken philosophical assumptions of our proper relationship to scripture. Step 1 is assuming the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God in order to prove it’s the word of God. That’s a logical contradiction and self-defeating I don’t even know where to begin. Jeremiah 1:2 does not even remotely claim the something about scripture. It says Yahweh spoke a word to Jeremiah. This video is dark. Really dark
Exactly! or if we say it like this, it can´t be found in the oldest copies - so, either the "inerrant" text had them, and then left them out, to have them later again, or the "inerrant" text didn´t have it, and added it later. The point is - inerrancy is a false hypothesis!
Totally false! The story is present in the majority text (+ 5000 manuscripts) and only 9 do not mention it or mention it partially, of which only 6 date from before the 4th century! Moreover, Jerome of Stridon (IV th century) says he relies on the first manuscripts and mentions it in the Vulgate! Augustine of Hippo (IVth-Vth century) comments the text ! So there are obviously primitive manuscripts that contain the pericope... Moreover, those who claim the opposite say that a scribe would have added it... But that doesn't make sense! Why would a monk add the story of an adulteress?? Logic dictates otherwise!
Speaking of the Bible as if it's always been the same is foolish. The church picked books for the bible. It's not like this thing was prepackaged from heaven. Translational work between testaments shows so many issues. A simple example is to contrast the Psalm you mentioned about the law of the lord being perfect contrasted with about everything Paul says about the law. It only fits if you beat it in place with a hammer.
The word of God does not mean words in a book. God speaks to each person directly through their hearts. That is where the pure words are. Thoughts are made with words! The New Testament is proof that the Old Testament is very inaccurate. There are so many abhorrent acts in the Old testament. There was a time when it was believed that the Pope was inerrant. We all know that that is not true. They same can be said about any book written by men. Man does not need a Pope or a book. It is a one to one communicate. Your conscience is proof of that. Here is an example of something in the Bible that is not from God: Psalm 137: Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Do you believe that the above statement is the word of God?
