Category: Inerrancy

Inerrancy: Literal

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve lately started a series on inerrancy. In going with this look, I would like to suggest some ways in which we can interpret a text. To begin with, I am going to start with the most obvious one for most of us, and the one we probably use the most, the literal approach.

Have you ever wondered what it would mean if we took the Bible literally as much as possible? Many of us say we would. Well there was someone named Finis Jennings Dake who did just that. In fact, if you get his Study Bible, you will find that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each have a body, a soul, and a spirit. (Ever wonder where Hinn got it from?)

Something’s wrong there.

Often times, we will see a poll being said about how many Americans believe the Bible should be interpreted literally. If I got that question asked to me by a pollster, I would have to say “Depends.” Why? There are definitely times where you should take it literally, and there are definitely times you should not. For example, on the latter, if we all took Jesus’s commands about lust literally, we would all be blind right now.

Literal readings can work well with events like narratives, but even narratives themselves can be filled with other parts that should not be taken literally, such as hyperbole happening or the writer using metaphors to describe something or even possibly apocalyptic language. How do you know which is which? Well there is no ardent rule that we have set down that can determine the truth each and every time, so the best method overall is to try to study the culture and language.

If that is not the easiest route, it is good to also consult with those who do, though keep in mind with all authorities you contact, even myself, that we are not the Holy Spirit and we are all fallible people who can error in our interpretations of the text. As one who believes in inerrancy, I do believe the Scripture cannot error, but our interpretations of Scripture certainly can.

When reading the text literally, do always be on the look out for figures of speech and events of that sort. I believe the events of Joshua and Judges for instance, particularly since I just finished Joshua and I’m going through Judges now in my own reading, are by and large literal truth, but I do believe that there is rich symbolism in some parts. I would say the majority however is literal.

Also, because an event is literal, that does not mean it does not have a deeper meaning. Consider in the gospels when Jesus curses the fig tree. I believe that that literally happened. I believe that that is also an apocalyptic warning where Jesus is comparing the fig tree to Israel and how Israel had all the appearance of having fruit, but had no fruit, and judgment was to come. Remember, it is not always an either/or game.

The bottom line again at this point is to study and study more. Always be learning and always be open to the fact that you could be wrong. That rule goes for myself also.

We shall continue next time.

How Do We Interpret?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. It seems there’s a lot of interest in inerrancy and thus, I invite readers to also go to our Facebook page where you can follow along and see what happens on the blog as it happens. I would hope that it also becomes a good place for discussion and debate.

Regularly, from the non-Christian community, we can be asked how it is we are to interpret texts. It seems like the Bible is all literal or all figurative. This certainly isn’t the case. My reply to such a question is the same each time. “How are we to interpret Plato? Aristotle? Chaucer? Shakespeare?” Think of any great writer. How do we interpret them?

Well you have to do the study. If a term seems hard to understand, you look it up or you consider if the culture has changed and you need to study the culture. Yet somehow, so many people think the Bible is exempt from this. It seems we often have a view of the Bible that somehow, no study is required to understand it.

This is not a good view to have. The Bible is divine in origin, but it is also through human hands. I am told that Mark does not have good Greek, but Luke certainly does. All the writers wrote on their own level. We know some texts are Pauline because of the style with which he wrote.

In the Old Testament, I am also told that Isaiah has simply elegant Hebrew. I am sure there are writers whose Hebrew was hardly stellar. However, each were inspired by God to write, although I do not believe each was dictated what they were to write.

While some may prefer to take the literal right off the bat every time, this is not necessarily the right way. Can we compare with other ancient writings and see how they were written? Why should we expect that Moses wrote in a style amenable to 21st century man? Moses would have written in a way understandable by his contemporaries.

Believe it or not, the Bible was not written just for our day, age, and place. One wonders what it could mean if people alive 500 years from now could wonder why God didn’t speak directly the way that they speak. We could say that that’s ridiculous, but modern man, especially in America at least, seems to do that.

So unfortunately for most of us who want the answers handed to us and wonder why God didn’t just spell everything out, we have to study the text. Not just the text, but we also have to study the culture and the time that the text was written in. If we do not learn the languages, we need to rely on those who do, although hopefully, more of us will learn the languages. We must remember that God is looking for disciples and not just converts.

And maybe once we do that, so many “contradictions” in the text will just disappear.

A starter on Inerrancy

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I’m going to start a new look at the doctrine of inerrancy. To begin with, I will state that I do hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. There are some ways I believe inerrancy is not understood however.

In our modern western culture, it’s easy to think that the Bible was written for people in our place and time. We have found a way to center the world around us. We seek to do that which will promote us and further our good. There is hardly any interest in doing something for the sake of another.

It is odd that we take this approach with the Bible that we do not with Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Augustine, Aquinas, Shakespeare, or many other works. One can read the works of Flannery O’Connor and think she was racist when really, she was just writing using the terminology of her time. We often accuse atheists of chronological snobbery with their assumption that modern times are automatically the best times and our moral beliefs are the standard, when we are often guilty of literary snobbery, thinking that our style of studying literature should be the way all literature was written.

Much of our writing today is not as colorful as it could be, and I do not mean profanity by that. It is slow prose with no vivid imagery to it. This is because we are not familiar with other works of literature in part and because we live in an image-saturated culture where we tend to pre-think in images due to TV and other related media.

Thus, we live in a world where metaphors and such are highly absent. The only way we often understand things is in a straight-forward manner. The beauty of such great language is lost. Does this affect the way that we read our Bibles? The sad reality is that it does.

When I affirm inerrancy then, I am at the start affirming that the Bible does not contain errors and contradictions. However, there is no doubt that our interpretations of Scripture can involve errors and contradictions. We must always be open to the possibility that our interpretations can be wrong.

A problem with not realizing metaphor can be taking a text such as Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

But what about Exodus 32:14?

Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

So at this point the atheist jumps up and down with glee realizing that a contradiction has occurred.

Or has it?

Could it be that one of these is a metaphor and one is not?

Now if we take both without considering the idea of metaphor, I think we would have a contradiction, but the Bible is a much richer text than that full of several literary techniques and flourishes. It is not a simple piece of literature despite what some may think and to study it, we need to be cognizant of the time and culture it was written in instead of assuming that people were just like us.

Why do I think Exodus 32 is the metaphor? The reason is that Numbers 23 is making a direct statement about the nature of God. He is saying “This is the way God is.” We see however in narrative often that there are literary devices used, such as God saying He will extend His arm or God walking through the Garden of Eden.

Not only that, I have several philosophical problems with God changing His mind. Am I to believe that God is ignorant? Is He no longer the God of all-truth? Yes. I know several open theists could complain at this one and if they want to, I’m more than happy to engage them on those issues. It will not be enough to say to me “Greek philosophy!” I need to be shown why my thinking and the thinking of the church throughout history has been wrong.

If it’s a metaphor, does that mean there is no truth to it? Not at all. The point of the narrative is in this case to show that Moses was being a mediator for Israel as Christ would be in the future. Our prayers don’t change God. God knows what we are to pray, although I would say He would not do what we would do had our prayers not been known. God knows in advance what we will pray and has in advance acted accordingly. Yes. I suspect there are many headaches coming about right now.

The literal truth then is that a mediator before God does hold back His wrath so that those of us on the other side of the mediator may be saved. Did God literally change His mind? No. Did God hold back his wrath after hearing from Moses? Yes. (All the while knowing Moses would do that however)

The same is true of passages that say God covers us with His wings or in talking about the might of God’s arm or the smoke coming from His nostrils. These are literary devices that contain great truth. What we need is a richer appreciation of literature and a deeper look at the text.

We shall continue next time.

Interpretation of Scripture

I plan to write on Memorial Day tomorrow, so tonight, I’m going to do a side-topic based on a comment left by someone who read an old blog of mine. It is going to be on the way of handling Scripture and this has been on my mind a lot after being in discussions with friends on Genesis 1-3.

I’m going to state clearly that I affirm inerrancy. I don’t believe the Bible contradicts itself. However, I do believe some interpretations are wrong. I had also listened to a program on the John Ankerberg show debating the age of the Earth and I had liked how Walter Kaiser said the Bible tells us. It says “In the beginning God.” When asked how old the Earth is, he said we go to the book of nature then and find out.

I liked that, and I realize I have many friends who are YEC. If you can read Genesis that way and interpret it that way and interpret nature accordingly, go for it. Right now, I also agree with the poster that the Bible is not meant to be  scientific textbook. I believe it’s true in all propositions it supports, but I don’t think it’s to be read as a modern 21st century American would.

As I thought about this, I considered that one of the great problems we have is that we forget the Bible is a piece of literature. My roommate is a good reminder of this. He studied English in college and he knows how writers write. I know when he reads literature, he sees some things that I don’t because of his training with that. He talks about the style. I’m more interested in the content. I don’t wish to imply he has no interest in content. He does. He just sees some things that I don’t.

When we read the first three chapters of Genesis, I think we’re forgetting that the Israelites probably weren’t wondering how long it took God. They were more interested in that God did it and Moses expresed that the way he did for a reason. Now it could be he meant the days to be 24 hours. I don’t think so, but it could be. It could be he meant the days to be long periods of time. It could be that it’s meant to be chronological, but it could be that it’s written more in the style of the framework hypothesis where poetry is going on.

I’m open to many views. My stance is that I believe based on the testimony of Christ that the text is reliable and true and I should seek the best way to interpret it. Am I reading it with a mindset that is scientific or with one that is more like the Israelite would? Truth be told, I have a hard time appreciating literature. When I read something, it is difficult to focus on what I am reading and really pay attention as my mind is bouncing in a thousand different places.

Now some might think I’m talking about allegorizing everything. No. I’m talking about reading the text in accordance with its genre. I tend to be very conservative in how I interpret the text. I wish to do it as much justice as possible and my concern with the first few chapters is we spend so much time debating how long it took when I really don’t think that was God’s intention in giving us the text. Make sure this is the first thing you get out of creation. “GOD DID IT!”

Maybe to end much of the conflict, what we need to do is return to an appreciation of literature. It’ll be difficult, and I need to also, but I think it’ll help us greatly.