In my last post, I mentioned that I completely trust the scriptures in matters of doctrine (a collection of beliefs) and ethics. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? This is the matter of inerrancy: the idea that the scriptures are completely free of any error in regards to all matters of history, chronology, and science.
Most evangelical Christians would contend that the scriptures are inerrant. Usually, this belief is founded upon the concept that God cannot deceive, and that any error in the “Word of God” would be an intentional deception by God. There are certainly passages in the Bible that assert its veracity, but I think these passages are communicating about the infallibility of the scriptures, how the scriptures reveal the definitive truth to humanity about Jesus Christ and our relationship to him, and not the historical, chronological, or scientific data of the scriptures.
I think this because it only makes sense in context of the intended message of the scriptures. For several posts, Joe and I have been discussing the importance of viewing the scriptures as our greatest tool for understanding the person of Jesus Christ and what he means for our lives. If this is the central point around which all the scriptures orbit, then I am inclined to think that anytime a passage in the Bible mentions the truthfulness of the “Word of God,” the message is that the Bible is our only truthful source for understanding Jesus Christ (not history, chronology, or science).
At times the Bible is a history book, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Certainly the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are biographies and thus have a historical component. I do not think that these books are wrought with errors. On the contrary, I think they communicate accurately about very particular events in history, but not because of a special act by God.
I think that all the historical, chronological, and scientific information in the scriptures is information that the human authors already possessed through their own experience and research. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect in these matters, so there may be historical, chronological, and scientific errors in the scriptures.
I do not think this is a deception by God because I believe that God’s primary role in the creation of the scriptures was the inspiration (the granting of insight into divine truth and wisdom for applying divine truth) of the human authors. I do not believe God granted the authors access to special information regarding history, chronology, or science. Instead, God allowed the authors to use what they had learned through normal experience to communicate his messages to people.
So the historical and chronological information in the Bible is no more or less accurate than most historical and chronological information that we possess. But what about scientific information? Over the past 2,000 years our understanding of the natural world has changed drastically. It can be difficult to find reconciliation between the scriptures and current scientific theories… but it is not impossible.
Posts
In my last post, I mentioned that I completely trust the scriptures in matters of doctrine (a collection of beliefs) and ethics. But what about questions of history, chronology, and science? This is the matter of inerrancy: the idea that the scriptures are completely free of any error in regards to all matters of history, chronology, and science.
2 hatched thoughts:
This comment deserves special attention:
"I do not believe God granted the authors access to special information regarding history, chronology, or science. Instead, God allowed the authors to use what they had learned through normal experience to communicate his messages to people."
Perhaps we should collaborate on a post soon on why this is a demonstrable fact.
That would be a good idea. Actually, while reading from the prophet Nahum this morning, I found this passage:
Where now is the lions' den,
the place where they fed their young,
where the lion and lioness went,
and the cubs, with nothing to fear?
The lion killed enough for his cubs
and strangled the prey for his mate,
filling his lairs with the kill
and his dens with the prey.
In context, Nahum is talking about the coming fall of Nineveh, capital city of the Assyrian Empire. Nineveh is about to get its due after having ravaged other nations. In this passage, the lion would be Nineveh, who has now fallen after having strangled other nations. While the example may seem appropriate, if you know anything about lions (or at least watched "The Lion King"), then you know that females, not males, do the majority of the hunting.
So are the scriptures in error? Obviously the lions in this passage are symbolic, and the message is about the God ordained fate of Nineveh, not about the behavioral characteristics of lions.
Did the ancient Israelites think that that male lions were the primary hunters in a pride of lions? If so, then God did not see a need to correct this thinking, instead using the lions to symbolically explain the fate of Nineveh (which is what they were more concerned about after all).
Also, the Israelites may have been well aware of lion behavior, but God used this example anyway, perhaps just because it makes for good imagery and gets the point across.
Post a Comment