Online Exclusive: Inerrancy and Infallibility in the Bible

Inerrant's definition, like many definitions, varies from source to source. Generally, inerrancy is understood as "totally without error." When I was in high school, my English teacher offered us extra credit for each English-esque related error we found. When I turned in an error for extra credit taken straight out of my NRSV Bible, I received bonus points. Now, this presented me with a dilemma: if the Bible is truly without error, how is it that I find one in the Bible?

This represents a classical informal fallacy known as a slippery slope, (which is also subject to definition scrutiny) where a minor action leads to a significant conclusion based on a logical chain of relationships. For example, I notice that there is an arguably minor error in the inerrant Bible. I conclude that because of this one error, it's logical that there may be other errors in the Bible - especially orthographical errors. Orthographic errors can lead to misunderstandings and mistranslations, and I conclude that the Bible is misunderstood, and even further misunderstood because we inherently misunderstand material because we are not inerrant. I therefore conclude that the Bible, as a whole, should not be trusted as an absolute truth because it is as fallible as anything else. Considering Jesus never wrote anything Himself, and we trust the observations of the four Gospels in the Bible to examine who Jesus was to base our faith on, we have a problem.

Answering how you're feeling today with the answer "good" is grammatically incorrect. However, no one would condemn your actions (or theoretically condemn you at all if they're Christian) for saying good when the "inerrant" synonym would be "well." On the chromatography/spectrophotometer printers in the genetics lab here at MTU, there's an appropriately labeled "caution" sticker, underneath it the German translation says "achtung" - literally translated as attention. Although differencing somewhat, the general inferred meaning by a German reader is certainly equivalent. Even though people make spelling errors in e-mails and table tents all the time, we still understand the true meaning.

The Bible is often highly criticized for minor inconstancies amongst the Gospels. For example as we approach Easter, I'd encourage you to read how each of the four Gospels describes who went to Jesus's tomb first after the resurrection. Matthew says two Marys were there (28:1). Mark says the above were there, plus Salome (16:1). Luke says that there were at least five people (23:55, 24:1, 24:10), and John only mentions Mary (20:1). Although these seemingly contradict each other, it's not like they're entirely incompatible. Perhaps John thought that it was only significant to mention Mary while Luke decided to mention as many witnesses as possible. Similarly, if I said "Jimmy went to Standathon on Friday" I don't mean to imply that he was solely the only one there. I could certainly say "Jimmy and I were at Standathon on Friday" and still be telling the truth in both situations.

Ultimately, I feel the Bible is "infallible" in the sense that it is a trustworthy source for those pursuing the truth, but is not "inerrant" in the sense that it is free from all spelling and grammatical errors; even in  the estimated 1.3 million NT textual pages from greek, latin and other ancient manuscripts. As we study scripture we must be aware that there is a need to cross reference (pun intended) sources in scripture to verify other scripture. Although somewhat harmless on an issue of "who was at the tomb," a failure to verify issues on Love and Judgment can lead to problems. Conversely, an understanding of the Bible that is deeply and devotedly researched and studied can bring huge positives and is something that we all need to work on.