Defining Inerrancy

A Physicist’s Perspective, another thoughtful and well-written blog, has a good post with an interesting discussion in the comments regarding the definition of inerrancy, which the author defines as “the Bible does not affirm anything contrary to fact.” I couldn’t post in the comments because of a technical glitch of some kind, so here are a few thoughts:

One thing that seems missing is the connection between the Physicist’s Perspective’s formulation of inerrancy and the author’s view of inspiration. Many, if not most, who hold to inerrancy also hold to “verbal inspiration” — that is, God so directed the scripture writers that the very words they used were those intended by God. It’s difficult to hold to this view, however, and at the same time to suggest that incorrect grammar isn’t an error of some kind, if you also hold to the definition of inerrancy stated above.

Similarly, when the author says “scripture doesn’t affirm anything contrary to fact,” I wonder about scripture’s use of phenomenological language that reflects the culture of the writers but is clearly contrary to fact — for example, that the sun “rises and sets,” or that the Earth rests on “pillars.” Certainly the writers seem to be affirming these things, even if such references aren’t the main point the writer is making.

For these reasons, I prefer a definition of inerrancy that says the Bible is without error in “all that it intends to teach.” This is different than saying the Bible is without error only in matters of “faith and practice.” Clearly, for example, the intent of the Bible writers often is to convey the historical facts that provide the basis for our faith. This means the facts themselves, as well as the doctrinal truths they represent, are conveyed to us without error.

The “in all that it intends to teach” formulation allows for a proper application of the grammatical-historical-literary method of interpretation. When we examine passages using phenomenological language in their historical and literary context, for example, we see that the Bible isn’t intending to teach us anyting at all about whether the Sun actually “rises and sets” — rather, scripture uses a perception familiar to the culture from which the text arose to communicate the truth that God is lord over all His creation. Likewise, cultural and literary conventions of what constitutes reportage of a “fact,” such as paraphrasing, collapsing timelines, etc., can be accomodated without suggesting “error.”

This might also have implications for difficult passages such as Genesis 1. While I tend to a day/age view (although honestly I’m kind of agnostic about the whole thing), a “framework” view could also fit into a definition of inerrancy as I’ve described it. Perhaps Genesis 1 doesn’t intend to teach us anything at all about what modern science would consider “facts” about cosmology, geology or biology, but rather intends to communicate truths about God’s creative activity within the literary framework of seven “days.”