Friday, 7 August 2015

On the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy

        The Doctrine of Inerrancy, despite being hotly contested and debated by scholars and others both in the church and outside of it, is all more important to us since it relates to our understanding of who God is, what he has done, and what he requires. Biblical inerrancy is defined as the fact that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact,” and moreover, that the Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching,” as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says. This means that, despite something in what may be termed secular history appearing to disprove the Bible, the Bible remains without error. It may be that history has been misinterpreted, or that a chronology is wrong, as has often happened in both cases, but the Bible’s facts are fair and true. This has played out in two particular ways.

        First, many have said that archaeology disproves the Bible, but the contrary could not be truer. There are many historical events, people, and places, which have been confirmed through archaeology. One of the best examples is from the Old Testament. The Bible says a lot about Egypt – and we know a fair amount about Egyptian history outside of the Bible as well. This has led many scholars to doubt the veracity of the Bible because traditional Egyptian chronology and the Biblical timeline have apparently not matched up. But when the Egyptian lists of Kings were interpreted in a new and more precise way, all of a sudden the Biblical accounts of the Exodus, Egyptian invasions of Israel, and even the visit of the Queen of Sheba lined up much more closely with Egyptian chronology. While the findings are still not completely accurate, they provide good evidence and conformation of the Biblical accounts.

        The second way in which the Bible can be confirmed as accurate is through eye-witness accounts. Something to keep in mind is the fact that the earliest manuscripts of Plato’s writings were dated to 1250 years after he died. Yet hardly anyone doubts that Plato was not a real character in history. By contrast, the Gospel of Matthew was written within the first 70 years after Jesus’ life and ministry, and moreover, was put on paper by an eye-witness. Also, much of what the Gospel of Luke records, such as place names and terms, have been confirmed through archaeology.

        To sum it up, if we do not take the Bible as the true and inerrant word of God, we would have to make up our own 'truth' to fill that gap, resulting in a man centered teaching which would lead people away from the Gospel. If this happened, essentially there would only be a group of people attempting to solve huge problems for which only the Bible can give us the answers. Therefore, believing the Bible to be true and inerrant is not only a good idea, but it is the only way we can be sure and certain of what is right and true. The Bible itself says in 2 Timothy 3 that “All Scripture is breathed out by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Written by William A Moore


  1. William, that's a good summary and beginning. Check your mailbox for some material that might help. I'm doing two college classes in a row this Sept on that very subject.

    1. Thanks Mr. Pollasch; I will do so. I still have much to learn on this and other subjects!

  2. This was a solid, user-friendly post on inerrancy.

    Bravo, brother!


Please feel free to respond below regarding this post!