Re: Essay about errancy

From: <>
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 21:11:02 EST

Josh wrote,
> First, some definitions are in order. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that
> the Bible is the inspired word of God

Nowhere does the Bible's statements about inspiration logically lead to the
conclusion that everything inspired by God will be inerrant in every respect.
Divine verbal inspiration can encompass accommodation to concepts which do not
agree with God's personal opinion (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5), and that means
inspiration is not an absolute guarantee of inerrancy. Further, biblical historians
.who I grant were inspired, do not claim to rest their accounts as history
qua history upon divine revelation, but upon human testimony. Accordingly,
inspiration is not a guarantee of inerrancy in historical matters.
The idea that the Bible is inerrant in history and science as well as in
faith and morals is an extra-biblical rationalistic belief imposed upon the Bible.
It is unnecessary to biblical Christianity. If you are looking for truth, you
have to get out of both circles you have been in: fundamentalism and
skepticism/atheism. They are both ultimately based on human reason and on that bssis
accept absolute inerrancy as necessary to divine inspiration. But, the Bible
does not reveal or teach this doctrine.

If you like I can send you a copy of my book, Inerrant Wisdom. expounding
this matter further.

<<54When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the
earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely
he was the Son[5] of God!" I

39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry
and[4] saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son[5] of God!"

After seeing these miracles, the centurion cries out that this was the Son of
God. However, look at Mark’s earlier account. It says that when the centurion
saw his cry and saw how he died he said he was the Son of God. There is no
mention of him being terrified. The words are changed a little bit as well.>>

Again as already mentioned by others, you are taking too rigid a view even of
accurate history. There is no necessary reason why Mark had to mention the
earthquake or the centurion being terrified; nor is that mention contradictory
to Matthew. If you read yearbooks of contemporary encyclopedias, you will find
that the same historical event is sometimes covered under more than one
heading and written up by different authors who do not even know each other. The
accounts sometimes appear to differ more radically than Matt from Mark and they
certainly appear to be contradicting each other, yet if you write the editors
you find out that both accounts are true, just seen from different

Keep seeking truth, but try some British evangelical scholarship. On
historicity of the gospels, although it is not accepted in toto, you need to be aware
of the data in Memory and Manuscript by Birger Gerhardsson.

Received on Mon Feb 2 21:11:45 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 21:11:45 EST