We’ve been working through a list of “contradictions” in the Bible, here, and along the way we’ve learned a lot about the concept of “inerrancy.” I read a post by Professor Kevin D. Kennedy yesterday, on one reason why he believes in the inerrancy of scripture, and thought to myself … “Daaaaang.”
A snippet:
… if I am going to claim that there are errors in the text of Scripture, then I must first claim that there are no errors in my interpretation of that text.
There are really only two alternatives when asking whether the Scriptures have errors.
-
The first alternative is to conclude that my interpretation is valid and without any error and that I am right to conclude that this particular text contains an error. …
-
The other alternative is to conclude that I might be mistaken in my interpretation of the text and it is therefore impossible for me to conclude that this text has an error until I have inerrant knowledge of the biblical languages, the historical background, other events not recorded by this particular narrator, any unique idioms that might have been employed by this biblical writer, as well as inerrant knowledge of the political, social, legal, cultural, familial, geographical, topological, and ethnic setting of the text — just to name a few.
The modern, English translation that most of us are reading of a rich, ancient text may – on the surface – appear to have some textual contradictions.
Some of those, like this one, are probably the result of copyist error or the mistranslation of a digit. Some, like this one, are shrouded in cultural implications. Others, like this one, are deliberately done to teach a point.
Only the first of the three can be said to be an actual “contradiction,” and such minutiae are not the subject of a believer’s conviction that the testimony and teaching of scripture is “inerrant.”
To claim that the Bible is errant, as Professor Kennedy points out, is speaking pretty highly of oneself, even for someone who does not believe that the Bible is the word of God. To claim it as errant – after countless translations, in spite of thousands of years of serious study, regardless of hundreds of non-biblical supporting texts, and countless scientific and archeological proofs – makes a person pretty omniscient.
Another thing to think about when looking into this topic is that most bibles that you buy have a group of interpreters and depending on your translation they can translate the words to shape their mindset. Such as a more liberal, conservative, Free-will, Calvinist, and others. When you think about that and then have the lofty voice to say that you think that scripture has errors when you don’t know the original language–which I know was pointed out earlier–is quite a weak argument. Not only is trying to understand a language that we don’t fully know the exact meaning of every word (Old Greek)then you have to look into the context of the entire book, chapter, paragraph, sentence, then the crowed that he was writing to Jew Gentile, then the location they lived in. This is a hard task! So yes, much easier to humble yourself and realize that there are some inaccuracies in the way you interpret scripture and some of your theology might have to be reviewed to see if it flows with the whole bible.
Last note about the way they are interpreted. Not only are they persuaded by their theology on the bible but even more crucial is are they word for word or sentence for sentence type of bible. NASB Word for word interpret NIV Sentence to sentence ESV is a good in between model.
The New King James translation sometimes has footnotes giving the exact word from the original language.
Another great resource for original language study, if you’re interested, is biblos.com. You can type in any verse and access Strong’s Concordance, and click through to your heart’s content! I love it!
Strong’s Concordance – awesome book
Totally true. Everyone has a worldview that they don’t even really know they have.
Yep, the subject of Textual Criticism is quite fascinating. I enjoy browsing the documents at bible-researcher.com and reading elsewhere about the Scriptural text.
It goes without saying that WE aren’t the one’s infallible, nor are the translators, nor are the multitude of copies of scriptural texts the translators pour over. We need not be embarrassed to admit there are lots of copyist errors. It is the original documents them selves that are inspired by God, of which we now have none, nor will we ever. But it must be stressed that we can be delighted to know that not one Biblical doctrine depends on any of the textual variations in the books and parchments at our disposal. The case for our current translations being extremely close to the originals is very strong and exciting.
“The case for our current translations being extremely close to the originals is very strong and exciting.”
Agreed! Skeptics like to point out the little things that seem to contradict, but it amazes me that after THOUSANDS of years, and scores of translations and editions, etc. the Bible that we have is so much the SAME as it ever was!
Once I looked through the Gospels to find some errors. All the Gospels and the Epistles agree upon every major issue of theology. The errors I found were minor things such as the order of Jesus’s brothers and the chronology of miracles that Jesus performed. To me, all these little “errors” serve as proof that the Bible is real and authentic.
The idea that those little “errors” serve as proof of the authenticity of scripture is so crucial, and so often overlooked. If even two of the gospels were identical in every detail, skeptics would scream and shout that one was OBVIOUSLY copied! Can’t win. 😉
I strongly agree that even though our bibles are in English they are still great translations. Because our translations matched very well with the dead sea scrolls.