“A Rock Too Big To Move?”
Inerrancy and the Bible (part one)
by Jim Denison
Pastor, Second Ponce De Leon Baptist Church, Atlanta

4th in a series on “Inerrancy”

Some questions have no right answers. For instance, when I taught philosophy of religion at Southwestern Seminary students used to ask me, “Can God make a rock so big he can’t move it?” or “Can God make two mountains without a valley in between?” Imagine your supervisor asking you, “Have you stopped embezzling from the company yet?” There’s no right answer to a wrong question.

The inerrantist asks, “Is the Bible errant or inerrant? Which is it?” In our next two articles, let’s see if the question of inerrancy is a right or wrong question to ask about the Bible. We’ll look at two subjects today: what the Bible says about itself, and what inspiration tells us about inerrancy.

Does the Bible call itself “inerrant”?

First, does the Bible require us to consider it “inerrant”? Is this an issue the Bible raises about itself?

Of course, the word “inerrancy” is not found in the biblical text. But neither are “trinity” and “incarnation.” The real question is whether or not the Bible teaches that it is inerrant. There are several passages which inerrantists cite to claim that it does. Let’s find the actual, intended meaning of each text.

Supposed synonyms for inerrancy

First, we’ll look at passages which contain words inerrantists commonly consider synonyms for inerrancy. We’ll survey them as they occur in the biblical text, highlighting the crucial word in each verse.

(1) Psalm 12:6: “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.” “Flawless” would seem to mean “inerrant.” But the Hebrew root, “taher,” actually refers to “ritual or moral purity,” and describes a person as clean enough to return to life within the nation of Israel.1 Obviously the Bible would never describe a person as “inerrant” (see 1 John 1:8); “flawless” therefore cannot be a synonym for inerrancy. In this text “taher” points to the function of the Scriptures, as they fulfill their purpose within the nation. The Psalmist intends no connection with the inerrancy argument.

(2) Psalm 18:30: “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless” (see Prov. 30:5, where the same Hebrew word is used for the Scriptures). This is a different Hebrew word, the root of which is “sarap.” The word usually refers to the refining of metal before it is worked into a fine vessel (see Prov. 25:4). As metal could never be “inerrant” or completely perfect, the word does not imply inerrancy. In connection with the Bible it means that “what God says is authentic.” 2 As with Ps. 12:6, this word shows that God’s word is reliable for its intended purpose (see John 20:30–31)

(3) Psalm 19:7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” “Perfect” translates the Hebrew “tamam,” which means to “be complete.” It claims that something contains all it needs to accomplish its purpose. This word does not guarantee inerrancy, as it is used of Moses in Genesis 6:9. In Ps. 19:7 it simply means that the Bible contains all it needs to fulfill its intended purpose.3

(4) “Trustworthy” in this text translates the Hebrew “aman,” which means to be firm, certain, or faithful. We use this word when we say “amen.” The word simply claims that the Bible is “faithful” to its task.4 Again, the Psalmist intends no reference to an inerrancy argument.

(5) Psalm 119:142: “Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true.” “True” translates “emet,” which is a derivative of “aman,” discussed with reference to Psalm 19:7 above. It simply means that the Bible is trustworthy or faithful to its intended purpose.

(6) John 17:17: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” “Truth” translates “alatheia,” the Greek parallel to the Hebrew “aman.” The root meaning of”alatheia” is “nonconcealment.” Here it means that the Bible reveals God, rather than concealing him from us.5 In this text Jesus intends no reference to the inerrancy argument.

(7) Romans 7:12: “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.” “Holy” translates “hagios,” one of the most important words in the New Testament. Both “hagios” and its Hebrew parallel (“qodesh”) carry the basic idea of being dedicated or set apart to God. In this sense Scripture is “holy” because it belongs to God. In our text Paul in no way refers to inerrancy.

(8) 2 Tim. 3:15: “…and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures…” Here “holy” translates “hieros”; this word, like “hagios,” has the basic meaning of “belonging or being consecrated to God.” Here it expresses the power of the Scriptures, as they belong to God Himself.6 This verse does not deal with the question of error in the Scriptures, but with their power. Once again inerrancy is not a question addressed by the text.

In each case, a study of the word in question reveals no intended connection with an argument for inerrancy. One must extend his logic beyond the text to make such an argument; i.e., “something ‘holy’ must be without error,” or similar statements. Whether such logic is valid or invalid is not our point here; the fact is that no text speaks directly and specifically to the inerrancy issue. If inerrancy is so important, why is there not a single verse in the Bible which intentionally addresses it?

Other texts used to support inerrancy

The texts which follow contain no “synonym” for inerrancy, but they are nonetheless often cited by inerrantists.

(1) Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?” (see 1 Samuel 15:29 for a similar statement). Here the key assertion is that God would not “lie.” Since the Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), it cannot “lie” either, and thus we’re told that it must be inerrant.

The flaw in this logic is that “lie” and “error” are not the same thing. Webster defines “lie” as “to make a statement that one knows is false, especially with intent to deceive.” It defines an “error” as “something incorrectly done through ignorance or carelessness; mistake.” Thus Number 23:19 does not speak to the question of error/inerrancy, but rather to the trustworthy character of God.

If a person does not subscribe to inerrancy, this does not mean that he or she accuses God of “intent to deceive.” Even the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy claims that the Bible we have is “not entirely error free” (Exposition E), but this does not mean that it deliberately deceives us. The author of Numbers 23:19 in no sense intended to address the issue of inerrancy.

(2) John 10:35-36: “If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came— and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” “Broken” translates “luthanai,” from “luo.” Here the word means “to break, to set aside, to nullify.”7 The basic meaning of Jesus’ words is that His hearers must not set aside or ignore God’s word. They might ignore Jesus, but they could not ignore or “break” the Scripture He cited. Thus this text contains no reference to inerrancy, despite its common citation to this end.

Once again, the inerrantist must extend these texts beyond their intended meaning; i.e., “if the Bible doesn’t lie, then it must be inerrant…” He can find no text which states the inerrancy argument itself.

Not only are there no biblical synonyms for inerrancy, there are no texts which address this subject specifically or directly. If the inerrancy argument is so crucial to Scripture, wouldn’t we expect to find it in the Bible?

What about inspiration?

But there’s another approach inerrantists take in using the Bible to support their argument: the issue of inspiration. To “inspire” literally means to “breathe in.” If God “breathed” the Bible, surely it must be without error, we’re told. As one writer states the position,

God breathed in (and out) of the sacred writers of Scripture what He wanted them to write, and thus it was God’s Word, complete and without error. A holy and perfect God could not conceivably produce error in His Word!8

This argument has been compelling for many. But there’s more to the story. Clearly the Bible claims to be inspired by God (cf. Jer. 36:2; Ezek. 1:3; Acts 28:25; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pt. 1:20-21). The real issue is the relation of inspiration to inerrancy.

The most definitive text on inspiration is 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed…” “God-breathed” translates the Greek word “theopneustos,” which literally means “to be breathed out by God.” Here’s a good summary of its meaning:

The rabbinical teaching was that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets and spoke through them so that their words did not come from themselves, but from the mouth of God and they spoke and wrote in the Holy Spirit. The early church was in entire agreement with this view.9

Paul’s statement thus points to the origin of the text, not specifically its character. He differentiates between God’s word and secular works,10 emphasizing “the creative act of God in producing the Scripture.”11

This text and others like it guarantee that the Bible came from God. They do not speak directly to the errant/inerrant nature of the text. An inerrantist must again extend the argument beyond the text; i.e., “if the Bible comes from God, and God doesn’t make mistakes, then the text cannot have errors…” Once again we find inerrancy to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical position. No biblical author on inspiration intends to speak to the question of inerrancy.

A right or wrong question?

In our next article we’ll discuss the real origin of the inerrancy argument, and show the disastrous results of applying it to the actual text of Scripture. Then we’ll close the series by proposing a biblical, positive approach to Scripture.

For now, let’s remember that inerrancy is neither a word nor an argument found in the biblical text itself. Does it seem right or wrong to create a question the Scriptures nowhere ask, and then make one answer to this question the only “biblical” position?

1Edwin Yamauchi, “taher,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), I:343; hereafter abbreviated TWOT.

2John E. Hartley, “sarap,” TWOT, II:778.

3J. Barton Payne, “tamam,” TWOT, II:973-4.

4Jack B. Scott, “aman,” TWOT, I:51-3.

5Rudolf Bultmann, “alatheia,” Theoloyical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), I:238; hereafter abbreviated TDNT.

6Gottlob Schrenk, “heiros,” TDNT, III:222-3.

7Fritz Rienecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, trans. and rev. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), I:243.

8James T. Draper, Jr., Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984), 71.

9Fritz Rienecker, A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, trans. and rev. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976), II:301.

10Eduard Schweizer, “theopneustos,” in TDNT VI:454.

11Bruce Corley, “Biblical Teaching on Inspiration and Inerrancy,” The Proceedins of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 453. See Dr. Corley’s article for an excellent extended treatment of”theopneustos” and its application to the inerrancy debate.

October 1995