One thing that helps me is that I don’t look upon Scripture as a data source. It isn’t an informational source as much as a communication tool. I see it as God’s primary means of communication. Not the only way, but the primary way. Not only is it a communication tool, but also a transformative tool. There is an assumption on my part that God actually has something to say to me. There is also the idea that God wants me to change.

As long as I see Scripture as a means of God’s communication and transformation; I begin to have less of an emotional investment on it’s “Historicity” or “Scientific” value.

Good night,

Tim

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

1) (Tim) I can live with “infallible” and especially how you characterize the trustworthiness of Scripture: “in all things that God wants it to teach”. I can even live with “inerrant unto its purpose”. But that pesky word “inerrant/cy” has just taken on too much baggage for me to be comfortable with it.

2) (Jim) I do not normally (ever?) run around speaking of “errors” in the Bible so it is risky perhaps misleading to speak in terms of “erroneous” or “mistakes”. It is when we expect everything in Scripture to line up perfectly with “history and science” (how’s that for a cliche?) that I think we run into some awkward situations.

Or to put it more positively – yeah sure I also would confess the Bible is “totally true and trustworthy”. But we may have slightly different views about how much is covered by that expression. That which pertains to salvation (and obedience)? Or everything including minute historical/cultural/scientific details?

So with regard to Daniel and Esther the “error” (which may not really be an “error”) is that they purport to be about events from the Exile. I have seen quite a few conservative Christians (fine students/scholars) get exercised over the idea that Daniel is post-exilic. (Why is that?) Granted one may respond “they are true stories that were not written down until much later”. But there are still some difficulties with how the stories line up (details) with what we know about Babylonian and Persian history/culture. I know that more conservative/evangelical scholars offer explanations for these difficulties (“they are not mistakes, they are difficulties we can explain”) but I have not found them persuasive. They read too much like “we already know what the conclusion is, now we have to come up with an explanation”.

Let me put it this way. I can live with Daniel and Esther being “divinely inspired fiction”. David did not write all the *ldawi(y)d* Psalms. Isaiah 40-66 are exilic or post-exilic (the whole Second maybe Third Isaiah thing). Maybe Moses did not write the Pentateuch. And yeah the whole Genesis-Creationism thing. And so on. Many Christians would say one cannot believe such things and believe in the Bible because these would constitute “errors/mistakes”. If we accept such “errors/mistakes” (see below) then we cannot trust anything the Scripture says about anything. One conservative Anglican website gave me some serious heat over this.

I do not see these as “errors” if 100% literal historical accuracy is not part of God’s intent in inspiring Scripture. But some Christians do and argue against such views quite strongly.

Now if some “evangelical” scholars (such as Prof Hamilton) have more nuanced understandings of “inerrancy” that is cool and I would be happy to understand that better. I understand your point about giving the Bible the “benefit of the doubt”. I think that works more when there is a lack of clear evidence one way or the other.

John Barton’s short book _What Is the Bible?_ is pretty much where I stand at this point.

Oh we could get into lengthy exchanges about “well give me your examples and I will try to respond”. I know that sounds like a dodge. Others have written about the alleged “mistakes” and the supposed “explanations” and it may come down to which we find more persuasive. I would like to find these arguments persuasive – I really would and in graduate school I did – but I just can’t bring myself to say “yes in my heart I believe that”. Perhaps I am dead wrong. But I am being true(?!?) to my best most honest understanding of the various evidence and arguments. For what it is worth – I do not go around trying to get people to “doubt the Bible”. It is more when someone says “you need to agree with this or else your Christian faith is flawed” that I push back a little.

Let me ask this not as challenge but genuine question. Set aside the terms “mistake/error/erroneous”. What “difficulties” would a self-described believer in inerrancy accept? (Thinking of the famous Chicago Declaration.)

Is that not the worse thing ever!?

But, I’m sticking with it.

Tim

Thanks for your thoughts and for your kind words. I’m curious: what do you find erroneous about Daniel and Esther? You only mention that they’re post-exilic. I don’t think anyone disputes that. . . For me, inerrancy is just another way to say that I think the Bible is totally true and trustworthy, and that when I run against something that seems to conflict with other evidence, I’m inclined to reserve judgment and give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.

I’m sincerely interested in which particulars you see as errors.

Every blessing to you in Christ Jesus,

Jim