David has presented one variety of the doctrine of inerrancy. Others would be more exacting in their requirements and others less so.

David says that any of the above would be treated as a cop-out by someone arguing against inerrancy. That may be his perspective of the situation when someone may simply be arguing that the defense is wrong... e.g. it is my experience that common apologetics using #7 as a defense reflect an incredibly poor knowledge of Hebrew and the plausible semantic ranges of a word in context. For instance, David himself propagates a bit of intellectual conceit in assuming that classical Hebrew had such a limited vocabulary. The biblical Hebrew vocabulary is not the total sum of classical Hebrew.

David provides "plausibility" as a criteria in #5. This is highly subjective. More often than not, I find inerrantists stretching credulity and ignoring Occam's Razor in order to maintain an artificial harmonization.

The simple fact is that inerrancy does not hold up to scrutiny. Differences in the text and in the events described between the synoptics in the OT (Chronicles/Samuel-Kings) and the NT (the Gospels) are sufficient to disprove this arcane theory. These mutually exclusive discrepancies can be further augmented by numerous inaccurate details scattered throughout the Bible.

It is a shame that Christians feel the need and are taught that inerrancy is fundamental to their belief system.

Ken sort of beat me to it. It's not just critics of inerrancy who conflate inerrancy and literalism, it's also a lot of fundamentalist Christians in my experience.

If the theory of inerrancy forces one to believe that Daniel was an historical figure rather than a legendary or fictional one, then there are many discrepancies which cannot be reconciled. Many of the events described in Daniel seem related to the much later time of the Maccabean Revolt. I was taught in seminary that Daniel was indeed a legendary figure and that the book is dated between 167 and 164 B.C. That doesn't diminish the power of the book or make the book untrue, however.

It seems to me that only theological inerrancy truly matters.

Only theological inerrancy matters?

So it's okay if there was never actually in existence a man named Jesus Christ who actually was crucified, etc?

I mean, I've got no issue believing such a thing - but I imagine most Christians would disagree...

The view as stated is pretty coherent, but I would note two complications.

First, miracles don't get quite as complete an exemption as 1. seems to indicate. Yes, one can't say "science shows that's not possible" -- but one _can_ say "the historical record shows shockingly little evidence that that happened". This applies most clearly to the flood, for example, and to some of the meteorological claims surrounding the time of the crucifiction. I'm not saying that these provide a knock-down refutation, but they carry some serious evidential weight.

Second, and perhaps more troubling, is that however much that biblical inerrancy is saved at the expense of the ease of biblical interpretation, to that extent it becomes more difficult to seek _guidance_ in the text. If it's hard for me to know what to take literally and what not to, or how to translate the parts in the former category, or decipher the parts in the latter -- then what confidence can I have in my inference from "I think the Bible says that p" to "p"?

Philosopher is both right and wrong when it comes to the flood. The flood is not what I would describe as a miracle--miracles are short-lived, isolated phenomena. The flood does not fall into that category. Thus it is fair to argue that the flood is subject to scientific investigation into its lasting effects, which should be discernable.

Philosopher also states that inerrancy makes it difficult to decide what to take literally and what not to. I don't find that to be the case, especially if one chooses a hermeneutic and applies it consistently. If one chooses a covenantal approach one will take different passages literally than one who uses a dispensational hermeneutic, but within each camp there are relatively few differences (about what passages to take literally) and between the camps, while vast differences arise on eschatology, there is agreement on the gospel.

The problem, in my estimation, is much more severe for those who jettison inerrancy. I think they would still struggle about what to take literally. But now they have an addition problem to solve: what to toss out as fiction and what to keep.

If a concept, such as inerrancy, requires 8 (or more) ad-hoc qualifiers, isn't it reasonable to doubt the validity of the concept?

Nick,

I don't mean that any and all passages can be historically inaccurate, or that there isn't a serious problem if particular passages were historically inaccurate, only that it isn't necessary that each and every detail be accurate for the Bible to be theologically true. If the story of Adam and Eve is truth told as myth, the theological truth remains. However, if Jesus wasn't really resurrected, then the theological truth of Christianity would fail.

I think there are discrepancies as to when the Last Supper occurred as between the Johannine version and the synoptics. Similary, there is a difference between the Johannine version and Acts as to the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I think those who try to fully reconcile the differences are being contortionists. But the nature and purposes of the Spirit and of the Eucharist remain the same.

Joel: point well taken.

This is a very interesting discussion, but the theory of inerrancy appears to ignore three very important things: science, the Midrash tradition, and the nature of Jesus himself as provocateur. Certainly the Sabbath law can be considered of divine origin, yet Jesus broke that law when he healed on the Sabbath:

"Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath."

"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father." (John Chapter 9 verse 16, John C

The Sabbath is certainly of divine origin. It is the fourth of the Ten Commandments and is second only to compassion for the stranger as the most repeated Commandment in the Torah. It is also the most important holiday in the Jewish year. So important, that Jews are commanded to observe it every week. Weddings are not performed on the Sabbath. Funerals are not performed on the Sabbath. The blessing for lighting the Sabbath candles precedes the blessings for a holiday that coincides with the Sabbath. Also, the last third of Exodus, which deals with the building of the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle, take a backseat to observance of the Sabbath. Even work as holy as building a portable sanctuary must not be done on the Sabbath. So, we have the prime importance of the Sabbath in Jewish life.

However, given all this, I would like to point out two exceptions. One: Circumcision. The covenant of circumcisin (Genesis 17) is considered so important that if the eighth day of a boy's life falls on the Sabbath, he still must be circumcised on the Sabbath. (John 7:23)
Two: and more to the point of JohnS's comment: preservation of life. All the commandments may be broken, even the commandment of the Sabbath, in order to preserve life. Healing would fall under this category. Jesus knew that compassion and mercy for your neighbor were more important than not working on the Sabbath. See Matthew 12:7 "For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6). In fact, he pointed out the Pharisees' own hypocrisy by saying "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Matthew 12:11-12. And in Mark, Jesus said, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil? To save life or to kill?" Mark 3:4 The Pharisees had no answer because they knew Jesus was right.

Be well,
Joseph