Is the Bible inerrant – and does it matter?


This is the ninth in a series of posts on Understanding the Bible in the 21st century.

Christians generally believe the Bible, and believe in the Bible, but what should we believe about the Bible?

Probably the strongest claim christians make about the Bible is that it is inerrant – it contains no errors. There are various limits put on this – e.g. it only applies to the original writings, it only applies to the meaning and intention of the writers – but within those limits it is perfectly accurate without the slightest inaccuracy.

Should we believe this? Does it matter?

Is the Bible inerrant?

There are many reasons to trust the Bible as a document that reveals God, especially the New Testament, but it is harder to justify going further and claiming it is inerrant.

It doesn’t say so

I don’t know of any verse which clearly claims this (a view apparently shared by christian scholar Peter Enns). I have looked up a dozen or more christian websites supporting inerrancy (a couple of examples: and John Frame), and I don’t recall seeing any of them quote a verse which unambiguously supports the idea. The nearest I can find are these:

  • Several Psalms make statements like “the law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). (Similar statements are found in, for example, Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:89 and Proverbs 30:5-6.) But it isn’t at all clear that this refers to the written text of the Old Testament, especially as much of it wasn’t written at that time. It seems more likely that it is referring to God’s commands, not the written text.
  • Jesus said (John 10:35):“Scripture cannot be set aside” (sometimes translated as “the Scripture cannot be broken”). But while this makes clear we should not ignore or disbelieve the Scripture, it doesn’t say that the Scripture is without any error.

You would think that, if the doctrine of inerrancy is as important as proponents claim, God would have made it clearer.

The main argument

It turns out that most christians who support inerrancy do so on the basis of logic, not scripture. The following arguments are commonly used:

  • “If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it could not contain error.” But we have seen that the Bible never claims to be the Word of God (see Word of God?) while the passage which describes inspiration can be interpreted several ways, and perhaps more likely refers to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when we read it (see What does the Bible say about itself?). The argument is based on what appear to be wrong assumptions.
  • “The Bible contains many places where God spoke to the authors, so the Bible must be without error.” But this is an invalid argument. I could write a book that quotes the words of God in the Bible, but that wouldn’t make the rest of my book inspired or inerrant.
  • Jesus promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into truth (John 16:13) and remind them of the things he said (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:15). But again, this says nothing about the written text of the New Testament – in fact it would appear to say something much more general, perhaps applying to us today.

These arguments don’t seem to follow. And the fact that an important doctrine about the Bible relies not on the Bible’s teachings but on human reasoning, should tell us something straight away.

It doesn’t seem to be inerrant

While historians and other scholars find the New Testament to contain a bunch of generally good historical sources (see The gospels as history and Jesus and the historians), there are nevertheless internal reasons why it doesn’t appear to be inerrant:

  • There are a number of minor inconsistencies and mistakes in the New Testament – misquotes, making wrong references to OT books and history, etc. These don’t change the meaning or the reliability of the writer in any significant way, but they do suggest the writers were subject to normal human limitations, like quoting Old Testament text from memory or only roughly quoting it. Believers in inerrancy have ways to explain these minor inconsistencies, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it doesn’t seem to be inerrant.
  • Archaeology has confirmed many aspects of Old Testament history, especially during the period of the kings. However, despite what some christian websites claim, archaeology is not so supportive of earlier Old Testament history. Now archaeology is notoriously random and incomplete in what it finds, so we can certainly believe that many of these gaps are not based on errors but on incomplete information. However it is fair to say at least that, at this time, the Old Testament doesn’t seem to be inerrant in its history. (Here is the view of Peter Enns and a National Geographic summary of the scholarly state of play.)

People need it?

Finally, it is sometimes argued that we need the Bible to be inerrant, or we lose our assurance of God’s message to us. While this is not a very good argument for inerrancy, it may be a real reason why some people believe it.

It doesn’t matter …..

We don’t have the originals

Inerrancy is generally applied only to the original documents – no such claim is made for the copying and translation. This is a strange distinction to make, for if God could keep the writing free from error, he could surely have kept the copying and translation free from error also, if he wanted to. But this limitation on inerrancy does mean that the Bible we read is not inerrant. Proponents argue that the doctrine is still important, for if the original was without error, it makes it likely that the copies are more reliable.

Nevertheless, this makes it difficult to justify the importance of inerrancy over, say, a belief that it is reliable but not inerrant.

We are never promised certainty

Human beings are not perfect, neither is the church. As TS Eliot once wrote: ‘Between the idea, and reality …. falls the shadow.” Nevertheless, we make decisions in life, even in science, without certainty. And we manage quite satisfactorily, even if there are many disagreements.

We make decisions in christian belief without certainty too – in fact even the doctrine of inerrancy is not found in the Bible, so an inerrantist cannot believe that the doctrine is certainly true. We are not promised certainty – we are asked to believe on the basis of both evidence and faith, not certainty. It doesn’t seem as if we need this doctrine, except if we are fearful.

Inerrancy doesn’t guarantee agreement

This is the most important reason why the doctrine doesn’t matter, and is of little practical use. The important thing about the Bible is not what we say about it, but whether we believe and obey it (as both Jesus and James said – see Matthew 21:28-31 & James 1:22).

But it is the unfortunate reality that those who hold strongest to the doctrine of inerrancy are often also in the strongest disagreement with each other. It is often inerrantists who argue over pre- post- and a-millennialism or Calvinism vs Arminianism. Their inerrancy has not enabled them to get the same message from the Bible which they claim must be inerrant to guarantee truth!

Perhaps even worse, many of these same christians find ways to ignore some very serious Biblical teachings about wealth and materialism, about war and non-violence, about loving their enemies and about care for the poor. Somehow, they seem more concerned about inerrancy than obeying.

It must be said that these adverse remarks don’t apply to some very wonderful and admirable christians. But the point is still generally true – inerrancy doesn’t guarantee agreement on the Bible’s teachings, thus negating one of the main reasons why it is considered important.


…. or does it?

But at a deeper level, inerrancy does matter, but in the opposite way than many think.

Truth is important

Truth is very important to christians, or should be. If the Biblical and other evidence points to the Bible not being clearly inerrant, truth demands that we moderate our doctrines.

Unreasonable expectations destroy people’s faith

I have come across many, many christians and ex-christians whose faith was attacked because they believed in inerrancy. They believed an inerrant Bible was the reason why we could trust God, so when they came to believe that it couldn’t be inerrant after all, their faith suffered.

Ignoring the Holy Spirit

We christians generally know that our faith is not so much in the Bible, but in God – the Father who made us all, the Jesus revealed in the Bible, and the Holy Spirit who interprets the Bible to us. Our trust in the Bible is therefore not based on a doubtful doctrine of inerrancy, but on the work of the Holy Spirit “inspiring” it to us as we read.

It is unfortunately clear that many parts of the church today, including many inerrantists, have a very weak dependence on the Holy Spirit day-to-day, regardless of what they teach. Many churches do not allow the Spirit to speak through prophecy and healing, nor allow the Spirit to teach us new things from the Bible – many would rather hang on to the traditions of the past.

In the end, I feel this may be the most important point of all.

Freedom and the future adventure

So I conclude that while God speaks through the Bible, there is no strong Biblical or doctrinal reason to believe the Bible is inerrant, and some good practical reasons to be wary of the teaching. Those who believe in faith that the Bible is inerrant should be free to do so, but it should not be made a matter of essential doctrine or division.

More importantly, I believe we need to break loose of the restrictions of a legalistic approach to the Bible and truth. The New Testament warns us that the letter kills but the Spirit brings life (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Let us live in that freedom, which isn’t the freedom to think whatever we like, but rather the freedom to allow the Spirit to teach us, including teach us new things from the scriptures.

Life following Jesus can be an adventure, as we set our sails, let loose our anchors, and allow the wind of the Spirit to take us into deep waters and uncharted territory. Just like his first disciples who left their nets to follow him, he will lead us in a new and meaningful life, where we put aside arguing about unbiblical and unclear doctrines that divide, and take up Jesus’ priorities of love, forgiveness, new life, caring for the poor and bringing God’s healing rule to all the earth.

Will you join me, and so many others, on this new adventure?


Believing the Bible: the New Testament

Photo: MorgueFile


17 thoughts on “Is the Bible inerrant – and does it matter?

  1. Nate says:

    But it is the unfortunate reality that those who hold strongest to the doctrine of inerrancy are often also in the strongest disagreement with each other. It is often inerrantists who argue over pre- post- and a-millennialism or Calvinism vs Arminianism. Their inerrancy has not enabled them to get the same message from the Bible which they claim must be inerrant to guarantee truth!

    Perhaps even worse, many of these same christians find ways to ignore some very serious Biblical teachings about wealth and materialism, about war and non-violence, about loving their enemies and about care for the poor. Somehow, they seem more concerned about inerrancy than obeying.

    Great point, and well stated!


  2. unkleE says:

    SacredStruggler, one assumes God is perfect and inerrant. The problem is at our end. God’s interactions with us always take account of our frailty.

    Ryan, I think confusion over the word “word” is one of the causes of the problems.

    Nate, thanks. One of the advantages of writing this sort of stuff (as I’m sure you’ve also discovered) is the new ideas and clarity it can sometimes bring. This was one of those times – I hadn’t really thought of this before.


  3. Elena says:

    Thank you for your post, I say a resounding Amen and Amen!

    I have been (up until recently) a Fundamentalist, Evangelical Christian for the past 36 years, but have decided to disassociate myself from any label. After spending several years deeply and prayerfully researching everything ‘Bible’ :), I do find it heartbreaking that there seems to be such a great divide amongst us. Christianity has taken on such a negative meaning in the eyes of so many.

    I agree with much of what you have written, there are an endless supply of those who would support your views, and others who would disagree with you, and many views in between. This raises a question which has been burning in my heart and soul. I’m wondering how we will ever come together? Much of what you have written speaks to this in regards to the topic of inerrancy
    If I may, I will offer up my humble opinion:) Throughout your post I feel you do a good job in raising your points without directly minimizing or making assumptions about other people, or why they believe a particular way, this is not an easy thing to do. However, there are several places where some of the statements you make are the type of things we say that I believe can divide rather than unite, although I believe this is not at all what you have intended. As soon as we begin to make judgments about why someone chooses to believe what they do, as you did in several of the following statements; “It doesn’t seem as if we need this doctrine, except if we are fearful”, or “Perhaps even worse, many of these same Christians find ways to ignore some very serious Biblical teachings about wealth and materialism, about war and non-violence, about loving their enemies and about care for the poor. Somehow, they seem more concerned about inerrancy than obeying”, and also by saying,….”where we put aside arguing about unbiblical and unclear doctrines…”, it seems to me we open the floodgates that divide. It doesn’t take many hours and years of research, (but in my case those hours have left one overriding, glaring impression), before one realizes that it is the finality of the judgements we make, between what is True and unTrue, that sets the stage for the ongoing drama of ‘us and them’, thus creating a chasm which separates, rather than unites. (That was a rather long run-on sentence:/

    I thought it was good that you did say that those who have a different view should be free to do so, although I believe it would have been a more gracious statement if you had reiterated, that it was your opinion, that this was ‘not a matter of essential doctrine’.
    I do not think we should refrain from discussing and debating such matters, because there are those that do believe these matters to be of utmost importance in our understanding of Truth. I also believe that it is through the art of engaging in judicious conversation and debate, that everyone is challenged to learn and grow. To do this it I believe we must foster an atmosphere of inclusiveness in the way we speak. If we want our views to be heard and understood, than we must be willing to hear and understand, even if we currently believe our position to be more “right” than others:)

    So, where does that leave us? I purpose a radical shift in the way most of us discuss and debate these things. How can we start to affect this change? Believe me, it is not easy to practice, but it is my belief that we can start by making a great effort to avoid speaking as though our current understanding is what is True, and by purposefully acknowledging that these are our current opinions, but that we remain open. We can welcome, invite and encourage others to express their views, beliefs, and opinions. You have certainly welcomed others by allowing people to post their response, and I think that is wonderful! Unfortunately, on a majority of these sites It seems to me that people feel minimized and judged, and so the comments are wrought with defensiveness, hostility, and divisiveness, unless of course everyone has the same opinion about the topic at hand. 🙂

    This is the message that is burning in my heart! I thank you for being one of the few sites that seems to have tried to embrace this same posture (at least on this post) 🙂

    Of course all of this is my current opinion, and I welcome ALL responses so that I may learn and grow in these things!:)


  4. unkleE says:

    Hi Elena, thank you for engaging so seriously with what I wrote here, and for your judicious and peace-making comments. I agree totally with the main points you are making, for instance in your conclusion:

    “we can start by making a great effort to avoid speaking as though our current understanding is what is True, and by purposefully acknowledging that these are our current opinions, but that we remain open. We can welcome, invite and encourage others to express their views, beliefs, and opinions.”

    But we may disagree slightly about how to do that. I certainly agree that we should never pretend that we are 100% certain and right, and I agree that we must always remain open to learn new things. I am sorry if the parts of my post you quoted don’t do this.

    I grew up in a family of four rambunctious boys who talked and argued about everything, while still remaining good friends (mostly!), and it has taken me 47 years of marriage and 8 years on the internet to get where I am now, where I try to be polite and inoffensive but still be direct and plain speaking about important but contentious topics. I don’t always get it right.

    I thought I had followed your suggested principles by using the word “seem” quite a few times, indicating uncertainty and lack of dogmatism on my part. If I was still too direct, or suggested knowledge of other people’s motives then I’m sorry – I still didn’t get the balance right.

    I will keep trying, and I appreciate everything you have said. Best wishes. I hope you keep visiting and commenting.


  5. kaiserelena says:

    Hi again:) Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback. I appreciate that you are so conscientious about these things, and look foward to reading some of your other posts. Blessings to you, keep doing what you’re doing!


  6. anonymous says:

    Thank you so much. You have answered everything I have struggled with since leaving the church I grew up in. I left six years ago. The state of the church breaks my heart. I read a statistic Sunday that gave the average age of a homeless person. They said nine years old. I think of those mega million churches and it’s sickening.


  7. unkleE says:

    Hi, thanks for your encouragement. I agree with your implication here, that we should all get on with loving and serving the world instead of arguing. I hope your experience of the church hasn’t turned you off Jesus?


  8. anonymous says:

    No I haven’t been turned off Jesus. Just religion and it’s place in my life. To the church I am damaged goods because I’m divorced. No one cares why I got divorced. But since God hates divorce I must have done something wrong! I had one nutter tell me that I should have stayed in the marriage no matter what my ex dished out because I made that commitment before God. I couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy I was seeing and felt there must be more.

    I didn’t find God in church. I found him through serving others. Living an authentic life and taking care of my own. The farther from the church I get, the closer to God’s heart I feel. He recently sent me a message through a friend I hadn’t seen in 6 years. It wasn’t to tell me to get back to church. It was to say He loves me.

    I don’t know where this road will lead but I’m following Him!


  9. unkleE says:

    I’m sorry you’ve had that experience. Churches sometimes are their own worst enemies. Regardless of what a church feels about divorce, christians are required to show love to everyone – see They’ll know we are christians by our love?

    But if you’re following Jesus apart from the church, by serving others, that’s great! I wish you well in your journey.


  10. Stephen says:

    But how can we explain these errors to the agnostics. They seem will ridicule us if we keep believing something that full of error.

    If you called those discrepancies are not errors, than what are they? Hermeunitical problems or not yet proven?

    I just don’t get the point, if Scripture wholly what God says, and it is different to the historical facts, then, can still it be the Word of God? If God inspired then why there are errors. Small errors are acceptable I think as long as it is still in one context, but if it is really different with the historical fact? I just don’t understand.

    Is it possible that the archaeological findings proof that Bible is a mere false history and fact?


  11. unkleE says:

    Hi Stephen, thanks for reading and for your comments and questions.

    I think viewing the Bible as less than inerrant is actually helpful to agnostics. If they see, as many do, things in the Bible that look like errors, they will naturally be unwilling to believe it is inerrant, and likely therefore to totally reject it. But if we say we believe it is a human book inspired by God, and therefore with human weaknesses as well as God’s truth, I think that is easier for them to accept.

    I think it is believers who face the bigger issue, and I think it is because of our expectations. I don’t know anywhere that the Bible claims to be “wholly what God says” or “the Word of God?”, but christians have assumed those things about the Bible.

    You ask “If God inspired then why there are errors.”, but we have to ask what “inspiration” means. The Greek word means “God breathed”, and there is argument about what exactly that means. So we have a choice. We can either (1) believe it means that God made it perfect, and then try to explain all the places where it doesn’t appear to be perfect, or (2) make no assumption, start with what it actually is and says (which seems to me to be that it is an imperfect book by human beings who have encountered or heard from God), and decide if God could have revealed himself in that way.

    I think the second course is both the most truthful and the safest. If you feel the first option is true then you should go with that. But I cannot.

    I don’t think archaeology can prove the Bible is totally true or totally false. Historians find lots of truth in it, especially in the New Testament, but the evidence for the earlier parts of the Old Testament is quite ambivalent. It seems that historians think the evidence points to significant historical contents from the time of King David on, but before then seems to contain legendary material.

    These are challenging issues, and I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has troubled you. Please feel free to continue the conversation.


Please leave a comment - anonymous is OK, but please identify yourself with a username. An email address is needed if you want notification of new comments. Please be courteous and constructive - see the Comment policy (link in the footer).

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s