Ask a RoadRunner

[RoadRunner79]

What's your position/opinion on Biblical inerrancy?

I would say that I do believe in Biblical inerrancy, but it is more a product of faith, rather than a linchpin of it.   That is, I have no problem dropping inerrancy and still maintaining my faith.

That being said, I think that some can have a view of inerrancy that goes to far.  For instance, I think that some can become to hyper-literal and claim inerrancy against anyone who says otherwise.  For instance if scripture reports that there was 500 people, then I allow, that it may have been 499 people, 502 people or perhaps 475 people.  I don't really consider this a matter of inerrancy. 

Here is a view from Credo House Ministries which I think fairly represents my view which they call "Reasoned Inerrancy".  

“Reasoned inerrancy” is a definition which recognizes that the Scriptures must be understood according to the rules of interpretation governed by genre, historical accommodations, context, argument, and purpose. In other words, the modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regard to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that – a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and a faulty hermeneutic.

What is meant by "technically precise"  here, is similar to the above.   That the writers of the scriptures could be reporting accurately and truthfully, but be able to take some liberties in the reporting of events.  So is it imposing an unnatural technical precision, then if it says 500, then that cannot mean 499 or 501 or any other number than exactly 500/ 

A short time ago, there was a controversy among Christians involving Mike Licona and his view on inerrancy.   I think that he was criticized overly harshly by some, which if you read what he is saying from Licona himself, didn't always match up.  He basically compared the scriptures to the biographies of Plutarch saying that they should be read similarly.  With Licona, I think that there was issues with people over reacting to soundbites taken out of context.  In reading some of his words; while he may have been clarifying some things, I also think that he lightened up some from where he originally started. 

So to sum up, I do think that the Bible is inerrant, although it may not be the same way that others view it.  I think that we should allow for the normal liberties that we encounter in everyday speech, that both you and I likely use all the time.  That one can be faithful and truthful in reporting something while not being technically precise.  That we should use normal reason, to try to reconcile two different accounts, assuming that they are describing the same thing, even if one technically could argue about the differences. 

Note:  I also think that people can sometimes become too precise with words as well, which leads to a bad hermenutic.  I think that this can be seen in Christian circles some now, where pastors will talk about the different greek words for "love".  It's true, that each of the words carry a different connotation of "love", but I think that you can also make too much of this, and in reality, they can be interchanged as well.  While I think that the study of the meaning of words, that lexicons and concordances are good tools which have a time and place to use them;  that if you are getting that precise, you probably cannot see the forest apart from the trees.