Inerrancy and Textual Variatians in the Scriptures

One aspect of the argument made against the Christian position of the Scriptural errancy is that is the Biblical Scriptures are found to be wrong on smaller details (such as dates, numbers, historical or scientific facts), then such a finding casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the longer details of the Scriptures as a whole. However, such an argument could be similarly applied to the known and universally agreed upon existence of textual variances in ALL the known Scriptural documents. Yet, the existence of these textual variances does not cast any such serious about the reliability of the Scriptural message (in either parts or whole) for evangelical, inerrantist scholars.

I bring this analogy up not because I desire to convince anyone that the Scripture are errant. I myself do not hold to that position; rather, I believe that the original documents of the Scriptures are inerrant. Of course, my own interpretation of the doctrine of inerrancy can be somewhat at variance with most of the conservatives with whom I associate and fellowship. Furthermore, because I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of what many Christian believers mean when they refer to themselves as “errantists” or even understand the reasons why many Christian believers refuse to adopt the designation of “inerrancy”, I often defend various “errantists” for various and always particular reasons. Such a defense would thus categorize me as a “moderate” in the label-making department Paul Pressler (see A Hill on Which to Die, x.). However, since I neither care what Judge Pressler thinks about this matter nor even believe him to be any sort of learned authority about subject of “Scriptural inerrancy”, I am most dutifully self-described as a conservative, evangelical Christian who holds to the label of “inerrantist”.

Therefore, I bring up this analogy in order to spread ecumenical tolerance among the various Christian factions. I bring up this analogy in order to soften the minds and hearts of my fellow conservative, evangelical Christians by introducing to them a palatable reason why some Christians can honestly and faithfully hold to the position of “Scriptural errancy”.

Allow me to paraphrase Emil Brunner's illustration about the errancy of Scripture. It's like hearing Carouso singing on a phonograph. We hear a scratch here or there, a little white noise as they say today, but through it all is the unmistakable voice of the Master (see The Christian Doctrine of God, vol. 1: 107-113.)

I have often heard this illustration denounced and mocked by evangelical pastors and professors (mainly the latter). But could not such illustration also be made to bolster the existence of the textual variances in the Scriptural documents?

Allow me to make such thoughts more personal:

Recall the “King James Only” Christians and other Fundamentalists whose blind and unthinking approaches to their Faith practice excludes any hint that there could ever be any textual variances in the Scriptures: “GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!”

Recall your own first belief about the nature of the Bible. Recall your first reaction when told by someone that the various documents of the Bible do not agree with each other 100% of the time. Did you believe it? Did you think that the people who believe this are liberals? Did you think that they could not possibly be Christians? How did you finally come to accept this view as true, if you have in fact done so?

Thus I think that we need to be quite tolerant of those who hold to “Scriptural errancy”. We need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because 1) we all once had a theological viewpoint that was proven to be wrong and 2) we all currently have a theological viewpoint that will be proven to be wrong.

More importantly, we need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because God gave US grace when we had and have incorrect theology.

See also:

Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture

Inerrant Art

Inerrancy and the SBC

The Heighth of Goliath

On the Death of Animals

Here is a puzzle about the nature of the earth prior to the Fall of Man.

One of the traditional beliefs among some conservative Christian groups is that prior to Adam’s sin the situation of the earth there was absolutely NO DEATH either spiritual or physical of any kind. Thus, this view states that not only did Man not face death prior to the Fall but neither did Animals. In fact, the killing of Animals was an unknown idea prior to the Fall. In other words, lions, tigers, and eagles did not hunt and kill smaller Animals for food. Such carnivore deaths are a result of the Fall and not a result of God’s intended creation. If the Fall had not occurred, it is reasoned, then Animals would not be killing other Animals for food but killing plants for food.

(What Venus fly traps would be eating is still a mystery. I have heard that plants are not a part of the “death” consequences of the Fall. I am not sure where insects and fish are categorized. I really do not know where those insects which look like sticks are found either.)

Thus, we have noted scholars writing anti-evolutionary articles for the BP about pythons swallowing pigs whole and how this cannot be God’s intention. Indeed, one of the major problems many conservative Christians have with evolution and old earth geology is not simply that it theorizes a progressive change of God’s creation over long periods of time but that it necessitates the view that Animals died before Man even existed, let alone before Man fell into sin. Furthermore, it presumes that Man’s biological ancestors were also subject to physical death. Thus, the view among some conservative Christian groups is that death could not have existed before the Fall of Man into sin.

But there is a real problem with this view.

1) Examine the carnivore Animals of God’s creation: lions, cheetahs, eagles, bear, vultures, wolves, sharks, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO HUNT AND KILL OTHER ANIMALS. The teeth, the claws, the speed, and the senses – it is all designed to find, chase down, kill, tear apart and devour other Animals.

2) Examine many of the Animals of God’s creation that are hunted by carnivores: deer, skunks, porcupines, elephants, rhinoceroses, fish, lizards, rabbits, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO ESCAPE, DEFEND AND HIDE FROM OTHER ANIMALS. The camouflage, the speed, the defensive capabilities are a part of their being. These capabilities assume a life of potential death and the ability to kill and avoid being killed.

If we state hold to a traditional theological view that Animals were not originally intended by God to kill each other as a part of his “good” earth, then how do we explain that they were created with the potential to do so?

There are a few possible explanations:

1) God intention in creating Animals was for them to never kill each other. However, since God knew that Man would Fall and send the Animal kingdom in a killing disorder, he purposely created them with the abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed.

For obvious reasons, this is not a very satisfying explanation.

2) God never intended Animals to kill each other and did not create them with that potential. However, after the Fall, Animals developed the properties and abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed. Thus, the curse upon the earth by Adam resulted in “Lions” acquiring claws, teeth, and scary roars. This is a theory held by many “Creationists”, however, there are problems. Essentially, those who advocate this theory are arguing for a form of biological evolution occurring, albeit in rapid time. They are arguing that over a very short period of time Animals changed or evolved from peaceful herbivores to villainess carnivores as a result of the Fall. Also, Animals evolved from creatures not needing to defend themselves into creatures that with the ability to defend themselves.

The irony of this position is that it is the very position held by biological evolutionists. The only difference is one of time. Biological evolutionists believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of millions of years. Those “Creationists” who hold to the position above believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of a few years or less.

The “Creationist” version of this theory is not a very satisfying explanation either. If we then hold that Animals changed over a brief period of time in order to adapt to their environment, we are actually assenting to the biological evolutionist view. With this admission, combined with the fossil record and the various dating methods available, I prefer to hold to the biological evolutionary theory.

3) Since I hold to the biological evolutionary theory, I believe that God’s creation of Animals was a process of development to meet the environmental needs of these creatures. The distinction between my belief and the previous belief in this respect is that I agree with biological evolutionists that the process was one of millions of years and not a few years or less.

But a distinction between myself and the first tow theories is that I do not see the death of Animals as a result of the Fall. I won’t go into too much detail about this belief now except for the following statement:

Animals are not created in the “image of God” and do not have the ability to relate to God on a personal level. Animals are created out of nothing and go back into nothing. They are never promised immortality by God and have done nothing to either gain or lose such an eternal state. Thus, their death is not a bad thing; it is a natural thing. The killing of an animal is not in of itself a bad thing and is never treated as such in the Scriptures. Animals were created and destroyed long before God created Man and God is perfectly fine with the natural order of animals killing other animals and attempting to avoid being killed. God created them for such an existence and, thus, that is their existence. Such an existence would have continued even if Man had not fallen into sin. The death of an Animal by another Animal is no more out of the realm of God’s intention for Creation than the death of a plant by an Animal. We may not like this scenario, but that is nevertheless the scenario God has deemed appropriate for his Creation.