Inspiration & Biblical Inerrancy
Inspiration
Inspiration means different things to different people.
- You can believe in complete inerrancy, where God literally dictated every letter. This also includes the idea that the Bible is perfect in every respect, and contains no error of any kind.
- You can believe in doctrinal infallibility, where God ensured that the doctrinal principles were recorded accurately. This is what is asserted by the Roman Catholic Church & Orthodox tradition.
- You can believe in the inspiration of the authors, where God provided revelation to the authors, but didn’t commission the writing of the Bible.
Paul himself in 1st Corinthians 7 says that his opinion on celibacy is just that, and that it is not a command from God.
I think the first two types of inspiration are irrational, because the differing conceptions of God found in scripture directly contradict each other. And I think the latter only exists in part.
God is a God of love in 1st John 4. Yet he permits chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46.
In order to reconcile these two into a single unified conception of God, you have to modify your understanding of love to permit a person owning, and beating, another human being. Where it is permitted to “treat them harshly†provided they are not part of your ethnic group.
In which case, you define love in such a way as to exclude the fundamental concept itself.
The Bible does not support the doctrine of inspiration.
2nd Timothy 3:16
The idea that the Bible is the literal dictated word of God is a result of a misunderstanding of the word theopneustos from this verse by Origen of Alexandria.
It is a fundamental principle of linguistics that words do not get their meaning from their etymological roots. Words derive their meaning from one source alone, usage. How a word is used is what it means.
Examples:
- Butterly: A butterfly is neither a fly, nor is it made out of butter.
- Call-Girl: A prostitute has nothing to do with a telephone.
Etymology tells us where a word comes from, usage tells us what it means.
Prior to Origen, in all other ancient Near Eastern literature, the word theopnestos was used to refer to things like rivers and sandals in the desert. Things that breathe God’s breath of life into people, like he breathed into Adam.
There were absolutely no connotations of divinely imparted knowledge until Origen redefined the term.
The author of the second letter to Timothy would have understood the word to mean life-giving or enlivening, not divinely imparted knowledge. The author was also referring to the Hebrew Bible, as the new testament had yet to be seen as scripture.
For more information on this topic, I would reccommend the book The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture by John C. Poirier. He represents the academic consensus on this issue.
The Bible is not the Word of God
The Bible is the word of men, some of whom were inspired by God, but were nonetheless fallible people influenced by their cultures.
The Bible certainly contains a record of some of the words of God, assuming they are recorded accurately, but it also contains many of the opinions of men.
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
New Revised Standard Version (Updated Edition)
The genocide of an entire people including children for the sins of their ancestors is not something that is compatible with the God portrayed by Jesus or Paul. In order to come up with a model that allows a loving God to commit these attrocaties, you have to come up with a model of love that includes hatred.
Once you have voluntary destroyed your ability to tell the difference between hatred and love, you can justify any kind of horrific act simply because “God says so.â€
I cannot accept the doctrines of direct textual inspiration, univocality, or biblical inerrancy. I believe they require turning God into a caprecious tyrant at best, and a monster at worst.
What is the Bible?
The Bible is not a perfect reflection of the word and will of God. It is a reflection of the many different conceptions of God that the authors had over the millennium in which it was written. I would consider many of those conceptions to be primitive and inaccurate.
Christianity is an ongoing and evolving religious tradition. The Bible is not the only source of Christian doctrine. We also have Church tradition, the witness of nature, the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the witness of our own consciences, and rational thought.
The Bible is the start of the Christian tradition, it is not the end of it. Christianity is not beholden to the outdated philosophies of patriarchal and misogynistic cultures. We have moved beyond the ethical frameworks of the Bible.
When reading the Bible, we should do so in community with other believers, with the goal of growing closer to God. But we should not be afraid to acknowledge where the Bible errs in teaching and doctrine. Where it errs in morality. Where it is simply wrong. And where it actively promotes evil.
Refusing to do so turns the Bible into an idol. One often exploited by those who seek power.
The Bible is important, but it is not even close to perfect. The Bible can be wrong.