For the Bible Tells Me So?

The above examples are just a few of the massive problems that come with biblical inerrancy. For example, if the Bible is all divine, how do you explain its inconsistencies? In the book of Matthew, we are told that Judas, the disciple that betrayed Jesus, hung himself. However, in the book of Acts, we are told that Judas fell down in a field and died from massive internal rupturing of his organs. Both stories can’t be true. So why do we have two conflicting stories in Scripture about the death of Judas? The answer is simple.  When the Bible was written—many decades after the original events occurred—two different stories were circulating about Judas’s death. The writer of Matthew picked up one story, and the writer of Acts picked up the other. If space permitted, hundreds of examples of inconsistencies in the Bible could be given, including conflicting accounts of the birth and resurrection of Christ.

Another example of the problems that come with biblical literalism can be found in the familiar story of Noah and the ark in Genesis 6—8. Although many people believe that the Noah story literally happened, a lot of sincere and thoughtful Christians are reluctant, for several reasons, to affirm a literal reading of the text. First, no scientific evidence exists to suggest that the earth ever experienced a worldwide flood. Major floods have occurred locally and regionally, but it’s doubtful that the entire earth ever flooded. Also, how is it possible that every species on the planet was placed into one boat, even a big one? From a scientific analysis, the story has overwhelming problems. Second, the Genesis flood story is extremely similar to an ancient Babylonian myth that predates the Bible. Even a casual reading of the two stories leads to the likely conclusion that the Israelites borrowed the ancient story, adapted it, and retold it according to their purposes. Finally, significant theological challenges exist with the passage. If the Noah story literally happened, then God purposely annihilated every living creature on the earth in a worldwide genocidal flood. This image of God is hard to reconcile with Jesus’ teachings that God is like a Heavenly Father who deeply loves his children, even sinful ones like the prodigal son. Valuable theological lessons can be found in the story of Noah, including the fact that God takes sin seriously and God expects us, like Noah, to live righteous and faithful lives in a pagan culture. But one can affirm these theological truths without believing in a literal, worldwide, genocidal flood.

Many years ago I had a conversation about biblical literalism with an extremely conservative pastor. We were talking about the Old Testament stories of David killing his arch-enemies, the Philistines. Several of those stories claim that David singlehandedly killed hundreds of Philistines at a time. I said to this pastor, “What if the biblical writers exaggerated the number of Philistines that David killed in any given battle? What if he only killed thirty instead of three hundred? Would that matter?” The pastor replied, “If that were true, I would have to quit the ministry and renounce my faith.  If I can’t believe everything in the Bible, then I can’t believe anything in the Bible.” Sadly, this kind of radical literalism is extremely damaging to the Christian faith. It forces people to take an all or nothing approach to Scripture, a totally unnecessary choice that the Bible does not require.

For these and many other reasons, the vast majority of Christian believers do not affirm biblical inerrancy. And they don’t need to affirm or accept it. Only a small percentage of Christians advocate this position. The Bible itself never claims to be inerrant; it claims only to be inspired. Biblical inerrancy has never been the historic position of the church. In fact, the church existed for nineteen centuries without this view. Belief in biblical inerrancy is not necessary for Christians and is, in fact, detrimental to authentic faith. Telling people they must believe something that intellectual and theological integrity cannot authentically accept only hurts the Christian cause. Thankfully, a third and far more promising position exists concerning biblical inspiration.