I could be wrong, but I honestly feel that some theological issues aren't worth paying much attention to nowadays, at least not in they way it's commonly formulated. We should focus on new stuff and put aside the old shibboleths for a while, e.g. Biblical inerrancy.

At least two good blogged presentations of the traditional understanding of Biblical inerrancy were posted recently by my friend, David. The overall thrust/recommendation basically goes like: Defend an error-free Bible like the faith depends on it, because - really - it DOES.

The logic is straightforward: God doesn't make mistakes so God's written revelation cannot be mistaken too. If even ONE error is discovered or,

to use terms more appropriate to what everyone knows is the context, 'conceded' then (gasp!) how can we EVER be sure that anything else about

Scripture is true?! How can we be sure that Abraham Isaac Jacob Moses ever existed? How can we have no doubt that that Israel as a nation is real? How can we know absolutely that Jesus performed miracles, raised the dead, was crucified, died, was buried and on Day 3 emerged from the tomb? How can we be sure?!

Solution: Presuppose the absence of error. I know this sounds kinda harsh, but when you break down the view it does boil down to this tautology. Inerrancy thus becomes part of the system. To ask if the Bible can contain an error, therefore, is like asking if it's possible for "1+1" to not equal "2" in a Cartesian grid. Or if the white rook can ever capture its own bishop. Or if the shaver will work if you insert the batteries in the wrong way.

There is no conceptual 'space' within this conservative evangelical system for even the possibility of an error (no matter how small).

Personally, I think the whole God-doesn't-screw-up thrust is a little weak. Consider:

1.  Inerrancy still allows for the TRANSMISSION and TRANSLATION of Biblical texts to be erroneous (only the texts in their original form are clean i.e. there was no way St. Paul could've gotten a historical matter even slightly wrong but if the copier of the epistle made a typo that's perfectly fine); why God would limit inerrancy to the original texts (which have been lost) and allow mistakes in the copies is unclear and, I might add, not at all stated in the Bible itself.

This has the strange effect of suggesting that God allows mistakes in verifiable documents but is "very absolutely strict about being right" when verification is impossible. So, check it out: we have a God who cares about not making mistakes, but One who also doesn't give two jars of clay about checking for mistakes! Talk about creating more problems than solutions. Would it be all that over-the-top, then, to suggest that maybe God allowed some mistakes in even the original manuscripts?

2. Inerrancy doubters/dissenters wouldn't HAVE to declare that God is terrible with facts; they would only need to insist that the party largely responsible for all the (minor) problems with the Bible is - surprise surprise! - humanity ourselves, we being the fallen stewards of God's creation and also scribes for divine revelation. So there are a few problems with Luke's account of Theudas in the Book of Acts? That's Luke's error, not God's!

3. God doesn't need to control the way we love to be known (and worshipped) as a God who has perfect Love at the core of His being. Neither must God control every iota in the universe and every fleeting thought of every one of His creatures to be known (and worshipped) as an all-Powerful God.

Point is, not everything that happens in His world or everything done by His people will necessarily please God or meets His perfect standards. Ditto with the Bible: He doesn't have to ensure that there are NO errors in His Book to be regarded as a God who has truly revealed Himself and His plans via the written word.

Now this could come as a shocker: I am an inerrantist! I do believe that God's Word, in its original form (ahem), is error-free. But I'm also trying to offer my two-pence corrective on how to improve our thinking about certain cherished beliefs.

Irony of ironies: The doctrine of inerrancy helps neither the REALITY of inerrancy nor its PURPOSE.

I'll explain in the next post(that is, if I haven't been ex-communicated by then).