Rethinking the Bible (Pt. 1)
“Is the Bible infallible or fallible?”
Truthful Literature
Before you attack me or accuse me of not being a Christian, read my reasonable premises for it. Not all Christians embrace the Bible to be this infallible text, but still consider it to contain some truth. We don’t make the claim that God never inspired it or its authors to begin with. We simply don’t believe in that Christian fundamentalist notion that the text itself has to retain 100% accuracy of truth in order to present a truthful message. Christ indeed has risen and the Spirit teaches us all to be virtuous and sound in teaching, except carnal Christians deny His timeless guidance apart from the biblical literature (this sentence is not intended to insult anyone). Then you have many fundamentalists challenging this claim, but rest easy and try to agree with the following premises for my rejection of biblical infallibility.
“If One Error, Then All is False”
This is the reason why many bible-believing Christians leave the faith, because they assert this irrational logic and apply a ridiculous standard to the Bible, then finding out the book has errors and deny everything in it. It isn’t fair to apply an imaginary standard to the Bible when it makes no claim to be perfect or wholly true in content. But then you ask, “How can the Bible contain truth if it does have error?” First of all, God never promised us a library of books with perfect teaching. This is human assumption and an intellectual cope-out to rational thought. Secondly, a person doesn’t require infallibility to state a valid conclusion, so why do we feel obliged to think the Bible shouldn’t follow the same rule of logic? “Because it’s the word of God!?” Is it? (I’ll address why that’s false in the next paragraph). Thirdly, the claims and historicity of Jesus are sufficient for the Christian faith. If Moses or any writer bring up a flawed idea to the conversation, that’s fine. We know our highest authority is Jesus and His life, but we need to carefully examine Jesus’ words lest we assume He always speaks with absolute truths. He uses partial or circumstantial truths. Why? You can’t fully describe reality with pithy sayings (I mean look at Proverbs). Finally, the Christian faith (or the Christian God) can be supported by history, prophetic fulfillment, rational philosophy, and divine experience. This adds a layer of defense to the Christian faith better than using circular logic (e.g. “the Bible is true because it says so”). Circular logic used to support the Christian faith is an embarrassment to rational thought.
“The Bible is the Word of God!”
There is no legit claim in the Bible for this to be true. The Bible imputes this phrase to either Jesus, a divine revelation, a promise of God, or the gospel. While you could argue that Jesus quotes a psalm by claiming it has origin from the word of God, and with the narrative saying it cannot be broken; however, Jesus quoted a psalm that was inspired and didn’t refer to all scripture as infallibly inspired. Same logic applies to Paul quoting Greek poets, because their sayings had inspiration of theological truth. Inspiration is not limited to the Bible, it is diverse and unlimited especially because of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the scripture or psalmist’s writing came from the word of God, not that it is the divine Word.
And to answer to the idea of “the scripture cannot be broken”. The Greek word used for “broken” (λύω/luo) has various meanings like loosen, destroy, or release. You could say that scripture cannot be broken, so that means preservation but this doesn’t imply infallibility. But we know that this contradicts with the evidence of distinct manuscripts having their own factual integrity and their own inaccuracies. Maybe preserved by being distinct, but there is also evidence that such manuscripts like the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic could have a bogus verse compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls. But how do we know the most early manuscripts weren’t tampered or wrongly copied as well? As one scholar like Gleason Archer has asserted: “Even the earliest and best manuscripts that we possess are not totally free of transmissional errors. Numbers are occasionally miscopied, the spelling of proper names is occasionally garbled, and there are examples of the same types of scribal error that appear in other ancient documents as well.” If scribal errors are possible, then maybe other errors are also possible.
Aside from this point, the narrative meant that this portion of scripture should not be ignored or laid aside if you agree with the Psalmist as being inspired by God. Most Jews cling to the psalms as an authoritative document mainly because of its author’s spiritual and moral reputation. Jesus appealed to the Jews by using the writings of the Psalmist as an authoritative argument. An authoritative argument is mainly an appeal to trust, not validity; in a sense, the psalmist’s writings are more inclined to be true than false (but not meaning without error). I mean if Job’s ungodly critics were quoted by a single Jew to refute Jesus’ claim, his argument wouldn’t suffice because their spiritual insight isn’t trusted as the psalmist’s true devotion to God. Bildad said to Job, “If even the moon does not shine, and the stars are not pure in His sight, how much less man, who is but a maggot, and the son of man, who is but a worm!” (Job 25:5, 6). He compares the value and image of mankind to celestial bodies, whom he considers to be in higher value than man. I’m sure the Jews were aware that certain portions of their scriptures weren’t authoritative due to the speaker’s lack of character and spirituality. But is it possible that few/most Jews believed in a view similar to Bildad’s view of man over Genesis’ or Jesus’ view of mankind? Possibly. Maybe some used that as justification to kill him as being wrong, yet this wasn’t recorded or uttered to Jesus. In other words, Jesus said, “You guys can’t ignore the psalmist’s writing, because you deem him reliable and thus inspired!” It’s noteworthy to mention that Jesus didn’t argue with the Jews with unreliable figures in or controversial books of the Bible (I guess Esther, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, or Judith) but just writings they deemed trustworthy. Even Jesus doesn’t quote the Prophets or the Psalms to argue with the Sadducee (Mark 12:27). How can the Bible be the word of God if Satan or ungodly men utter their falsehood in the text? How can the Bible be the word of God if there are accounts that contradict without reconciliation, or insert copyist errors?
Arbiter of Truth
The biggest mistake that most assume is that if you don’t believe the Bible is wholly true, then you become an arbiter of truth! Not really! Even if the Bible were all true, you still have to find the right interpretation. You are still an arbiter of truth on interpretation. So then, how do we discern falsehood from truth? Jesus made it simple as well as Paul, which is to love God and others (i.e. faith working through love). Anything that violates these simple commands is not in alignment with God. God bases morality upon right intimacy, not ritual compulsion or moral legalism. The common trait that love and faith share is proper intimacy, especially to good welfare. Also test the writings of the Bible and assumed doctrines with that of the gospel. Anything else that is unimportant or not primary to doctrine should be ignored. Finally, are such doctrines edifying to the human psyche or beneficial to relationships? Because welfare and right intimacy should be our primary concerns. Right intimacy should not be assumed as staying in an abusive relationship for the sake of union, because it violates welfare and rewards sin without remedial consequence.
Contradictions
The book of Proverbs has a legit excuse since it appeals to short sayings, thus, implying circumstantial/conditional truths. Partial coherency can be applied to certain texts like Proverbs and the words of Jesus. But why are Samuel and Chronicles the exception? Because these are two separate accounts with differing narratives (impossible to reconcile). Let’s read a few:
“He asked the LORD what he should do, but the LORD refused to answer him, either by dreams or by sacred lots or by the prophets” (1 Samuel 28:6).
“He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse” (1 Chronicles 10:14).
The two accounts contradict without any possible reconciliation. He either sought the Lord or he didn’t. It is in my speculation that Saul did seek the Lord for guidance to save his own skin, but he didn’t desire Him for intimacy. He didn’t seek the Lord for friendship, but to manipulate God for his selfish preservation. However, the biblical text on both accounts don’t suggest my theory at all, so this explanation of mine doesn’t support its infallibility. Sorry guys! Mainly because the other text says, “He did not seek Him for guidance,” not “He did not seek Him [for intimacy]”. The Chronicler made this narrative to try to justify the Lord since he disagreed with Samuel’s account. Instead he wanted the blame to be just Saul. However, there are ways to justify the Lord in Samuel’s account, but for the sake of a concise writing, he inserted the notion that Saul never sought the Lord. But something can be learned from this story based on my explanation. (But I’ll save this for another post).
“Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1).
“Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1).
Spare me the defense for these two contrary verses; a partial coherent approach doesn’t work in this case. Yes, God allowed the devil to incite David but our theology tells us this, and not the Bible itself. When Jews read 2 Samuel before Chronicle’s account, they didn’t conceive this narrative to be the devil. Again, the Chronicler in defense for God changed this narrative to mean the devil since he didn’t conceive God as a tempter of evil, who then blamed the person who was tempted. If you presume God incites evil, then you haven’t read James, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (1:13). Why did James quote an immature and false presumption of God? Because it is possible that some Jews did believe that God tempted people to sin based on the Samuel account of David taking a census. Of course, you could argue that other Bible verses could reveal to us the correlation between God’s passive will and the agency of the devil. But this dispute isn’t a matter of revelation, it’s a matter of fallible theology on the Jews. The Chronicler didn’t want to provide an in-depth justification for God allowing the devil to tempt His servant, so he simply imputes blame on the devil. He takes a much simpler route in theology rather than to formulate theological assumptions, which might not convince the reader anyway. It may not be contradictory in theology, but it is in literature. And since the Bible is claimed to be infallible in content, it is a genuine contradiction.
“The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).
“If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it” (Hebrews 8:5).
The counter argument might be that the former covenant and the Old Testament are two separate entities, but the first covenant depends on the instructions of the Old Testament, implying there was fault found within it. The author of Hebrews explains not only the flaw of animal sacrifices but also the superiority of the new covenant with Jesus. If the old covenant wasn’t flawless, neither were its customs demanded by the Mosaic law. If God didn’t purely inspire or originally intend the Mosaic law, what makes you presume the Bible as a whole is infallible? God required sacrifices but for the sake of their cultural mindset, in order to abstain them from the worship of other gods by child sacrifice. However, God revealed to others that He never desired them anyway. But it was simply a temporal remedy and coping-mechanism for their mindsets. It was never God’s preferred will but His passive will for a primitive people. All God desired was a heart of repentance or of daily renewal to divine truth.
“The sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God” (Psalm 51:17).
“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require” (Psalm 40:6).
David discovered this insight from his previous revelation with the Lord, when he counted a census upon Israel. This extra-biblical story might explain where he developed his view of God. This is found in the Book of Gad the Seer which is mentioned in the Bible (this literature was found from the Cochin Jews).
“22 And David said unto God: “Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? Even I it is that have sinned and acted wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Oh LORD my God, let Your hand be against me and against my father’s house, but not against Your people, that they should be plagued. Shall not the judge of all the earth do justice?” 23 And the LORD said: “They incited Satan against you to number them, saying thus: ‘We will be like all the nations,’ but I am a God of justice; may I return their high heart into their own bosoms. 24 For a broken or a contrite heart I shall not despise forever” [Psalm 51:17] (The Book of Gad 7:22–24).
Useful in Teaching (2 Tim.) or Ambiguous in Thought (2 Peter)
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Case closed! All of scripture is God-breathed! That has to mean infallibility! Sola Scriptura! Except this would only happen in a Protestant’s fantasy. The Greek best translates as: “All God-breathed writings are useful…” This doesn’t mean a limited and fixed canon of writings but an unlimited and diversity of writings that have the potential to edify faith. But then you ask, “How could God-breathed writings have any error?” Well, the verse doesn’t say, “All God-breathed writings are useful and without any error”. If God breathed Adam into existence and yet Adam wasn’t perfect or infallible in his choice, what makes you think a book will embody this quality? Especially if God loves mankind more than a library of books. “Okay but what about the Bible equipping believers as being self-sufficient?” The 17th verse of 2 Timothy in chapter 3 is truly identified as a circumstantial omission since it leans more to a positive scenario at a narrowly given situation; however, 2 Peter 3:16 gives a negative and contrary scenario.
“He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other Scriptures [or writings] to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).
In fact, this is an example of partial or conditional truths. The scenario in Timothy is only true in a given situation but the scenario in Peter is only true if the situation corresponds to it. And Christians aren’t immune to ignorance and unstable judgement, so these things can happen. And even the apostle Peter found some of Paul’s writings to be ambiguous and easily distorted, so imagine how much luck we have to decipher the Scriptures. In other words, the Scriptures have some material sufficiency but not formal sufficiency since it cannot guarantee one’s maturity. It can give wise instruction but not wisdom as a divine or spiritual empowerment. The Scriptures (and other writings included) are useful in teaching, but sometimes difficult to understand or fathom them in its original context.
The Dangers of Biblicism and Bibliolatry
The only reason men worship the Bible is due to two beliefs about it. The first notion is that the Bible is perfect (or that it embodies inerrancy). The second notion is that the Bible is the word of God (yet Jesus is hardly called this). Unfortunately, when men adopt this mindset, they become unstable in their thinking by being lost or desperate if they lack a Bible. I know not everyone does this, but this is the quality that exposes them. And considering the Bible to be eternal in past is much akin to some Muslims believing the Koran is eternal and a part of God. This is another extreme that deprives Christian men of divine rationality. I know this is a rare case but it is serious.
The issue with biblicism is that it can potentially deny philosophy inspired by Wisdom, generate detrimental and primitive ideas, contrast against factual science, and even contradict with mystical experiences of God. It is not a healthy manner of appealing to truth. And the reason some Christians embrace Calvinism or Literalism is because they read the Scriptures without appealing to rational philosophy, contextual hermeneutics, and confirmed divine experience. John MacArthur couldn’t even reconcile the axiomatic contradiction between human responsibility and God’s total predestination of man. If God predestines man to sin and to be in hell, then He is to be blamed of his evil and rejection of Himself. If there is no free agency for the man, then God cannot impute guilt on the sinner. Without volition, he cannot have person-hood or be responsible for virtue or sin. Biblicism has the capacity to sabotage one of rational sense to a degree, and insert fallacious notions into one’s mind. And this is not to offend the Calvinist, but to encourage them to think deeper than what’s been taught. St. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp while he was a student of John the apostle. Irenaeus did not affirm Calvin’s notion of predestination but he affirmed human choice or agency. And yet Calvinists in the 1500's destroyed the grave of this early Christian because of his assertion of free agency. Imagine if he were alive in that time; he would likely be tormented and killed yet he was close to John the apostle.
Biblicism will never lead you in all truth, nor scientism but He who was promised by our Lord. The Spirit is not fully manifested in the Scriptures but He dwells within us. He teaches us much more efficiently than men of study. His voice can be known well if you train and learn the ways lest you be clueless as Samuel the seer when he was very young. And the word of the Lord mentioned was not correlated to a writing but a direct revelation. If the Bible were perfect, not only would men worship it, but they would also deny the Holy Spirit as their personal guide and friend. You can’t really be friends with someone if you are reading their autobiography. We should never deny the humanity of the Bible but also never exaggerate the divinity of the Bible. It is inspired by God but also produced by man. Notice how Paul in Ephesians 1:17 and John in 1 John 2:27 explain the Spirit guides believers personally and encourage prayer for them to engage in such an activity. I explain more in detail in this post: “Should Scripture Dictate Your Mind?”
No Prophecy of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21)
It is possible that the closest thing to embodying infallibility were the prophetic writings in predicting Jesus or future events, or exposing the heart of God. I am open to the suggestion of infallibility in regard to the utterances of the prophets, but I am also open to their potential fallibility. However, assuming the prophetic utterances were infallible, there are justified reasons for it.
First of all, the Old Testament prophets were held to a higher standard for spiritual identification. Their law demanded a pure expression of prophecy without any exceptions for their own moral welfare and poor discernment (Deuteronomy 13). However, because of Jesus’ superior moral example and His confidence in others being taught by the Spirit (John 6:45), the early Christians didn’t perpetually condemn or stone prophets if they ever erred. Their main standard to test them were their posture of behavior. Even the Didache (ancient christian guideline) reveals their discernment towards false prophets and simply discerned them rather than stone them:
“But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet…Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and true prophet be known” (Didache 11).
But many Christians at that time were more engaged in knowing God and prophesying than the Jewish community of old as Irenaeus discloses of the early Church:
“Those who are in truth Jesus’ disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform miracles, so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe in Christ, and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years” (Against Heresies 2:32:4).
“For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect”, terming those who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used himself also to speak. In like manner we do hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual”, they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual” (A.H. 5:6:1).
[You could argue that only some had the gift of prophecy or knowledge, but these gifts are not required to know God intimately, because these gifts are but handicaps to moving in the Spirit; and the apostle Paul encourages all of his audience to pursue the gift to prophesy in 1 Corinthians 14:1 which refutes partial charismatic gifting.]
Secondly, the Jews were poor in matters of spiritual discernment and mystical revelation as compared to Christians who are invited to a higher grace because of Jesus’ revolutionary statements. Christians should be more inclined to growing in discernment and prophecy, because they aren’t bound by oracular meditation and theonomy (a government governed by divine law), which were stagnant and temporal solutions for Israel in their state of spiritual or moral immaturity. The Israelite community in Samuel’s time were less inclined to receive visions from God due to their reluctance and stagnancy (1 Samuel 3:1). And if you institute such things to an immature people, they are less eager and thus less inclined to do these things. If we had an area full of auto-mobile mechanics, you would be less inclined or interested to work on a car. But of course, the Old Testament prophets did encourage the people to know their God (Jeremiah 33:3; Micah 6:8; Isaiah 54:13) and out of probable speculation, they could’ve had a school for prophetic training (2 Kings 2:5). The “sons of the prophets” aren’t biological, but spiritual in the sense of a disciple or student under the teacher. Lastly, despite the idea of infallible prophetic utterances, the manner God communicated to them might not be wholly literal or accurate. They could be truth omissions or figure of speech. In a way, if I said I was going to destroy someone, but I simply removed my defenses for their protection, that would be like an omission of truth. But the intent isn’t to deceive, yet simply a concise way of speaking.
Anyway, pardon me for that long paragraph essay! Aside from the previous notions mentioned, there is the argument that saint Peter considered the scriptures to be reliable. His claim of prophecy in scripture:
“We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:19–21).
Again, Peter is claiming the prophetic aspect of the Scriptures to be reliable instead of the whole testimony of the Scriptures. And the Greek term for “scripture” can be translated as writing or message as stated above. However, the skeptic will inquire how the prophetic writings can be wholly inspired but not the rest of the scriptures. I mean Job’s critics or any ungodly man weren’t inspired by God, so you can’t assume everything should be inspired. And the prophetic aspect carries a more important role than a narrative or story of the past. As for the confidence in the prophetic writings, Peter deemed them trustworthy only due to his experience of Christ. The conjunction used for verse 19 and 18 is consequential, not for an exclusive or contrasting purpose. It best reads as: “And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain, so we have more confidence in the prophetic writings [because of that, we deem the prophetic scriptures more confirmed]”. The mystical experience confirms the prophecy of Scripture to Peter and the others, not as some inferior witness when contrasted from the Scriptures. I go into more detail over this matter in another post: “Scripture or Experience?”
The Bible in Apologetics
It isn’t rational to compel people to blindly believe the Bible or the Christian faith without justified reasons for it. Otherwise, the best defense these new converts can give is, “The bible is true because it says so”. This isn’t an appealing argument to atheists or non-believers. Some of these people do have legit inquiries or concerns about coming to the conclusion of the Christian God. Because though creation might testify to a deity, it doesn’t explain what kind of God to trust or believe. And some still cannot answer the question of theodicy; it is seemingly paradoxical to the atheist or agnostic. But even if they believe in a Christian God, is intellectual conception the extent we can know God from philosophy or the Bible. I don’t see biblical inerrancy to be a helpful argument to testifying to God, because we are only burdening ourselves to reconcile thousands of verses that may or may not have a possible reconciliation. And when one attempts to reconcile them with an explanation based on poorly developed conjecture, it will not seem rationally explained to the lost audience, but as someone who is strongly dishonest to the text of the Bible. At that point of such an example, the audience will be less convinced and might be worse in tolerating our faith than before.
Rethinking the Bible
So it is good to be open to the possibility that the Bible wasn’t meant to be a timeless manual and infallible text of teaching. Certain principles related to virtue and spirituality are the only timeless matters, but not customs or personal instructions given in letter. We need to be honest to the text as much as possible instead of falsely conjecturing them. If the Bible had no issues or flaws to understanding, then Paul wouldn’t make the claim that the Jewish scriptures blind them with a veil (2 Corinthians 3:15). We all know God in the old narrative is drastically distinct from Jesus in the fourfold gospels, except Revelation appeals to an Old Testament lingo. This is namely because John is using Jewish literature to enshroud his message from the Romans, so they don’t suspect him of plotting against Rome or insulting its Emperor. In return, the most dedicated person to Jewish literature are able to rightly interpret his message.
I hope this discussion and these diverse premises convinced you. If not, then we have more to discuss for the future. But know that I am not opposed to Christ, nor do I hope to disprove God in general. I am simply giving good reasons for not embracing Christian fundamentalism. It is a dangerous and irrational use of reasoning. It doesn’t seem to help anyone in the faith when it is exposed to textual fallibility. I know there are many more fundamental arguments like “you can’t add or take away” or “the Scriptures testifies itself as the word of God”. Rest assured because I will deconstruct some of this. Anyway, reconsider your bibliology and theology. Be blessed from the Lord!
