Approximations & Inconsistent Quotations
Another supposed error is the inconsistent numbering we find between various passages, one example being the time of Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Exodus 12:40 says, “The sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.” Centuries later, Stephen described the same period as only four hundred years (Acts 7:6). This discrepancy can be dealt with several ways, but I think the simplest is by understanding the context of Stephen’s speech. It was a sermon given before the Jewish council, describing Israel’s history in general terms. And it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Stephen was probably speaking without notes or a biblical text. Stephen’s purpose in the sermon was not to give a lecture on Jewish history, but merely to remind them where they’d come from and to point them to Christ. A preoccupation with minor textual discrepancies—while understandable—is no help in understanding the purpose of this Scripture and is an unnecessary distraction.
Not only is his approximation understandable then, but we do similar things today. And approximations don’t equal falsehood. Example: a 5K run is 5 kilometers long. We Americans do our thinking in imperial measurements, so we like our numbers in miles. If I told you that a 5K is 3.1 miles long, I would be telling the truth. No one would come up to me and say, “Liar! A 5K run is 3.10686 miles long.” While I’m not precisely right, I’m telling the truth nonetheless.
Not every numerical difference in the Bible can be explained by rounding. I simply give this example to show that there are reasonable explanations for many of these differences, explanations that don’t require us to undermine the inerrancy of the entire Bible.
Inconsistent quotations pose another difficulty, though it is quickly resolved if we can enter into the 1st century mind. Today, when we hear someone relate what someone else said, we generally expect we are getting most, if not all, of the original words. So, when we compare passages in Scripture (especially the gospels) where the same person is quoted, yet the words don’t parallel, we sometimes think one of them is inaccurate. Only one of these can be the actual words, right?
“But there were no such conventions about written documents or even oral reports in Jesus’s day. Undoubtedly when someone reported what someone else said, they did use many of the exact words spoken, but so long as the substance of what was said is reported, no one would think it an error if exact words were not repeated.”1 Add to that that written Greek of that time didn’t include quotation marks or similar punctuation, and the variations are understandable.2 Exact citation was not a necessary requirement of reliable, truthful quotations.
This would perhaps be easier to understand in an era where the majority of communication was oral rather than written. It’s difficult for us to understand in a world where many of us own more books than an entire village then would have and have easy access to far more information. We can easily copy and print word-for-word quotations, and a lot of our communication is written rather than spoken. We expect a word-for-word accuracy that simply wasn’t expected when the Bible was written. Accurate representation of the truth was all that mattered.
This is especially helpful when we compare various records of what Jesus taught and said. It seems at times that these records are contradictory, when, really, they accurately communicate the truth of His teaching. Different words, yes, but the same truth.
I want to reach back to something we discussed in the articles on inerrancy. One of the faulty views of inerrancy is that God only inspired the concepts of Scripture, not the specific words. That sounds an awful lot like my explanation here of quotations, so I want to reconcile them. In inspiration, we’re discussing how we are to understand the words of Scripture. Are these specific words from God, or can we merely extract the idea and disregard the words? I believe each word in the Bible is where it is because of God’s divine involvement, but concept inspiration steps away from commitment to the specific words of Scripture. That’s distinct from what we have here, where the writers are choosing specific words to communicate the truth that was spoken. The divinely inspired writers had the right to choose words that accurately represent what was said and done. That’s far different than us disregarding the words we now have in search of a meaning that’s “deeper” or different than what the words themselves mean.
One more note on quotations. We sometimes find New Testament writers using the Old Testament to make a point that doesn’t fit with the original context of the quoted passage. That doesn’t mean they are twisting Scripture and teaching error. They wrote under the Holy Spirit’s power, and He certainly has the right to use His Word however He pleases, even if that use brings a meaning that wasn’t in the original text. “The Holy Spirit, the author of both Old and New Testaments, certainly has the right to quote Himself as He wishes and to use quotations with meanings we as uninspired interpreters might never have seen.”3
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy sums it up this way:
It is not right to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.4
Varying Styles
The third clarification is a bit more straightforward. Sometimes things that Scripture records are misunderstood as being errant assertions, when, really, they are inerrant records of errant statements. Case in point, Satan’s lies to Eve in the Garden. He said, “You will not surely die,” yet she and Adam did—physically and spiritually. Inerrancy does not ignorantly say that Satan’s lies are actually truth, since they’re found in the Bible. Rather, inerrancy means that the Bible accurately communicates what Satan says.
The book of Job is a similar example. Many of the things Job’s friends say sound good, and we sometimes quote them without considering the context. But toward the end of the account God condemns them for not speaking the truth, so we should carefully consider their words before we build a case on them. Again, accurate record, not necessarily accurate truth.
That said, though the Bible does record things that aren’t true, we rarely have the right to question Scripture. The New Testament epistles, especially, are heavily doctrinal. Paul, Peter, James, and the other writers had an apostolic authority that Job’s friends did not. They were divinely commissioned to proclaim the truth of the gospel. We have the right to discuss and debate the truths of narrative; we have no such freedom in the doctrines of the New Testament.
Understanding the difference requires a good understanding of the character of the different books of the Bible. Poetry is different than prose. Narrative is different than doctrinal teaching, and both are different than poetry or the wisdom books. Acknowledging these differences helps us properly understand God’s intentions in including them in His word.
So, inerrancy doesn’t mean we read the entire Bible as if every word is a command from God. It’s all there for our learning, for our instruction, but we must read with wisdom when the truths aren’t so clear. When they are, we listen and obey.
Variations Between Manuscripts
Our Bible isn’t as neatly collected and organized as we sometimes think. Our clean, columned pages result from countless days of scholarly sorting, setting, and translating. The source manuscripts aren’t entirely consistent, and they don’t always get along as well as we wish they would. Passages differ in the arrangement and spelling of words, in their grammar, and even in whether or not they include some sizeable passages. Some point to these variations as errant, but variations between manuscripts don’t necessarily mean error. Unless one manuscript asserts something another manuscript denies, both texts can still be considered true. Remember, inerrancy doesn’t have to do with scientific precision. Inerrancy pertains to the truths of Scripture, and Scripture is entirely true in all it asserts—in all it claims to be true—even if the words aren’t always the same.
Added to that, inerrancy is typically ascribed only to the original manuscripts. When God inspired the writings, they were error-free. But, undeniably, some scribal errors and inconsistencies have developed through the roughly 3500 years since Moses began recording God’s words in a Book. Does this mean our Bibles are now riddled with error? Not necessarily. While we do find variations, none of those affect any fundamental truth in Scripture. As Ed Meyers says in his booklet on inerrancy:
Copies or translations may have small textual errors. But this doesn’t affect the reliability, usability, or clarity of our Bibles today. Some have argued that it is impossible or useless to claim the original text is inerrant since we don’t have the original. But that is like saying that we will not trust the measurement of a scale without seeing the international kilogram standard placed on it. Just as a scale is calibrated with an accurate representation of the true standard, the Scriptures today are sufficiently accurate replication of the original that we can place our full trust in them. No other book has endured the millennia like the Scriptures.5
We have every reason to believe that the original Scriptures were free from error, and no good reason to deny that our current Bible is a faithful representative of the original. We can and must believe that our Bible is trustworthy and inerrant.
But ultimately, our own attitudes determine where we come out on these issues. If we are determined to find errors in the Bible, they can be found. But if we believe the Bible is true, and are willing to entertain viable explanations, we can reasonably believe that it is inerrant. Not every inconsistency can be buttoned up nicely, but we do far better to trust God absolutely and doubt our own understanding then to doubt God’s character and trust our experience and opinions instead.
- Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place, 244.
- Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 92.
- Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), 93.
- The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Oakland, CA: The Council, 1978).
- Ed Meyers, The Case for Biblical Inerrancy (The Publication Board of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, 2014), 14.