When people say they believe the Bible contains errors, it’s a good practice to ask them to name those errors so you can open a Bible and look at them together.

Many apparent contradictions in Scripture are resolved through a closer look. I recently responded to a question related to the differing number of days that the gospel writers use to refer to the same event. I share it as an example of how details in biblical passages are often claimed to be errors, but upon careful examination, we can see they are not. 

Failure to believe in inerrancy must logically lead to my inability to trust the Bible as authoritative. Clearly those parts which are supposedly false cannot be authoritative. I cannot rely upon what I do not believe to be accurate. 

In the previous blog I expressed concerns about some doctrines in the new bestselling book To Heaven and Back, by Mary Neal. This is my second and last article on this subject.

I hear good things about G.K. Beale’s The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, and I like other things he's done. 

The ESV was much more thoroughly debated and uses a little better underlying New Testament Greek text.

Question from a reader: “If it’s true that the English Bibles we have now have some inconsistencies, what does it matter if the ‘original’ manuscripts didn’t? I don’t ask this question rhetorically, but honestly... So, then, if I trust what I have and believe what I read, and work with the text that I have to understand God, etc., more deeply and fully, is it even important what I believe about the original documents?”

There is far more to this than semantics with the word “inerrancy.” There’s a long and well-documented history involving Fuller and the inerrancy issue that you may not be aware of. 

May we believe and celebrate the Word of God He has given us, rejoicing that it is worthy to bear all the weight of our trust.