The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Are There Errors in the Bible?

How do you explain Jesus, said he would be in paradise that day, and later when he arose from the tomb, he told mary not to touch him, he had not be to the father yet.

C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation
Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

'Infallible' signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, 'inerrant' signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. 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.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

fredman said:
Jason,
I also do not believe the Bible has "errors." I would strongly affirm biblical inerrancy. However, it would be helpful to get an answer to Joe's question: How exactly are you defining error? If by error you mean no translational errors as the KJV only advocates insist, then I would disagree with that definition. I prefer the statement made with in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy regarding the nature of alleged biblical errors. It states:

Just out of curiousity, how would you reconcile the age discrepancies for Jehoiachin as listed in 2Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9?

Fred

Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign. This number is consistent with many modern translations and ancient manuscripts.

The most biblical and logical solution hinges on the phrase 8 years old of 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin, but is a time marker pointing to an event; i.e., the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded the Mediterranean countries including Palestine. It was then when Daniel and many others were taken to Babylon in what was to be the start of 3 deportations. The second was in 598-597 B.C. with the taking of Jehoiakim. The Babylonians left Jehoiachin in power, but only for 3 months (2 Chron. 36:9 gives the exact figure of 3 months, 10 days). Like his father, Jehoiachin rebelled and the Babylonians returned and took him as well, leaving his brother Zedekiah as king. Jehoiachin's capture would had been 8 years after Nebuchadnezzar came to power, and thus the reason 2 Chronicles 36:9 has "8 years old." Second Kings 24:12 affirms this position where it says, "and the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin) in the 8th year of his (Nebuchadnezzar) reign." Literally, the Hebrew text reads in 2 Chronicles 36:9, "A son of 8 years..." On some occasions the biblical writers will count chronological dates from significant events. Such is the case here with Jehoiachin. The writer of Chronicles is reckoning his capture from the time Nebuchadnezzar came to rule Babylon. Ezekiel, for example, does this in his book. He reckons dates and years from the captivity of Judah, (Ez. 1:7, 33:21, 40:1). Another example is found in 2 Chronicles 16:1 where the 36th year spoken of Asa may refer to the number of years after the division of the kingdom in 930 B.C., rather than his actual years as king.

fredman said:
In this particular instance, then, how exactly do you explain the number 8? Is it a copyist error, or do you have some other solution. The one you offered up above was rather vague.

Fred