This is an interesting question, because my answer would vary slightly depending on the motives of the person asking.
For the person who is essentially asking, “I am new to the Bible; is it true? Can I trust it?” My answer is simply, “Yes” full stop. The Bible is God’s word, there is no falsehood in Him, and His word is not only trustworthy, but authoritative. We are required to live according to His truth.
However, if a person is asking, “I found a portion of Scripture that seems to contradict science or even another portion of Scripture. The thing I found would be considered an error by modern standards. Am I required to try to somehow believe that what I found isn’t really there in order to keep being a Christian?” I would say, “No, the Bible was written by multiple writers thousands of years ago. Some portions are not precise by modern scientific or journalistic standards. Nonetheless, God’s word is still completely true, trustworthy, and authoritative.
Let me give you some examples:
MATTHEW 13:32 – In this verse, Jesus says the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds.” However, orchid seeds are smaller. So, does this mean the bible isn’t truly inerrant?
I suppose it would come down to your definition of inerrant. But since I use the word “inerrant” as a synonym for the word “true,” I would say, there is no problem with this passage; Jesus wasn’t trying to make a scientific point about botany.
In context, Jesus was saying, “Notice how mustard seeds – the smallest of all the seeds any of us plant on our farms – grow up to become trees that are even bigger than the other crops we plant. The Kingdom of heaven is like that. It’s something that starts off small and becomes surprisingly huge.”
Jesus wasn’t attempting to speak about all the seeds in the entire world, nor was He writing the seed section of a biology textbook. He was making an analogy using the smallest seed that they were familiar with.
GALATIANS 3:17 – In this passage, Paul mentions a time period between the Covenant of Abraham and the Law of Moses. The time he mentions (430 years) seems to be too short to fit with the times mentioned in Genesis and Exodus (ie: Paul seems to only use the years the Israelites were in Egypt and seems to leave out the lifetimes of Isaac and Jacob prior to Egypt.)
But here’s the thing, the precise number of years doesn’t have much bearing on the point that Paul was making. The lesson he was teaching them is that obedience to the law of Moses could not be connected to entrance into the Covenant of Abraham because they were not given together – in fact, they were hundreds of years apart! That is the point of that passage, and it’s true. And because it is true, we can know that God is not going to judge Christians based on their obedience to every Old Testament law, but rather by their connection to Jesus Christ. That’s good news.
Yes, if Paul were writing for the Wall Street Journal nowadays, it’s likely an editor would say to him, “Let’s change this part that says ‘430 years’ to say 'at least 430 years’ so that it matches our other reporting." But, Paul wasn’t writing according to modern-day journalistic standards. He was writing a letter to a group of people in the Roman Empire, trying to convince them to not put their trust in obedience to the Mosaic law as the way to be right with God. What he taught them was true.
OTHER EXAMPLES – I could go on. Sometimes people make an issue about the timelines of the crucifixion varying in John’s account versus Mark’s account. Others point out that Matthew said that the robe the Romans placed upon Jesus just before his execution was “scarlet” while Mark and John both say it was “purple.”But, again, we are using modern standards to judge a 2,000-year-old book. They didn’t have watches and Sherwin-Williams color wheels back then. They looked at the sun and estimated. They looked at the tint of a robe from several yards away and estimated. None of this should make anyone doubt whether or not Jesus Christ died on a cross for sins.
Maybe one more illustration will help before I close out; I got this from a professor in seminary. He pointed out that, in our culture, when people ask, “How old are you?” we typically round down to the nearest year. For instance, I would answer that question by saying, “I’m 46.”
I would never say, “I am 46 years, 5 months, 27 days, 2 hours, 3 minutes, and 24 seconds old. 25 seconds old. 26 seconds old.” Of course not, that is far more precise than our culture expects.
However, what if one day, two thousand years from now (imagine the year 4026), they live in a culture where everyone does give exact ages. Imagine they don’t even speak. They just text the precise answer from their transponder to their friend’s transponder. Ok, you’re picturing it, right? Now, should that future culture claim that we were “lying” or “full of errors” just because we lived in a time when the convention for giving ages was to round down to the nearest year? Of course not.
So, if you are a Christian who is struggling with doubts and uncertainties about the Biblical text, I’m happy to admit some portions of the Bible aren’t written as precisely as we write nowadays, and yet what God has given us is true. It is authoritative. We can know how we are to live, and how we are to relate to God, because He has not been silent. He has given us His trustworthy word.
For the person who is essentially asking, “I am new to the Bible; is it true? Can I trust it?” My answer is simply, “Yes” full stop. The Bible is God’s word, there is no falsehood in Him, and His word is not only trustworthy, but authoritative. We are required to live according to His truth.
However, if a person is asking, “I found a portion of Scripture that seems to contradict science or even another portion of Scripture. The thing I found would be considered an error by modern standards. Am I required to try to somehow believe that what I found isn’t really there in order to keep being a Christian?” I would say, “No, the Bible was written by multiple writers thousands of years ago. Some portions are not precise by modern scientific or journalistic standards. Nonetheless, God’s word is still completely true, trustworthy, and authoritative.
Let me give you some examples:
MATTHEW 13:32 – In this verse, Jesus says the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds.” However, orchid seeds are smaller. So, does this mean the bible isn’t truly inerrant?
I suppose it would come down to your definition of inerrant. But since I use the word “inerrant” as a synonym for the word “true,” I would say, there is no problem with this passage; Jesus wasn’t trying to make a scientific point about botany.
In context, Jesus was saying, “Notice how mustard seeds – the smallest of all the seeds any of us plant on our farms – grow up to become trees that are even bigger than the other crops we plant. The Kingdom of heaven is like that. It’s something that starts off small and becomes surprisingly huge.”
Jesus wasn’t attempting to speak about all the seeds in the entire world, nor was He writing the seed section of a biology textbook. He was making an analogy using the smallest seed that they were familiar with.
GALATIANS 3:17 – In this passage, Paul mentions a time period between the Covenant of Abraham and the Law of Moses. The time he mentions (430 years) seems to be too short to fit with the times mentioned in Genesis and Exodus (ie: Paul seems to only use the years the Israelites were in Egypt and seems to leave out the lifetimes of Isaac and Jacob prior to Egypt.)
But here’s the thing, the precise number of years doesn’t have much bearing on the point that Paul was making. The lesson he was teaching them is that obedience to the law of Moses could not be connected to entrance into the Covenant of Abraham because they were not given together – in fact, they were hundreds of years apart! That is the point of that passage, and it’s true. And because it is true, we can know that God is not going to judge Christians based on their obedience to every Old Testament law, but rather by their connection to Jesus Christ. That’s good news.
Yes, if Paul were writing for the Wall Street Journal nowadays, it’s likely an editor would say to him, “Let’s change this part that says ‘430 years’ to say 'at least 430 years’ so that it matches our other reporting." But, Paul wasn’t writing according to modern-day journalistic standards. He was writing a letter to a group of people in the Roman Empire, trying to convince them to not put their trust in obedience to the Mosaic law as the way to be right with God. What he taught them was true.
OTHER EXAMPLES – I could go on. Sometimes people make an issue about the timelines of the crucifixion varying in John’s account versus Mark’s account. Others point out that Matthew said that the robe the Romans placed upon Jesus just before his execution was “scarlet” while Mark and John both say it was “purple.”But, again, we are using modern standards to judge a 2,000-year-old book. They didn’t have watches and Sherwin-Williams color wheels back then. They looked at the sun and estimated. They looked at the tint of a robe from several yards away and estimated. None of this should make anyone doubt whether or not Jesus Christ died on a cross for sins.
Maybe one more illustration will help before I close out; I got this from a professor in seminary. He pointed out that, in our culture, when people ask, “How old are you?” we typically round down to the nearest year. For instance, I would answer that question by saying, “I’m 46.”
I would never say, “I am 46 years, 5 months, 27 days, 2 hours, 3 minutes, and 24 seconds old. 25 seconds old. 26 seconds old.” Of course not, that is far more precise than our culture expects.
However, what if one day, two thousand years from now (imagine the year 4026), they live in a culture where everyone does give exact ages. Imagine they don’t even speak. They just text the precise answer from their transponder to their friend’s transponder. Ok, you’re picturing it, right? Now, should that future culture claim that we were “lying” or “full of errors” just because we lived in a time when the convention for giving ages was to round down to the nearest year? Of course not.
So, if you are a Christian who is struggling with doubts and uncertainties about the Biblical text, I’m happy to admit some portions of the Bible aren’t written as precisely as we write nowadays, and yet what God has given us is true. It is authoritative. We can know how we are to live, and how we are to relate to God, because He has not been silent. He has given us His trustworthy word.
