Biblical Inerrancy

Another Recent Invention

Most Adventists and Evangelical Christians believe the Bible provides a "trustworthy record" of actual historical events, but many Jewish and Christian scholars do not claim the Bible is inerrant about history or science. The dogmas of inerrancy and historical accuracy were a reaction by some Protestant Christians to modernism and the fact that some Christians began to accept evolution.

A Google Ngram chart tracking the popularity of the terms "inerrancy" and "inerrant" in English-language books shows how the emphasis on inerrancy has changed drastically over time, along with changes in culture and theological debates. For example, influential Christian author C. S. Lewis wrote the following in his 1958 book Reflections on the Psalms:

The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not "the Word of God" in the sense that every passage in itself, gives impeccable science or history.

So back in the 1950s, C. S. Lewis had no problem writing that the Bible contains naivety, errors, contradictions, and even wickedness. He also made it clear that the Bible does not contain "impeccable science or history," which is something that many fundamentalists claim today.

As a British Christian in the 1950s, C. S. Lewis was not close to the American Evangelical push for inerrancy. But even during the late 1800s, when belief in biblical inerrancy became increasingly common, there were some American Christians who pushed back on the idea. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Presbyterian ministers who believed in the inspiration of the Bible, wrote the following on inerrancy in 1881:

It must be remembered that it is not claimed that the Scriptures any more than their authors are omniscient. The information they convey is in the forms of human thought, and limited on all sides. They were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or human history as such. They were not designed to furnish an infallible system of speculative theology. They are written in human languages, whose words, inflections, constructions, and idioms bear everywhere indelible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible; and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong.

Even in the 1800s, there were committed Christians who rejected the complete inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. As Hodge and Warfield pointed out, the information in the Bible was written by human authors capable of making mistakes, and those mistakes can be found in the Bible.

Just like C. S. Lewis, Hodge and Warfield wrote that the Bible was never meant to teach science or history. While the very first SDA Fundamental Belief insists the Bible contains a "trustworthy record of God's acts in history," many Christians have known for centuries that this is not true.

There has been a long debate around inerrancy, but modern American Evangelicals are the ones responsible for popularizing the strict belief in biblical inerrancy that we see today.

Evangelical Influence

In 1978, more than 200 Evangelical leaders met in Chicago for a conference. Over the course of two days, they produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement included claims like:

Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Unlike much older doctrines such as the Trinity (initially formalized in 325 CE), this statement on inerrancy is very recent and mostly represents the views of American Evangelicals. They believe that the Bible can only have authority if people fully believe in "total divine inerrancy."

In 1980, just two years after the 1978 Chicago Statement, the Adventist church voted for the first time ever to formally adopt 27 Fundamental beliefs at the General Conference Session in Dallas, Texas. This was increased from the 22 fundamental beliefs (last published in 1931) and the 1980 version included the first official Adventist statement of belief describing the Bible as "the written Word of God."

While they didn't go as far as mainstream Evangelicals by explicitly claiming total infallibility or inerrancy, Adventists mimicked Evangelical language with the 1980 version of Fundamental Belief #1. This new version was noticeably longer and made stronger claims compared to earlier versions.

Some modern Adventists do reject claims of biblical inerrancy, and they also recognize the Evangelical influence on the 1980 Fundamental Beliefs.

Matthew Quartey, an Adventist who obtained his Master's in English at Andrews University, wrote about mistakes in the bible in a 2019 article, and explicitly stated the Bible is not inerrant or infallible:

Of course the Bible contains errors, big and small, because its writers were human. Sometimes, the errors were "innocent," other times they were contrived, purposeful, and made to fulfill an agenda.

Believe it or not, rejecting complete inerrancy and infallibility is closer to what some SDA pioneers believed, including Ellen White. Regarding the inspiration of Bible authors, White wrote in Manuscript 24, 1886 "There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures."

Ellen White was against people pointing out contradictions and questioning the Bible's authority. But despite that, she also wrote that "it is not the words of the Bible that are inspired," and that "the divine mind is diffused... combined with the human mind and will."

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented... The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts. But the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God.

As much as Ellen White revered the Bible and believed in its authority and historicity, she did not believe in total inerrancy or infallibility. According to the White Estate:

In summary, it appears that Mrs. White's use of the term infallibility has to do with the Bible being completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation. She doesn't mix that idea with the concept that the Bible or her writings are free from all possible errors of a factual nature... The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible. The writings of God's prophets are infallible as a guide to salvation, but they are not inerrant or without error.

The earlier and simpler Adventist statements on the Bible from 1889 and 1931 are closer to White's understanding of the Bible. By contrast, the 1980 Adventist statement mimics the language of the modern Evangelical signers of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The current version of SDA Fundamental Belief #1 walks a very fine line, referencing Ellen White’s introduction to The Great Controversy where she wrote "The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will." This position allows for the possibility of some errors on small details, while claiming that the big picture of God’s will and path to salvation is still clear.

This nuance is often missed by fundamentalist Adventists, as many of us were taught and grew up believing the entire Bible is inerrant or infallible. In reality, even Ellen White rejected the idea that every word in the Bible was entirely dictated by God, and she also rejected total inerrancy and total infallibility.

The Exodus Story

The Bible is full of examples that demonstrate it is not fully inerrant or infallible, and especially not a "trustworthy record of God's acts in history." One of the most compelling examples of likely historical fiction or exaggeration in the Bible is found in Exodus.

The biblical narrative claims the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt for over 400 years, and that God miraculously helped more than two million Israelites escape. This is one of the most well-known stories from the Bible, and it has been adapted and retold in countless books, poems, songs, and films.

It's no secret that films like The Prince of Egypt used artistic license and are works of fiction, but you may be surprised to learn the original story in the Bible is also likely fictional, or at the very least, it contains extremely exaggerated details. Here is what we know:

• Detailed ancient Egyptian records never mentioned Israelites living in Egypt
• There is no archaeological evidence that millions of Israelites wandered the desert for 40 years
• The story of the Exodus is likely not historical, and neither is the character of Moses

Ze'ev Herzog, an Israeli archeologist and Professor Emeritus at Tel Aviv University, wrote the following in a 2001 article titled Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho: Biblical Myth and Archaeological Reality:

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: the patriarchs' acts are legendary stories, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus... [They] did not conquer the land of Canaan in a military campaign, and did not pass it on to the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

This is not new information. Archaeologists have "documented a lack of evidence" for the biblical narrative since the 1970s and 80s, and even "added to previous research" showing that detailed ancient Egyptian records never mentioned Israelites living in Egypt. If the Bible's numbers are taken seriously, the Israelites would have counted for almost half of Egypt's entire population—but that is not historical.

In the same article, Professor Herzog detailed the lack of evidence for the biblical Exodus narrative:

The many Egyptian documents known to us do not mention at all the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt or the later Exodus of an entire people... The account of the Israelites' sojourn in the Land of Goshen, in the eastern part of the Nile Delta, has been disproven...

Generations of researchers have tried to locate the site of Mount Sinai and the encampments of the Israelite tribes in the wilderness. Despite strenuous efforts, not even one site has been located that would accord with the biblical account.

The central events of early Israelite history cannot be confirmed in extra-biblical documents or in archaeological findings. Most contemporary historians agree that in the best possible scenario, several clans alone appropriated those events, whereas the originally separate accounts were broadened and 'nationalized' to suit the needs of a theological view of history.

To be clear, Professor Herzog stated (a) the narrative of Israelites living in Egypt in the Land of Goshen has been disproven, (b) despite numerous efforts by researchers, zero sites have been located confirming that a large number of Israelites wandered the desert, and (c) the central details of ancient Israelite history are not supported by archaeology or any other sources outside of the Bible.

Here's another fact that throws the entire story into question: during the time of the Exodus, the land of Canaan was controlled by Egypt. So even if some sort of exodus actually happened, the Israelites never fully left Egyptian territory. Here's how Pamela Barmash, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Biblical Hebrew, wrote about this fact in a book titled Exodus in the Jewish Experience: Echoes and Reverberations:

Scholarly consensus dates a possible Exodus to the late thirteenth century BCE. A biblical text, 1 Kings 6:1, implies a date of 1440 BCE... However, the fifteenth century was a period of Egyptian domination over Canaan, so if the Israelites were to have departed Egypt and arrived in Canaan, they would have faced Egyptian opposition once again.

At worst, the Exodus narrative is complete fiction. At best, some real events were exaggerated over time to create a "theological view of history" that served as a founding myth for the Israelite people.

These facts have been acknowledged by researchers from all backgrounds, including Jewish and Christian scholars. Unlike many pastors, some rabbis have openly shared these discoveries with their congregations. A 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times quoted Rabbi David Wolpe's message to over 2,000 people:

The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.

Given this overwhelming evidence, Christian apologists have tried to downplay the huge numbers presented in the Bible. Instead of two million Israelites, some apologists like Kenneth Kitchen try to claim it was only 20,000 people—just 1% of the number claimed in the Bible. In a video, Christian scholar Dr. Aaron Higashi explains why apologists try to downplay the numbers:

Saying two million people left Egypt in the second half of the second millennium BCE is like saying 300+ million people left the United States of America today. That is to say, it is nearly the entire population of the country, not some oppressed and enslaved minority, but nearly the entire population. This would decimate the country of Egypt. It would become economically unsustainable overnight. It would collapse. There would be no more Egypt after this for centuries, if it was ever able to recover at all. Obviously, that's not the archaeological state of affairs that we have.

In the same video, Dr. Higashi further adds:

We have no archaeological evidence of a sudden influx of two million+ people coming into the land of Canaan at any of the times that the Exodus was supposed to have happened. If the Israelites had 600,000 fighting men with them, the stories in Joshua wouldn't make any sense at all because the entire population of the land of Canaan at this time was about 600,000 people. So you would have one soldier for every man, woman, and child in the region. You would wash over the country like a flood. You wouldn't be talking about these battles between a few thousand soldiers here and there, that would be ridiculous... So the scale is archeologically and narratively ridiculous as far as the actual evidence that we have.

In a separate video, Bible scholar Dan McClellan explains that if any Israelites actually escaped from Egypt, it would have been a very small group of people, and nothing like what the Bible describes:

Attempts to identify a historical core or kernel to the events of the Exodus or the figure of Moses suggest that maybe it was a very small group of enslaved people who escaped from Egypt or maybe just escaped from somewhere else in the area of Syria-Palestine and made their way into the northern hill country, bringing this tradition with them. And over the centuries, the oral tradition accreted a bunch of additional details and became what it is today. But the scholarly consensus is still that the story of the Exodus and the figure of Moses are most likely not historical.

The Exodus story is either complete fiction or a massive exaggeration of some historical events. Either way, the Bible is not a "trustworthy record of God's acts in history" like the claim of Fundamental Belief #1.

Adventists and all Christian fundamentalists should listen to the words of pastors A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, who wrote in 1881 that the scriptures "were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or human history..." The legendary story of the Exodus is a clear example of this.

2 Timothy 3:16

2 Timothy 3:16 is often cited to support Biblical authority and inerrancy. It states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (that's from the KJV; some translations use the term "God-breathed" instead of "inspiration"). 

‍Have you ever wondered who gets to decide what counts as "scripture" and what doesn't? Before, during, and even after the period when 2 Timothy was written, Christians debated the authority of the books that ended up in the Bible. ‍The New Testament, as we know it today, did not exist when 2 Timothy was written. Some books (e.g. the Gospel of John and 2 Peter) were possibly completed after 2 Timothy.

In 2 Timothy 3:16, the phrase "All scripture" actually refers to the pre-Christian Jewish scriptures that Jews and early Christians read during that time. In this context, "all scripture" does not include the New Testament. This point is affirmed by Bible scholars and even Christian apologist and philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig. In a video, Christian scholar Dr. Aaron Higashi explains the historical context of 2 Timothy 3:16:

The most plausible reference for "all scripture" here, in this 1st century Greco-Roman early Christian context, is the Septuagint. There is no awareness... of a canonical New Testament, nor would there be agreement about what a canonical New Testament looks like for several centuries after this. When we're talking about the Septuagint, we're obviously talking about a text that lacks the New Testament and is very different from a Protestant Old Testament... So the reference here is not the same thing as the book that you or someone else may have sitting in front of you today.

The Bible we have today is different from the writings that the early Christians had. Even though the author of 2 Timothy wrote that "all scripture" is God-breathed, they were only referring to the Old Testament. The New Testament did not exist yet, and the Biblical canon would be debated for centuries after that.

By the time the various biblical canons were finalized, every single author of the books of the Bible had been dead for hundreds of years. The authors of the Bible had no direct input on which books were ultimately included. In fact, canonical books of the Bible contain numerous references to non-canonical books. In other words, some authors of the Bible read and quoted from books that later Christians decided to exclude.

No matter what anyone says, 2 Timothy 3:16 it is not proof that the Bible—especially the New Testament—is inerrant, infallible, or even completely "inspired by God." Even if the Bible did make this claim, using it as a proof-text for total inerrancy, infallibility, or inspiration would be an example of circular reasoning.

Imagine the following conversation between friends, which begins and ends with the same claim:

• Friend A: The Bible is the inspired word of God.
• Friend B: How do you know that?
• Friend A: Because the Bible says so in 2 Timothy 3:16.
• Friend B: Why do you believe the Bible?
• Friend A: Because the Bible is infallible.
• Friend B: How do you know it's infallible?
• Friend A: Because the Bible is the inspired word of God.

The fundamentalist dogmas of total inerrancy, infallibility, and full inspiration rely on circular reasoning, which is not a good foundation for beliefs of any kind. It is possible to believe the Bible was inspired without insisting it is completely inerrant or infallible—but that ultimately requires faith.

Donald McAdams, a former professor at Andrews University and former president of Southwestern Adventist College, wrote the following on inspiration in a 2023 article:

Let’s acknowledge that belief in inspiration—any inspiration—is an act of faith. Inspiration cannot be proven. It may be supported by evidence: the claims of a prophet, facts and logic that give some credence to the claims, widespread acceptance of the claims, even a rapidly growing body of believers and the triumph of a movement. But none of this is proof. If it were, the claims of numerous prophets would command our belief.

This is an incredibly important point. If prophetic claims, widespread acceptance, and a growing number of followers are valid evidence of divine inspiration, we should consider converting to Islam. It has been the fastest growing religion for over a decade and Muslims will likely outnumber Christians in under 50 years.

As we mentioned in our introduction, critical thinking is important for evaluating all claims. Joseph Smith, the first prophet and founder of Mormonism, claimed that in 1823, the angel Moroni led him to golden plates buried near his New York home. There are at least four different versions of that story.

But the Book of Mormon has testimony from three witnesses swearing they saw the golden plates and heard God's voice. Eight more witnesses also swore they saw the plates. Does that make their claims true?

God-breathed?

The Greek word theopneustos, found in 2 Timothy 3:16, is often translated as "inspired" or "God-breathed." Theopneustos is a combination of the Greek words for divinity and breathing or blowing. Many Christians interpret this word as meaning "divine inspiration," but the Greek word for that is actually éntheos.

Bible scholars like John C. Porier argue that theopneustos was always interpreted as "life-giving" or "enlivening" until the time of Christian theologian Origen. In other words, the earliest Christians did not make the same claims about the Bible that many fundamentalist Christians make today. Porier's book The Invention of the Inspired Text examines the original meaning of the word:

A close look at first- and second-century uses of theopneustos reveals that the traditional inspirationist understanding of the term did not arise until the time of Origen in the early third century CE, and that in every pre-Origen use of theopneustos the word instead means "life-giving."

Bible scholar Dan McClellan explains how theopneustos is not the normal Greek word for "inspired" and did not originally mean "inspired by God." Outside of 2 Timothy 3:16, theopneustos was used to refer to water and even sandals, in the sense that they are life-giving:

What does it mean for all scripture to be theopneustos, God-breathed? We understand this to mean inspired, but it's not the normal Greek term for inspired, that's éntheos. And we don't have theopneustos being used as a synonym for éntheos until the third century CE... Prior to Origen, no one makes that argument and no one uses the word that way. They used theopneustos, God-breathed, to mean something entirely different. It's God-breathed in the sense of "God breathed the breath of life into the fist human." In other words, life-giving. And so we see theopneustos being used to refer to water, to sandals...

So during Origen’s time, people began reinterpreting theopneustos to mean "inspired by God" instead of simply meaning "life-giving." This is a small but critical difference. Saying scripture is "life-giving" is very different from saying it’s literally inspired by God. "Life-giving" can be understood as promoting life and wellbeing; by contrast, "inspired by God" can imply that the written words came directly from God.

The Adventist impact of this inspirationist understanding is found in the difference between the 1931 and 1980 Fundamental Beliefs. It wasn't until 1980 that the Adventist church explicitly stated the Bible is "the written Word of God" in their Fundamental Beliefs. As a reminder, that was just two years after American Evangelicals wrote the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,

Many fundamentalist Christians base their faith on the belief that the Bible was fully inspired by God and is inerrant. For Christians with a more nuanced view of scripture, their faith is closer to the definition given in Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

To have faith, nuanced Christians don't need the Bible to be fully inerrant, infallible, or even fully inspired. This fundamentalist view of the Bible isn't required for being a "true Christian." If it was, the disciples and apostles couldn't be "true Christians" since the Bible we have today didn't exist during their time.

• Strict belief in full biblical inerrancy or infallibility assumes the Bible does not and cannot contain any mistakes. SDA Fundamental Belief #1 does not explicitly endorse biblical inerrancy, but it says the Bible is "the supreme, authoritative, ...infallible revelation" of God’s will and the "trustworthy record of God’s acts in history." We have historical evidence that shows the Bible does not contain fully accurate history.
  ‍
• Even though the Exodus is one of the most well-known stories in the Bible, the biblical account is likely not historical. At best, the story of the Exodus is extremely exaggerated. It is possible there were some enslaved Israelites in Egypt, but not to the degree claimed in the Bible. There is zero archaeological evidence that two million Israelites escaped from Egypt or wandered the desert for 40 years.
  ‍
• Many Adventists mistakenly believe the Bible is fully inerrant or infallible, but even Ellen White did not believe this. She believed the Bible is an infallible guide to salvation, but she also wrote "There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures."
  ‍
• Regarding the inspiration of the Bible, Ellen White said "The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will." The White Estate admits that "The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible... they are not inerrant or without error."
  ‍
• 2 Timothy 3:16 is often cited to support the Bible's inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, but the New Testament and Biblical canons were not finished when this verse was written. Bible scholars and even some Christian apologists admit that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers exclusively to the pre-Christian Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) since the New Testament was not finalized until several centuries later.
  ‍
• The Greek word found in 2 Timothy 3:16, theopneustos, was originally interpreted as "life-giving" and not "inspired by God" or "God-breathed." In fact, the word theopneustos was also used to refer to everyday necessities like water and sandals, because they are life-giving. Saying that scripture is "life-giving" is a very different claim than saying it is literally inspired or breathed out by God.
  ‍
• Theopneustos is not the normal Greek term for divine inspiration—the common term for divine inspiration is éntheos. It wasn't until the time of Christian theologian Origen that people began to reinterpret theopneustos to have the same meaning as éntheos.
  ‍
• No matter what you believe about inerrancy or inspiration, it is undeniable that humans ultimately decided which books to include in the various biblical canons. You can have faith that God directed these humans to ensure your Bible has the right set of books, but it's impossible to prove.
  ‍
• Believing in full biblical inerrancy, infallibility, or inspiration is not required for being a good Christian. Jesus and his disciples, apostles, and the early Christians did not have the Bibles that we do today, so it is unreasonable to say that Christians must have a fundamentalist belief in the Bible. Hebrews 11 says faith is about "things hoped for" and "things not seen." Inerrancy is not a requirement for having faith.