by Dave Root, VividChristianity.com, last modified on 07/16/2024.

As you read this section, keep in mind that the New Testament is not merely a history book, it's meant to change us to become more and more like Jesus. When we read any passages in the New Testament, our goal should be to discern what God wants us to believe and do so that we can be obedient to Him.


There are numerous articles online which say that the Bible is inerrant, and numerous articles online which say that the Bible is not inerrant. Part of the reason for this debate is that different people define biblical inerrancy in different ways as you can see in those articles.

Many Christians have the view that if the Bible contains even a single error, then we can't trust any of it because we don't know where there might be other errors. They also add the qualification that only the original manuscripts of the Bible, none of which exist today, were free from errors (which is also what I say in some of my articles). Their point is that humans can easily introduce errors into the Bible when hand-copying manuscripts over and over, or when mistakes were made during the manual printing process after 1440, or when passages are not accurately translated into other languages, etc. It's certainly true that humans have introduced errors into the Bible in these ways (see my article called The "King James Only" View Is Mistaken), but apart from those mistakes, it's actually not an easy task to prove that errors or contradictions exist in the Bible.

For example, if you search online then you'll easily find numerous lists of alleged errors and contradictions that people believe they've discovered in the Bible. But are any of those actually errors or contradictions? The answer is not as obvious as people seem to think it is, as these points illustrate:

• An OB/GYN is a doctor who specializes in such issues as pregnancy and childbirth. Imagine a male OB/GYN whose wife is visibly pregnant, and he says to his young son, "Mommy has a baby in her tummy." One might ask, how can anyone ever trust anything he says as a doctor if he doesn't even know that babies (fetuses) are not in a woman's stomach? However, in reality he did not make an error; he simply spoke to his little boy in terms that a young child can understand, and none of us would have a real problem with his describing pregnancy that way to his son.

• Astronomers sometimes speak of "the dome of the heavens" or "the dome of the sky." One might ask, how can anyone ever trust what they say concerning astronomy if they don't know that there's not actually a dome over the earth? However, in reality they're not making an error; they're simply using a poetic or flowery form of speech, and none of us would have a real problem with their describing the sky in that way.

• Sometimes a scientist will mention that there was a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and another scientist will mention the Big Bang that occurred 14 billion years ago. On the surface it sounds like they're contradicting each other or getting their facts wrong, but in reality one of them has simply rounded up for convenience, and none of us would have a real problem with their doing that.

• When scientists say that the universe is expanding like a balloon, should we assume that they actually think that the universe is made of a stretchy, rubbery material that someone or something is blowing air into? No, they're simply speaking metaphorically (in this case using a simile of a balloon) based on their observations, and none of us would have a real problem with their describing their views about the universe in that way.

• As any police officer will tell you, eyewitness accounts of a crime are often very different from each other. Some witnesses might have had a different angle with less obstructions than other witnesses. Some witnesses might recall seeing three people involved in the crime, while others recall two or four. Some witnesses might describe the events in a different order than other witnesses. Some witnesses might highlight certain aspects that they think are important, while other witnesses might focus on other aspects, and so on. None of these are actual errors, they are simply different people's recollections and what they consider to be important or useful information, and everyone understands that discrepancies such as these will happen with eyewitness accounts.

• After the printing press was invented around 1440, if an author wrote a book containing accurate facts and figures, there might be typos introduced by the person operating the printing press, resulting in incorrect facts in the published book. In this case, the original manuscript was inerrant but there were printing mistakes, and everyone understands how easily that can happen during a manual printing or copying process.

• My article called Cheat Sheet #24 shows that Jesus was most likely born in the spring or summer, not in the winter, yet we sing a Christmas carol about His birth that says:

  "In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan,
  Earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone;
  Snow had fallen, snow on snow, snow on snow,
  In the bleak midwinter, long ago."

  As you can see online (e.g., Was Jesus born in the bleak midwinter? ), a number of pastors refuse to allow this song to be sung in their services at Christmastime because it's theologically and historically inaccurate since Jesus was not born during the winter. But are the lyrics really in error? No, because this song is from a poem that uses metaphors, similes, and poetic imagery to describe the bleak condition of the world (due to sin), and we all understand that metaphors, similes, and poetic imagery are not meant to be taken literally.

• If I say that online there are billions and billions of examples of figurative speech such as in the above points, am I making a factual error? No, I'm simply using hyperbole (extreme exaggeration), and we all understand that exaggerations are not meant to be taken literally.

The Bible is filled with allegories, allusions, eyewitness accounts, figures, hyperbole, imagery, metaphors, parables, parallels, personifications, poetic or flowery language, similes, symbolism, types and foreshadowing, and other forms of figurative speech that are not meant to be taken literally. None of those are factual errors, just as we don't accuse people of making factual errors when they say things similar to the examples shown above.

When people make lists of alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible, it's often because they went looking for errors and contradictions, and people tend to find what they're looking for even when it's not there. Usually they haven't made an honest effort to discern and understand the intended meanings and truths in those passages; they just wanted to have a long list of errors and contradictions in the Bible so that they can "prove" that the Bible is untrustworthy.

But debating over inerrancy misses the point, just as we're missing people's points in the above illustrations if we accuse them of factual errors.

Consider that all parents are flawed human beings, so what they teach their children will be imperfect at times. For example, if parents teach their children to look both ways before crossing a road because otherwise they might be hit by a car, this is a very important truth. Still, a child might look both ways, not see any cars, step into the road, and be hit by a bus. What the parents had said was flawed and imperfect in the sense that they didn't say to watch for buses, trucks, taxis, motorcycles, bicyclists, skateboarders, and so on. But even though their teaching was not inerrant (depending on how we define inerrancy), the spirit of what they said is absolutely true. Teaching truths does not require flawlessness and perfection. If it did, then all teachers would be out of a job because they're all flawed human beings (like the rest of us) and will teach imperfectly at times.

The word "infallible" essentially means "incapable of error" (Merriam-Webster ), so whether or not the original manuscripts of the Bible were infallible depends on whether or not they were capable of error. Since the inerrancy debate misses the point, the infallibility debate also misses the point.

For Christians, the point is that God wanted us to know certain things about Himself, His ways, His commands, etc., so He prompted a number of people to write things down (apparently in their own words since the styles are different throughout Scripture) and then to assemble those writings into a book that we call the Bible. God had the motive, the power, and the omniscience to ensure that the original manuscripts of the Bible taught the truths that He wants us to know, and to ensure that the New Testament (the Christian instruction manual) would be relevant and binding even in modern times. Shortly after the exodus from Egypt around 1446 BC , God initiated the Old Covenant between Himself and the Israelites, which contained the code of conduct (starting in Exodus 19) for all Jews for the next 1,500 years (approximately) until Jesus died on the cross. It was their written and binding instruction manual. At the cross, Jesus initiated the New Covenant, which contains the code of conduct (the New Testament) for all Christians for the next 2,000 years (approximately) until Jesus returns for us at the Rapture. It's our written and binding instruction manual.

As Christians, our goal should be to discern the truths being taught in the Bible and determine if and how those truths apply to us today (see my article called How to Study the Bible), even when those truths are taught in ways that are not literally true such as allegories, hyperbole, metaphors, parables, poetic or flowery language, symbolism, and other forms of figurative speech, or the types of issues shown in the above bullet points.

For a discussion of numerous alleged contradictions in the Bible (all of which were actually expressed by atheists or other biblical skeptics), see: Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved .