EvoWiki is now a project of the RationalWiki Foundation, to learn how to participate please visit the EvoWiki project page.

From EvoWiki

Claim

The Bible is inerrant.

Source

• International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. [1]
• Gitt, Werner, 1993. Did God Use Evolution?, p. 25

Responses

1. "The Origin of Species is inerrant." - Anything said to disprove this can also be used to disprove the initial claim (aside from "God wrote it", which isn't probable).
2. Then which of the two stories in Genesis is correct? And if only one is correct--and they can't both be--the other is incorrect. Which disproves the postulate.
3. Whose interpretation of which compilation of which translation of which source material of the Bible are you referring to, and why do you believe them? Are all the people involved inerrant too in their choice of source material, their translations, their choice of version, their interpretation?
4. Some Christian traditions don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Why are your religious beliefs any better than theirs?
5. Those who make this claim fail to realize that the content of the Bible has changed with each translation:
   1. Biblical scholars suspect that references to rabbits, especially those parts that refer to rabbits as being cud-chewing animals, actually refer to hyraxes. Necropsies of both animals have shown that neither animal is anatomically equipped to chew cud.
   2. The Hebrew word for "ray of light" is the same word for "horn," and as a result, Moses was once thought to have horns, rather than having a halo of light around his head. See Michelangelo's "Moses"
6. The Bible is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be inerrant. One passage (Genesis 6:19) claims Noah took two of every animal (as clean animals are still animals, they are included in this statement), while another (Genesis 7:2) claims he took seven pairs of every clean animal.
7. The Bible as it is read today was compiled at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, long after all the component texts were written. Many portions that were previously accepted were removed, and many portions that were not previously accepted were added. Is the Bible supposed to be inerrant before or after this occurred?
8. Christians have differing beliefs of what makes the Bible inerrant. While some believe that everything written is 100% literal, others read certain passages as messages for a deeper meaning, such as morality and ethics, rather than just a history and science book.
9. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Invincible Authority (inerrant writings take priority over every other evidence)
• Circular Reasoning (assumes the Bible is perfectly true, in order to prove that it is perfectly true)

References

1. Barker, Dan, 1990 (Mar.). Leave No Stone Unturned. Freethought Today, [2]
2. Bronowski, Jacob, 1973. The Ascent of Man. Boston: Little Brown and Co.
3. Friedman, Richard Elliott, 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.

Further Reading

• Bringas, Ernie, 1996. Going by the Book, Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing.
• The Straight Dope, 2002. Who Wrote the Bible? (Part 5). [3]

Related claims

• If part of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted
• The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it
• The Bible is literal
• Bible claims inspiration
• Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible
• The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it
• Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy
• Bible is unique in other ways
• Bible is harmonious throughout

Acknowledgments