# Biblical inerrancy movement is actually a "very new phenomenon". Is this true? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 30, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961 "2014-11-30T18:23:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/61 "2014-12-02T17:34:11Z")
I think one thing people need to keep in mind is the difference between The Bible being the go-to source for Christian beliefs and The Bible being considered 100% absolute correct in all ways, including Science and History. Clearly the former has been the mainstream belief since early days of the Church. But early Christian writers knew they didn’t have a perfect copy. They saw different versions. Sometimes key passages differed in important ways. Take a simple example: What is the number of The Beast? 666, right? But it was also 616 in some versions. Writers commented on this and didn’t have any problem with it early on. Once translations became popular in the 1600s, the difference in versions was taken into account and wasn’t a really big deal for the most part. It is only in fairly recent times that the notion that there is no error whatsoever at any time at any point became a dogma among certain people. (Who really should know better.) So the number of The Beast is 666, no questions allowed. Another example is the two versions of Judas’ death. Generally it was “Matthew said one way, Luke (in Acts) said another.” and they left it at that. But the inerrancy crowd jumps thru hoops to “prove” they are both the same. That sort of thing as a widespread approach is new. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/62 "2014-12-02T18:34:08Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I literally do not understand your point or your argument _at all_. > > Certainly their belief in the literalness of the Bible hasn’t kept modern-day literalists from writing _their_ own books, whether they are felt to be necessary or not. I was answering two different threads in one post, and I’m pretty sleep-deprived, so it wasn’t as coherent as I’d hoped. What I was trying to get at with the last part was that Biblical literalists don’t have very much room for interpretation. The Bible is infallibly accurate- in whatever English translation they’re reading. So if the Bible says that a vessel had a diameter of 10 cubits and a diameter of 30 cubits, then that’s EXACTLY what it was, no more, no less, and no rounding. It certainly was not 31.4 cubits, because that’s not what the Bible says. No room for interpretation or anything like that, and allegory isn’t really a thing either, since they’re reading it literally. With most mainline Christian denominations, there’s not a problem with interpreting the meaning of a scriptural passage as part of defining or determining something, and that’s what Augustine was doing. The literalists don’t interpret though; it’s black and white, so from what I can tell, a lot of their theology seems sort of like a bizarre form of symbolic logic, only with scriptural passages as the symbols. They string together out of context quotes to back up a point. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/63 "2014-12-02T18:35:34Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > That is precisely the only proper way to view discrepancies between the Bible and another source. Humans make mistakes; God does not. Therefore, if something seems to contradict the Bible, no matter how well “proved” the contradiction seems to be, it is manifestly the result of some human error somewhere. You know, HAL 9000 said almost exactly the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/64 "2014-12-02T18:43:18Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It wasn’t, but Darwin was hardly the first thing that set them off. One thing we forget is that the _idea_ of evolution had been gaining ground for pretty much the entire 19th century; _Origin of Species_ explained _how_ species evolved, and backed up the explanation with a detailed argument. As you say, evolution per se was not invented by Darwin. His grandfather was working in that area also. If Darwin had stopped at animals evolving there would probably been much less of an uproar. But he drew the logical conclusion that if the evidence shows the evolution of animals and plants it also shows the evolution of humans. No one had a fit about the grandfather of a dog being a wolf. They had lots of fits about our grandfather being a monkey. I don’t recall any poll numbers about belief that animals were created in their present forms - but I suspect they would be much lower than the numbers of people believing we were created in our present forms. The battle still rages. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/65 "2014-12-02T21:48:26Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > That rail around the roof is pretty practical, though, especially if you have the sort of roof people walk on. Yabbut if you have to be paying people to walk on your roof all day, putting a railing around it will probably just encourage them to _lean_ on it… ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/66 "2014-12-02T22:44:14Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Then a couple of people waltz in to tell me that I don’t understand the Bible, as if the argument I was examining was actually my argument. Because I guess when you examine other people’s arguments, they think that is the same thing as embracing one side of the argument. Nope, sorry, you don’t get it at all. Wipe the flecks of spittle off your screen, and see if you can’t read for comprehension. Let me start by saying that I understand perfectly that the argument you were examining was not your argument. But I was attacking _your examination_ of the literalist argument, not their argument itself. In particular: > [@](#): > > So, that’s the argument #2: the circumference was not uniform, and the measurements in question were taken at different points. Again, a very logical argument. Except the Bible doesn’t say anything about where the measurements were taken. That’s extra-Biblical info as well. The underlined part is your examination, not the argument of the literalists. And its wrong. The bible says “from brim to brim” and “round about” which is - despite your determination to flatly deny it - an indication of where the measurements were taken. It does not say, for example “from brim to brim” and “around the brim”. It does not say the measurements were taken of precisely the same circle, which is a necessary precondition to be able to relate the circumference and diameter and reach any conclusion about pi. Its _actually you_ who - at the point where you introduce the idea that the two measurements are of precisely the same circle - introduces the extra-biblical material, not the literalists. You accuse the literalists of assuming humans are correct (about pi) and that the bible is wrong, but actually they are just saying that there is nothing of sufficient precision stated in the bible to be able to derive pi in the first place. Or if you like have it your way: you yourself say “the bible doesn’t say anything about where the measurements were taken”. Uh, well, OK then. But you said that based on a literal reading of the Bible \*\*Flyer \*\*must believe pi was 3. How the heck, given that you don’t know anything about where two measurements were taken, can you then derive anything about pi? But I’m just quibbling here with one particular argument of yours. The more general case is that no literalist is an absolute literalist, and I suspect you are strawmanning if you say otherwise. I mean, take your post #33 above. Flyer says his deity is always right and any error is human. You then _assume_ he would have certain beliefs about pi based on some sort of absolute literalism. Absolute literalism is basically impossible because no text itself defines everything in itself. Humans are always part of the equation, and Flyer has never said any different. Consequently some degree of interpretation is always required, and that interpretation is always an “out”, so you are wasting your time. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/67 "2014-12-03T02:19:48Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Nope, sorry, you don’t get it at all. Wipe the flecks of spittle off your screen, and see if you can’t read for comprehension. There are no flecks on my screen. Wipe the flecks off of yours, because you’re the one who doesn’t know how to read. > [@](#): > > The underlined part is your examination, not the argument of the literalists. And its wrong. The bible says “from brim to brim” and “round about” which is - despite your determination to flatly deny it - an indication of where the measurements were taken. It does not say, for example “from brim to brim” and “around the brim”. Ok, fine. I see we have an antecedent problem, and that my use of the word “anything” is confusing, because I meant that to refer back to the actual argument that the literalists were proferring. So, I will reword to say that the Bible doesn’t say anything about taking measurements in the manner proferred by the literalist argument, and that this argument is injecting extra-Biblical info. Does that satisfy your pedantry? > [@](#): > > IIts _actually you_ who - at the point where you introduce the idea that the two measurements are of precisely the same circle - introduces the extra-biblical material, not the literalists. Uh, nope. It’s not me who’s introducing anything. If you look at the page I linked to, that’s in the argument that’s being discussed. > [@](#): > > You accuse the literalists of assuming humans are correct (about pi) and that the bible is wrong, but actually they are just saying that there is nothing of sufficient precision stated in the bible to be able to derive pi in the first place. No, that’s not the argument being made, and again, if you look at the page I linked to, the arguments clearly go into detail with the assumption that the value of pi is appox. 3.14. > [@](#): > > Or if you like have it your way: you yourself say “the bible doesn’t say anything about where the measurements were taken”. Uh, well, OK then. But you said that based on a literal reading of the Bible \*\*Flyer \*\*must believe pi was 3. All right, I’m going to stop here, since you’re just making stuff up now. I never said he “must” believe anything. I asked him what he believed. Stop putting strawmen in my mouth and pretending your actually conducting an argument. Bye now! I won’t respond to you anymore (I think you can figure out why on your own). Other people in this thread understood my argument just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/68 "2014-12-03T03:32:19Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > So, based on this, you would think that the value of pi is 3, and that human error is what has led us to think that the value of pi is approx. 3.14. Is that correct? > > Because that’s not what a lot of so-called “literalists” think. Let’s look at the verse in question, and the common apologetics: > Now, that implies a value for pi of 3. And we all know that in geometry, pi is not 3. So, let’s look at some common arguments to explain this. From [here](http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3): For a would-be literalist, you make two fatal mistakes. #1 I Kings 7:23 does NOT say that the metal sea was 30 cubits in circumference. What it actually says is that _the line that they measured it with_ was 30 cubits. #2 There is an mismatch of about 5%, which is probably why the line is described as compassing it “round about” instead of “round about completely.” ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/69 "2014-12-03T03:40:00Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Then there are extremely few true Christians, as I have never met a Christian who followed the clear Biblical rules about what foods are wholesome, or who followed the clear Biblican rules on when sex is allowed, or who kept any of the other thousands of rather clearly-stated laws that Orthodox Jews follow. What part of Jesus’ ministry do you not understand? He was very explicit that some of the rules changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. (Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any point in calling it a “New” Testament, would there?) > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Exactly. If two verses are in conflict, then one is “_ **this is the word of the Lord!!** _” and the other is “what the Bible _really_ means here is…” One of the basic rules of studying is the Bible is that if two verses seem to contradict one anther, it is simply because one or both of them is not fully understood. Once both passages are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/70 "2014-12-03T04:38:09Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Yes, contemporary literal interpretations of scripture are relatively new, and they are reactions to intellectual developments in post-Enlightenment Europe. The inerrancy of scripture is a longstanding doctrine but was interpreted differently in different areas. It’s important to recognize the variety and history of Christianity, and to get out of historical mindsets that treat pre-Enlightenment Europe with the same mindless disdain that colonial-era writers used in reference to Africa, Asia and the New World. This, exactly. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > For example, when a biblical poet speaks of “the four corners of the earth” he’s reflecting the common ancient Hebrew belief that the earth is flat; yet his point is not the shape of the earth but the glory of God. Fundamentalists tie themselves into pretzels when they encounter such passages: some have purportedly denied the curvature of the earth. And this is myth, as is all the silliness about “Aha, they got pi wrong!” [The Chicago Statement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy) is the clearest, most definitive statement you’re going to get on what contemporary evangelicals/fundamentists mean by inerrancy(Note that “literalism” is not a term they embrace or use; it’s mostly a pejorative). [It specifies that](http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html) > [@](#): > > 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, non-chronological 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. Much of the misunderstanding around inerrency (especially among those who are not religious) revolves a failure to grasp this point. Metaphors and poetry? Non-issue. Approximations in measurement? Non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/71 "2014-12-03T04:44:03Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Ok, fine. I see we have an antecedent problem, and that my use of the word “anything” is confusing, because I meant that to refer back to the actual argument that the literalists were proferring. So, I will reword to say that the Bible doesn’t say anything about taking measurements in the manner proferred by the literalist argument, and that this argument is injecting extra-Biblical info. Does that satisfy your pedantry? > > Uh, nope. It’s not me who’s introducing anything. If you look at the page I linked to, that’s in the argument that’s being discussed. > > No, that’s not the argument being made, and again, if you look at the page I linked to, the arguments clearly go into detail with the assumption that the value of pi is appox. 3.14. > > All right, I’m going to stop here, since you’re just making stuff up now. I never said he “must” believe anything. I asked him what he believed. Stop putting strawmen in my mouth and pretending your actually conducting an argument. You are close to correct that the bible doesn’t say anything about taking measurements in the manner proferred by the literalist argument. It doesn’t say anything much precise about the way the measurements are taken at all. It _does not_ say that the two measurements of diameter and circumference were taken at equivalent points sufficient to be able to derive pi. The point that you are overlooking (and it ain’t pedantry, not by a mile) is that the literalist apologetics on this point are _as a consequence of a sceptical argument that the bible taken literally says or must imply that pi is 3_. You say, frankly rather disingenuously, “It’s not me who’s introducing anything. If you look at the page I linked to, that’s in the argument that’s being discussed.” But it’s not “in the argument being discussed”; its the sceptical contention that the argument is responding to. You are adopting the sceptical viewpoint, and that page makes the position clear: > [@](#): > > From time to time sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi π, 3.14159…). So before the biblical literalists even have a case to answer, one has to consider whether this sceptical viewpoint holds water, and it doesn’t. It only holds water if the bible gives precise, equivalent measurements of the diameter and circumference of a a perfectly circular object. Which it doesn’t. The sceptics are introducing the extra-biblical assumption that the vague measurements given are precise. The literalists are not introducing extra-biblical material, they are simply denying that the extra-biblical assumptions of the sceptics are justified. Where your argument falls apart is that the literalists are not (as you argue) working from an extra-biblical assumption that pi is 3.14 and then retconning the bible to fit, they are simply pointing out that the bible doesn’t state or imply the value of pi is, so what is there to retconn? Literalism is teh dumbass, we both know that. But pick your battles, fer cryin’ out loud. Don’t get hung up trying to advance one of the (very few) dud points in the sceptical arsenal. Let it go. > [@Flyer](#): > > One of the basic rules of studying is the Bible is that if two verses seem to contradict one anther, it is simply because one or both of them is not fully understood. Once both passages are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears. I rest my case, **BrightNShiny**. ---
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/72 "2014-12-03T08:57:10Z")
In conclusion, literalists are idiots, but it’s moot whether to attack the stupidity of their claimed literalism or the hypocrisy of their actual non-literalism. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/73 "2014-12-03T12:05:36Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Also, smh at “Ph.D. in sociology focusing on religion.” Why syh? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/74 "2014-12-03T14:51:01Z")
> [@nicky](#): > > In conclusion, literalists are idiots, but it’s moot whether to attack the stupidity of their claimed literalism or the hypocrisy of their actual non-literalism. The point is, ti you’re going to mock someone for their stoooopid beliefs, you should take the time to actually comprehend what it is you’re mocking, and aren’t just acting out of ignorant prejudice. Using the term “literalism” is pretty much a blinking red light saying you’re probably doing the latter. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/75 "2014-12-03T16:33:51Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Much of the misunderstanding around inerrency (especially among those who are not religious) revolves a failure to grasp this point. I think a lot of the misunderstanding is not on the part of professional evangelical/fundamentalist theologians like those who wrote that statement. It’s on the part of the local pastors and lay people, who misinterpret the idea that scripture is infallible and inerrant to mean that it’s literally infallilble and inerrant AS WRITTEN. Enough people (me included) have run into that thinking for it to be anything else, and without any kind of hierarchy in those denominations, it’s much more likely to have taken root and not been stamped out, than in denominations with hierarchies like say… Methodism or Episcopalianism. I think that’s a big part of what many people don’t (and do, I suppose) like about the evangelical/fundamentalist movements- each church is more or less sovereign unto itself; they loosely agree to the big things the Convention comes up with (in the case of Baptists), but there’s no bishop over the churches in an area to really rein in a pastor who goes off the rails, or anything like that. And in the case of evangelicals, they’re all sovereign. So if an evangelical pastor declares that the Bible is literally inerrant, and all that, there’s nothing to stop him or claim otherwise. If a Lutheran or Methodist pastor did the same thing, the Bishop or council/synod would shit-can him and replace him with someone who’d toe the line. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/76 "2014-12-03T21:45:58Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think a lot of the misunderstanding is not on the part of professional evangelical/fundamentalist theologians like those who wrote that statement. It’s on the part of the local pastors and lay people, who misinterpret the idea that scripture is infallible and inerrant to mean that it’s literally infallilble and inerrant AS WRITTEN. I don’t think I’ve made the point clear enough: the professional evangelical/fundamentalist theologians who wrote that statement and others like it do in fact “mean that it’s literally infallilble and inerrant AS WRITTEN.” That’s what they believe and plainly say. But the terms “inerrant” and “infallible,” as used by both theologians and local pastors, do not mean, and has never meant, that there is no room for metaphor or approximation. • There is no church or sect that holds that since Jesus says “I am the door” that he was, literally, an inanimate hinged object used to control access to an interior space. • There is no church or sect that holds that when Paul says “I am being poured out” that he was, literally, being somehow liquified, placed in a container, and then emptied. • There is no church or sect that holds that when it says of Jacob that "the seven years seemed to him but days because of his love for Rachel” that Jacob was, literally, somehow unaware of how many actual rotations of the earth had passed. • There is no church or sect that holds that when the Bible says Jesus fed 5,000 people, that there were _exactly_ 5,000, not 5,001 or 4,999 … in fact, most of them will be quick to point out that the convention of the time was to only count adult males, and so in terms of actual persons, the crowd was some unknown and much larger number. If someone reads those and says “well then, they don’t really believe in inerrancy,” that person is wrong because they have failed to grasp what inerrancy means to those using ther term. Specifically, they are missing the point of the “grammatical-historical context,” which does allow for poetry, metaphor and approximation. The point of inerrancy is not to make a picayune insistence that there were exactly 5,000 people, no more and no less: it’s obvious from the grammatical-historical context that the writer is making an approximation. Rather the point is to reject interpretations (common among the 19th/20th century liberal theologians that fundamentalism was a response to) that treat the entire story (and most supernatural events) as metaphor and claim that the “feeding” was a “spiritual” one, or that people _felt_ full, or some such. THAT is where inerrantists draw the line: they believe the context of the story plainly seems to be saying that Jesus did in fact provide a consumable, physical meal each member of a huge crowd, and so that is what happened. In the same way, your claim that > [@](#): > > that Biblical literalists don’t have very much room for interpretation. The Bible is infallibly accurate- in whatever English translation they’re reading. So if the Bible says that a vessel had a diameter of 10 cubits and a diameter of 30 cubits, then that’s EXACTLY what it was, no more, no less, and no rounding. It certainly was not 31.4 cubits, because that’s not what the Bible says” is simply not an accurate representation of what the millions and millions of people who believe in inerrancy hold to. I’m not saying NONE believe that, because, hey, Jack Chick. But it’s not what Southern Baptists believe, or “Evangelicals,” or Billy Graham, or 95% of the ~30% of Americans that belong to denominations that teach inerrancy. They’d just say, as with the 5,000 above, that it was an approximation, that the text in question is a story, not a blueprint, and you’re misinterpreting the text by expecting it to be a different genre of literature than it is. (By way of contrast, consider the start of Luke, where the author sets his story in a precise date: the text here is presenting this as an accurate fact that is important to the story.) Maybe you’re drawing some distinction between the “inerrancy” the OP is asking about and the pejorative “literalism” of the extremist Jack Chick types; if so, I missed it. > [@](#): > > Enough people (me included) have run into that thinking for it to be anything else, and without any kind of hierarchy in those denominations, it’s much more likely to have taken root and not been stamped out, than in denominations with hierarchies like say… Methodism or Episcopalianism. > > I think that’s a big part of what many people don’t (and do, I suppose) like about the evangelical/fundamentalist movements- each church is more or less sovereign unto itself; they loosely agree to the big things the Convention comes up with (in the case of Baptists), but there’s no bishop over the churches in an area to really rein in a pastor who goes off the rails, or anything like that. And in the case of evangelicals, they’re all sovereign. So if an evangelical pastor declares that the Bible is literally inerrant, and all that, there’s nothing to stop him or claim otherwise. If a Lutheran or Methodist pastor did the same thing, the Bishop or council/synod would shit-can him and replace him with someone who’d toe the line. You’re right that evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t have the hierarchies the mainline churches do, but that doesn’t mean it’s all some chaotic mess where everyone just makes their own shit up. It just means that every denomination, every college, every seminary, every charity and in some cases every local church has to come up with their own statement of faith that they can slap on their website or bulletin to announce where they stand on the various theological issues. The differences and exceptions are generally pretty minor, and while it’s theoretically possible for some local pastor to go completely off in some different direction, it rarely happens: the seminaries teach certain doctrines, churches and denominations seek pastors from those seminaries that teach those doctrines, and the people in the pews are expecting to hear those doctrines, and they then produce young people who go off to colleges that teach certain doctrines. In much the same way that in certain private industries, such as computers or railroads, everyone benefits from coming to an informal agreement on a handful of “industry standard,” all of the various religious groups benefit from making sure they more or less line up theologically. You do occasionally see cult-of-personality type deal where some guy builds a church and over time slowly moves the church in some significantly different direction, but IMO that’s more common in the charismatic/pentecostal traditions than in mainstream evangelicalism (e.g. the prosperity-gospel types on TV). In some ways, the autonomy of local congregations can serve to enforce orthodoxy: in some mainline denominations, the hierarchy can keep an off-the-reservation guy in place despite the wishes of the congregation; if a Baptist preacher starts teaching things significantly different from what the congregation wants and expects, he’s likely to be out on his ear tout suite. And certainly it’s not hard to identify any number of doctrines – ordination of women, divorce & remarriage, homosexuality, etc – where the mainline churches have changed more, and changed much more quickly, than evangelicals. ISTM, their willingness to “shit-can him and replace him with someone who’d toe the line” depends very much on what the line in question is. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/77 "2014-12-03T22:12:10Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > What part of Jesus’ ministry do you not understand? He was very explicit that some of the rules changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. (Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any point in calling it a “New” Testament, would there?) “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew 5:17 -18. Better lay off the cheeseburgers and tattoos, hmm? > [@](#): > > One of the basic rules of studying is the Bible is that if two verses seem to contradict one anther, it is simply because one or both of them is not fully understood. Once both passages are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears. By exactly the same logic, I could say that one of the basic rules of studying the Qu’ran is that if two verses seem to contradict another, it is simply because one or both of them is not fully understood. Once both passages are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears. Therefore the Qu’ran is as infallible as the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/78 "2014-12-03T23:23:58Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > By exactly the same logic, I could say that one of the basic rules of studying the Qu’ran is that if two verses seem to contradict another, it is simply because one or both of them is not fully understood. Once both passages are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears. Therefore the Qu’ran is as infallible as the Bible. Huh?? No one’s said that being free of internal contradictions is a **sufficient** condition for infallibility, just a **necessary** one. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/79 "2014-12-03T23:42:57Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Huh?? No one’s said that being free of internal contradictions is a **sufficient** condition for infallibility, just a **necessary** one. Er, wut? I was just pointing out that **Flyer** ’s “basic rule” about Bible study - that internal contradictions are only _apparent_, not _actual_ - is not falsifiable, and requires an _a priori_ belief that the Bible is inerrant. I’m not enough of a logician to say whether that’s an example of argument from authority or begging the question, but I know it’s fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961/80 "2014-12-04T02:28:06Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I loved “Confessions”. I never started “City of God”. I guess you aren’t recommending it. 🙂 Both are best used as torture devices to chase the dilettantes out of the Philosophy major. We do get this, though, from Confessions: _“da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo”_ better known as - **God, make me good /chaste, but not yet.** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-movement-is-actually-a-very-new-phenomenon-is-this-true/705961.md?page=5)