Inerrancy

I have thought that inerrancy signifies that the Scriptures are without error in their original writings. The original writings would be the final written product intended by the author, even if done through another writer—after proofread and approved by the author.

It seems that some want inerrancy to allow for a non-literal interpretation of an historical account when it is either contradicted by the apparent evidence or just too hard to believe. Even though the historical account may be written in a manner that seems meant to be taken at face value and not meant as a parable or tall tale of sorts, but if the evidence is lacking, then it must not be a true historical account, and inerrancy must allow for that interpretation. If two accounts appear to contradict themselves, then inerrancy must accommodate such.

It seems such an approach would restrict inerrancy in that it can not with certainty include historical data in Scripture—how could one ever be certain?   But doesn’t the theological depend on the historical account?  What happens to Christianity if we question the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ? 

But what about other events connected to the death and resurrection of Christ? The great Temple veil tore in two. Graves were opened and many came to life again. Rocks were split. These are things that some questioned really happened. The evidence is lacking or they are just too hard to believe. But weren't these meant to be confirming signs—this man who was crucified was not just another condemned man put to death?

How far should inerrancy be pushed? I think it must be that all that was written as Scripture is without error in the final product--the final written product as intended by its author.  These writings are Divinely authoritative and trustworthy, and their teachings are unified and coherent.  Though the Scriptures are of a specific and limited history of world events, and they are not a science textbook, the things it states are true.  Scripture is not without difficulties, and there are things clearly not meant to be taken literally.

If accounts that appear historical in their accounting were just tall tales, then what impact do they really have? If the fall of Jericho was not as described, then why even record such an event as historical? Is it that something happened, but we don’t really know what happened? How does it inspire its readers about the working of God, if it really didn’t happen?

How would the destructions of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of the world of Noah, or of the Canaanites by the Hebrews have any impact on future readers if the accounts are not true or historically accurate? The second coming of Christ is compared to the world scene in the days before the flood—but if the flood didn’t happen, what impact can the account have? Someone might protest and say the flood happened, but not to the extent some think the text suggests—and so the protest against inerrancy is that it requires a certain interpretation of Scripture.

But I think inerrancy is just requiring that the text is without error, not that one has to interpret it a certain way, unless the text requires that interpretation, being historically accurate or hyperbole or a parable.  But just because the account does not have present verification by archaeology or seems too hard to believe should it be passed off as  a parable or tall tale.   It wasn’t until the 1800s that the name of the last king of Babylon, Belshazzar in Daniel, was discovered to be the son of the last king of Babylon and reigning in his father’s stead—and why Daniel was offered to be the third in the kingdom since Belshazzar was obviously the second in the kingdom to his father (remember Pharaoh offered Joseph to be second in his kingdom).  Critics claimed Daniel was in error until archaeology proved Daniel was correct.

 * Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7–8) and from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions. Though he is referred to in the Book of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian inscriptions indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris, who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.  -- Encyclopedia Britannica