Is the Bible inerrant?

Is the Bible inerrant?
Updated 7 August 2023 (c) 2023


The Bible is accepted as an inspired chronicle of mankind’s search for existence, meaning and moral guidance by virtually all Christian denominations and also by the Jewish faith, who read the Old Testament. Muslims also read portions of the Old Testament, although these are secondary to the Qur’an. Even many secular, nonbelieving scholars have expressed great respect for the Bible. The Book of Job’s remarkable search for meaning in suffering has few peers in world literature [Norwegian2011]. The Book of Ecclesiastes was termed “sublime” by a scholar who otherwise was highly critical of modern religion [Dawkins2006, pg. 383].

Even among those who firmly believe the Bible to be the word of God, most are willing to accept that the Bible nonetheless has some imperfections, such as translation errors, copyist errors, omissions and questionable inclusions, and, in any event, the Bible was never intended to be read primarily as a scientific or historical treatise — see Bible-archaeology and Bible chronology. But others disagree, insisting on viewing the Bible as a perfect, complete and “inerrant” repository of God’s word: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching … in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God.” [Chicago1982]. This literal-inerrant approach to the Bible has also been adopted by many creationist and intelligent design writers, and is the root of the “war” that they perceive between science and religion. Here are some examples of their writings, underscoring how seriously these writers view their position:

  1. The Creation Research Society [CRS2010]: “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.”
  2. Ken Ham (creationist) [Ham2013]: “When sinful human beings believe the lie that God’s Word is not authoritative, they put themselves in a position of authority over God, disregarding and even rewriting His Word. … Those who question His Word are denying the full authority and accuracy of the Bible from its very first verse.”
  3. William Dembski (intelligent design writer) [Allen2010]: “As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality. … I accept that the events described in Genesis 1-11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.”

It is important to note that biblical inerrancy is a relatively new phenomenon in religious history. As one biblical scholar noted, “There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. … [O]nly in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.” [Coleman1975]. In many religious traditions (certainly including the present author’s), the term “biblical inerrancy” and the absolute, inflexible approach it represents have never appeared at all. Ironically, the notion that the Bible should be viewed as a precise scientific and historical treatise is shared by some prominent atheists on the other end of the intellectual spectrum, who assert that since modern research proves that the Bible is an imperfect record, it follows that the Judeo-Christian religion is wholly false [Harris2006, pg. 1-10; Armstrong2009, pg. 302-307; Haught1995, pg. 57] (see also Atheists).

Difficulties with biblical inerrancy

In any event, the consensus of the vast majority of knowledgeable biblical scholars, representing a broad range of sects, denominations and philosophies, is that the literal-inerrant approach to the Bible, particularly in the extreme form mentioned above, is simply not defensible [Armstrong2008; Borg2001; Coogan2001; Ehrman2005; Ehrman2009; Fox1991; Shorto1997]. This conclusion is supported by a broad range of modern biblical scholarship, spanning such fields as archaeology, history and Middle Eastern culture. Some of this scholarship, notably the “higher criticism” school of thought, is considered controversial by some. However, the central conclusion that the Bible is not infallible, and that the human element must be acknowledged along with the divine, still holds even if one sets aside “higher criticism” and other similar schools of interpretation, and just focuses on the text of the Bible itself.

Here are just a few features of the biblical text that argue strongly against the literal-inerrant paradigm. These items are not presented out of disrespect for the Bible (quite the contrary), but only to demonstrate that the literal-inerrant paradigm runs afoul of countless facts within the Bible itself:

  1. Translation errors. The translation of a document from one language to another is always a subtle art. Translation is particularly challenging when, as in the case of the Bible, the original work was written in ancient times and uses names, terms, metaphors whose meanings have changed. What’s more, some passages have simply been translated incorrectly. Here are some examples from the King James version (KJV):
    • Isa. 2:16: “And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.” The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) renders this passage more accurately rendered as “against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft.”
    • Isa. 13:15: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword.” Here “joined” should be “captured.”
    • Acts 9:6: “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Everything from the start of this passage through “unto him” was added by a later translator and should be omitted.
    • Acts 12:4: “And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” Here “Easter” should be “Passover.”

    Other, more modern translations also have their detractors. For example, the NRSV renders 1 Cor. 13:11 (“when I became a man, I gave up childish ways” in KJV) as “when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.” And whereas the King James version translates 1 Thes. 4:10 as “And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more,” the NRSV renders this verse as “and indeed you do love all the brothers and sisters throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more.” In such cases, critics argue that the NRSV has sacrificed translation accuracy to be politically correct and gender neutral [Farstad1990]. In short, there is no such thing as a “perfect” translation. All widely used versions of the Bible have flaws and potentially controversial features.

  2. Text inserted and/or changed by copyists. In numerous places, text has been added or modified by copyists. Here are a few well-known examples:
    • John 7:53 through 8:11 (KJV): The heartwarming story of Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and scriptural commentaries, uses a writing style and vocabulary that is distinct from the remainder of John, and, in those early manuscripts where it does appear, does not always appear in the same place. Thus the consensus of most biblical scholars is that this passage was introduced in the third or fourth century [Ehrman2005, pg. 63-65].
    • 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The text in brackets does not appear in any Bible manuscript prior to the eighth century, and is widely acknowledged to be a later addition [Ehrman2005, pg. 81].
    • 1 Cor. 14:33-35: “As in all the churches of God’s holy people, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” This passage does not fit in context and does not appear in the same place in early documents; thus it most likely was a marginal note later incorporated into the text [Ehrman2005, pg. 178-186]. See also “Women” below.
  3. Missing books and passages. Numerous books are mentioned in the Bible but are not included in the modern canon. Here are some examples, with the biblical reference where they are mentioned in parentheses:
    • The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13).
    • The Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chron. 29:29).
    • The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29, 2 Chron. 9:29).
    • The Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).
    • The Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15).
    • The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29).
    • The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 13:22, 2 Chron. 9:29).
    • The Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34).
    • The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14).
  4. Questionable inclusions. The establishment of our current canon of accepted biblical books was a long and contentious process, with our current Bible fixed by the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE. But to this day some scholars argue that a few of the omitted books (such as the Apocrypha) should be included, and a few of the included books should not be. As a single example, it is widely acknowledged that the Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon) is primarily a work of amorous love poetry, and its inclusion in the Old Testament by ancient Jewish scribes was highly questionable.
  5. Literary passages. Numerous biblical passages are much more reasonably viewed as literary works than as literal, act-by-act historical records. This is particularly clear of passages in Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Job and Isaiah. For example, the Book of Job, with its intricate and scholarly dialogue examining of the meaning of suffering, is widely regarded even by secular scholars as among the greatest of all world literature [Norwegian2011]. Yet to assert the God literally inflicted the saintly Job with horrible calamities, including the death of his sons, all as a result of an idle wager between God and Satan, is an absurdity bordering on blasphemy.
  6. Ancient cosmology. Numerous biblical passages state or at least presume the ancient geocentric cosmology, namely that the earth is flat, is encompassed by a circle (like a coin), is set on a foundation of pillars and is immovable, with the sun and other heavenly bodies moving on transparent spheres of crystalline material a few thousand feet or so above the earth: 1 Sam. 2:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psa. 93:1, Psa. 104:5, Eccl. 1:5 and Isa. 40:22, among many others. Needless to say, almost all readers today view these verses only as literary devices emphasizing the glory of God, not as literal scientific fact — see Bible-cosmology.
  7. Accounts written after the fact. It is quite clear that some accounts recorded in the Bible were written down at a later date than when they actually transpired, or at the least, were subsequently edited for a later audience. This is evidenced by the numerous instances of the phrase “to this day” or “unto this day,” particularly in the Old Testament. There are 10 instances of this phrase in Genesis, 6 in Deuteronomy, 14 in Joshua, 7 in Judges, 9 in 1 Samuel, 5 in 1 Kings, 10 in 2 Kings, 9 in Jeremiah, and numerous others. For example, Gen. 26:33 says, “And [Issac] called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.” Similarly, Deut. 34:6 says “And he buried [Moses] in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.”

    Along this line, Gen. 11:31 and 15:7, while discussing the life of Abraham (roughly 1600-2000 BCE), say that he left “Ur of the Chaldees” for Canaan. But this account must have been written or edited at a later time, since the Chaldean Kingdom did not arise until 600-700 BCE. The account of Abraham’s grandson Jacob traveling from Canaan back to Abraham’s homeland to find a wife mentions that his party rode camels, but this detail must have been added much later since camels were not domesticated until 950 BCE [Wilford2014]. Similarly, Gen. 36:31, written near the end of Jacob (Israel)’s life (roughly 1400-1800 BCE), includes the phrase “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” clearly indicating that this text was addressed to an audience that lived during or after the period of kings over Israel (1000-600 BCE). There is no major issue per se with accounts being written after-the-fact or subsequently being edited for a later audience, but this does present an issue for inerrancy.

  8. Genealogical discrepancies. The genealogy of Jesus in Matt. 1:1-17 disagrees with Luke 3:23-38, beginning with who was Joseph’s father (Jacob versus Heli), and every male ancestor that follows until David, as well as in the total number of generations between Jesus and David (27 versus 42). What’s more, Matthew’s genealogy omits three persons (Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah) specifically mentioned in 1 Kings and 2 Kings. Luke’s version is generally considered more reliable, because the number of generations between David and Jesus (42) is more in keeping with a 1000-year interval, but surely both cannot simultaneously be correct. See also the next item.
  9. Chronological discrepancies. There are numerous instances of chronological discrepancies, particularly in the Old Testament:
    • Exodus 12:40 says that the children of Israel lived in Egypt for 430 years. Yet several passages (see Exod. 6:16-20, Num. 26:59, 1 Chron. 6:1, 1 Chron 23:6, Gen. 15:16) present the genealogy of Moses as the great-grandson of Levi (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses) via his paternal line, and the grandson of Levi via his maternal line (Levi-Jochebed-Moses). Needless to say, two or three generations do not cover 430 years, even if one accepts at face value the very old ages stated in Exod. 6 and presumes, most implausibly, that each generation was sired only in the last year of life of the previous generation.
    • Similarly, the 480-year period given in 1 Kings 6:1 for the Exodus to the foundation of Solomon’s temple appears inconsistent on the high side, with 1 Chron. 2:1-15, which gives only ten generations from Judah to David (born roughly 1040 BCE), and on the low side with the years given for the reigns of various judges in Joshua and Judges [Literalist2014]. Many scholars now believe that the reign of Rameses II, roughly 1250 BCE, is the most plausible setting for the Exodus, which means that the Exodus-to-Solomon period was roughly 240 years, not 480 years.
    • According to 2 Kings 24:8, Jehoiachin was 18 years when he began to reign, but according to 2 Chron. 36:9, he was only eight.
    • According to 2 Kings 15:30, Joshea killed Pekah in the 20th year of the reign of Jotham, but two verses later it says that Jotham reigned only 16 years.
    • According to 1 Kings 15:27-28 and 15:33, Baasha reigned in Israel 24 years, beginning in the third year of Asa’s reign in Judah, but according to 2 Chron. 16:5, Baasha was still reigning in Israel in the 36th year of Asa’s reign.
    • The chronology of the 22-year reign of Jeroboam and the overlapping 17-year reign of Rehoboam (two of the sons of Solomon) can be reckoned either by the number of years for each king’s reign, or from synchronisms between kings. The synchronisms work out, but the years from the division of the kingdom to Ahab’s death (1 Kings 22:12) add up to 83-84 years, placing Ahab’s death in 844 BCE, which is off by ten years from the date reckoned from the Assyrian records [Coogan2001, pg. 215].
    • Matt. 2:1 states that Jesus was born in the days of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. But Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born in the days of Cyrenius, governor of Syria, who did not assume office until 7 CE.

    See also Bible chronology.

  10. Numerical discrepancies. Exodus 12:37 says that “about 600,000” Hebrew men (i.e., 2-3 million persons, including women and children) left Egypt in the Exodus. Exodus 38:26 and Num. 1:46 are more specific: 603,550 men. However, there are indications from other passages within the Old Testament itself that this number was much smaller. For example, counting Levi’s male descendants through Moses, based on Exod. 6:16-20, gives just 21 men. Multiplying by 12 to estimate for the 12 sons of Jacob gives just 252 men through Moses’ generation at the Exodus (even assuming they were all still alive at the Exodus). Also, Exod. 1:15-17 says there were only two midwives for the Israelites; this places an upper limit of about 5,000 on the size of the Hebrew nation at the time of the birth of Moses. Exodus 18:21 describes the organization of the Hebrew host with rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens; there is no mention of groupings larger than thousands. Exodus 15:27 mentions that after crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites camped at Elim, where there were 12 wells and 70 palm trees; this is hardly sufficient to provide water and shelter for 2-3 million persons. Similarly, Num. 20:17-19 describes Moses’ attempt to negotiate a safe passage for the Israelites through Edom. He proposed to the Edomite king that they would walk strictly on the king’s highway (a narrow one-lane dirt road by today’s standards) while traveling through his land: “we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left.” If the children of Israel numbered in the millions, this procession would have taken weeks or even months to complete, and Moses’ offer would have made no sense. In short, numerous other passages within the Old Testament itself clearly suggest much lower numbers for the Israelite host than the 2-3 million figure given in Exo. 12:37, 38:26 and Num. 1:46.
  11. Women. In the Old Testament, there are numerous passages indicating different treatment for women and men. Priests are invariably male; a woman was ritually unclean 33 days after the birth of a boy but 66 days after the birth of a girl (Lev. 12:1-8), etc. In the New Testament, women evidently assumed a greater role in the church, but the record is inconsistent. Romans 16, for instance, lists numerous female names (e.g., Phebe, Priscilla, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis and others) as among the leading figures of the Church at the time in Rome. In 1 Cor. 11:5, women are explicitly described as praying and prophesizing. Yet just a few pages later, in 1 Cor. 14:33-35 we read, “As in all the churches of God’s holy people, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Similarly, we read in 1 Tim. 2:11-12, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” With regards to the passage in Timothy, the consensus of scholars is that this book was not really written by Paul. As noted above, the passage 1 Cor. 14, does not fit in the context of 1 Cor. 14 and does not appear in the same place in the earliest documents; thus it is highly suspect [Ehrman2005, pg. 178-186].
  12. Sins of parents and ancestors. Exodus 20:5, Num. 14:18 and Deut. 5:9 speak of God’s punishment extending to the “third and fourth generation” for certain transgressions. Deut. 23:3 says that Ammonites and Moabites are to be banned from the Hebrew congregation “even to the tenth generation … for ever.” This injunction may have been used by King Josiah when instituting his reforms (2 King. 22:14-20 and 2 Chron. 34:22-28), and was definitely cited in Nehemiah when Jews in general and priests in particular were rebuked for marrying descendants of the Ammonites and Moabites (Neh. 13:1). But this is inconsistent with the record of David, Israel’s greatest king, since his great-grandmother was Ruth the Moabite (Ruth 4:22), and thus he and all his descendants had Moabite lineage. Furthermore, the prophet Ezekiel argued at length that children are not to be punished for the sins of parents or ancestors (Eze. 18-20). This more tolerant view was affirmed by Jesus in John 9:3. Today, few would dispute that the strict law in the early Old Testament was superseded by the view in Ezekiel and certainly by the “new covenant” in the New Testament, but the difference remains quite openly in the biblical text.
  13. Violence. The early books of the Old Testament depict a fair amount of violence and retribution, particularly towards neighboring tribes deemed their enemies [Num. 31; Deut. 20:16; 1 Sam. 15]. In sharp contrast, the New Testament, Jesus taught his followers to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” [Matt. 5:44]. Similarly, the Apostle Paul frequently taught tolerance and love, with love extending beyond one’s own people to encompass all of humanity [1 Cor. 13; Gal. 3:28]. Again, few would dispute that the New Testament approach is the one we should follow today, but the two sharply differing philosophies remain in all published Bibles.
  14. Other internal discrepancies. There are many other instances where one passage disagrees with another. Here are some examples:
    • Genesis 6:20 says that two of fowls, cattle and creeping things are to come aboard Noah’s ark, while Gen. 7:2-3 says seven of clean beasts and two of fowls.
    • Genesis 37:28 says that Joseph’s brothers sold him to some Midianite traders, who sold him to some Ishmaelites (who were clearly considered distinct from the Midianites, since both are mentioned in the same verse), who in turn took Joseph to Egypt. A later passage, Gen. 39:1 adds that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of the Pharoah. But Gen. 37:36 says that it was the Midianites who sold Joseph to Potiphar.
    • Matthew 12:1-13 and Mark 2:23-28 record Jesus citing the Old Testament passage (1 Sam. 21:2-7) that tells of David, when fleeing for his life, requesting bread from the local high priest. But Mark’s account misquotes the passage, saying that the high priest’s name was Abiathar (it was Ahimelech).
    • Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:16-18 disagree with Luke 6:14-16 and Acts 1:13 in the list of Jesus’ original 12 apostles: Matthew and Mark list Thaddeus, while Luke and Acts list Judas the son of James (distinct from Judas Iscariot).
    • Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus’ cleansing of the temple near the end of his ministry, while John (using virtually the same language) records it at the start.
    • In Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Last Supper was described as the Passover feast, while in John, the Last Supper, arrest and trial occurred on the day before Passover.
    • Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot, in remorse for betraying Jesus, hanged himself. The chief priests, unable to accept his silver back into the treasury, used it to buy a potter’s field as a burial grounds for strangers, which was subsequently called the “Field of Blood.” But Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas died when he fell headlong and “burst open” on this field.
    • Acts 9:3-7 says that the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw nothing, while Acts 22:6-9 says they saw a light but heard nothing.


It should be emphasized again that the above list is not presented out of disrespect for the Bible, nor as evidence that the Bible is completely uninspired, nor as justification for not taking the Bible seriously (quite the contrary). These items are, in almost all cases, straightforward factual features of the biblical text that have been recognized for decades, if not centuries by biblical scholars of many denominations. Further, none of the above items has any significant impact on morality, charity, salvation or any other matter that is truly in the realm of religion. However, even this brief list is fatal to the literal-inerrant approach to the Bible.

These items also call into question anyone who insists on a highly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation scriptures. After all, if one agrees that the passages, mentioned above, that reflect the ancient flat-earth cosmology are only literary devices extolling the greatness of God, but not to be read as literal scientific fact, then why should Gen. 1-2, which also describes the physical creation, be singled out for a highly literal interpretation? And if one acknowledges that the genealogies and chronologies recorded in the Bible have significant gaps and omissions, as is clear from the above examples, then why should one insist that the creation of the earth literally transpired in 4000 BCE, or anything close to it?

Numerous interpretations have been proposed over the years for these anomalies, including the following:

  • One of the conflicting passages is thought to be more reliable than the others. For example, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is generally regarded as more reliable than Matthew’s.
  • Some of the passages are literary or were intended to mean something different than what a straightforward literal reading would suggest.
  • Some of the passages have not have been translated or copied correctly from the original.
  • Some contextual material is evidently missing, which, if restored, would resolve the difficulty. For example, some explain various chronological discrepancies by saying that the genealogies given at various places in the biblical text must be incomplete — numerous intermediate generations are missing, or else the “begats” should read “was an ancestor to.”
  • The more tolerant, forgiving teachings of the New Testament, referred to as the “new covenant,” supersede the “old covenant” taught in the Old Testament.
  • With regards to troublesome passages such as those listed in “Women” above, principles of human equality taught elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Acts 10:34, “…God is no respecter of persons”) make it clear that women should not be excluded from participation in worship services.

In most cases, such explanations are entirely reasonable, and indeed constitute part of the broader biblical studies literature espoused by numerous denominations. But even these very reasonable explanations undercut the literal-inerrant paradigm adhered to by some writers.

Ancient and modern commentaries

The conclusion that the Bible must be approached with a more flexible philosophy, one that recognizes the human element as well as the divine, is hardly a new conclusion. Nearly 1600 years ago, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis, warned the early Christians [Augustine1982, pg. 42-43]:

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.

It is also important to note that this general conclusion is not limited to “liberal” scholars, or to writers from “liberal” religious denominations. Here, for example, are some excerpts from writers affiliated with denominations that are generally regarded as relatively “conservative”:

  1. Paul W. Powell of the Truett Seminary at Baylor University (affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas) recently wrote [Powell2005]:

    Since no two languages have exactly the same words to express an idea, it is impossible to translate the scriptures in an absolutely literal fashion … In addition, before the printing press was invented, the scriptures had to be hand-copied. This was a long and tedious task, and copyists occasionally missed a word or line in carrying out their work.

  2. Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS faith in the 19th century, taught that the Bible is not complete, and that “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” [Roberts1912, vol. 6, pg. 57]. More recently, LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (a descendant of Joseph Smith’s brother), although he deeply skeptical of some modern scientific theories, nonetheless acknowledged [Smith1956, vol. 3, pg. 188]:

    Even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is, like most any other book, filled with metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable, which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. … The Lord has not taken from those who believe in his word the power of reason. He expects every man who takes his ‘yoke’ upon him to have common sense enough to accept a figure of speech in its proper setting, and to understand that the holy scriptures are replete with allegorical stories, faith-building parables, and artistic speech. … Where is there a writing intended to be taken in all its parts literally? Such a writing would be insipid and hence lack natural appeal. To expect a believer in the Bible to strike an attitude of this kind and believe all that is written to be a literal rendition is a stupid thought. No person with the natural use of his faculties looks upon the Bible in such a light.

  3. Pope John Paul II added the following on the specific question of how one should view the creation scriptures [Pope1986, pg. 161-164]:

    The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.


In summary, while even today some denominations, biblical scholars and creationist-intelligent design writers insist that the Bible is absolutely inerrant and, by implication, that Genesis must be read as a complete and technically precise scientific treatise, abundant evidence even within the Bible itself shows that such notions are indefensible. Once one backs away from a literal-inerrant approach to the Bible and adopts a more flexible worldview, most of the difficulties that are typically mentioned in the context of science and religion either disappear or fade into relative insignificance.

Comments are closed.