Inerrancy of scripture simply means that the scriptures does not affirm anything contrary to fact. This implies that the Bible is always truthful. However, when we examine the scriptures, certain verses seem to reveal otherwise. It should be noted that the alleged error in the Bible is due to the reader’s own misinterpretation of these verses or ignorance of the language used in the scripture. In this section, we will examine few of these and see if there are errors in the Bible.
The Bible in most instances uses ordinary language or speech. It may not convey the accurate view of an event but is still inerrant. For instance, in Psalm 19:6 it reveals that the Sun moves around the Earth, which is false from a scientific standpoint. However, the speaker states that because from the standpoint of the observer, the sun revolves around the earth. The Bible does not teach that the sun revolves around the earth. It only uses descriptions of phenomena as we see them from our vantage point. We should also note that when the Bible reports numbers (like casualties in war), they may be approximations or rounded figures. For instance, if 2,000 people died, there was no way they could count the number of deaths after the war. The Bible will not be false if it states the number of deaths as 1,990 or 2,010. A figure like 2,000 could mean about 2,000 and reporting 1,990 or 2,010 would still be considered faithful to reality. However, it will be wrong to say 4,000 people died during the war. The fact that the Bible uses vague or imprecise statements does not imply that they are false. The degree of truthfulness has a limit, and the Bible stays within the boundaries of that limit.
Most of these figures noted in scriptures also reveal poetic exaggerations. For instance, in 1 Samuel 18:7 it reveals a poetic exaggeration and not literalization. David “slaying his ten thousand,” was not a literal census of battlefield casualties. It was a song of praise, using large numbers to emphasize David’s greater victories compared to Saul. Ancient Hebrew poetry often used numbers symbolically to highlight contrast or importance. “Thousands” and “ten thousand” were common figures in Hebrew idioms to express abundance or greatness. They weren’t meant as precise statistics but as rhetorical devices. In the next section, we will examine the popular 101 contradictions in the scriptures and see how it confirms the premise stated earlier in this section, with regards to misinterpretation and ignorance of the language used in scriptures.
The 101 Contradictions in the Bible
The scriptures also contain loose quotations. This simply means that the Bible does not quote the exact wording of a speaker but contain the substance of the words of the speaker. The New Testament which was written in koine Greek had no quotation marks, which reveals that the words in the quotation marks were exact words. Therefore, it was not expected to be the exact wording of speakers who were quoted. However, the substance of their speech was perfectly conveyed. Hence, loose quotations does not rid the Bible of its inerrancy.
Unusual grammatic expressions does not also rid the Bible of its inerrancy. Part of the writings of scripture contain the rugged language of the Hebrew people. However, that does not rid the Bible of its inerrancy because one can speak without the use of proper grammar yet, convey the truth.
The Big Question
Scribes sometimes added words to the Bible or removed them when copying manuscripts. They often did this to highlight certain beliefs or to make passages easier to read in worship. If changes were made, how can anyone claim the Bible has not been corrupted?
Textual critics, such as Bart Ehrman, have studied the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and observed many textual variations. In his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005), Ehrman explains that scribes sometimes altered the text at times by accident, at other times deliberately. These changes shaped the New Testament as we know it today. Ehrman describes this process as “corruption,” though his use of the term differs from how mainstream Christianity understands it. To grasp his conclusion, we need to look closely at why these alterations happened in the first place.
Ancient scribes who copied the Bible often made both accidental and intentional changes. The intentional changes were usually meant to clarify the text. When a verse seemed ambiguous, scribes sometimes added words to make the meaning clearer. They also adjusted passages if they thought there was an error or inconsistency. Many of these changes occurred in parallel passages (stories or sayings) that appear in more than one Gospel. If the wording in one Gospel didn’t match its parallel, the scribe might alter it to bring them into alignment. For example, a scribe copying Mark after working on Matthew might recall Matthew’s wording and adjust Mark to match. This practice is called harmonization.
In the lectionary cycle (The structured schedule of scripture readings), portion of the Gospel was read on the assigned day. If the text contained verses that seemed ambiguous, scribes often added words to clarify the meaning. For example, the Gospel of Mark sometimes referred to Christ without naming him directly. If a passage began with “And he went out from Galilee,” readers might ask, Who is “he”? To avoid confusion, lectionaries would insert the name “Jesus” to give context. Because scribes memorized and recited the lectionaries so frequently, these readings strongly influenced later manuscripts. When copying the Gospel of Mark, scribes often recalled the lectionary wording and added clarifications to ambiguous verses, shaping the text through what they had memorized.
Scribes often tried to clarify what they thought the text meant. A good example can be seen in Mark 9:31 and 10:34. In many manuscripts, Jesus’ prediction of his death and resurrection is changed to say that he would rise “on the third day” instead of “after three days.” The Gospels of Matthew and Luke generally use the phrase “on the third day” (with the exception of Matthew 27:63), while Mark uses “after three days.” Scribes who copied Matthew and Luke likely wanted to make Mark’s wording clearer, so they adjusted it to match the more familiar phrasing.
Another example can be seen in John 4:17. When Jesus responded to the Samaritan woman, he said: “Correctly you have said, ‘I don’t have a husband.’” But in the Greek text, Jesus’ wording is slightly different: “A husband I don’t have.” Some manuscripts change the woman’s reply so that it matches Jesus’ quotation. They did not alter Jesus’ words but instead adjusted the woman’s statement. In doing so, they turned Jesus’ response into an indirect statement, “Correctly you have said that you don’t have a husband” to protect the accuracy of the Lord’s speech.
The most important thing to note is that the essential message of the original text was not altered. Even though there were alterations, The essential message of the New Testament can still be recovered, because no alteration was systematic or complete. There are always witnesses to the original wording.
Bart Ehrman’s concluding thought on textual corruption is that while the New Testament manuscripts contain thousands of variations some accidental, some intentional however, these changes do not mean the text is hopelessly unreliable. Bart Ehrman argues that the variations show how scribes shaped the text over time, sometimes clarifying, sometimes harmonizing, and sometimes reflecting theological concerns. When B. Ehrman uses “corruption” to describe any change from the original, mainstream scholars often stress that these changes did not erase the core teachings of the faith.
Textual criticism helps us see both the imperfections of human copying and the remarkable preservation of the central message of Christ. In the end, the variations remind us that the Bible is both a divine witness and a human document, one that has been faithfully preserved through centuries of careful study and transmission.