Why do we think the subject of the reliability of the Bible is such a crucial subject? Because of its implications. Throughout human history virtually all people have searched for God at some point in their lives, because apart from God they intuitively sensed that their lives lacked ultimate meaning. Yet the Bible claims to be the revealed Word of God to man (John 1:12,13; 3:16; 17:3; 1 John 5:9-15). Further, it tells us how we may come to know God personally. If the Bible is true, then in its pages we can find ultimate meaning for our lives and the God we have searched for. We can read of His mighty and gracious acts among people and nations in the Old Testament, and we can especially see His love and compassion in the New Testament. For it is undeniably true that if we want to know who God really is, and what He is really like, we only look at Jesus Christ (John 14:6-11; 12:44,45).

Unfortunately, many people today do not believe in the one true God, and they deny that God has personally revealed Himself in the Bible. They have spawned skeptical theories and written endless volumes attacking the idea that the Bible is an accurate account of God’s intervention in human history and that it reveals His will for man. But even skeptics cannot deny that the Bible’s influence in history is incalculable and that it has literally changed our world—not just Western history but all of history.

This topic is vital because if there is solid evidence that the Bible is God’s Word to us, its critics are wrong. Worse, they are leading astray all those who listen to them. If the Bible alone is divine revelation, then by definition it is the most important Book in the world. It alone will tell us what God requires of us.

In light of these undeniable facts, to be ignorant of the Bible’s claims and contents constitutes an abdication of personal responsibility concerning one’s own welfare.

To know that the Bible is reliable is to know that all of what it teaches is reliable. And what it teaches is that the one true God sent His only Son to die for our sins so that we could inherit eternal life as a free gift (John 3:16; Rom. 3:22-26). Such a claim is phenomenal in its uniqueness and profundity. If skeptics are given only one reason to objectively examine the claims of the Bible, this alone should be sufficient, because if these claims are true, then God freely offers us more than we could ever imagine. If the Bible is truly God’s Word to us, and if we reject its message of salvation, then no other personal decision they make will be more consequential. Therefore no one can fail to ignore the issue of the reliability of the Bible—not merely its historical reliability but its spiritual reliability as well.

We have written this information so that Christians will be encouraged in their faith and non-Christians will be challenged to investigate the Bible further—to read it, ponder it, and ultimately to accept it for what it is. Our desire for the reader is expressed in the gratefulness of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians: "We also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe" (1 Thess. 2:13 NIV).

If the Bible is inerrant—that is, without error—then it is certainly entirely unique among all the ancient books of the world, whether religious or secular. Given the tens of thousands of details in the Bible that could be either confirmed or disproved by history, archeology, science, etc., and given the fact that Scripture was written by some 40 authors over a period of 1,500 years in many different places and times, to find the Bible without error and in agreement on essentials and particulars is nothing short of striking. In fact, we think something like this can only be explained through divine inspiration. In the pages that follow we will discuss what inerrancy means and what it does not mean. A good general definition of biblical inerrancy is given by Dr. Paul Feinberg:

Critics, of course, will immediately point out that we do not have "all the facts" nor do we have the autographs, or original writings, and therefore inerrancy can’t be formally proven or rationally defended. While technically it can’t be formally proved, inerrancy can certainly be rationally defended. Formal 100% proof is available only in logic and mathematics. For everything else in life, we must base our decisions on degrees of probability. One hundred percent certainty is not available for anything in life, including life itself, so it can hardly be argued that a 99% degree of probability for inerrancy is irrelevant. People buy houses, drive cars, and get married taking much higher degrees of risk than this.

Our argument is that preponderance of evidence lies so heavily on the side of inerrancy that it cannot reasonably be doubted, if the evidence is handled fairly. True, we don’t have all the facts, but we do have an incredibly large number of them which support inerrancy. And we don’t have the autographs, but the manuscript copies which we do possess are collectively autographic for all practical purposes. As we shall see, what all this means is that more than sufficient reason exists for belief in inerrancy. Compared to making other important decisions in life, trusting in the inerrancy of the Bible is one of the easiest to make.

For example, if we reject a literal Adam as the first man (Gen. 2:5-7; 1 Cor. 15:21,45) and his subsequent fall into sin as an error (in deference to the alleged truth of evolution), we must also logically reject as error the declarations of the apostle Paul concerning these beliefs as well as the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race and its consequences (Rom. 5:12-19). Further, if Adam and Eve never existed, then Jesus was also in error (Matt. 19:4,5) and biblical Christology and salvation along with Him. Further, if Scripture contains errors in those areas we can test on the basis of historical, archeological, and scientific fact, on what logical basis can we assume it doesn’t contain errors in those areas we cannot test, such as theology and ethics (the nature of God, salvation, morality, etc.)?

Finally, the assumption of errancy is self-defeating in another way. Given limited inerrancy, it becomes impossible to tell which Scriptures are inerrant and which are not. The Bible assumes its inerrancy throughout and never even hints that some parts of it are errant. So if Scripture errs, then where does it err and how do we know when, if not even a single error has ever been proven in Scripture? In light of this, one wonders why anyone, especially any Christian, would assume that the Bible contains errors? The real issue is usually that some people think Scripture has errors because it teaches something they don’t want to believe, or because it conflicts with some personal theory they think is true but really isn’t (e.g., rationalism, scientism, evolution, humanism, feminism, universalism).

But there are other important considerations when we examine the doctrine of inerrancy. To be understood and defended properly, inerrancy must not become subject to certain uncalled for misunderstandings. First, a proper definition of inerrancy does not demand the use of technical language or knowledge of modern science. This would certainly have kept it a closed book to all those without such knowledge. Ongoing scientific precision constantly changes. Such precision for the twenty-first century would still not make the Bible correct to the nth degree, for which century’s precision should inerrancy reflect—twenty-first, twenty-fifth, or thirtieth?

Also, precision may become so precise as to be awkward or useless, practically speaking. To speak of a setting sun is not an error in spite of its scientific imprecision in not referring to the earth’s rotation. To cite a biblical example, Jesus said that the mustard seed was "smaller than all other seeds" (Matt. 13:32 NASB). For all we know, humankind has still not discovered the smallest of all seeds. For Jesus a) to have named this seed, or b) to have named the smallest seed currently known to twenty-first century botany would, respectively, leave Him a) in possible error through lack of current scientific confirmation or b) actual error by accommodation to limited twentieth century science. In either case, His hearers would either not have understood Him, or questioned His accuracy, or both. Jesus’ obvious meaning was that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds known to His hearers, which was true, and reflects how the New International Version translates this verse.

Second, everyone knows that it is proper to use general statements about things, so long as they do not contain errors. Inerrancy, for the same reason, does not require strict grammatic, semantic, numeric, or historic precision. For example, September 14, 15, or 16 is correctly referred to as the middle of the month.

Third, inerrancy does not exclude the use of figurative language (e.g., allegory, personification, hyperbole) or various literary genres (apocalyptic, drama, poetry, parable); to exclude these in favor of a wooden literalism would rob Scripture of much of its richness and universal appeal.

Fourth, inerrancy does not demand verbatim exactness when the New Testament quotes the Old, assuming a New Testament quotation does not contradict an Old Testament one. New Testament writers, not to mention the Holy Spirit, had the right to use Old Testament quotations in summary form for purpose of illustration, or other legitimate literary means, just as writers do today.

Sixth, inerrancy assumes the accuracy of what is merely recorded, whether or not it is true (such as accurately recording a lie from Satan [Gen. 3:4] or an incorrect prophecy by a false prophet).

Seventh, inerrancy does not assume the inerrancy of non-inspired sources quoted by a biblical writer for purposes of illustration (Acts 17:28). In essence, inerrancy means that the Bible, even though speaking in the common language, never deceives us, never contradicts itself, and can be wholly trusted. Inerrancy means that the Bible is without error.

Having examined what inerrancy does and does not teach, let us now briefly see how this doctrine relates to the nature of divine inspiration and the character of God. Then we will look at the Bible itself to show that it does clearly claim to be inerrant.

Inerrancy is inseparably related to the doctrine of inspiration and the righteous character and infinite power of God. First, the biblical doctrine of inspiration is both verbal and plenary—i.e., involving the very words of Scripture (Matt. 4:4) and extending to every part of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). If a righteous and holy God is incapable of inspiring error, then it is logical to conclude that whatever is inspired must be inerrant. Second, the Bible reveals that God is omnipotent—that is, He has absolute power. In other words, He has the means to give His revelation inerrantly.

Thus, if God’s inspiration extends to every word of Scripture, then every word of Scripture must be inerrant because of His righteousness. Further, since He is omnipotent He could safeguard the human recipients of inspiration from error, even though His inspiration was given through fallible men.

However, the very fact of the arrival of the prophesied new covenant (predicted in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.), coupled with the incarnation and atonement of Jesus, required a corresponding body of divine revelation to explain and expound these events, just as was true for the activity of God in the old covenant. There can be no doubt that the Bible teaches its own inerrancy.

Skeptics, however, reject inerrancy because of the unsupported presuppositions they bring to Scripture. Critics generally assume that miracles are impossible by definition, the unstated corollary being that God doesn’t exist either. But how do they know this with absolute assurance—by infallible knowledge? If many or most of the greatest minds throughout history and today have believed that God exists, how do critics safely assume otherwise? Modern scientific rationalism has explained very little of the heights and depths of the universe. To declare absolutely that God does not exist and that inerrant inspiration is impossible is itself impossible to maintain logically unless one is God and has the omniscience to be absolutely certain of the impossibility. It is merely presumption to assume that an infinite, personal God could never communicate His revelation inerrantly.

Our conclusion is that both the claims and the miraculous nature of the Bible, which speak for its inspiration and inerrancy, as well as the infallible pronouncements of God incarnate on an inerrant Scripture, are sufficient reason to accept the proposition that the Bible is inerrant.