Danger: History and Science in the Bible

[M2]

Verne, what you have quoted is the conclusion of an essay on Inerrancy.
Will, I am interested to know if you agree 100% with that conclusion.

The top post by Will states:

....
THE POINT TO THIS POST IS:
We need to interpret the Bible ourselves for today and realize that humans wrote it at a particular place and time and within a culture that no longer exists.  In Genesis is says that the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would die.  We do not take that literally and INTERPRET that death as spiritual.  We no longer greet one another with a holy kiss even though Paul tells the saints to.  We no longer own slaves and the role of women has thankfully changed in society.  The Apostle Peter says we are to obey those in authority over us but in Acts he stood against the authorities.  The point to this paragraph is we must interpret the Bible ourselves and decide what God’s will is for us.  He has given us a brain and He wants us to use it so that life can be "a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."

Praise the Lord!

[vernecarty]

Verne, what you have quoted is the conclusion of an essay on Inerrancy.
Will, I am interested to know if you agree 100% with that conclusion.

The top post by Will states:

Instead of asking Will if he agrees with what he has clearly stated ( a pointless excercise in my opinion), why don't you as a Christian tackle his query about the Bible being contradictory in its teaching regarding the doctrine of Christ's ministry and the OT law. Here is what he stated:

There are also many examples of teachings in the New Testament that are inconsistent.  In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus teaches that he has not come to abolish Jewish law, and in Romans 10:4 Paul teaches that Christ came to abolish Jewish law. Which of these contradictory teachings is inerrant?

He assumes the teachings are contradictory.The answer obviously is that both are inerrant as any true child of God knows is the case with the Holy Scriptures.
Well instructed Christians need to spend more time presenting the truth, rather than entertaining unscriptural and confused propositions. Have at it...
Verne

p.s. just to help you get started, you might remind Will that any text  taken out of context, in nothing but a pretext...a principle apparently entirely lost on him...(the particular audience being the critical consideration in this case)

[Will Jones]

*** PART ONE OF THREE ***

On this thread, the following was posted by vernecarty on March 12, 2005, 09:10:38 a.m.:

“It is always fun to go back and read some of the old threads.  It will never cease to amaze me how som epeople [sic] calling themselves Christians, and who claim to believe the reliability of the Scriptural message of salvation through faith in Christ, can in the same breath make the case that the Scriptural record is filled with lies and inaccuracies.
Will Jones was one such interesting person.”

It also never ceases to amaze me how some people calling themselves true believers or Fundamentalists, and who claim that one has to believe that the Bible is correct in all things (including cosmology and science) in order to be a child of God, can in the same instance go to great lengths to hold onto their beliefs by skirting around dealing with specific contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible that I have clearly pointed out in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  Verne Carty is one such interesting person.  

[Will Jones]

Part TWO

Vernecarty, a while back you wrote on this thread, “I wonder if Will will come back and join the fun.”  Well, stop wondering, Verne, I'm back at the keyboard.    Really, I have not gone anywhere.  I am still waiting for you to deal with the Biblical contradictions I posted on the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  You said you would deal with each contradiction one by one over time, but, on the contrary, you only attempted (unsuccessfully) to deal with just a few of them.  In fact, instead of dealing with the issues I raised, you deleted all your posts as you yourself admit in this thread.   (Just in case you delete more of your posts, you did state to Marcia on March 12, 2005,  “I now regret deleting those posts.”)

Why would you go and delete all your posts?  (I am asking out of interest and please understand this post is not a personal attack.)  Perhaps you deleted all of your posts because you realized that the tone of your postings discredited your cause of pushing the theory of Biblical inerrancy.  Or another guess is it might have something to do with your inability to refute the simple arguments I put forth.  You were clearly frustrated and bounced around from subject to subject and even from thread to thread without dealing with most of the issues head on.

It was clear by your past (and now deleted) postings that the notion of Biblical inerrancy in all matters was a cause you took very seriously because you stated on many occasions that you had difficulty believing that someone can be saved but not believe that the Bible itself is the inerrant Word of God.  You were concerned about the verity of my salvation; therefore, why abandon the debate so easily and even try to erase your role in our debate?   I think that deleting all your posts, without any proper explanation for your actions, was very irresponsible of you because it makes the thread more difficult to read.   But [tongue in cheek] I can understand that you may have deleted all your posts because of their harsh tone and the fact that they did not offer adequate proof to support your own position.  

I would like to thank those who came to my defense when Verne, yet again, called my salvation into question simply because I do not believe what he believes.  Verne also wrote, “It is one thing to disagree on what we believe a passage of Scripture to be actually saying.  It is another thing to say I fully understand what the Bible says but deem it scientifically and historically erroneous.”  Tsk, tsk, Verne. The Bible, in many ways, is a very accurate document, but  it is unfair for you to misinterpret my beliefs by claiming I believe that the Bible is “scientifically and historically erroneous.”  On the contrary, as I have said many times before, I have a very deep reverence for the Bible, but do not deem it inerrant in ALL matters of science.  I believe it is wrong on minor points of fact regarding science, etc. that do no necessarily interfere with the message it is communicating.  

So how can I believe the message of the Bible that describes the Word but not believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?  I will give a few examples.  (1) If I am a witness in a court case and a different witness steps forward to describe many detailed events I was a part of, they should (unless they are liars, or have a poor memory or terrible powers of observation) describe what I experienced BUT they will probably describe a slightly different version with slightly different details. I can say that the overall story they have told is true, but not exactly right or “the Truth” as I experienced it.  That is, I can believe in the main details of what they say without having to agree 100% on every detail.  With this example in mind, apply this to the Gospels that do vary in detail and time lines when they are closely studied and compared.  (2) Now think of a Hollywood movie like THE TWIN TOWERS.  It may not be correct in every small detail, but it supposedly does a pretty good job of describing what did actually happen for those who did not experience the events of 9/11 directly.  Thus, I can believe the overall story of this movie, but don't have to believe every detail. A Christian can believe the message and stories of the Bible without having to believe that Genesis is scientifically correct in terms of its cosmology, etc.  

Contrary to your opinion, Verne, I can easily believe the message of the Bible without having to believe every detail of the Bible.  When Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world—which it is not—I can still believe what he said about spiritual things because he was speaking according to the knowledge that first century Jews had at the time.  Through my own studies, I have come to see that some “facts” I was told by my teachers were incorrect, but it does not mean I disregard everything they have ever taught me.  You can believe in George Washington as a historical figure and the things he did, but you don't have to believe all the bunk about him chopping down his dad's cherry tree and never telling a lie.  (He was, after all, a politician.)  In other words, I don't stop believing in George Washington or Jesus simply because humans may have embellished certain events or may have made mistakes when attempting to relay what did in fact happen.  I don't call these mistakes “lies” as you do.  People are human and they make mistakes when they attempt to relay, even under inspiration, what actually happened.

[Will Jones]

*** PART THREE OF THREE ***

As another poster has pointed out, Verne, you are going way too far to erroneously claim, “Anyone one [sic] who postulates that the Bible is fallible has no basis on which to claim saving faith.”  On the contrary, it is very easy for someone like me to accept the message of the Bible but not have to believe that Genesis 1-3 is historical fact.  Again, I gave you a whole list of examples in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread that prove to a 21st Century reader that the writers of the Bible were incorrect when they attempted to describe things according to the limited understanding of their times.   I am sorry that you have clearly refused to deal with the issues I raised by deleting all your posts, but by asserting that someone has to believe in the Bible to be saved is wrong.  You have no right to put such a condition on one's salvation.  In fact, the reason I have taken time to write on this board (as I have stated many times already) is to show that to dictate one must believe in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is a stumbling block that keeps people from God.  I quoted you in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread and you stated “If indeed the Bible does contain errors and those of us who contend it does not (original manuscripts) are obstructing some from receiving the message of the gospel, the charge against us is serious in the extreme.”  Please remember these words you tried to delete.
 
I say this in a caring tone:  Stop using your “shield of faith” as a pillow that is keeping you from accepting the fact that touting the Bible as the inerrant Word of God turns many people away from believing in the message of the Bible.  Non-Christian laypersons of the 21st Century can clearly see that the sun cannot stop in the sky for one day or that a window in heaven does not open up to let rain fall.  Neither is the earth flat as it is described in many places.  Again, go see all the examples I gave you in the “Egyptian Mythology” thread.  Due to the fact that you failed to refute the evidence I presented and that you ran away from our debate by deleting all your posts, you should (1) explain why you deleted all your posts, or (2) try to prove me wrong, or (3) drop your pillow of faith by accepting the fact that I am correct, OR (4) in the very least, stop insinuating that I am not a believer simply because I don't believe what you do.  I find that very offensive and short-sighted. 

But the real issue is are you willing to accept the truth even if it means changing your view?  Sadly, I think you will avoid responding to this post just as you avoided the debate because you are afraid to change.  If you do care about the truth, you can start by apologizing to me and others about deleting your posts and calling my salvation into question.  Next, you can go to the resurrection narratives in all four Gospels and create a timeline BY YOURSELF (as I have already done) and then you will see that there are indeed contradictions.  I have tried, and so have many others, to try and make a coherent chronological account of the Resurrection Story in all four gospels.  You can't do it because there are too many discrepancies.  BUT that doesn't mean we should throw out the Bible, we just need to re-evaluate our belief in the infallibility of the Bible.   

And, as I have stated so many times, I have taken time to write about this subject, not because I am trying to discredit the Bible or ignore its moral precepts; I am simply showing that it is a great disservice to the truth when Christians insist that people must believe in the Bible to believe in God who inspired the Bible.  To reshape your own words, Verne:  Because the Bible is a valuable but fallible document written by men that is inspired but not inerrant, Christians who contend that one must believe that the Scriptures are inerrant are themselves mistaken and are obstructing some from receiving the message of the gospel.

[vernecarty]

Part TWO

.  When Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world—which it is not—I can still believe what he said about spiritual things because he was speaking according to the knowledge that first century Jews had at the time.

Sadly I no longer have the kind of available time I used to but I will use this specific example to illustrate a point or two Will.
You are correct that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed in the world.
Any reasonably competent botantist will immediately point out that the seed of the orchid for example is smaller.
The question is legitimate because since we believe that Christ is God and therefore omniscient, if He has made a false statement of fact He clearly cannot be divine.

Here is the text you are referring to and notice in particular the clearly defined limiting context of verse 31 of Matthew 13

 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
 Which indeed is the least of all seeds:

Let's not even get into the specifics of the original language for the moment but answer me this question honestly Will.

Do you really intend to convey by your citing this particular example that you do not understand from the context, that the Lord Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all seeds in the world, but rather to a seed that someone in his audience might sow in his field?

There are many questions about the Sacred Scriptures for which I do not have answers.
This particular one is remarkably sophomoric I am afraid and illustrates the old adage:

Any text taken out of context is nothing but a pretext.

I wish you all the best in your intellectual pursuits my friend, I just can no longer afford the time it would take to engage you, nor am I convinced that it would in any way be edifying.
All the best.
Verne

[Oscar]

Will,

I have read the posts that you have addressed to Verne.  Having done so, I must say that I get the impression that what you are doing is challenging Verne to "meet you behind the gym after school".

In other words, your tone is quite belligerant.

I wouldn't blame Verne for not wanting to enter in to that sort of thing.

Having said that, I must also say that I do not agree that if someone believes that the Bible is not correct in every detail of science or history that he cannot be a Christian.  We become Christians by new birth.  Our transient opinions about various Christian teachings do not turn the "new birth" switch on or off as we go through life.  Biblical inerrancy is not a belief that is essential to salvation.

One must remember that hundreds of thousands of people were saved in the early days of the church without ever seeing a Bible.  They came to faith through the preaching of the gospel.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Having said that, I must also say that I do not agree that if someone believes that the Bible is not correct in every detail of science or history that he cannot be a Christian. Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

The position may at first glance appear extreme but if you think about it Tom, it cannot be otherwise.
A person's salvation is based on faith.
Faith indeed comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
Granted, the implication here is that I make no distinction between the spoken and written Word of God.
They are both, the Word of God.
It is not possible in my view, to attribute error to God's Word, yet have any basis for saving faith...
I know that you and I agree that this argument should apply only to the original autographs (which we clearly no longer possess) but if you listen to Will carefully, that is not his position.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God...
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said, "

It is not possible in my view, to attribute error to God's Word, yet have any basis for saving faith...

"

I understand what you are saying here.  Since the Bible is our source of information about God and salvation, and if we attribute error to the Bible, how can we be sure about anything it teaches?

The answer lies in human nature.  People are not logic machines.  A few folks come to Christ through scientific evidence or logical argumentation.  Most of us, myself included, come to faith in Christ out of inner need.  We know we are sinners, we long for meaning and purpose, we receive the word joyfully and are eager to trust in the savior announced to us through the preaching of the gospel.

For many, that is as far as it goes.  Their assurance rests upon their subjective state.  But even this faith can grow and prosper, as they see the teachings of scripture about human beings validated in many life situations.

For others, myself included, the need to live with intellectual integrety causes them to move on and seek to ground their faith by studying and understanding the Bible and science.  This then causes them to come into contact with many ideas that contradict, or at least seem to contradict, things stated in the Bible. 

This leads some, (here I do not include myself), to adopt a position that the Bible is a vehicle for the transmission of a message rather than an  inerrant document.  This allows them to believe the message of salvation while also believing that there are scientific or historical errors in the early parts of the book.

IMHO, this position is not correct.  Those who espouse it are frequently responding to things they have read or seen on TV, but have not studied in depth.  For example, Will once posted something like, "It has been proved that the Pentateuch is a combination of four different documents".  In other words, he espouses the Documentary (or JEPD) Hypothesis.

This shows that he has accepted an idea that he does not understand very well.  First, one must ask, "Which Documentary Hypothesis?"  There are about as many versions as their are liberal Old Testament scholars.  This is exactly what one would expect for an idea that rests upon no documentary evidence at all.  Instead, it is the product of subjective presuppositions by people who already disbelieve the Bible.  It has also become somewhat passe' even in the circles where it was formerly accepted.

Another area where people run into problems with inerrancy is in what they believe about science.  Folks who proclaim that there is "scientific proof" that the Bible contains error frequently do not understand what science actually is, or hold to ideas that science itself has discarded.  They also are frequently unclear about what the Bible actually teaches.  Will posted a list of objections and challenged you to answer them.  I looked at the list, and noted that he believes that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.

This is an common belief.  It is not, however, a well grounded one.  The best way to deal with it is to simply ask, "Where?"   I am still waiting for a good answer to that one.

So, Verne, while you are correct that those who believe in an error filled Bible and a true gospel are forced to live with illogic and muddled thinking, the fact is that lots of Christians do so.

I must say that I reject this position.  But there is much more to say about that before anyone would be in a position to agree or disagree with me.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

So, Verne, while you are correct that those who believe in an error filled Bible and a true gospel are forced to live with illogic and muddled thinking, the fact is that lots of Christians do so.

No question about this, and it is a sad reality.
On Sunday I listened to an elder bring a message from the book of Isaiah and make several references to its being written to the Isrealites during their captivity for their comfort!
 Tom I know I don't have to give you a lesson in the chronology of Scripture nor on the difference between the pre-exilic and post-exilic writings but the incident illustrates the point you make.

I must say that I reject this position.  But there is much more to say about that before anyone would be in a position to agree or disagree with me.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

The question for me is how much error does one allow with regard to the Written Word, and still retain any confidence that those who commit them are familiar with the Living Word. The Scriptures are after all they which testify of Him.
An Error of doctrine, history or chronology on our part is one thing.
We all are prone to those kinds of mistakes.
To confidently assert, particularly on a forum of presumably reasonably well-instructed believers, that the Author of the entire creation, is unable to correctly distinguish between an orchid seed and a mustard seed is quite another.
Are you confident that such a person has eternal life, the precise definintion of which is a knowledge of Jesus Christ?
My own view, and granted I may be mistaken, is that a knowledge of the Living Word, will powerfully inform and constrain the disposition we bring to the Written Word.
To accuse the Lord Jesus of being ignorant of the nature of the flora He created is an act of unspeakable contempt for both Him and the Scripture.
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said:

The question for me is how much error does one allow with regard to the Written Word, and still retain any confidence that those who commit them are familiar with the Living Word. The Scriptures are after all they which testify of Him.

It seems to me that this question can be answered by answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"  Paul answered it once, at Philippi.  "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

I doubt very seriously that the Philippian jailer had a firm position on Jesus' statment about the mustard seed.  After all, the discussion about inerrancy is a rather recent development.

You also said:

To confidently assert, particularly on a forum of presumably reasonably well-instructed believers, that the Author of the entire creation, is unable to correctly distinguish between an orchid seed and a mustard seed is quite another.

It seems to me that this enters into the question of the relationship between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature.  The mustard seed statement was, as you said, in the context of the well understood agricultural knowledge of first century Palestine. It was the smallest seed they knew of.

Were their things that Jesus did not know?  Well, he said that the Son of Man, (himself), did not know the day of his return.  That points to a self-limitation of his human knowledge.  It does not, however, point to his having given up his divine attributes.  So, I think the answer to your question lies in this area.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

You said:
It seems to me that this question can be answered by answering the question, "What must I do to be saved?"  Paul answered it once, at Philippi.  "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

I doubt very seriously that the Philippian jailer had a firm position on Jesus' statment about the mustard seed.  After all, the discussion about inerrancy is a rather recent development.

True. The kind of discussion we are having could only occur in the context of presumption of a completed canon.
You are right that the arguments regarding inerrancy are relatively recent and that is because previously  a presumption of Scriptural infallibility generally obtained.
True men have misinterpreted and misunderstood Scripture, but the idea that Scripture makes false statements of fact of any kind, historical or scientific, remains unproven in my view.
One would think that the number of instances in which all the learned men were so certain that the Bible was in error, and subsequent discoveries confirmed its authenticity would move some folk to a position of greater humility regarding matters that may now appear problematic.
I attribute any apparent problem, and there are certainly a few, to my own limitations, not God's...

You also said:
It seems to me that this enters into the question of the relationship between Jesus' human nature and his divine nature.  The mustard seed statement was, as you said, in the context of the well understood agricultural knowledge of first century Palestine. It was the smallest seed they knew of.

Were their things that Jesus did not know?  Well, he said that the Son of Man, (himself), did not know the day of his return.  That points to a self-limitation of his human knowledge.  It does not, however, point to his having given up his divine attributes.  So, I think the answer to your question lies in this area.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Kenosis is a difficult concept that I do not fully grasp. I am confident that whatever human limitations Christ endured, He was incapable of making a false statement, knowingly or out of ignorance - I believe He was not only sinless, but also impeccable...

And now I am in serious trouble for spending so much time here. Great to chat with you again Tom but duty's a calling. I hope you can engage Will in a fruitful exchange.

Verne

[vernecarty]

Verne,

You said, ""

  A few folks come to Christ through scientific evidence or logical argumentation.  Most of us, myself included, come to faith in Christ out of inner need. 
Thomas Maddux

I may have made a few assumptions and so wanted to be a bit more explicit about this specific point Tom.
You are quite right that there are myriad ways and instruments by which the Spirit of God brings men to trust Christ.
Ultimately though, and in every single case without exception, the agency by which the new birth is mediated is the Word of God...(I Peter 1:23)
I know for a fact that many muslims come to salvation via a supernatural encounter.
This in no way changes the agency of their new birth...

If this seminal point is missed, so would everything else I attempted to show.
What we think of God's Word is critical...
Verne

[vernecarty]

Part TWO

Contrary to your opinion, Verne, I can easily believe the message of the Bible without having to believe every detail of the Bible.  When Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world—which it is not—

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Author of creation was in error here ( although I think I have made a reasonable case that He was not), and that He was indeed either confused or ignorant regarding the various sizes of seed produced by earthly flora.
If He were indeed mistaken, we have conclusively demonstrated error on His part with regard to a testable postulate viz:

The mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world.

I can still believe what he said about spiritual things because he was speaking according to the knowledge that first century Jews had at the time.

Your use of still as opposed to therefore, logically precludes the inference that Christ knew any better than other first century Jews, and used the language he did because of their limited knowledge (a matter in my view totally uncharacteristic of the Scripture).

I therefore pose this question:

Why on earth would you, or anyone else, accept an untestable ( therefore unprovable)postulate, namely assertions about spiritual things, from someone whom you had conclusively demonstrated to be in errror on  that which was testable?
Why would you trust Christ's promise of eternal life, indeed a spiritual matter, when you have found him to be in error regarding the mustard seed?
Any rational person would and should reject your "gospel" message.

You claim my position keeps people from God.

I contend that yours insults their intelligence.

Through my own studies, I have come to see that some “facts” I was told by my teachers were incorrect,

Anyone who has studied the Bible knows that there are difficult passages.
Even the apostle Peter has some difficulty with Paul's writing which he acknowledged to be Scripture.
Anyone who has stuidied the Bible well, also knows that there are many reasonable answers to many matters that at first blush appear to be inconsistent.
Timelines are a good example. If you do not know for example that the Romans and the Jews marked time differently, you could end up looking quite foolish citing a time line inconsistency if you do not consider the intended audience of the particular gospel's author. I did until someone better instructed pointed this out to me.
I did respond at length to your indictment of Joshua's sun standing still by pointing out to you the man accurately reported what he observed.
We now of course understand that one of the ways God could have caused what he observed to take place is by simply slowing the rotation of the earth so that a twenty four hour time period would take forty eight hours - not nearly as elegant as another occasion on which the sun dial traveled backwards!
Of course having studied as much as you have, you are probably aware of all these possibilities. What I fail to understand is why you do not accept them.
Gotta go...
Verne

 

[Will Jones]

Verne,

It is a common practice of many Christian apologists to SELECTIVELY pick apparent contradictions, disprove them to their satisfaction, and then claim that the Bible has no contradictions, BUT, all the while, shying away from dealing with all the contractions that have been stated in the writings of non-Christian or “nominal Christian” writings.  When referring to the mustard seed parable, Verne, like so many apologists, you do not deal with all of the passages that describe the same or similar story or teaching.  Most apologists on the web quote Matthew 13 like you did, but completely avoid Mark 4:30-32 which is much harder to explain away:

He also said, ‘With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.’

In this particular version, different than the wording in Matthew and Luke's account, there is no limit placed on where the seed is planted, though one would assume that Jesus is speaking according to the understanding of his mostly agrarian listeners.   The issue, in Mark, is not so much where the seed is sown, but the fact that Jesus is showing through contrast how “the smallest of all seeds on earth” can become “the greatest of all shrubs.”  Whether Jesus was wrong on this point or was just speaking according to what his hearers would understand, does not bother me or upset my faith.  Jesus also did not know the date of his return as Tom mentions.  Could Jesus make a mistake?  Yes, if he was limited in knowledge.  Did he?  That is up to each person's interpretation. 

Thus, to answer the two questions you posed in your last post, it is easy for me to believe in Jesus' message without stumbling over the fact that he was speaking according to the knowledge of his time because I also believe the Bible is a book that was  inspired but written according to the culture and knowledge of its time.  I initially struggled with my faith when I began noticing discrepancies in the Bible because I was taught to believe the Bible was infallible.  You can imagine how relived I was when I came to understand that the notion of inerrancy was simply a recent, human attempt to raise the Bible's authority above the findings of science and scholarly studies, and that people throughout Church history, such as Luther who pointed out errors in the Bible and called into question certain books, did not regard the Bible as inerrant as Fundamentalists do.  I came, through a willingness to know the truth and question my own beliefs when experience and observation proved otherwise, to know the truth that inerrancy is a concept imposed on the Bible by humans who reacted against the scientific and scholarly findings of their time. To try and impose a belief in the Bible as inerrant on a public that generally disregards the spiritual and factual authority of the Bible insults a person's intelligence and puts a stumbling block in the way of those who may accept the gospel.   

When I find errors in cosmology, history, and the timeline of the Gospels or variance in Gospel stories (all of which I have observed), I attribute them to copyist errors, to human mistakes in recalling exact details or to the writers writing according to the knowledge they had at the time.  I don't expect perfection when the Gospels are compared and reveal different or varying accounts of the Jesus' life and teachings, especially the stories of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.  I am not bothered that in one Gospel the servants of the centurion come to Jesus, but in another Gospel it is the centurion himself who comes to Jesus. In one story (which I cannot recall at this time because I do not have my journals on hand) the three Gospels have Jesus in three different locations when the same event happened:  approaching the city, walking through the city, and leaving the city.  One should expect minor errors that do not conflict with the main details of what occurred, details that do not obscure the truth of what did occur.  It is the very nature of witnesses to provided slightly different statements about the same story—this is normal and should in fact be present.  But to state that there are no errors in a Bible that does contain errors of scientific and historical fact is to be an unreliable witness to the truth.