Punctum Saliens

These are some “stream-of-consciousness” thoughts on what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. So please take them as that — spontaneous ideas and questions that have not been fully thought out. As always … comments are solicited.

Does inerrant mean true? Absolutely true? True absolutely?

Does inerrant mean historically accurate, precise?

Does inerrant mean that Jesus really said the words attributed to him in the gospels? Does inerrant apply to the words spoken by Jesus — i.e. Jesus really said the words and the words he said are also inerrant?

If so, then Jesus’ parables are inerrant even though the events they depict did not actually occur. The story of “The Prodigal Son” is inerrant even though said son never existed.

So, the parables are inerrant in that their symbolism is accurate, true?

But back to true. If the entire Bible is inerrant then the entire Bible is true. But is the entire Bible equally true? If we are talking absolute truth then yes, the entire Bible would be equally true because absolute is absolute, no?

If the entire Bible is absolute truth then we seem to have a slight problem. Absolute truth does not change — otherwise it’s not absolute. One absolute truth cannot alter, modify, negate, replace another absolute truth. Therefore, we are bound by every absolutely true verse and therefore by the Old Testament Law and by the New Testament teachings. Absolute truth is not applicable based on social situations or time period or any other restriction. If this verse does not apply to me today then this verse cannot be absolute truth, i.e. truth without condition.

So, is the Bible, then conditional truth? This verse is true under these conditions, for these people, at these times, under these social situations?

But if it’s conditionally true, then isn’t it conditionally inerrant?

I have long hair. Even though my father denies that it’s an issue … it is. It’s obvious to me that it is. Even my niece, when she was five or six, told me “my Mom says that it’s a sin for a man to have long hair.” Out of the mouths of babes! So, I looked it up in the Bible.

She was right. Sort of.

I Corinthians 11:14

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him

So, it’s not an outright sin; it’s just a dishonor. Not sure what “the wages of dishonor” are. Anyone know? But anyway, it’s right there in black and white. Paul wrote it. Men should not have long hair.

But two things bother me. First, what’s this about nature teaching us? I mean, if we look at nature, we see that the male of many species is the more colorful and has the bigger plummage or longer hair. So, how does that teach us about a man having long hair?

Second, let’s look at the context. What else does Paul say? It’s a little hard for me to understand since I think he asks several rhetorical questions but I’m pretty sure he says that if a woman does not have long hair then she should cover her head while praying or prophesying. And this is because the woman is the glory of man and originated from man and was created for the man’s sake. Hey, that’s Paul talking not me.

So, how can my Dad complain about my long hair while my Mom has short hair and does not cover her head when she prays? My sister used to cover her head but I guess it’s not in fashion any more.

Hopefully, while I’m burning in hell for all eternity God will be kind enough to answer these questions for me.