Right from the time of the Old Testament, believers have held that the Word of God is Inerrant. Inerrancy means that in producing the original manuscripts, the sacred authors were guided by Holy Spirit in such a way that they transmitted perfectly, without error, the exact message which God desired to record for men. Since the Word of God is infallible, it cannot err. And since it is Inerrant, it contains no mistakes.

The doctrine of Inerrancy arises out of the nature and declarations of the Scriptures themselves. Biblical books everywhere present themselves as being the Word of God. When the Lord speaks, He cannot lie; neither can He teach truth by means of error. His veracity as well as His power is at stake. If he spoke erroneously at the beginning or mingled the true with the false, what could we think of Him ? He would be an unreliable God, delivering an unreliable message. Even the non-believer knows this implication, and that is why the rationalists spend so much time to somehow show that the Bible contains errors.

With our eternal salvation standing or falling on the testimony of Bible, what certainty could we find in a Revelation that can contain error ? Or what if God, after giving to the sacred authors a message exact in every detail, had showed Himself unable afterwards to effect its transmission in a way worthy of confidence ? This would only mean that He had deceived us. And in that case, His initial revelations would have become untrustworthy by now.

Inerrancy is a fundamental belief of evangelical Christians, and every Apologist should both understand as well as defend this doctrine.


Bible repeatedly claims that it is the infallible and inerrant word of God. But no sooner we mention this, someone might raise objections against it. Thus it would be well to consider these objections before going further.

First of all, they might ask, is it legitimate for us to base our faith in inerrancy on the Bible's own testimony ? Isn't this just a vicious circle: like dispensing with a debate simply on the declarations of the accused or merely on the basis of the statements of the interrogated witness ? No, for here we have the Lord Himself, who attested the Scripture as the only sources of all true spiritual knowledge. Thus, Just as we go to Scripture for all the doctrines concerning judgment, salvation, the future, etc, we can deduce from the revelation a sure teaching concerning the written Word. Since the Lord Himself proclaimed the Scriptures as authoritative, our first question regarding any subject must be "What do the Scriptures have to say about this" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30).

About 3,808 times the Biblical books claim to be transmitting the words of God. After the giving of the law, Moses declared: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it" (Deut. 4:2; also 6:1-2, 6-9 and 12:32). The psalmist says over and over: "The law of Jehovah is perfect.... I trust in thy word.... I have seen an end of all perfection; but they commandment is exceeding broad... Thy word is very pure; therefore, thy servant loveth it... Thy law it truth... All thy commandments are truth... The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever... Let my tongue sing of thy word; for all thy commandments are righteousness" (Ps.19:7; 119:42, 96, 140, 142, 151, 160, 172).

Christ specifically confirmed the whole Old Testament as true. He did not find any error that needed to be eliminated, nor did He express the slightest doubt about any part of it. He consistently based His arguments and exhortations on the Old Testament Scripture. He declared: "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished" (Matt. 5:18). Discussing a single word with the Jews, He said: "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). And he exclaimed towards the end of His days on earth: "Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

The holy Apostles also witnessed to the perfection of the Scriptures. Paul said of the law that it is holy: "and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good" (Rom. 7:12). The apostle's teaching is so explicit (e.g., Gal. 3:16-17) that any error in the Scripture cited would take away the very foundation of that teaching.

For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Word of God is living, effectual and penetrating, goes so far as to judge even our feelings and our innermost thoughts (Heb. 4:12). It is not our prerogative to set ourselves up as its critics. James, describing the Word speaks of it as "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (James 1:22-25). Convinced of its supreme authority, he addresses to us this solemn warning: "Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain ?" (James 4:5).

Finally, John brings the written revelation to a close with these words: "If any man shall add unto them (the things which are written), God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and it any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life" (Rev. 22:18-19). If it is the Lord who has given a message from Himself, who could have the audacity to attempt to "complete" it or to delete any of it, even those parts which he might think of slight importance?

A testimony as clear and as unanimous as this is truly impressive. Nowhere does Scripture in one place declare erroneous what it given in another place, and this holds true for even the smallest details like the very words, jots and the tittles. As it unsparingly recounts the faults and failures of men in general and of the people of God as well, its total silence about errors in the work of the sacred authors undeniably has great weight.


It is evident to anyone acquainted with the facts that the biblical text in our hands now is not without some problems. This is why, before going into the objections raised against the doctrine of inerrancy, we should specify what the doctrine implies and what it does not.

1-Inerrancy does NOT mean uniformity in all the details given in analogous accounts written by different authors: The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles all belong in large measure to the same historical period, but both their points of view and their expressions vary sometimes. The four Gospels all recount the life of Christ, but with different details. In the Acts, each of the three treatments of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (Acts chapters 8,22,26) is distinguished from the others in certain definite respects.

Such differences have often been greatly exaggerated by radicals: there are even those who promptly go on to call them contradictions and errors. In reality, although the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture requires that each author write only the truth, it leaves each one free in the choice of actual incidents which illustrate what he purposes to each.

Verbal identity between multiple witnesses to the same event is not to be expected. If four independent witnesses in court parrot syllable by syllable the same story, made up of a series of complex facts, those men would at once be charged with collusion. Their very uniformity would make their testimony suspect. For it is a psychological fact that, due to inevitable differences in points of view, observation and individual emphasis, several individuals, each completely honest, will tell the very same events in quite different ways and words. This can also be said of the biblical authors. Inspired, they wrote nothing false. Everything they saw and reported was true, even though they did not always see and report the same details or in identical words. Rather, each writer had his own personality and was far from being a mere robot.

Let us take, for example, the accounts of the resurrection as recorded in the Gospels. The essential facts are identical: Christ arose; the tomb was empty; the Lord was seen alive by different groups of disciples in various places; His new body was not subject to the limitations of an ordinary human body; after a certain number of days, He went away from the earth again. This is the general framework on which all the Gospels agree. But each person's report differs in certain details and in the presentation of some of the secondary facts. The accounts are nonetheless authentic for this, and the truth taught is well established.

2-Inerrancy does not exclude the use of symbols and figurative language: Although everything in the Bible is inspired, it does not follow that every statement in it must be taken literally. The plain meaning of many passages is clear from a historical, practical legal and moral point of view. But there are also many passages where the language is obviously symbolical: for example, many things in Psalms, the Song of Solomon and the Prophets, as well as the parables in the gospels and in Revelation are figurative. Besides, thousand of expressions in both the Old and New Testaments are closer to poetry then a prose. (This is why the style of the Bible always has vital and magnetic quality).

Therefore, belief in the inerrancy of Scripture in no wise requires a slavish adherence to an unnecessary and absolutely literal interpretation. Belief in inerrancy does not automatically impose a circumscribed and slavish adherence to hyper-literalism that shuts out those wider horizons where picture and symbolism have been used by the Holy Spirit to strike fire to the imagination of men.

The repeated accusation of an obligatory literalness looms up partly from the false idea which radical critics hold about the Biblical position. They think that the concept of verbal inspiration forces interpreters to consider every word by itself, irrespective of the context, as being the object of an independent interpretation. Nothing could be further from the truth. No language, no literature, could be subjected to such treatment. Words, vehicles of thought, are arranged and bound together to express one unified whole. The context will help to determine whether the interpretation is literal, spiritual or symbolical.

Further, many of the radical critics impose hyper-literalism upon Bible interpretation not because the Bible demands it, but because this is essential for them to attack the Bible conveniently. They realize that imposing such an unnatural restriction upon the Bible would give them plenty of additional opportunities to attack the Sacred book. However, their own writings betray this bias and nothing needs to be said further about it.

3-Inerrancy does not imply the use of an exact technical vocabulary, conforming to present scientific terminology: The Biblical authors were all men of antiquity. They employed the language of their times, not claiming to foresee modern science. But when they did set down facts in the realm of science, they expressed themselves without error in regard to fundamental principles. For example, the Biblical record of the creation touches on the following areas: geology, astronomy, biology, meteorology, zoology, physiology and several others. The expressions used in the Bible for these things do not claim to be technical ones. Still, every page remains not only more magnificent but also more logical than any other attempted explanation of the origin of the universe.

It is also clear that Scripture uses popular expressions in the fields of astronomy, geology and other scientific domains exactly the way our modern scholars do in current conversation. The preacher said, for example, that the sun rises and the sun goes down (Eccles. 1:5), precisely as we ourselves have kept on expressing the idea even AFTER discovering that it is not the sun which rises or sets.

4-Biblical message must be put back into its own historical setting: Certain declarations of Scripture were true when they were made, although the circumstances are different now. This is very obvious in historical matters, where what was in existence till yesterday might not be there today. When we read in the book of Joshua that the twelve stones set up in the midst of the Jordan "are there unto this day" (Joshua 4:9), this obviously means that they were there at the time those things were written.

One contentious subject is that of the chronology of the Old Testament, which the radical critics keep judging as erroneous. What is certain is that the ancients did not count the way we do and had no fixed, universal calendar. The exact length of the reign of Kings was often counted differently in different cultures, and that also on differing calendars. Thus any attempt to reconcile those dates without taking those methods of reckoning would yield only conflicting results. On the other hand, when we follow the ancient ways of calculating and dating, we see in Scripture an unusually greater precision than in other ancient authors. Much work has been done in this subject in the second half of the twentieth century, showing that the Biblical chronologies are accurate. The work is very technical, and thus most of this work has not come into the attention of the layman.

The question of grammar and style is also in harmony with the historical framework. We do not have any statement that Bible came down dictated from heaven. Rather, the Holy Spirit used writers belonging to different cultures and generations without obliterating their individualities. Thus the differences in grammars and styles of individual writers is definitely discernible.

5-Inerrancy has to do with the whole of the Biblical message: Contrary to what many compromisers claim, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the whole Bible and not merely to the parts having to do with "faith and practice". If this were not so, one would have to consider Scripture fallible in places where subjects other that "faith and practice" are discussed.

Let us take an example from history: God intervened our world events. He initiated His plan of redemption in the incarnation and consummated it in specific historical facts. If the Bible is wrong about these facts, what is there for our faith to rest upon? We must notice what Paul says about the resurrection of Christ, as well as about the history of Israel (I Cor. 15:14-19; 10:11; Rom. 15:4). There is no way for separating the "doctrinal" parts of the Bible from the "non doctrinal" parts.

The historical facts are so intimately tied in with spiritual realities that it is impossible to separate the two. We have seen that the same is true of the account of the creation and also areas where Bible deals with the natural sciences (geology, astronomy, biology etc.). The creation account, and also that of paradise, the fall, the deluge etc, we find fully confirmed by Christ and the apostles. If these events were mere myths, then the doctrines based upon them also have to be labeled as mere myths. It ought to be clear, however, that inerrancy extends only to the text itself, not to the often absurd interpretations given by humans to it.

In the realm of geography, likewise, the extraordinary exactitude of Scripture has been attested to by archaeology and by an improved understanding of antiquity. Clearly, the Bible does not claim to be a manual of science or of history; its supreme domain is that of faith and life. It is the book of salvation; its aim is to lead us to God and to enable us to live with Him, first down here and then forever in heaven. Yet it never errs when it makes a comment in the realm of science or history.

6-Inerrancy does not imply omniscience on the part of the Biblical authors: The Biblical writers were not acquainted with all facets of the subjects they treated. Thus their declarations are true but not always comprehensive or complete. One illustration is the case of the Four Gospels. Each one has played its part in filling in, adding to and putting the finishing touches on canvas portraying the life of Jesus. This principle explains why the Bible does not always provide a full account of a given event or the well-rounded, all-comprehensive enunciation of a truth, such as one might expect from omniscience. The Scriptures were written by men who were kept away from recording error, but who were not endowed with the perceptive faculties which belong to God alone.

It was, moreover, not necessarily the aim of the biblical records to tell absolutely everything or to provide total information on every subject. For example, the Gospels give us practically nothing about Jesus from the time He was twelve until the day He was baptized by John the Baptist. Such information would certainly have a popular appeal if we may judge by the Apocryphal "gospels", but this information was not seen as necessary according to the purpose of either the Holy Spirit or the writers themselves. John in his gospel makes it clear that producing a comprehensive record of Jesus' life and ministry was humanly not possible. Thus he chose only those events that would help the readers to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour.


The way in Jesus Christ looked at the Old Testament provides additional insights into the question of inerrancy. Not surprisingly, our Lord used historical incidents in the Old Testament in a manner which evidenced His total confidence in their factual historicity.

He acknowledged that Adam and Eve were created by God, that they were two real living human beings, not merely symbols of mankind and womankind, and that they acted in specific ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8).

He verified as historical events connected with the flood of Noah's day; namely, that there was an ark and that the flood destroyed everyone who was not in that ark (Matt. 24:38- 39; Luke 17:26-27).

On two different occasions, He authenticated God's destruction of Sodom, and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29).

He accepted as true the story of Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:40) and acknowledged the historicity of Isaiah (Matt. 12:17), Elijah (Matt.17:11-12), Daniel (Matt. 24:15), Abel (Matt. 23:35), Zechariah (Matt. 23:35), Abiathar (Mark 2:26), David (Matt. 22:45), Moses and his writings (Matt. 8:4; John 5:46), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; John 8:39),

Christ did not allude to these as mere moral stories, but He authenticated the events in them as factual history to be completely trusted. These events include many of the passages of the Old Testament against which radicals have raised, controversies like Creation, the Flood and major miracles including Jonah and the giant sea-monster.

Obviously, our Lord felt that He had a reliable Bible, historically true, with every word being trustworthy. If we find that He used or taught only in a general way about the Bible, then we must conclude that He believed in its reliability only generally. On the other hand, if we find that He relied on the minutiae of the Bible as accurate, then we must conclude that He believed it to be inerrant down to its minutest details.
Some Concrete Biblical


1-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 4:1-11: The account of the temptation of our Lord reveals some important matters concerning His view of the Bible.

First, Jesus accepted the plenary inspiration of the Bible; when first approached by the devil to turn stones into bread, our Lord replied that man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4 quoting Deut. 8:3). He did not say "some words" but "EVERY word". If Scripture is breathed out from God (II Tim. 3:16), then all Scripture must be included in what sustains man. Not merely parts of Scripture but all of it.

Second, Jesus' response to Satan's attacks negates every view of errancy. He said, "It is written" (Matt. 4:4,7,10). He did not say, "It witnesses". He relied on statements from the Bible to convey truth in and of themselves and to convey it accurately.

2-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished". The verse is not only a statement of fact, but also a promise about the Bible made by the Lord Jesus Himself. Several things should be noticed.

First, what is the promise ? It is that the Law and the Prophets will NOT be abolished, but be fulfilled. Christ is guaranteeing that the all the guarantees and statements of the Bible shall surely be fulfilled.

Second, what all in included in this promise ? The "Law and the Prophets" included all of the Old Testament, our Lord's Bible. "Law" in verse 18 means the same thing (compare the use of "Law" in John 10:34 where it includes more than the Mosaic Law).

Third, in what detail will all the promises of the Old Testament be fulfilled ? The Lord said we can count on all the Old Testament promises being fulfilled down to the very jots and tittles (KJV). An explanation of "jot and tittle" would be helpful to the non-Hebrew readers.

THE JOT: The jot is the Hebrew letter titled YODH. It is the smallest of all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. It would occupy proportionately about the same amount of space that an English apostrophe takes up in a line of English type. Actually, the Hebrew letter looks very much like an English apostrophe. Though it is the smallest of the Hebrew letters it is an important as any other letter, for letters spell words and words compose sentences and sentences make promises. If we spell a words one way, it is that word; if we spell it another way, even with only a single letter differently, it is a different word. For example, "Tough" means strong. One letter changed spells as "touch". One letter added makes it "though". Single letters are enough to change words. Thus our Lord promised that not one jot would fail. Every promise will be fulfilled exactly as it has been spelled out.

Many people (influenced by the radical theologians) believe and teach that Biblical writers were inspired only with 'concepts' and that inspiration did not extend to the words used by the Biblical writers. We must observe here that Christ does not start with concepts and then allow for optional words to be used to convey those concepts (contrary to what proponents of "concepts-inspiration" teach). He begins the other way around. The promises are based on the words as spelled out in the Holy Writ and those words can be relied on fully and in detail.

Neither did our Lord say that the promises would be fulfilled provided they were culturally relevant at the time of fulfillment. In some theological circles it has become fashionable today to say that promises and commands of the Bible are to be culturally reinterpreted. This is a subtle attempt to invalidate the original promises as spelled out in the Old Testament.

THE TITTLE: A "tittle" is even more MINUTE than a Jot. Whereas a Jot is a whole letter, a "tittle" is only a PART of a letter. The presence of a tittle forms a certain letter, but its absence causes that letter to become a different one. For example, the Hebrew letter BETH and KAPH look very similar. The only difference between the two letters is that the bottom horizontal line on the BETH extends slightly to the right of the vertical line, whereas no extension appears on the KAPH. That extension (not the entire bottom horizontal line but only the part of it that extends to the right of the vertical line) is a tittle. If it is present then the letter is a BETH; if it is absent, it is a KAPH. And whether you use a BETH or a KAPH will decide what word it would ultimately be. According to the Lord, even such tiny differences were there by God's ordinance.

There are many other places where the presence or absence of the tittle makes a difference. While it is easy for an ordinary copyist to overlook the presence of the tittle, the Lord made it very clear that it is an important part of the inspired scriptures. The Lord's affirmation was that all of the promises of the Old Testament will be fulfilled precisely as they were spelled out, in their minutest details.

In English we might illustrate a tittle this way. Suppose I invite you to my house to have some "Fun". You might rightly wonder what I consider fun. If I put a tittle or small stroke on the F, then you might conclude that I like to "Pun". Punning is fun to me. There's nothing like a fast repartee of puns with someone. But you may not enjoy making puns, so I'll put another tittle on the letter. Now I have spelled "Run". To run is fun for some, but not to me. So I'll add another tittle and now I am inviting you over to have a "Bun". The difference between Fun, Pun, Run and Bun is just the addition of a tittle in each case. But four entirely different words result, and with them, four different invitations:

3-THE EVIDENCE OF JOHN 10:31-38: Often minute things do make a difference. Towards the end of His earthly ministry the Lord again reaffirmed His total confidence in the reliability of the minutest elements of the Scripture. At the temple celebration of the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah (instituted in 165 B.C to commemorate the cleansing and reopening of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanus three years earlier), the Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly if He is the Messiah (John 10:24).

His answer was, "I and the Father are One." The words "one" is neuter, "one thing", not "one person". In other words, He did not assert that He and the Father are identical but that He and the Father possess essential unity together, that He enjoys perfect unity of nature and of actions with His Father. The Jews had asked if He were the Messiah. His answer was more than they had bargained for, for in it He claimed also to be equal with God.

This was certainly the way they understood His claim, for immediately they prepared to stone the Lord for what they considered to be blasphemy. In order to restrain them the Lord appealed to Psalm 82. He called this portion of the Old Testament "the Law" (John 10:34), as He did on two other occasions (John 12:34 and 15:25). In that Law, He said the judges of Israel, human beings, were called "gods" by virtue of their high and God-given office. Then, He concluded, if that Psalm can apply the term "gods" to human beings, then certainly the term "Son of God" may be rightly applied to the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. In other words, if the title Elohim is applied to men, how much more appropriate it is to apply it to Himself, since He does possess essential unity with the Father.

Though this argument is highly sophisticated, certain claims Christ made here about the Bible can clearly be deduced:

The Bible is verbally inspired: He pointed the Jews to what had been written. God's Word came in written prepositional statements, not merely in concepts, thoughts, or oral tradition. It is the written record that was inspired and that can be relied on.

The Bible is inspired even in what looks as minor statements: Psalm 82 is not what would be considered a major Old Testament passage. It is not a psalm of David nor a messianic psalm. This is not said to demean the psalm in any way for, of course, it is equally inspired with all other parts of the Bible, but it is to emphasize that the Lord did not pick up an outstanding passage on which to base His argument. Indeed one might say, without being disrespectful, that He chose a rather ordinary, run-of-the-mill passage. Of course, He could not have done so if He did not believe that even such passages are God's inerrant and inspired Word. Furthermore, from that ordinary passage He focused on a single word, "gods". He could not have done so unless He believed in the verbal inspiration of the minutest part of the Bible and also on any word in any part of the statement.

The Bible is authoritatively inspired: In the midst of His sophisticated arguing the Lord threw in almost incidentally the statement: "and the Scripture cannot be broken". What does this mean ? Simply that the Scripture cannot be emptied of its authority. The only way it could fail to have complete authority would be if it were erroneous, but Christ said that here it is both authoritative and inerrant. Christ was here staking His life on the reliability, accuracy, and authority of just one word of Scripture when His enemies were about to stone Him.

4-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 22:23-33: Just as in John 10:34 in the present passage also he based His argument on the written Word: not upon general concepts, but upon specific written words. Specifically, He based His case on how God identified Himself to Moses at the burning bush: " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matt. 22:32). That proves, the Lord went on to say, that God is the God of the living, which means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive though they had died long before.

How does that identification prove the doctrine of life after death ? Simply by the use of the present tense, "I am". Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had died several hundred years before God spoke this way to Moses. Yet God said that He was still their God at the time He was speaking to Moses. This would not have been possible if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ceased to exist upon their death. It was only possible if, contrary to the Sadducees' doctrine, death does not end it all.

The difference between "I am" and "I was" is only a matter of verb tense. This argument was based on a present tense to support the doctrine of resurrection. The difference is only in the tense of the verb used similar to we had or we have or I was their God or I am their God.

This interpretation of Christ has many ramifications, and let us observe carefully some of them here:

1-He assumed as true the historicity of God's appearance to Moses.

2-He assumed that God's revelation came in a prepositional statements, not merely through non-verbal ideas.

3-He assumed that every word of that statement could be trusted to be precisely accurate.

4-He assumed that doctrinal truth has to be based on historical accuracy. The Bible cannot be inaccurate in matters of history and yet be accurate in doctrine.

5-He assumed that one could use even seemingly insignificant passages of Bible and trust their accuracy.

5-THE EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW 22:41-46: Later that same day, when the Pharisees had joined the crowd of antagonists, the Lord became the aggressor, asking a straight-forward question to them: "About the Christ, whose son is He, (Matt. 22:24). Theirs was an immediate answer: "The Son of David". The answer was correct but incomplete. Christ is the son of David as far as His humanity is concerned, but He also is the Son of God, and the Lord wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge this as well. So He asked them, "Then how does David address Him as Lord. He quoted Psalm 110:1. In that Psalm "the Lord (that is, the Father) said to my Lord (the Messiah who was David's Lord): 'Sit at My right hand (the Father's) until I (the Father) put Thine (the Messiah's) enemies beneath thy feet'.

How could David call Messiah his Lord if Messiah were only David's son ? The only answer is: because Messiah was also David's God. In other words the Messiah had to be both God and man. As man He was David's son; as God, David's Lord. The pronoun "my" links David to his Messiah-Lord.

Natural procreation links Messiah to David as David's descendant. The pronoun "my": in Psalm 110:1 links Messiah to David as David's Lord God. And the pronoun "my" is simply a YODH that smallest of Hebrew letters, attached to the word "Lord". We learn several things about the Scriptures from our Lord's attitude toward the Bible:

1-The spelling of words can be trusted completely, and not one promise will be fulfilled in any way different from how it was spelled out.

2-The only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors.

3-The Lord built sophisticated arguments on single words and even the tense of a verb.

Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures?
Summary

The word of God is not only alive and powerful, but is also infallible and inerrant. Thus in the original writings produced by the forty writers, even the words used came there by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration gave such an integrity to the original text that even the smallest jot and tittle was there by God's guidance.

Doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility apply only to the original autographs of the Bible. Using tens of thousands of manuscripts that archaeologists have discovered, scholars have been able to get very close to the original autographs of the Bible. All what we said in this chapter applies to the original autographs.

---

Original article contributed by Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian. Revised by:

You are welcome to correct, revise, and expand this article. Add your name at the end of "Revised By" after you work on this article. All revisions will be monitored by the EditAlls. CRG Wiki is dedicated to conservative theology, and it is essential for all submissions to conform to this position. You need to be a registered user before you can edit any of these articles.

New articles should be sent to DrJCP@hotpop.com and should not be added directly. We welcome articles on all aspects of theology and apologetics.

You are welcome to freely reuse this article under GPL. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights∞ for details).