Inerrancy

 The other day I read an interesting article from a few years ago. It was entitled “Evidence for Inerrancy from an Unexpected Source: OT Chronology” and was written by Rodger C. Young. He explains two popular approaches to Scripture, particularly the period of about four and a half centuries where over 120 dates, lengths of reign and synchronisms are given in the books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Kings and Chronicles. Putting together a chronology for this period of time becomes extremely difficult and has caused some to lose faith in the accuracy of Scripture.

The first approach uses deductive methodology. Two examples of this method include Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis and offshoots of Martin Noth’s deuteronomistic history. Deduction refers to “an inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessary general or universal premises.” In this view, many believe that Scripture did not come through revelation of God-to-man, but that later on, writers built upon stories of heroes from the past and added miracles and revelations to them. One of the problems with this approach is nothing can ever be settled for certain! Obviously, the major problem is that the Old Testament content cannot be trusted.

The second approach uses inductive methodology. This view starts with different observations and “infers a generalized conclusion from a particular instance.” This method takes into account five areas of evidence:

1.      Jewish writings about the New Year

2.      Egyptology references to coregency

3.      Egyptology evidence for the existence of rival reigns

4.      Evidence for two ways of reckoning the first year of a king’s reign

5.      Texts of King, Chronicles, Jeremiah and Ezekiel

Working through these observations and their various combinations becomes very difficult, however, success has been found! Coucke and Thiele were the first big names to work on the project. McFall came after and produced a full chronology that proved to be consistent with all the Scripture texts chosen. This completed task becomes very significant in that it proved wrong the claim that it was impossible to work with the material and come up with a timeline that made sense! The author took the remaining texts unused by McFall and inserted them into decision tables to help solve the issue of complexity. Significantly enough, the inductive method could never have been successful unless the facts were authentic. Therefore, since the second approach did succeed, the facts can be trusted!

            I felt like this article was very interesting in showing how people look at different facts with different starting points. Those who come at the facts already thinking that Scripture is false easily come up with solutions for how the texts were written. All in all though, you cannot say that something is invalid just because it does not appear to make sense on the surface; it takes time, effort and diligence to understand some things, especially regarding the past. Those who come at the facts already thinking Scripture is inerrant start with the premise that Scripture is correct until proven otherwise; they discipline themselves to figuring out the puzzle! Furthermore, the author ends the article by providing three reasons for why individuals look at the Scriptures with such a view: Scripture claims itself to be inerrant, Jesus believed the Scriptures to be inerrant and God promises to reward those who choose to believe that what He says in His Word is true. I, for one, am one of those who trust what the Bible has to say!