Hi, guys —

I've been struggling lately with the idea of Biblical inerrancy. Specifically, the viewpoint that the Bible is only inerrant in what it asserts, and not in everything it states. I have heard several well-known apologists use this statement in defense of Biblical inerrancy, saying it is only what the Bible asserts to be true that is infallibly taught.

I see why they do this. There are several parts of the Bible which are outdated and disprove views of the universe to make a point. Psalm 19:1 comes to mind, in which it is stated

"The Heavens describe the glory of God, and the firmament announces the Work of His Hands".

The firmament is an ancient view of the sky in which it is described as being a physical barrier between Heaven and Earth. Of course, this has since been dis-proven but the assertion of the passage, that all creation shows God's glory, stands, even if the metaphor describes that outdated terminology.

My struggle with this is that I would think such a stance would weaken the entire argument for inerrancy. I can make an analogy using a math test.

Let's say I completed a 100-question math test, and when I hand it to you, I say "all of my answers are correct". Now let's say you believe me, but as you start checking through them, you find one where there's an error in my work, but I still arrived at the correct answer. Even though my answer was correct, I would say finding an issue with my work would cast my original statement that every answer is correct into doubt, weakening my original claim.

I suppose, if I was to boil everything down to a single question, it would be this:

• Does reducing Biblical inerrancy down to only what the Bible asserts weaken the argument for inerrancy as a whole?
• As a follow up, if we only treat the asserted aspects of Scripture as inerrant, by what metric can we determine when the Bible is asserting verses that aren't?

Any insight into this would be most appreciated.

Thank you!