Attic Fables

Today’s episode is a continuation of my review of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. In the first video, I highlighted the problem of the Statement’s many limits, qualifiers, and explanations that make it a statement not about total inerrancy of the Bible but about limited inerrancy. In this video, I want to discuss how the Chicago Statement handles the personal bias of the Bible’s human authors and discuss the possibility that these biases show a degree of error in the Bible.

As a reminder, my personal belief is that the Bible is the word of God. I believe it is true. I believe that according to 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” I believe that the Bible is a reliable record of God’s interactions with humanity and a trustworthy guide to live by. I do not, however, believe that the Bible is completely without error, at least in the way most evangelical Christians believe. I believe that even in its original manuscripts, the Bible has inaccuracies and errors.

You might be saying, Pastor Steve, if you believe that the Bible is the word of God and is true and reliable, why are you making a video about errors in the Bible? To be honest, I’m tired of trying to defend the Bible’s inerrancy by using ridiculous explanations and contrived attempts at harmonization. I think it’s time to admit that the Bible has some irreconcilable and unsolvable problems, and in doing so, I want to show a path forward for Christians who are losing their faith when faced with these problems.

Kenton Sparks, in his book God’s Word in Human Words, suggests that it is “possible that God has selected to speak to human beings through adequate rather than inerrant words.”[1] Later in the book, he says, “Scripture’s words are truly informed by and convey revealed truths from God, but these truths were received by and communicated through the finite, fallen horizon of a human author.”[2]

Sparks’ point is that divine inspiration does not shield or insulate the human authors from their inherent finitude and limitations as they penned the Scriptures.

In contrast to Sparks, the Chicago Statement says, “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.”

The Statement also says, “We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines distortion as “the act of twisting or altering something out of its true, natural, or original state.” I would not say that the human authors of the Bible twisted the facts because to twist something implies malicious changes. I do, however, think it is fair to say that they occasionally altered the facts through personal bias, selectivity, and exaggeration.

Although the Chicago Statement allows for selectivity, it does not allow for personal bias. The Statement also allows for hyperbole, an easily recognizable literary device, but it does not allow for other kinds of exaggeration. The failure of the Chicago Statement to address bias and exaggeration in the Bible shows its weakness.

The Chicago Statement says that “history must be treated as history.” This qualification leaves open the possibility that the historical sections of the Bible may not be 100% historically accurate. It is well-known that historians are sometimes biased, selective, and prone to exaggeration. Even the Bible shows evidence of bias and selectivity.

One of the most well-known examples of bias and selectivity in the Bible concerns the life of King David. In the story about David as recorded in the book of 2 Samuel, we read about David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah (2 Samuel 11). 1 Chronicles covers the same time but fails to mention David’s sins. The Chronicler also covers up David’s other faults and shortcomings. These faults include the story of the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by David’s son Amnon, and David’s failure to punish him, leading to Amnon’s murder by David’s son Absalom (2 Samuel 13). Another missing part of the story in Chronicles is Absalom’s rebellion against King David. Although this conflict is covered in more than three chapters in 2 Samuel 15-18, it is not mentioned once in Chronicles.

Secular historians would call this a whitewash or historical distortion. The author of Chronicles rewrote David’s history, deliberately omitting his moral and political failures. The purpose of these omissions seems to be to present an idealized, unblemished hero. The Chronicler intentionally omitted a decade of civil war and royal corruption to portray the Davidic monarchy as flawless.

Another shortcoming in Chronicles is that in nine chapters that show King Solomon’s greatness, there is no mention of his many foreign wives leading him into idolatry. Solomon’s idolatry is recorded in 1 Kings 11, but not in Chronicles.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do not have a problem with this kind of historical writing. Historians are known to be biased and selective in the way they write their histories and the way they shape their stories.[3] On the other hand, we cannot simply ignore this selectivity, especially in the Bible. Such bias is evidence that the facts have been altered, and, if we are honest, we must admit that this alteration is a deliberate distortion. It’s a distortion because critical information has been deliberately omitted, and the omission of these facts creates an inaccurate narrative.

Another example of bias is seen in the way the Chronicler depicts King Manasseh. In 2 Kings 21, King Manasseh is portrayed as the ultimate villain. Manasseh’s sins were so terrible that God decided the nation must be destroyed (2 Kings 21:10ff; 23:26; 24:3-4). Even the prophet Jeremiah, living at the time of the Exile, said that Manasseh’s sins were the cause of God’s judgment. Jeremiah said, “And I will make them [the Judeans] a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 15:4).”

The author of Chronicles, however, depicts Manasseh’s life much differently. 2 Chronicles agrees with 2 Kings that, at first, Manasseh was wicked, but when he was taken captive by the Assyrians, Manasseh humbled himself and repented. God forgave him and restored him to his throne, and Manasseh spent the rest of his life tearing down the idols he built.

The writer of 2 Kings wanted to highlight Manasseh’s wickedness to explain why God judged his people. The writer of 2 Chronicles wanted to show that if even someone as wicked as Manasseh could repent and be restored, there is hope for the nation.

This bias and selectivity show that historical writing, even in the Bible, is not straightforward. Although I would not characterize these writers as introducing falsehood into the narrative, I would say that the facts have been distorted.

Secular historians have no problem pointing out such personal bias and labeling it as an alteration of the historical record. Evangelicals, however, often turn a blind eye to these biases or excuse them by saying that the author wanted to make a particular point or show a particular perspective on the matter.

If we adopt this methodology as a legitimate way to read the Bible, then we can easily explain away any inaccuracy in the historical record. In fact, this is exactly what inerrantists do. They simply explain away historical inaccuracies by saying that the author had a different purpose or perspective.

When evangelical scholars fail to admit that such bias, omissions, and selectivity are evidence of distortion, they reveal that they have a lower standard for truth than their secular counterparts. This is the main point I am making. In their attempt to maintain the inerrancy of the Bible, Evangelicals have lowered the bar for truth. Unfortunately, they’ve lowered the bar for truth so low that most reasonable people will consider us fools.

It is my hope that honesty will prevail. We must not cling to traditions that fail to rightly address the issues. We may be reluctant to call bias and selectivity in the Bible a distortion of the facts, but in my opinion, the only reason for not calling it distortion is fear—fear that somehow, we are denigrating God, fear that we are abandoning the faith, fear of being judged by our Christian brothers and sisters.

Believe me, I understand such fears more than you’ll ever know. I don’t share my thoughts without fear and trembling. My main purpose for addressing these issues is that I want you to know that despite the difficulties in the Bible, you can believe it. The Bible is a trustworthy guide. The Bible is reliable. You can trust the Bible to show you the truth about God and the love of God. As the Apostle Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Romans 1:16).”

[1] Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 55.

[2] ibid, 246.

[3] David Lowenthal, “The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Err,” Perspectives on History, March 1, 2013, accessed August 30, 2026, https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/the-frailty-of-historical-truth-learning-why-historians-inevitably-err-march-2013/.