A Logically Valid But Unsound Argument for Biblical Inerrancy

Here is my attempt to articulate a logical argument in support of inerrancy. By “inerrancy”, I refer here to the view that the affirmations of all human authors are true. I should stress that this is not a view I hold and I have little sympathy with this argument. But be that as it may, here it is.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
As omniscient, God would know if any false proposition was going to be written within the Bible with the intent that it be affirmed as true by a human author.
As omnipotent, God would be able to prevent any false proposition from being written in the Bible with the intent that it be affirmed as true by a human author.
As omnibenevolent, God would want to ensure that no false proposition was written in the Bible with the intent that it be affirmed as true by a human author.
Therefore, there is no false proposition in the Bible written with the intent that it be affirmed as true by a human author.

To my mind, the Achille’s heel is premise 4. Why think that this is true? I can think of many reasons why it wouldn’t be true:  for example, divine accommodation in pursuit of progressive revelation; the use of dynamic foils to make a deeper point within the text; evidence that statements in the Bible which were believed by particular human authors (e.g. statements of the movement of the sun; advice about the propriety of beating children; statements that God hates sinners) are false.

For those (and other) reasons, I conclude that 4 is false. God could have many reasons to include false propositions within the Bible that were believed to be true by the original authors who wrote them.

The post A Logically Valid But Unsound Argument for Biblical Inerrancy appeared first on Randal Rauser.