The Infallibility of the Bible?

They say that one person's junk is another's treasure. This was really driven home to me at a Christmas party I was at once. I had got invited on a date, so I didn't really know anyone there, and they didn't really know me, but they were all very friendly. At one point, the conversation turned to weird presents they had received. One person started telling me about how someone had given them a Bible. She turned to my date and I, and asked, somewhat rhetorically, "Isn't that just the weirdest gift? Like, who would want that?"

And I thought, how do I respond to that?

Because I had received a Bible as a Christmas gift once. I didn't receive it out of the blue; I had asked for it, even though I already had at least four Bibles to my name. The cover on my big fat study Bible--which I still have and love and consult--was falling off, and I decided I no longer wanted to cart it back and forth to church anymore. I wanted a much more portable Bible. So I went on amazon, and searched the list of Bibles and found one to my specifications. I wanted it to have a leather cover, but I wanted it to be one of the fun, colourful, modern covers. I wanted it to be a pocket version. I wanted it to be NIV. I wrote out all of these specifications in my Christmas list, and included a few links to specific examples on amazon for good measure. And when the cover of that Bible I had received started to wear out, and some of the pages had torn from being in a bag when other things had been put on top of it, I decided I need a Bible cover. So I collected some scrap material and hand-sewed a Bible cover, with appliqué decorations and a button to keep the Bible shut in my bag. 

I suppose you could say I treasure my Bible.

But I don't treasure it because of the paper or the leather or the ink. I treasure it because of the words inside.

I have always been taught that Scripture is infallible; that it is true and it can be trusted. 

"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

But sometimes the Bible itself puts that idea to the test. 

Some contradictions have good answers, and some have loopholes. 

For example, the different accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the different books don't list the same people as being there:

• Matthew 28:1 lists "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
• Mark 16:1 lists "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
• Luke 24:10 lists "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them."
• John 20:1 only mentions Mary Magdalene

---but no one said that those lists were exhaustive.

Or that miraculous event where Jesus feeds lots of people with just a few loaves and bread and fish. Some places say 5000 people were there (Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:1-14), while others say there were 4000 (Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-9). But it is actually commonly assumed that these were two separate events (which would explain why some gospels record both). 

Or in Philippians 2:24, when Paul says "And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon," when we know that Paul wrote the book of Philippians under house arrest, and that he died before being released. So, despite Paul's confidence, he did not visit the church in Philippi anytime soon. We can perhaps justify this by saying, it was true that Paul was confident, but that doesn't mean Paul's confidence was well-founded.

But there are some bits which are just undeniably factually incorrect. While preparing for a Bible study, I found this little tidbit in the study notes of 1 Corinthians 10:8,* which states that 23,000 people died in a plague:
"The Hebrew and Greek (Septuagint) texts of Nu 25:9 have 24,000. It is clear that Paul is not striving for exactness. He is only speaking approximately. First-century writers were not as concerned about being precise as 21st-century authors often are."
It obviously cannot be simultaneously true that both 23,000 and that 24,000 people died.**

I think it's worth noting here the genre and the context of this portion of Scripture. It was not a scientific treatise, or a historical account (although other parts of the Bible were). It was simply a letter from the Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth, in which he was trying to make a point about the seriousness of sin. 

The difference between 23,000 and 24,ooo doesn't change or invalidate his point. 

Other parts of the Bible are outright fiction. Jesus told many parables during His ministry---made-up stories that were used to teach a lesson. They're true because the lesson they teach is true, even if the details aren't. But these are a little different because everyone knew that's what they were, and they never pretended to be anything else. 

But now, where does this leave us? How can we distinguish between the parts that are surface true and the parts that are deep true?

I mean, to a certain extent, it's only the deep truths that matter, so we don't need to worry about the surface truth at all.

But that is easier said than done, because it turns out it's not at all always obvious which parts are meant to be universal, deep truths, and which parts are meant to only be for a specific time, people, and place. 

There is no easy answer, but all I know is that we need to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to interpret Scripture.
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13)

*From the same study Bible with the cover falling off (Zondervan NIV Study Bible, 2002, edited by Kenneth Barker et al.)
**I mean, yes, if 24,000 people died, it entails that 23,000 people died---but let's assume that Paul is being a cooperative communicator.