Unsound Argument: Adam was God-Breathed therefore the Bible is errant?

For the last two weeks on Saturday I’ve been posting a response to a blog post that attacked the Bible specifically with the doctrine of Inerrancy.  My first post looked at the only verse the writer cited as positive proof that the Bible itself teaches an errant Bible; that was titled “Does 2 Timothy 4:13 undermine the Doctrine of Inerrancy?”  My second post deconstructed a theological argument against Inerrancy and was titled ““You’re Putting God in A Box:” The Irony of this argument against Biblical Inerrancy.”

Here in this post I want to interact with another one of her theological arguments against Biblical inerrancy:

Likewise, people have translated “inspired by God” to mean “God-breathed” to equal “inerrant”. But God first breathed into Adam, and he certainly was not inerrant!

Here we see how the writer thinks that since Adam was God breathed and erred, therefore the Bible being God breathed cannot be inerrant.  I think this warrants a closer look.

1. The passage that teaches that the Scripture is God breathed comes from 2 Timothy 3:16.  We must remember that we need to consider the context of the passage in weighing any arguments concerning whether the Bible has error or not.
2. Somethings to unpack with what our writer said: “people have translated ‘inspired by God’ to mean ‘God-breathed’ to equal ‘inerrant’.”
   1. It is somewhat awkward to say “people have translated ‘inspired by God’ to mean ‘God-breathed.”  The Greek word is θεόπνευστος.  θεόπνευστος is a compound word made up of “God” (the “θεό” in θεόπνευστος) and “breathed” (the “πνευστος” in θεόπνευστος).  Isn’t more accurate to say people have translated the more literal “God-breathed” to the phrase “inspired by God?”  Note I don’t object to the translation “inspired by God” per se although in my philosophy of translation one should try to be as literal as possible in order for the readers/listeners to ask what does this all mean and therefore the student of God’s Word and teacher then unpack it.
   2. She goes on to say that these people take “‘God-breathed’ to equal ‘inerrant’.”  I don’t know any translation that translate 2 Timothy 3:16 as “inerrant.”
   3. I’m always amaze at liberal caricature of the position of those who hold to biblical inerrancy.  The scholarship defending Inerrancy do not merely assert ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant.'”  Those articulating and defending biblical inerrancy employ a theological method that considers the larger part of what Scripture has to say about Scripture and not just an argument from 2 Timothy 3:16 that “‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant.'”
   4. She then goes on to note that Adam was himself created by God who breathed into Adam’s nostril (Genesis 2:7).  Of course we know Adam can err and did err.  The implied argument here is that the Bible being God breathed must also be errant.
      1. Remember the reason why we know Adam can err is because the Bible tells us so.  After Genesis 2:7 tells us how he was created by the breath of God in Genesis 3 we read of the account of Adam’s fall.  But do we also read of the same thing in the Bible which states the God-breathed Scripture has “fallen?“
      2. Remember we already looked at her only positive case from a verse in 2 Timothy 4:13 to try to show the Bible itself teaches the Bible is errant and we have already demonstrated how much problems there was in her case there.
      3. There’s an irony here: She makes it clear that she does not like those who assert ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘inerrant” in 2 Timothy 3:16 but then she goes ahead to do the exact same thing when she asserted ” ‘God-breathed’ equal ‘errant.‘”
      4. Obviously she is here committing a fallacy of equivocation in assuming that the same way God breathed in Genesis 2:7 is the same way He breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16.
      5. If she remains steadfast in her equivocation fallacy, should we also assume that God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16 must also mean:
         1. That Scripture, as what comes out of His mouth, must always be the wrath of God because of Psalm 18:8?
         2. That the stars were created by the Bible since His breath created stars in Psalm 33:6?
      6. Ultimately we must ask: Was Paul’s intention in talking about Scripture being “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy 3:16 to emphasize the Scripture is errant?
         1. Nowhere does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that the Scripture being God breathed is errant.
         2. Likewise the rest of the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 does not state that Scripture is errant, whether in the immediate periscope, the chapter of 2 Timothy 3 or the rest of the Book of 2 Timothy.
         3. 2 Timothy 3 does presupposes error, but not in the Bible but God’s people.  In fact, the Bible is not being presupposed as erroneous since in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it is the tool for the man of God to rebuke and correct those in error.