1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + + + + + + +
Added a reference to a related CP essay and a reminder to be respectful over differences
Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>
Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref>
===Seventies debate===
==Consideration of Man's Influence in Compiling Versions of the Bible==
Claims of [[Cafeteria Christianity]], however, need to be considered against legitimate, respectful debate over which parts of the Bible are the inspired word of God, and which are the insertions of men that can be disregarded. The basis for this debate is that the volume referred to as ''' ''"the"'' ''' Bible is in fact a collected set of writings spanning hundreds of years, which has gone through subtle alterations as different versions are compiled and/or translated. Because of the Bible's history as an edited collection, some people studying it believe that certain passages which can be shown as missing in the earliest written versions should be disregarded since they are therefore edits added later by men. An example of this debate on Conservapedia can be found in this [[Essay:Adulteress Story|essay]] on the Adulteress Story.
Debates like this, while sincere and respectful, highlight a fundamental challenge for those studying the Bible - determining which version is the "authentic" one before determining if that version is inerrant or not. This is why it is important not to pre-judge people who have differing views of Biblical literacy and Biblical inerrancy until the nature and reasons for their different views are understood.
==Seventies debate==
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>
Two books in 1976 sparked a firestorm of books and papers amongst religious studies scholars. These were Harold Lindsell's ''The Battle for the Bible'' and James Barr's ''Fundamentalism''. Lindsell's book is sympathetic towards conservative Christianity, while Barr's is hostile. Despite this key difference, both were in remarkable agreement that biblical inerrancy provides the "first line of defense" and demarks the "proverbial line in the sand" between [[Religious Left|liberal]] and [[Religious right|conservative christianity]]. <ref> "Evangelicals, Biblical Scholarship, and the Politics of the Modern American Academy" in ''Evangelicals and science in Historical Perspective'', David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, Mark A. Noll (Editors), Oxford University Press, 1999, p.306-326 </ref>