Changes

{{Bible}}

{{Bible}}

'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrine that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error. It is a central doctrine of [[fundamentalism]], but it is rejected by Catholics and modernists. Following Augustine, Catholics hold that scripture is inerrant regarding how to obtain salvation, but not necessarily on matters of history or science.

'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrine that the [[Bible]] is without flaw or error. It is a central doctrine of [[fundamentalism]], but it is not fully supported by [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholics]] and modernists. Following [[Augustine]], Catholics hold that scripture is inerrant regarding how to obtain salvation, but not necessarily on matters of history or science.

== Versions of inerrancy ==

== Versions of inerrancy ==

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

Books on Divine Action—''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''—also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>https://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

As many as one-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.<ref>https://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref>

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

=== Inerrant in original manuscripts ===

The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref name="closer">[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts.  People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref>

The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref name="closer">[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts.  People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref>

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals so as not to affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (e.g., the six day creation).

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (e.g., the six-day creation).

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

This view is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]].

| Scripture '''<span style="color:red;">does not</span>''' contain errors || We are motivated to seek an exegetically justifiablę way of resolving any seeming discrepancy || The teaching of the various texts, properly interpreted, represents a ''unity of thought''

| Scripture '''<span style="color:red;">does not</span>''' contain errors || We are motivated to seek an exegetically justifiablę way of resolving any seeming discrepancy || The teaching of the various texts, properly interpreted, represents a ''unity of thought''

|}

|}

According to Harold Lindsell, the church history has repeatedly shown that groups who begin with questioning the validity of minor details of Scripture eventually question major doctrines as well. The pattern repeated is that acceptance of an errant Scripture in peripheral matters has soon been followed by the allegation that Scripture is errant in more central teachings as well.<ref name="Lindsell">{{cite book |title=The Battle for the Bible |author=Harold Lindsell |chapter= |pages=141-160 |publisher=Zondervan Publishing House |year=1976 |isbn=9780310276814 |url=https://www.google.sk/books/edition/The_Battle_for_the_Bible/-bnYAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>

According to Harold Lindsell, church history has repeatedly shown that groups who begin with questioning the validity of minor details of Scripture eventually question major doctrines as well. The pattern repeated is that acceptance of an errant Scripture in peripheral matters has soon been followed by the allegation that Scripture is errant in more central teachings as well.<ref name="Lindsell">{{cite book |title=The Battle for the Bible |author=Harold Lindsell |chapter= |pages=141-160 |publisher=Zondervan Publishing House |year=1976 |isbn=9780310276814 |url=https://www.google.sk/books/edition/The_Battle_for_the_Bible/-bnYAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==

==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy==

===Seventies debate===

===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 among 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>

This was also the center of the debate within the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s; ultimately leading to the Conservative Resurgence, whereupon the SBC adopted a conservative viewpoint on Scripture (even going so far as to revise its [[Baptist Faith and Message]] to clarify such) which ultimately led some churches to withdraw from the SBC and form their own liberal associations.

This was also the center of the debate within the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s; ultimately leading to the Conservative Resurgence, whereupon the SBC adopted a conservative viewpoint on Scripture (even going so far as to revise its [[Baptist Faith and Message]] to clarify such) which ultimately led some churches to withdraw from the SBC and form their own liberal associations.