Changes

2 bytes removed ,  14:05, July 1, 2016
Spelling, Grammar, and General Cleanup, typos fixed: christianity → Christianity, eg, → e.g.,, the the → the
Line 34: Line 34:  
=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===
 
=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth ===
   −
Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation).
+
Some Christian 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]].
Line 45: Line 45:  
Some argue that if the 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 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>
   −
Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>  
+
Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>  
    
Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for whatever reason, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-fundamentalisms-grand-illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref>
 
Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for whatever reason, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-fundamentalisms-grand-illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref>
    
===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 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>
    
==External Links==
 
==External Links==
Line 61: Line 61:  
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
{{Reflist|2}}
 
{{Reflist|2}}
−
[[Category:bible]]
+
[[Category:Bible]]
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
59,304

edits