Changes

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.

This view was supported by nearly 300 evangelical scholars who signed the ''[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]'' in 1978.

These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on  

These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

=== Inerrant in English translation ===

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref> As suggested earlier, many true Christians claim that statements in one language can be reduced to a [[logic|logical]] propositional form and as such rendered in any other language with total fidelity.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics Creation Ministries International: The Bible and hermeneutics]</ref>

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref> As suggested earlier, many true Christians claim that statements in one language can be reduced to a [[logic]]al propositional form and as such rendered in any other language with total fidelity.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics Creation Ministries International: The Bible and hermeneutics]</ref>

Nonetheless, Biblical preservationists view the Chicago Statement as a relatively recent, [[postmodernist]] theological innovation that leads to questioning of the text and ultimately to a lack of any final authority.<ref>[http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol13_2c.htm Modern Denial of Preservation]</ref>  They also ask why we should trust the Chicago Statement concerning God's Word instead of trusting God's Word concerning God's Word.

Nonetheless, Biblical preservationists view the Chicago Statement as a relatively recent, [[postmodernist]] theological innovation that leads to questioning of the text and ultimately to a lack of any final authority.<ref>[http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol13_2c.htm Modern Denial of Preservation]</ref>  They also ask why we should trust the Chicago Statement concerning God's Word instead of trusting God's Word concerning God's Word.

===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==

*[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_12A1.pdf Analyzing Bible Difficulties] by Dr. [[Johnson C. Philip]] & Dr. Saneesh Cherian

*[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_12A1.pdf Analyzing Bible Difficulties] by Dr. [[Johnson C. Philip]] & Dr. Saneesh Cherian