Difference between revisions of "Biblical inerrancy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added a reference to a related CP essay and a reminder to be respectful over differences)
(Undo revision 592288 by DinsdaleP (Talk) too much liberal sprawl and not enough conservative punch)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
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>
  
==Consideration of Man's Influence in Compiling Versions of the Bible==
+
===Seventies debate===
 
+
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>
  

Revision as of 14:16, 22 December 2008

800px-Crop Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg
Bible

Sections
Old Testament
New Testament
Pentateuch
The Gospels

About
History
Canon
Exegesis
Accuracy
Criticism
Inerrancy
Literalism
Chronology
Translations
Hermeneutics

Concepts
Sabbath
Sin
Resurrection
Prophet
The Virgin Birth
Tithe

See also
Christianity

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the original Bible is without flaw or error. The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called Biblical literalism. The second is 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). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be in error. The former view is popular among Young Earth Creationists and Evangelical Christians, while the latter is the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. 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 conservative biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third of Americans hold this position[1].

Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy

In general, Liberal Christians tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both forms, since certain passages[2] clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like Homosexuality and the role of women. What they fail to realize is that if one is allowed to toss aside those passages which disagree with their personal politics, the document quickly loses any relevance as a guide to morality and Christian behavior. After all, how can any of it be sacred if one arbitrarily decides that some of it isn't?

Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.[3]

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 liberal and conservative christianity. [4]

External Links

Notes

  1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx
  2. http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm
  3. Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
  4. "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