Difference between revisions of "Biblical inerrancy"
Daniel1212 (Talk | contribs) (→Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy: rephrased; more encylopedic) |
DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) (→Inerrant in English translation: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://creation.com → https://creation.com) |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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> | + | 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 === | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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 === | ||
| − | A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in | + | A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today, that version being the King James Version. Those who hold that position are within the camp of believers known as [[King James only]] (though not all in this camp hold to the same viewpoint as to the extent of preservation). |
| + | |||
| + | 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>[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 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. | ||
<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> | + | 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>[https://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. | ||
=== Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth === | === Inerrant in matters of spiritual truth === | ||
| − | Some | + | 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]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | See [[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)]]. | ||
==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy== | ==Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy== | ||
| − | In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]]. One problem which is seen with this view is that by rejecting the Bible or passages therein as inspired, due to | + | In general, [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[homosexuality]] and the [[Women#New Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]]. One problem which is seen with this view is that by rejecting the Bible or passages therein as inspired, due to their being contrary to a desired meaning or practice, then the authority of the Bible document itself loses its authority or relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. It is reasoned that the Bible cannot be held as sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]. Nor could someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]]. |
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 | + | 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 reasons that they never specify, 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 | + | 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> |
| + | |||
| + | == Recommended books == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[https://www.amazon.com/Inerrancy-Bible-Dr-Johnson-Philip-ebook/dp/B00CBWQD7E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1499240735&sr=1-1&keywords=Bible+inerrancy The Inerrancy Of The Bible] by Dr. [[Johnson C. Philip]] and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013 | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Analyzing-Difficulties-Integrated-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B00B7ULXMG Handbook For Analyzing Bible Difficulties (Integrated Apologetics)] by Dr. Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013 | ||
| + | |||
| + | *''New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'' (Zondervan's Understand the Bible Reference Series) by Gleason Archer, Jr., HarperCollins Publishing, 2011 | ||
| − | ==External | + | ==External links== |
| + | *[https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/ Contradictions in the Bible?], ''Answers in Genesis'' | ||
| + | *[https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/inerrancy-and-test-truth/ Inerrancy and the Test of Truth], ''Answers in Genesis'' | ||
*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater] | *[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater] | ||
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries] | *[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries] | ||
*[http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/inerrancy/inerrancy-scripture.html On the Inerrancy of Scripture] - Licentiate thesis by Thomas Bolin | *[http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/inerrancy/inerrancy-scripture.html On the Inerrancy of Scripture] - Licentiate thesis by Thomas Bolin | ||
| + | *[https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html Why is it important to believe in biblical inerrancy?], by ''[[GotQuestions]]'' | ||
| + | *[https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?], by ''[[GotQuestions]]'' | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Bible]] |
Revision as of 05:37, April 9, 2019
| |
| Bible | |
|
Sections About Concepts See also | |
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is without flaw or error.
There are differing views on inerrancy, ranging from it applying only to the Bible's spiritual teaching to it applying to the English-language Authorised (King James) version. Evangelicals hold that it applies to the original manuscripts.
Contents
Versions of inerrancy
All views of inerrancy are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be in error.
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 that the Bible is the actual Word of God, to be taken literally.[1]
Inerrant in original manuscripts
Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.[2]
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.[3]
Inerrant in English translation
A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today, that version being the King James Version. Those who hold that position are within the camp of believers known as King James only (though not all in this camp hold to the same viewpoint as to the extent of preservation).
The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV), Isaiah 40:8 (KJV), and Matthew 24:35 (KJV); and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.[4][5] 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.[6]
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.[7] As suggested earlier, many true Christians claim that statements in one language can be reduced to a logical propositional form and as such rendered in any other language with total fidelity.[8]
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.[9] They also ask why we should trust the Chicago Statement concerning God's Word instead of trusting God's Word concerning God's Word.
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).
This view is the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church.
See Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis).
Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy
In general, liberal Christians tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages[10] clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like homosexuality and the role of women. One problem which is seen with this view is that by rejecting the Bible or passages therein as inspired, due to their being contrary to a desired meaning or practice, then the authority of the Bible document itself loses its authority or relevance as a guide to morality and Christian behavior. It is reasoned that the Bible cannot be held as sacred if one arbitrarily decides that some of it isn't. Nor could someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word call on others to do so.
Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.[11]
Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the Documentary Source Hypothesis, which is contended against by many conservatives.[12]
Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an omnipotent God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for reasons that they never specify, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.[13]
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.[14]
Recommended books
- The Inerrancy Of The Bible by Dr. Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013
- Handbook For Analyzing Bible Difficulties (Integrated Apologetics) by Dr. Johnson C. Philip and Dr. Saneesh Cherian, Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2013
- New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan's Understand the Bible Reference Series) by Gleason Archer, Jr., HarperCollins Publishing, 2011
External links
- Contradictions in the Bible?, Answers in Genesis
- Inerrancy and the Test of Truth, Answers in Genesis
- Christian Debater
- Tekton Apologetics Ministries
- On the Inerrancy of Scripture - Licentiate thesis by Thomas Bolin
- Why is it important to believe in biblical inerrancy?, by GotQuestions
- Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?, by GotQuestions
Notes
- ↑ https://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx
- ↑ Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority
- ↑ Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
- ↑ Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement
- ↑ 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth'
- ↑ Bob Jones III
- ↑ Article X of the Statement says:
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.
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.
- ↑ Creation Ministries International: The Bible and hermeneutics
- ↑ Modern Denial of Preservation
- ↑ http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm
- ↑ Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
- ↑ THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?
- ↑ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion
- ↑ "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
