Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 1 edit by 50.200.242.34 (talk) to last revision by Bookku |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 13:
Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in American evangelicalism than in British [[evangelicalism]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Crisp|first1=Oliver D.|title=A British Perspective on Evangelicalism|url=https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/|website=Fuller Magazine|publisher=[[Fuller Theological Seminary]]|accessdate=18 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328014642/https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/|archive-date=2016-03-28|url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Holmes|first1=Stephen R.|title=The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology|chapter=British (and European) Evangelical Theologies|date=2007|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|page=254|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vlmXBe0RPxYC&pg=PA254|accessdate=18 April 2016}}</ref>
A minority of biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. "[[Textus Receptus]] onlyism" holds that the Greek text of this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. The [[King James Only movement]] ascribes manifest inerrancy today only to the [[King James Version|King James English translation]] made from the Textus Receptus.
== Terms and opinions ==
| |||