Content deleted Content added
→Terms and opinions: Re-added Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to See Also, which was an attempt at removing errency in the Bible, and totally applies to this article. Before reverting, discuss it in the talk page and we can make our appeals to the wider community, otherwise this will turn into an edit war. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
m Task 16: replaced (10×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=; |
||
Line 11:
The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"<ref>[http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 |date=2012-05-08 }}</ref> held by the [[Catholic Church]], as expressed by the [[Second Vatican Council]], is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11/>
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|
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 inerrancy only to the [[King James Version|King James English translation]] made from the Textus Receptus.
Line 35:
During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the [[Genesis flood narrative|Noahide worldwide flood]],<ref>Plimer, Ian (1994), ''Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism'', Random House</ref> the [[Genesis creation narrative|creation in six days]], and the [[Adam and Eve|creation of women from a man's rib]]) began increasingly to be seen as legendary rather than as literally true. This led to further questioning of the veracity of biblical texts. According to an article in ''Theology Today'' published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate".<ref name="infallible">{{cite journal|last=Coleman|journal=Theology Today| volume = 31|issue = 4|year=1975|title=Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?|doi=10.1177/004057367503100404|first1=R. J.|pages=295}}</ref>
In the 1970s and 1980s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian [[seminary|seminaries]], such as [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] and [[Fuller Theological Seminary]], were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy. Fuller, for instance, explains:<blockquote>Where inerrancy refers to what the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://fuller.edu/About/Mission-and-Values/What-We-Believe-and-Teach/|title=What We Believe and Teach
This was among the controversies during the [[Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence]]; ultimately the SBC adopted the position that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible as outlined in their 2000 edition of the [[Baptist Faith and Message]].
Line 78:
manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.<ref name="Grudem90"/></blockquote>
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "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>{{cite web|url=http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf|title=Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy|access-date=2010-11-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A%26D.pdf|archive-date=2013-08-26|
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups.
Line 127:
=== Inductive justifications ===
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:
<blockquote>In his ''Inspiration and Authority of the Bible'',<ref name="Warfield 48">{{cite book|last1=Warfield|first1=Benjamin|authorlink=Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield|editor1-last=Craig|editor1-first=Samuel|others=with introduction by [[Cornelius Van Til]]|title=The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible|edition=1st|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company|location=[[Phillipsburg, New Jersey|Phillipsburg]], [[New Jersey]]|isbn=978-0-87552-527-3|oclc=223791198|year=1948|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/inspirationautho0000warf}}</ref> Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today's evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy|title=My Take on Inerrancy|author=Daniel B. Wallace|publisher=bible.com|accessdate=17 November 2010| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20101120210148/http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy| archivedate= 20 November 2010
==== Inspiration ====
Line 139:
==== Divine authority ====
For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.<ref>{{cite book|last=Engelder |first=Theodore E.W. |url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1 |title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture |page=27 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1934 |
==== Sufficiency ====
According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life,<ref>
{{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:15-17|31}}, {{bibleref2|John|5:39|31}}, {{bibleref2-nb|John|17:20|31}}, {{bibleref2|Psalm|19:7-8|31}}, {{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1|title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture|page=28|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1934}}</ref> and there are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with [[sacred tradition|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelation (Latter Day Saints)|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |page=13 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1910 |
== Clarifications ==
Line 169:
<blockquote>Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 ... this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect", or "inerrant", or "infallible", or "all-sufficient". If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy ... What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs of the pastoral ministry. The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the [[book of Enoch]].<ref>Griffith, M. T. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=qOR8QDixIjcC&pg=PA113&dq=2+timothy+3:16+critic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=inG2U4HpEoHqPIa_gJAJ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2%20timothy%203%3A16%20critic&f=false Refuting the Critics: Evidences of the Book of Mormon's Authenticity]''. Cedar Fort, 1993, p. 129.</ref></blockquote>
The Catholic [[New Jerusalem Bible]] also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, study edition, p. 1967, DLT 1994</ref> Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website notes that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn. ... it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which scripture is declared to be 'profitable' are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the 'man of God'). Not a word addresses the use of scripture by the laity."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition |title=''Veritas Bible'' Sacred Tradition |access-date=2014-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714162709/http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition#906-profitable--i-e---ot-is-useful-- |archive-date=2014-07-14 |
The view that biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to [[prooftext]]s that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as [[circular reasoning]], because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant.<ref>
| |||