Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

Proponents of biblical inerrancy often cite {{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:16|9}} as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations which render the verse as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. [[C. H. Dodd]] argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." , nor does the verse define the [[Biblical canon]] to which "scripture" refers.<ref>Dodd, C. H. ''The Authority of the Bible'', London, 1960. p. 25.</ref>

In addition, [[Michael T. Griffith]], the [[Mormon]] apologist, writes<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 Ofof 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 Griffith, MT, ''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 |dead-url=yes |df= }}</ref> Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the [[Second Epistle of Peter]],{{Bibleref2c|2Peter|3:16|9|2 Pet 3:16}} as comparable to the Old Testament.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, p. 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985</ref>

Holman Bible Editorial, "[https://books.google.com/books?id=R9iLVBGZikUC&pg=PA51&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ''If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?: 130 Arguments for Christian Faith''],". B&H Publishing Group, 2012, p. 51.</ref>

In the introduction to his book ''Credible Christianity'', Anglican Bishop [[Hugh Montefiore]], makes this commentcomments:

{{bibleref2|Matthew|1:22–23|31}} reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The ''virgin'' will be with child and will give birth to a son, and ''they'' will call him Immanuel'—which means, 'God with us.'." Here Matthew quotes the prophet [[Isaiah]], but the [[Septuagint]], the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible he was using, was mistaken in its translation of the word ''[[almah]]'' ("עלמה") in {{Bibleref2|Isaiah|7:14}}:<blockquote>Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin [(''almah'')] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.</blockquote>

On this point, Browning's ''A Dictionary of the Bible'' states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek ''parthenos'' was used to translate the Hebrew ''almah'', which means a 'young woman{{'"}}.<ref>Browning, WRF, ''A dictionary of the Bible'', Oxford University Press, 2004. Entry for ''virgin birth''.</ref> The dictionary also notes that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the ''[[Encyclopedia Judaica]]'' calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".<ref>Skolnik, F., ''Encyclopedia Judaica'', 2nd Edition, 2006, Volume 20, p. 540.</ref>

Another writer, [[David Strauss]] in ''The Life of Jesus'', writes: "...&nbsp;that [the question] "ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife".<ref>Strauss, D. F. ''The life of Jesus'', Calvin Blanchard, NYNew York, 1860, p. 114.</ref>