Content deleted Content added
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) m →Deductive justifications: corr. |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 107:
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W. J. Mcrea writes:<blockquote>
The Bible then makes two basic claims: it asserts unequivocally that God cannot lie and that the Bible is the Word of God. It is primarily from a combination of these facts that the argument for inerrancy comes.<ref>McRea, WJ, ''A book to die for'', Clements publishing, 2002.</ref></blockquote>And Grenz has: <blockquote>
Because God cannot lie and because scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept.<ref>Grenz, SJ, ''Theology for the community of God'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000</ref></blockquote> Also, from Geisler:<blockquote>Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.<ref name="Geisler1980">{{cite book |first = Norman L. |last=Geisler |title=Inerrancy |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=e6IlzfPztMUC&pg=PA271 |year=1980 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-39281-1 |page=271 }}</ref></blockquote>
A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in {{Bibleref2|Galatians|3:16}}, [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.<ref name="Bible 1984">"Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P. D. Feinberg, in ''[[Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]]'' (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)</ref>
| |||