Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 4 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta5)
fix archive
Line 38:
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 [[Biblical infallibility|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|last=|first=|date=|website=Fuller Theological Seminary|language=en|archive-url=https://perma-archives.orgcc/warc/19700101000100///http://fuller.edu/About/Mission7QDT-and-Values/What-We-Believe-and-Teach/R7ZM|archive-date=121 JanuaryOctober 19702017|dead-url=no|access-date=21 October 2017|df=dmy-all}}{{cbignore}}</ref></blockquote>The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' and the book entitled ''The Battle for the Bible'' by Harold Lindsell.<ref>Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref> The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|Conservative Christians]] rallied behind this idea.
 
== Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions ==