Content deleted Content added
Fixed broken link for "phenomenological" |
|||
Line 42:
== Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions ==
Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible can disagree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be claimed to be inerrant.<ref>Cowan, SB. and Wilder, TL., ''In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture'', B&H Publishing Group, 2013, p. 55.[
== Textual tradition of the New Testament ==
Line 128:
=== 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}}</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 But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.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=
==== Inspiration ====
Line 134:
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.<ref>
{{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:16|50}}, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|2:13|50}}, {{bibleverse|1|Thessalonians|2:13|50}}, {{Bibleref2|Romans|3:2|50}}, {{bibleverse|2|Peter|1:21|50}}, {{bibleverse|2|Samuel|23:2|50}}, {{Bibleref2|Hebrews|1:1|50}}, {{Bibleref2|John|10:35|50}}, {{Bibleref2-nb ||John|16:13|50}}, {{Bibleref2-nb||John|17:17|50}}, {{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=
However, the 19th century Anglican biblical scholar [[Samuel Rolles Driver|S. R. Driver]] held a contrary view, saying that, "as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error".<ref>Driver, S.R., Church Congress speech, cited in F.W. Farrar, ''The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy'', Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897.</ref> Similarly, J.K. Mozley, an early 20th-century Anglican theologian has argued:
Line 140:
==== 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=
{{bibleref2|Jeremiah|8:9|31}}, {{bibleref2|Jeremiah|23:26|31}}, {{bibleref2|Isaiah|8:19-20|31}}, {{bibleverse|1|Corinthians|14:37|31}}, {{bibleref2|Galatians|1:8|31}}, {{bibleref2|Acts|17:11|31}}, {{bibleref2|Acts|15:14-15|31}}, {{cite book|last=Graebner|first=Augustus Lawrence|url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt|title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology|pages=8–10|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1910}}{{dead link|date=June 2012}}</ref> Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.<ref>{{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:13|31}}, {{bibleverse|2|Corinthians|1:20|31}}, {{bibleref2|Titus|1:2-3|31}}, {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:15|31}}, {{bibleverse|2|Peter|1:19|31}},
{{cite book|last=Graebner|first=Augustus Lawrence|url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt|title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology|pages=8–9|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1910}}{{dead link|date=June 2012}}</ref> Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–11 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1910 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/20060712193848/http://showcase.netins.net:80/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |archivedate=July 12, 2006 }}</ref>
Line 146:
==== 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=
== Clarifications ==
Line 154:
=== Limitations ===
Many who believe in the ''inspiration'' of scripture teach that it is ''[[biblical infallibility|infallible]]'' but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its [[
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that [[Biblical inspiration|God's inspiration]] guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.<ref>[[s:Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy|"Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"]], Article VIII</ref>
Line 161:
=== Metaphor and literalism ===
Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical and which are literally true. [[Jeffrey Burton Russell|Jeffrey Russell]] writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words - which I call the overt reading - is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds: <blockquote>Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.<ref>[
Also, figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple [[genre]]s and Hebrew prose [[Poetry|poems]] cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science [[textbook]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/|title=When is the Bible metaphorical?|work=Jesus Creed}}</ref>
Line 170:
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 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>[
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, page 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>[http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition#906-profitable--i-e---ot-is-useful-- ''Veritas Bible'' Sacred Tradition.]</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, page 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985</ref>
Line 228:
* Ethelbert W. Bullinger, ''Figures of Speech Used in the Bible'' Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
* [[Gleason Archer]], 2001. ''New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties''. ISBN 0-310-24146-4
* {{Cite journal| last = Finkelstein| first = Israel| authorlink = Israel Finkelstein| last2 = Silberman| first2 = Neil Asher| title = The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts| publisher = Simon and Schuster| location = New York| year = 2001| isbn = 0-7432-2338-1| url =
* Herzog, Ze'ev. "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". [[Ha'aretz]] October 29, 1999. Web: [http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 Deconstructing the walls of Jericho].
* [[John Walvoord]] (1990). ''What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life''. ISBN 0-929239-31-8
| |||