Content deleted Content added
Enervation (talk | contribs) Added content from Biblical infallibility (for merge) because the difference is too convoluted to be meaningful |
Undid revision 646114477 by Enervation (talk)There has been no discussion about this. |
||
Line 1:
{{About|the Christian doctrinal position|Jewish doctrinal positions|Rabbinic literature}}
{{distinguish|Biblical infallibility}}
{{Bible related}}
Line 12 ⟶ 13:
</ref>
Some equate ''inerrancy'' with ''[[biblical infallibility|infallibility]]''; others do not.<ref>McKim, DK, ''Westminster dictionary of theological terms'', Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.</ref><ref>Geisler, N. L. (ed), ''Inerrancy'', Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament.... The attempt to discriminate...seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref> Biblical inerrancy should not be confused with [[Biblical literalism]].
There are a minority of biblical inerrantists who go further than the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time.
Line 21 ⟶ 22:
== Terms and opinions ==
{{see also|Biblical inspiration|Biblical infallibility|Biblical literalism|Biblical authority|Criticism of the Bible|Internal consistency of the Bible|Science and the Bible|The Bible and history}}
The word ''inerrancy'' is formed from the word ''inerrant'', from the Latin ''inerrāntem'', (being in- + errāntem the present participle of errāre to err or wander). It is defined by the [[Oxford English Dictionary]] as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary''.</ref>
Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there ''can be'' no errors".<ref>Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.inerrancy.html]</ref> Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy. '" [[Harold Lindsell|Lindsell]] (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".<ref>[[Harold Lindsell|Lindsell, Harold]]. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978, p.31. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4</ref>
According to H. Chaim Schimmel, [[Judaism]] had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the [[Hebrew Bible]], hence the co-existence of the [[Oral Torah]].<ref>Schimmel, H. Chaim, ''The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh'', 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp.19-21</ref>
Within [[Christianity]], some mainstream [[Evangelical]] and [[Protestant]] groups adhere to the current inerrancy of [[Scripture]] as it reads today. However, some note that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".<ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'', "Evangelicalism".</ref>
The [[Catholic Church]]'s
Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.<ref name="inerrancy">
Line 47 ⟶ 44:
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. 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
▲In the 1970s and 1980s, 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 {{citation needed span|text=while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.|date=February 2015}}
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.
Line 242 ⟶ 236:
* [[An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]]
* [[Biblical hermeneutics]]
* [[Biblical infallibility]]
* [[Biblical literalism]]
* [[Bibliolatry]]
|