Content deleted Content added
Rm merge tag - seems to be settled. |
m WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (10839) |
||
Line 4:
{{Bible related}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''', as formulated in the "[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]", is the [[doctrine]] that the [[Bible]] "is without error or fault in all its teaching";<ref>Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., ''Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.</ref> or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".<ref name="Grudem90">{{Cite book|first=Wayne A.|last=Grudem|authorlink=Wayne Grudem|title=Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine|publisher=[[Inter-Varsity Press]]|location=[[Leicester]]|year=1994|page=90|isbn=978-0-85110-652-6|oclc=29952151}}</ref>
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' in 1978.<ref>"Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' vol. 21 no. 4 (December 1978), 289-296.[http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf]</ref> The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the
Line 137:
Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the [[Old Testament]], the argument is considered by some to extend to the [[New Testament]] writings, because {{Bibleref2|2Peter|3:16|NIV|2 Peter 3:16}} accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters...which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures".{{Bibleref2c|2Peter|3:16|NIV|2 Pet. 3:16}} <ref>[http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=88104&category=REF Bible, Inspiration of], by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, in "''Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology''", Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker, 1996</ref>
=== Inductive justifications ===
Line 181 ⟶ 180:
=== 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>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QGU3rN6k7mAC&pg=PA155&dq=metaphor+literal+bible+pope+benedict&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JBK1U-v0NIHaOY6MgAg&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=metaphor%20literal%20&f=false Russell, J.B., ''Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven--and How We Can Regain It'', Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 14 & 129.]</ref></blockquote>
Also, figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple [[
== Criticism ==
Line 274 ⟶ 273:
== External links ==
* [http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-bible.htm Presbyterian Church beliefs of the Bible]
* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#104 Roman Catholic Church beliefs of the Bible]
Line 291 ⟶ 289:
* [http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=73 Isaac Newton's Views on the Corruption of Scripture]
* [http://www.thenazareneway.com/textual_analysis/most_notable_corruptions.htm The Two Most Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Isaac Newton]
{{Christian theology}}
| |||