Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

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 providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy".<ref name="ChicX">''Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy'': "Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."

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. This is sometimes called [[Textus Receptus]] Onlyism, as it is believed the text by this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original.This position is based the idea that only the original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. There are others who not only believe the original text has been supernaturally preserved without error in its copies, but that the English translation made from that supposed perfect manuscript was also supernaturally composed. This position is known by its opponents as [[King James Only movement|King James Onlyism or KJV Onlyism. One of its most vocal, prominent and thorough proponents is [[Peter Ruckman]]. His followers are generally known as Ruckmanites. He is generally considered by many to hold the most extreme form of this position. Others take a position, which is less extreme which states that only the [[Textus Receptus]] (Latin for received text) has been preserved in its entirety without error from the time of [[the Apostles]]. This less extreme position us based the idea that only the Original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. Ultimately both positions suffer from the same historical and textual problems, but KJV Onlyism adds another layer of difficulty to overcome.