Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

: The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period.<ref>Montefiore, Hugh. ''Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society'', London: Mowbray, 1993; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994. p. 5. ISBN 0-8028-3768-9</ref>

 

 

Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to [[Logos (Christianity)|Christ himself]] as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as [[kerygma]]. However, biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' p.72ff, SCM 1977.</ref> The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in [[neo-orthodoxy]]. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' pp.218-219 SCM 1977</ref> All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part<ref>[[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] claims of the [[Ethical Decalogue]] and [[Ritual Decalogue]] that these are God's word.</ref>—the Word of God is not clear. However, some argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge.<ref>Brown, RE., ''The Critical Meaning of the Bible'', Paulist Press, 1981.</ref>