Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Myrvin (talk | contribs)
Myrvin (talk | contribs)
→‎Theological criticism: Not a definition of Theological criticism. Clarify.
Line 192:
=== Theological criticism ===
 
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often prefer the translations ofcite {{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:16|9}} as evidence that Scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations which render itthe verse as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible is 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>
''Theological criticism'' refers to criticisms which are that the Bible does not teach, or require, its own inerrancy.
 
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often prefer the translations of {{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:16|9}} that render it as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible is 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]].<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>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qOR8QDixIjcC&pg=PA113&dq=2+timothy+3:16+critic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=inG2U4HpEoHqPIa_gJAJ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=2%20timothy%203%3A16%20critic&f=false Griffith, MT, ''Refuting the Critics: Evidences of the Book of Mormon's Authenticity'', Cedar Fort, 1993, p. 129.]</ref></blockquote>