Content deleted Content added
ShelfSkewed (talk | contribs) →The teaching of Vatican II: dab link |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, isbn, template type. Added publisher. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Articles with limited geographic scope from June 2024 | #UCB_Category 46/52 |
||
| (122 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
{{Bible related}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the [[belief]] 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 [[manuscript]]s does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".<ref name="Grudem90">{{Cite book |first=Wayne A. |last=Grudem |author-link=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> Some equate inerrancy with [[biblical infallibility]]; others do not.<ref name="McKim, DK 1996">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's 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>
The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of [[evangelicalism]], where it is formulated in the "[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]". Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in [[Evangelicalism in the United States|American evangelicalism]] than in [[Evangelicalism#Great Britain|British evangelicalism]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Crisp |first1=Oliver D. |title=A British Perspective on Evangelicalism |url=https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/ |website=Fuller Magazine |publisher=[[Fuller Theological Seminary]] |access-date=18 April 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328014642/https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/ |archive-date=2016-03-28 |url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Holmes |first1=Stephen R. |title=The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology |chapter=British (and European) Evangelical Theologies |date=2007 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |page=254 |isbn=9781139827508 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vlmXBe0RPxYC&pg=PA254 |access-date=18 April 2016}}</ref>{{Globalize inline|date=June 2024}}
The [[Catholic Church]] also holds belief in biblical inerrancy. The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture",<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|url-status= dead|title=Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"|archivedate=May 8, 2012}}</ref> as expressed by the [[Second Vatican Council]], is that "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11/>
== Terms and positions ==
Line 19 ⟶ 14:
{{glossary}}
{{term|Inerrancy}}
{{defn|The word ''inerrancy'' comes from the [[English language|English]] word ''inerrant'', from the Latin {{lang|la|inerrantem}}, (parsable as {{lang|la|in-}} + {{lang|la|errantem}} – the accusative singular present participle of {{lang|la|errāre}} – "to err" or "wander"). The [[Oxford English Dictionary]] defines ''inerrant'' as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."<ref>{{oed|inerrant}}</ref>}}
{{term|Complete and restricted inerrancy}}
{{defn|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" /> Other Christians believe that the scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.<ref name="Tolerance">Robinson, B.A. "Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error? All points of view". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008-SEP-01. Web: 25 January 2010. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error?']</ref>}}
{{term|Inerrancy and Infallibility}}
{{defn|Some theologians speak of the "infallibility" of the Bible. This can be understood in one of three ways.
* Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably.
* For others, "inerrancy" refers to complete inerrancy and "infallibility" to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.<ref name="McKim, DK 1996">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's own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament{{nbsp}}[...] The attempt to discriminate{{nbsp}}[...] seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref> On this understanding, "infallibility" claims less than "inerrancy".
* Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; "infallible" means there {{em|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 acknowledges that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.{{'"}} [[Harold Lindsell]] states: "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>}}
{{glossary end}}
===Positions===
* [[Judaism]]:
* [[Catholic Church]]:
* [[Evangelical Christianity]]: Evangelicals generally affirm that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is inspired by God and is the final authority on matters of faith and practice. However, there is an ongoing debate between two primary factions:
#The inerrant view - the Bible is absolutely inerrant on all matters that it affirms.
#The infallible but not inerrant view - while the Bible is infallible in that it does not fail believers when trusted to do what God inspired it to do, it is not absolutely inerrant in all matters it affirms, especially in some of its tangential scientific and historical statements.<ref>Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, Third edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2022), 3.</ref>
== History ==
According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here 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."<ref name="infallible">{{cite journal|last1=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=295–303|s2cid=170389190}}</ref> The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-[[Reformation]] period.<ref name="hendel">Hendel, Ronald. "The Dream of a Perfect Text: Textual Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy in Early Modern Europe," in e.d. Collins, J.J., ''Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy'', Brill, 2017, 517-541, esp. 524-531. On pg. 529, Hendel writes "The doctrine of uniform inerrancy in the literal sense across all details is an innovation of the Catholic-Protestant polemics after [[Council of Trent|Trent]]."</ref>
=== Early Church ===
[[Origen of Alexandria]] thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things" (''Commentary on John'' 10.4).
Later, [[John Chrysostom]] was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:
{{
John D. Woodbridge disputes this claim about Chrysostom writing, "In fact, Chrysostom apparently believed in biblical infallibility extended to every detail. He does not set forth a comprehensive discussion of the subject, but scholars who have surveyed the corpus of his work usually affirm that this is case."<ref name=woodbridge>Woodbridge, John. ''Biblical Authority'', Zondervan, 1982, 35.</ref>
In his ''Commentary on Galatians'', [[Jerome]] also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|2:11–14}}</ref> for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.<ref>Cohen, Shaye J. D. ''The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. Vol. 31.'' University of California Press, 1999, 368.</ref> In response, [[Augustine]] rebuked Jerome's interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture:<ref name="wood">Woodbridge, John. "Evangelical Self-Identity and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy", in ''Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday'', Crossway, 2011, 111.</ref>
{{
{{blockquote|For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the {{abbr|manuscript|Ms.}} is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason|''Letters of St Augustine'' 82.3}}
However, [[John D. Hannah]] argues that Jerome did indeed affirm the historical nature of the Bible. For example, Jerome believed in the historicity of the book of Jonah.<ref name=Hannah>Hannah, John. "The Doctrine of Scripture in the Early Church", in ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 35.</ref> He further argues that while Origen resorted to allegorical interpretation, he held a high view of inerrancy.<ref name=hannah>Hannah, John. "The Doctrine of Scripture in the Early Church", in ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 32.</ref>
Biblical inerrancy adherents say that the Early Church Fathers did hold to biblical inerrancy, even if it was not articulated that way. In particular, Shawn Nelson cites [[Clement of Rome]], Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, [[the Shepherd of Hermas]], the [[Didache]], and the [[Epistle to Diognetus]] as examples of those whom held to inerrancy.<ref name=Nelson>Nelson, Shawn. "A Voice from a New Generation: What's at Stake?", in ''Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate'', Wipf and Stock, 2015, 28.</ref>
[[Clement of Rome]] said to his readers:<ref name=Brannan>Brannan, Rick, trans. "1 Clement", in ''The Apostolic Fathers: Greek-English Interlinear'', Logos Bible Software, 2011, 45:2-3.</ref>
{{blockquote|You have looked into the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unrighteous or falsified is written in them.|''[[First Epistle of Clement]]'' 45:2-3}}
=== Medieval era ===
Some scholars suggest the medieval church fathers held to the divine origin of scripture and believed there could not be any error in scripture.<ref name=geisler>Geisler, Norman. ''Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible'', Zondervan, 1982, 38.</ref> The most prominent theologian of the [[Medieval era]] was [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas wrote:
{{blockquote|It is heretical to say that any falsehood whatever is contained either in the Gospels or in any canonical Scripture.|''In Job'' 13. Lect. 1}}
Another theologian, [[Hugh of St. Victor]], is known for stressing the importance of the historical and literal senses of the Bible.<ref name=Johnson>Johnson, John F. "Biblical Authority and Scholastic Theology" in ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 76.</ref> He wrote:
{{blockquote|The mystical sense is only gathered from what the letter says, in the first place. I wonder how people have the face to boast themselves teachers of allegory, when they do not know the primary meaning of the letter. "We read the Scriptures," they say, "but we don't read the letter. The letter does not interest us. We teach allegory." How do you read Scripture then, if you don't read the letter? Subtract the letter and what is left?|''De Scripturis V'' 5:13-15}}
=== Reformation era ===
By the time of the [[Reformation]], there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy. Although the term was not used, some scholars argue the Reformers did believe in the concept of inerrancy.<ref name=geis>Geisler, Norman L., ''Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible'', Zondervan, 1982, 39.</ref>
For [[Martin Luther]] (
The [[Christian humanism|Christian humanist]] and one of the leading scholars of the [[northern Renaissance]], [[Erasmus]] (
The same point of view held true for [[John Calvin]] (1509–1564), who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences."<ref name="hendel" /> However, Calvin also said that Scripture is the "certain and unerring rule."<ref name=Geisler>Geisler, Norman L. ''Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible'', Zondervan 1982, 45-48.</ref> Calvin scholars are divided on whether Calvin actually held to inerrancy or not. Some scholars such as [[Jack B. Rogers]] and [[Donald McKim]] said Calvin "was unconcerned with normal, human inaccuracies in minor matters" in Scripture.<ref name=mckim>Rogers, Jack B., and McKim, Donald K. ''The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach'', San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979, 109.</ref> Other scholars such as John D. Woodbridge and [[J.I. Packer]] said Calvin did adhere to a position equivalent to biblical inerrancy.<ref name=packer>Packer, J.I. "John Calvin and the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture," in ed. Hannah, John D., ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 143-188.</ref><ref name=Woodbridge>Woodbridge, John D. ''Biblical Authority'', Zondervan, 1982, 57-63.</ref>
The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the [[Council of Trent]] only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morales", [[Jesuit]] [[Cardinal (Catholic Church)|cardinal]] [[Robert Bellarmine]] (
During the 18th and 19th centuries and in the aftermath of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] critique of religion, 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 rather than as literally true. This led to further questioning of the veracity of biblical texts.
== Modern Protestant discussion ==
The [[Fuller Theological Seminary]] formally adopted inerrancy restricted to theological matters (what some authors now call "infallibility"). It explained:
{{
A more comprehensive position was espoused particularly in the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' and the book entitled ''The Battle for the Bible'' by Harold Lindsell. Lindsell asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|
=== Arguments in favour of inerrancy ===
Line 93 ⟶ 111:
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W. J. Mcrea writes:
{{
[[Stanley Grenz]] states that:
{{
Also, from Geisler:
{{
A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in Galatians 3:16,<ref>{{Bibleverse|Galatians|3:16}}</ref> [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as stated) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.<ref name="Bible 1984">"Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P. D. Feinberg, in ''[[Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]]'' (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)</ref>
Line 109 ⟶ 127:
{{blockquote|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.|Matthew 5:18 KJV<ref>{{Bibleverse|Matthew|5:18|KJV}}</ref>}}
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 2 Peter 3:16<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3:16|NIV}}</ref> 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".<ref>[http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=88104&category=REF Bible, Inspiration of] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/
==== Inductive justifications ====
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:
{{
=====Inspiration=====
In the [[Nicene Creed]], Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal [[Stone-Campbell movement]]. As stated by [[Alister E. McGrath]], "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which speaks of scripture as 'God-breathed' ({{transliteration|grc|theopneustos}})". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century".<ref>McGrath, Alister E., ''Christian Theology: An Introduction'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994; 3rd ed. 2001. p. 176.</ref>
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.<ref>{{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1|title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture|page=[https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1/page/n55 26]|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1934}}</ref> The Lutheran [[Apology of the Augsburg Confession]] identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God<ref>"God's Word, or Holy Scripture" from the [http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_2_originalsin.php Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, of Original Sin]{{Dead link|date=May 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible.<ref>"the Scripture of the Holy Ghost". [http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_greeting.php Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Preface, 9]{{Dead link|date=March 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Because of this, Lutherans confess in the [[Formula of Concord]], "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the [[Hebrew Scriptures|prophetic]] and [[apostolic Scriptures]] of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php|title=The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord|access-date=2009-03-15|archive-date=2020-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200228130027/http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php|url-status=dead}}</ref> Lutherans (and other Protestants) believe apocryphal books are neither inspired nor written by prophets, and that they contain errors and were never included in the "Palestinian Canon" that Jesus and the Apostles are said to have used,<ref>See [http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CANON. BIBLE Bible, Canon in the Christian Cyclopedia] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071220131723/http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CANON |date=December 20, 2007 }}</ref> and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture.<ref name="Engelder 1934 27">{{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1|title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture|page=[https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1/page/n56 27]|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1934}}</ref> The prophetic and apostolic scriptures are authentic as written by the prophets and apostles. A correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Hebrew and Greek.<ref name="Engelder 1934 27" /> A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.<ref name="Engelder 1934 27" />
However, the 19th-century Anglican biblical scholar [[Samuel Rolles Driver|S. R. Driver]] held a contrary view, saying that, "as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error".<ref>Driver, S.R., Church Congress speech, cited in F.W. Farrar, ''The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy'', Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897.</ref> Similarly, [[J. K. Mozley]], an early 20th-century Anglican theologian has argued:
Line 131 ⟶ 149:
====Clarifications====
=====Accuracy vs. truth=====
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (as opposed to accurate).<ref name="Lindsell">Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible'', Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1976), p. 38.</ref> He says there are expressly false statements in the Bible, but they are reported accurately.<ref name="Lindsell" /> He notes that "All the Bible does, for example in the case of Satan, is to report what Satan actually said. Whether what he said was true or false is another matter. Christ stated that the devil is a liar".<ref name="Lindsell" />
=====Inerrancy vs. infallibility=====
Many who believe in the ''inspiration'' of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its [[Phenomenology of religion|phenomenological]] nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.<ref name="inerrancy" />
=====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 [[Literal and figurative language|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:
{{
Figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have also argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple [[genre]]s and Hebrew prose [[Poetry|poems]] cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science [[textbook]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/|title=When is the Bible metaphorical?|work=Jesus Creed|date=5 May 2012}}</ref>
Line 154 ⟶ 168:
Proponents of Biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16<ref>{{bibleverse|2 Timothy|3:16}}</ref> as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations that render the verse as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be 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> In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the [[Mormon]] apologist, writes:
{{
The Catholic [[New Jerusalem Bible]] also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, study edition, p. 1967, DLT 1994</ref> Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website says that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn.{{nbsp}}[...] it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which scripture is declared to be 'profitable' are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the 'man of God'). Not a word addresses the use of scripture by the laity."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition |title=''Veritas Bible'' Sacred Tradition |access-date=2014-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714162709/http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition#906-profitable--i-e---ot-is-useful-- |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the [[Second Epistle of Peter]],<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3:16}}</ref> as comparable to the Old Testament.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, p. 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985</ref>
The view that Biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to [[prooftext]]s that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as [[circular reasoning]], because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant.<ref>
Holman Bible Editorial, "[https://books.google.com/books?id=R9iLVBGZikUC&pg=PA51
In the introduction to his book ''Credible Christianity'', Anglican Bishop [[Hugh Montefiore]], comments:
Line 168 ⟶ 182:
[[William John Lyons]] quoted [[William Wrede]] and [[Hermann Gunkel]], who affirmed: "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology{{nbsp}}[...] the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".<ref name="Lyons2002">{{cite book|first=William John|last=Lyons|title=Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bVqvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=1 July 2002|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-40343-8|page=17|quote=On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against biblical theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).}}</ref>
In general, [[liberal Christianity]] has no problem with the fact that the Bible has errors and contradictions.<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21">{{cite book | last=Chryssides | first=George D. | title=Christianity Today: An Introduction | publisher=Bloomsbury Academic | series=Religion Today | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-84706-542-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4FSGhhjtU-UC&pg=PA21 | access-date=30 August 2020 | page=21}}</ref> Liberal Christians reject the dogma of inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible,<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21"/> which they see as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112"
[[John Shelby Spong]], author and former bishop of the Episcopal Church who was well-known for his [[Post-theism|post-theistic]] theology, declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is [[heresy]].<ref name="Chellew-Hodge 2016">{{cite web | last=Chellew-Hodge | first=Candace | title=Why It Is Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong | website=Religion Dispatches | date=24 February 2016 | url=https://religiondispatches.org/why-it-is-heresy-to-read-the-bible-literally-an-interview-with-john-shelby-spong/ | access-date=19 June 2021}}</ref><ref name="Spong2016">{{cite book|first=John Shelby|last=Spong|title=Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wuH1CQAAQBAJ|date=16 February 2016|publisher=HarperOne|isbn=978-0-06-236233-9|page=22|chapter=Stating the Problem, Setting the Stage|quote=To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call 'midrash.' Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.}}</ref>
Line 175 ⟶ 189:
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'' pp. 72ff, SCM 1977.</ref> The idea of the Bible itself as the 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. 218–19 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>
There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something written. The reference is to the [[Ten Commandments|Decalogue]]. However, most other references are to reported speech preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements that refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2,<ref>{{Bibleverse|Romans|3:2}}</ref> d (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of [[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]], which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings ''about'' God, such as [[Eliphaz (Job)|Eliphaz]] (Job 42:7)<ref>{{Bibleverse|Job|42:7}}</ref> and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to humanity was at the root of a lively medieval controversy.<ref>Uriel Simon, "Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms" chap. 1</ref> The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God.<ref>Alexander Ryrie, "Deliver Us From Evil", DLT 2004</ref>
While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that this is because the Biblical canon was not closed. In 1 Thessalonians 2:23<ref>{{Bibleverse|1 Thessalonians|2:13|NIV}}</ref> the [[apostle Paul]] wrote to the church in [[Thessalonica]], "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God."<ref>Nürnberger, K., ''Biblical Theology in Outline: The Vitality of the Word of God'', Cluster Publications, 2004, p. 65.</ref>
Line 184 ⟶ 198:
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the [[King James Only movement]]. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult-to-translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.<ref>See Encyclical Letter of 1893 quoted in Schwarz, W., ''Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Controversies and Their Background'', CUP Archive, 1955, p. 11.</ref>
Browning's ''A Dictionary of the Bible'' states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek {{transliteration|grc|parthenos}} was used to translate the Hebrew {{transliteration|hbo|almah}}, which means a 'young woman{{'"}}.<ref>Browning, WRF, ''A dictionary of the Bible'', Oxford University Press, 2004. Entry for ''virgin birth''.</ref> The dictionary also says that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the ''[[Encyclopedia Judaica]]'' calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".<ref>Skolnik, F., ''Encyclopedia Judaica'', 2nd Edition, 2006, Volume 20, p. 540.</ref>
Another writer, [[David Strauss]] in ''The Life of Jesus'', writes that the question "ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife".<ref>Strauss, D. F. ''The life of Jesus'', Calvin Blanchard, New York, 1860, p. 114.</ref>
=== Autographic texts and modern versions ===
Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible do not all agree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be said to be inerrant.<ref>Cowan, SB. and Wilder, TL., ''In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture'', B&H Publishing Group, 2013, p. 55.[https://books.google.com/books?id=ChpkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA55]</ref> Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts.<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".
</ref> [[Robert Saucy]], for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SqL8-Gg96KUC&pg=PT130|title=Scripture|first=Robert|last=Saucy|date=June 9, 2001|publisher=Thomas Nelson|isbn=9781418557478|via=Google Books}}</ref> ==== Textual tradition of the New Testament ====
{{See also|Biblical canon|Bible translations|Textual criticism of the New Testament}}Most of these manuscripts date to the [[Middle Ages]]. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], which includes two other books (the [[Epistle of Barnabas]] and [[The Shepherd of Hermas]]) not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]] which dates from 125–175 AD,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Orsini, Pasquale and Clarysse, Willy (2012) "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates; A Critique of Theological Palaeography", Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88/4, p. 470}}</ref> recent research pointing to a date nearer to 200 AD.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/what-is-the-significance/|title=What is the significance of this fragment? by the University of Manchester}}</ref>
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts that preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.<ref>See Ehrman, ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'', p. 219</ref> According to [[Bart D. Ehrman|Bart Ehrman]]:
Line 211 ⟶ 219:
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.<ref>Moorman, Jack, ''Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?'', Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages</ref>
Some modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.<ref>See e.g. ''The HCSB Student Bible'', B&H Publishing Group, 2007, p. iv.</ref><ref>{{cite book
|editor-last = Mays
|editor-first = James
Line 227 ⟶ 233:
Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian [[Wayne Grudem]] writes:
{{
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf |title=Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy |access-date=2010-11-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A%26D.pdf |archive-date=2013-08-26 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
Line 238 ⟶ 244:
=====King James Only inerrantists=====
A faction of those in the "[[King James Only movement]]" rejects the whole discipline of [[textual criticism]] and holds that the translators of the [[King James Version]] English Bible were guided by God and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. One of its most vocal, prominent and thorough proponents was [[Peter Ruckman]]
=====Michael Licona=====
In 2010, [[Michael Licona]] published a book defending the resurrection of Jesus called, ''The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach''. In one part of the book, Licona raised questions about the literal interpretation of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53. He suggests the passage of scripture is an apocalyptic genre.<ref name=licona>Licona, Michael. ''The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach'', Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. 34.</ref> Scholars such as Norman Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of the Bible in general and the Gospel narratives in particular.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Christopher |title=Mike Licona on Inerrancy: It's Worse than We Originally Thought – NORMAN GEISLER |url=https://normangeisler.com/mike-licona-on-inerrancy-its-worse-than-we-originally-thought/ |access-date=2023-11-26 |language=en-US}}</ref> As a result, Licona resigned from his position as research professor of New Testament at [[Southern Evangelical Seminary]] and apologetics coordinator for the [[North American Mission Board]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jr |first=Bobby Ross |date=2011-11-07 |title=Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate |url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html |access-date=2023-11-26 |website=ChristianityToday.com |language=en}}</ref>
== Modern Catholic discussion ==
=== Before Vatican II ===
[[St. John Henry Newman]], writing in 1884, acknowledged the "human side" of biblical inspiration which "manifests itself in language, style, tone of thought, character, intellectual peculiarities, and such infirmities, not sinful, as belong to our nature, and which in unimportant matters may issue in what in doctrinal definitions is called an obiter dictum (said in passing).” In this view, the Bible contains many statements of a historical nature that have no salvific content in themselves and so need not be inerrant.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wherepeteris.com/biblical-inerrancy-for-catholics-dei-verbum-chapter-3/|title=Biblical inerrancy for Catholics: Dei Verbum, chapter 3}}</ref> Often called the “absent father of Vatican II” (absent because he died 72 years before it began), the wording of [[Dei Verbum]] recalls Newman’s position. The theologians who wrote it knew and positively appreciated his views.<ref>Juan Velez Giraldo, “Newman’s Influence on Vatican II’s Constitution Dei Verbum,” Scripta Theologica 51 (2019): 711-40</ref>
Pope [[Leo XIII]], in his 1893 encyclical {{lang|la|[[Providentissimus Deus]]}}, addressed attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible regarding descriptions of physical phenomena.<ref name=":0" /> He explained that descriptions of physical events in the Bible are meant to manifest religious truths, and not to describe the physical events themselves.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Belmonte |first=Charles |url=https://fsubelmonte.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/7/1/19715887/fsu1.pdf |title=Faith Seeking Understanding |publisher=Studium Theologiae Foundation, Inc. |year=2006 |isbn=971-91060-4-2 |editor-last=Belmonte |editor-first=Charles |edition=2nd |volume=I |location=Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines |pages=122–123 |access-date=May 17, 2023}}</ref> He also explained that the inspiration that the Holy Spirit gave to the hagiographers did not extend to the explanations of natural phenomena; hence, the hagiographers wrote about natural phenomena as they were commonly observed and in terms of everyday language.<ref name=":0" /> He also explained that the hagiographers sometimes described natural phenomena using metaphors.<ref name=":0" /> He also explained that there could not be real conflict between biblical descriptions of natural phenomena and science, because the hagiographers did not intend to describe natural phenomena scientifically, and because God is the author of the Bible.<ref name=":0" />
Another controversy with regard to the inerrancy of the Bible was regarding historicity of the events narrated in it.<ref name=":0" />
Some of the theories proposed regarding the inerrancy of the Bible with regard to the historicity of events narrated in it are the theory of "history according to appearances", which posits that the Bible describes events according to popular versions of them; and the "theory of implicit quotations", which posits that in writing the Bible, the hagiographers were only quoting what they thought somebody else said.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Belmonte |first=Charles |title=Faith Seeking Understanding |publisher=Studium Theologiae Foundation |year=2006 |isbn=971-91060-4-2 |editor-last=Belmonte |editor-first=Charles |edition=2nd |volume=I |location=Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines |pages=123}}</ref> These theories are contrary to the Catholic teaching that the events narrated in the Bible are truly historical.<ref name=":2" />
=== Vatican II ===
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2023}}
After a week's debate, 62% of the assembled bishops voted to reject the draft on Revelation.<ref>{{cite book|author=John W. O'Malley|title=What Happened at Vatican II|publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press|year=2008|page=150}}</ref> Five other drafts would follow in the course of the next 3 years, the fruit of negotiations among various groups at the Council resulting in language broad enough to attract votes from a wide spectrum of bishops. The last draft was approved by a vote of 2081 to 27, and on 18 November 1965 became the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, known as {{lang|la|[[Dei verbum]]}} from its first Latin words.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|title=Dei verbum}}</ref> The document's teaching on inerrancy is found in a single sentence:
{{
Since Vatican II, there has been no official pronouncement on the meaning of this phrase. Article 107 of the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] (1992) simply quotes the sentence from {{lang|la|Dei verbum}} without any further explanation:<ref name="vatican.va">{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM|title = Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText}}</ref>
{{
=== Present-day Catholic teaching ===
Some theologians and apologists defend the view that total inerrancy is still the Church's teaching. For instance, articles defending this position can be found in the 2011 collection ''For the Sake of Our Salvation''.<ref>{{cite book|editor=Scott Hahn|title=For the sake of our Salvation|series=Letter and Spirit Journal #6|publisher=Emmaus Road|year=2011}}</ref> On a more popular level, on the apologetic website ''[[Catholic Answers]]'' there is no lack of articles defending the same position.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant|title=Is Scripture Inerrant?}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-accuracy-of-scripture|title = The Accuracy of Scripture}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-everything-in-the-bible-true|title = Is Everything in the Bible True?}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-bibles-inerrancy-limited-to-matters-pertaining-to-salvation|title = Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?}}</ref>
For instance, [[Raymond E. Brown]], "perhaps the foremost English-speaking Catholic Biblical scholar",<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-the-rev-raymond-e-brown-1172611.html|title=Obituary: The Rev Raymond e. Brown|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=18 August 1998}}</ref> writes:<ref name="The New Jerome Biblical Commentary"/>
{{blockquote|On inerrancy Vatican II made an important qualification as our italics indicate: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error ''that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.''" Some have tried to interpret the italicized phrase to cover everything the human author expressed, but pre-voting debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. [...] Thus, it is proper to take the clause as specifying: Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.}}
And also:<ref>{{cite book|author=Raymond Brown|title=The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus|publisher=Paulist Press|year=1973|pages=8–9}}</ref>
{{blockquote|In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs.}}
Similarly, Scripture scholar R. A. F. MacKenzie<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/roderick-andrew-francis-mackenzie|title = Roderick Andrew Francis MacKenzie | the Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> in his commentary on {{lang|la|Dei verbum}}:<ref>{{cite book|editor=Abbott|title=The Documents of Vatican II|year=1967|page=119 note 31}}</ref>
{{
These views are shared by many Church officials and as a result are taken for granted in some Church documents. For instance:
* An official report (1999) on theological conversations between the [[US Conference of Catholic Bishops]] and the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], to be found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 10, 1999 |title=Report on Sacred Scripture |url=https://www.usccb.org/resources/Report-on-Sacred-Scripture.pdf
* A 2005 "teaching document" issued by the Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland, entitled ''The Gift of Scripture'':<ref>{{Cite book |date=2005 |title=The Gift of Scripture |url=https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf
* The {{lang|la|instrumentum laboris}} (working paper) for the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html|title = The Word of God in the life and mission of the Church}}</ref>{{pb}}{{
== See also ==
Line 309 ⟶ 301:
* [[Historical criticism]]
* [[John Calvin's view of Scripture]]
* [[Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]]
* [[Quranic inerrancy]]
* [[Quranic literalism]]
* [[Religious skepticism]]
* [[Urtext (biblical studies)]]
==Notes==
Line 329 ⟶ 321:
* Ethelbert W. Bullinger, ''Figures of Speech Used in the Bible'' Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
* [[Gleason Archer]] (2001). ''New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties''. {{ISBN|0-310-24146-4}}
* {{cite book |last1 = Finkelstein| first1 = Israel| author-link = Israel Finkelstein | last2 = Silberman| first2 = Neil Asher| title = The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts| publisher = Simon and Schuster |location = New York |year = 2001|isbn = 0-7432-2338-1 |url = https://books.google.com/books?
* Herzog, Ze'ev. "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". [[Ha'aretz]] October 29, 1999. Web: [https://web.archive.org/web/20081221231334/http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 Deconstructing the walls of Jericho].
* [[John Walvoord]] (1990). ''What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life''. {{ISBN|0-929239-31-8}}
Line 337 ⟶ 329:
* Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), {{ISBN|0-8024-2916-5}}
* [[Norman Geisler]], ed. (1980). ''Inerrancy''. {{ISBN|0-310-39281-0}}.
* Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, [[F. F. Bruce]], Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). ''Hard Sayings of the Bible''
* [[B. B. Warfield|Warfield, B. B.]] (1977 reprint). ''Inspiration and Authority of Bible'', with a lengthy introductory essay by [[Cornelius Van Til]]. {{ISBN|0-8010-9586-7}}.
Line 344 ⟶ 335:
==Further reading==
* J. Benton White (1993). ''Taking the Bible Seriously: Honest Differences about Biblical Interpretation''. First ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press. xii, 177 p. {{ISBN|0-664-25452-7}}
{{Christian theology}}
{{Creationism topics}}
{{Modernism in the Catholic Church}}
{{Evangelical Protestantism in the United States}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Biblical Inerrancy}}
| |||