Biblical inerrancy - Revision history

Nick: /* External links */

2019-02-21T12:42:48Z

External links

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 21 February 2019
Line 101:		Line 101:

	==External links==		==External links==
	~~===Classification===~~

	~~===Supportive links===~~
	*[http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bible.html Monergism.com links] to articles on scripture from a conservative Calvinist perspective
	*[http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures] by [[B. B. Warfield]]
	*[http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I believe the NT is historically reliable] by [[Gary Habermas]]
	*[http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels] by Gary R. Habermas
	*[http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/4/4inerr92.html Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures] by Dave Miller (see Farrell Till below)
	*[http://www.wlsessays.net/subject/I/Inerrancy Scholarly articles on Inerrancy from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library]
	*[http://www.jba.gr/Articles/jbajan96.htm FAQ about the Bible] by Anastasios Kioulachoglou (The Journal of Biblical Accuracy)
	*[http://www.verselink.org/topics/tenreasons/tenreasons1.html Ten reasons why I believe the Bible is The Word of God] by R. A. Torrey
	*[http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm How Can The Bible be Authoritative?] by [[N.T. Wright]]

	~~===Critical links===~~
	*[http://www.quodlibet.net/perry-inerrancy.shtml Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate (a postmodern view)]
	*[http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/4/4evide92.html Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence] [[Farrell Till]]'s rebuttal to Dave Miller's defense (see above)
	*[http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=227 Textual Corruptions Favoring the Trinitarian Position]
	*[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]

	[[Category:Christian fundamentalism]]		[[Category:Christian fundamentalism]]

Nick: /* Classification */

2019-02-21T12:42:23Z

Classification

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 ==External links==
 ===Classification===
 ===Supportive links===

Nick: /* Criticisms of biblical inerrancy */

2019-02-21T12:42:02Z

Criticisms of biblical inerrancy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 21 February 2019
Line 79:		Line 79:


	~~==Criticisms of biblical inerrancy==~~
	~~===Scientific and historical criticism===~~
	~~{{seealso\|Criticism of the Bible\|Internal consistency of the Bible\|Science and the Bible\|The Bible and history}}~~
	Biblical inerrancy has been criticized on the grounds that many statements, including, but not exclusively, [[history]] or [[science]] that are found in Scripture, if taken literally, rather than [http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/ph.php phenomenologically], are untenable or contradictory. Inerrancy is argued to be a [[Modus tollens\|falsifiable]] proposition: if the Bible is found to contain any mistakes or [[Internal consistency of the Bible\|contradictions]], the proposition of strict inerrancy has been refuted. Many inerrantists have offered explanations of why these are not errors{{Fact\|11/3/2008\|date=March 2009}}.

	~~===Theological criticisms===~~

	~~''Theological criticisms'' 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> C H Dodd, 'The Authority of the Bible' page 25, London, 1960.</ref> In context, 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, page 1967, DLT 1994</ref> However there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the [[Second Epistle of Peter]] ({{bibleverse\|2\|Peter\|3:16\|9}}), as comparable to the Old Testament.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, page 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985</ref>

	The idea that the Bible contains no mistakes is mainly justified by appeal to [[prooftext]]s that refer to its divine inspiration. However, this argument has been criticized as [[circular reasoning]], because these statements only have to be accepted as true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements.{{Fact\|date=May 2008}}

	According to Bishop [[John Shelby Spong]], the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been a historical substitute for [[papal infallibility]]. "When [[Martin Luther]] countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."[http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1686]

	~~====Meaning of "Word of God"====~~

	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 [[Christ the Logos\|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>[[Exodus]] claims of the [[Ethical Decalogue]] and [[Ritual Decalogue]] that these are God's word.</ref> - the Word of God is not clear. However, critics 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.

	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 of the other references are to reported speech that is preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements which refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2 (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 ''to'' God, such as [[Eliphaz (Job)\|Eliphaz]] (Job 42:7) and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to us was at the root of a lively mediaeval controversy.<ref>Uriel Simon, "Four Appraoches 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 that is simply because the Biblical canon was not closed. In I Thessalonians 2:13, 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."

	~~===Practical objections===~~

	~~''Practical objections'' refers to arguments which do not seek to disprove inerrancy ''per se'', but which attempt to demonstrate that the Bible is irrelevant or meaningless.~~

	~~====Translation====~~

	One point that has been argued is that, even if the text were guaranteed inerrant in its original language, this no longer holds true after translation, because there is no such thing as a perfect translation. The original texts were primarily written in Hebrew and Greek with translations in several ancient languages - [[Hebrew]], [[Koine Greek]], [[Coptic language\|Coptic]] and [[Syriac]]. Translators from one language to another are often faced with several ways in which a phrase may be translated, particularly in the case of poetic passages, and the language into which the Bible is being translated is constantly evolving and changing. Mistaken translations of the Bible are occasionally proposed or ''discovered''. For instance, scholars write<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, note g, page 1201.</ref> that an [[Isaiah 7:14\|early messianic prophecy]] (Isaiah 7:14) did not require that the Messiah's mother be a virgin, only young.

	Some biblical passages are conventionally treated as verse, and others as different kinds of prose: this has not always been the case. Some of the prose contains many linguistic forms that indicate poetry. The two forms have a certain mutual overlap. Inerrancy as a doctrine itself provides no clear hermeneutic for discovering how the literal communications found in prose can be distinguished from the symbolic and metaphorical elements of poetry.

	==See also==		==See also==

Nick: /* Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy */

2019-02-21T12:41:38Z

Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 21 February 2019
Line 77:		Line 77:
	The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by [[Sacred Tradition\|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelations#In_the_Latter_Day_Saint_Movement\|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].		The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by [[Sacred Tradition\|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelations#In_the_Latter_Day_Saint_Movement\|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].

	~~==Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy==~~
	~~===Inerrancy as ''Accurate'' v. ''True''===~~
	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, USA (1976), pg. 38.</ref> He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately<ref name=Lindsell /> (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).<ref name=Lindsell />

	~~===Limitations of inerrancy===~~
	Many who believe in the ''Inspiration'' of scripture teach that it is ''[[biblical infallibility\|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 [[phenomenological]] nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.<ref name="inerrancy"/>

	Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that [[Biblical inspiration\|God's inspiration]] guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy], Article VIII</ref>

	Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals".<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy], Article X</ref>

	==Criticisms of biblical inerrancy==		==Criticisms of biblical inerrancy==

Nick: /* Sufficiency */

2019-02-21T12:40:18Z

Sufficiency

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 21 February 2019
Line 75:		Line 75:

	====Sufficiency====		====Sufficiency====
	The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.~~<sup>[]</sup>~~ There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by [[Sacred Tradition\|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelations#In_the_Latter_Day_Saint_Movement\|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].~~<sup>[]</sup>~~		The Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life. There are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by [[Sacred Tradition\|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelations#In_the_Latter_Day_Saint_Movement\|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].

	==Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy==		==Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy==

Nick: /* Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy */

2019-02-21T12:36:58Z

Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 21 February 2019
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Dan Wallace who rejects the KJV and TR favoring corruptions like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian [[B. B. Warfield]]:		Dan Wallace who rejects the KJV and TR favoring corruptions like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian [[B. B. Warfield]]:
	~~<blockquote>~~In his [http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Authority-Bible-Benjamin-Warfield/dp/087552527X Inspiration and Authority of the Bible], Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today’s evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young’s deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.~~</blockquote>~~		:In his [http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Authority-Bible-Benjamin-Warfield/dp/087552527X Inspiration and Authority of the Bible], Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today’s evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young’s deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.

	===In Lutheranism===		===In Lutheranism===

Nick: /* Deductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy */

2019-02-21T12:35:48Z

Deductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 21 February 2019
Line 51:		Line 51:

	===Deductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy===		===Deductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy===
	The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "''16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.''" ([[2 Timothy 3:16]] [[KJV]]), and because God is perfect, and always keeps His promises, the Bible must also be perfect, and hence free from error. For instance, the statement of faith of the [[Evangelical Theological Society]] says, "''The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.''"		The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "''16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.''" ([[2 Timothy 3:16]] [[KJV]]), and because God is perfect, and always keeps His promises, the Bible must also be perfect, and hence free from error.

	A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way which assumes it is inerrant. For instance in [[Galatians 3:16]], [[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 sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words. Many modern versions ruin this revelation by not submitting faithful translations such as the NKJV in this verse which has descendants, meaning Israel and not seed meaning Jesus. See [[New_King_James_Version#Genesis_22:17\|NKJV error in Genesis_22:17]]. Similarly Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled ([[Matthew 5:18]]), indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct.		A second reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way which assumes it is inerrant. For instance in [[Galatians 3:16]], [[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 sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words. Many modern versions ruin this revelation by not submitting faithful translations such as the NKJV in this verse which has descendants, meaning Israel and not seed meaning Jesus. See [[New_King_James_Version#Genesis_22:17\|NKJV error in Genesis_22:17]]. Similarly Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled ([[Matthew 5:18]]), indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct.
Line 57:		Line 57:
	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</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</blockquote>

	Although in these verses Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the [[Old Testament]], the argument extends to the [[New Testament]] writings, because [[2 Peter 3:16]] accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "''As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.''" ([[2 Peter 3:16]] [[KJV]]).		Although in these verses Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the [[Old Testament]], the argument extends to the [[New Testament]] writings, because [[2 Peter 3:16]] accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also:
			:"''As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.''" ([[2 Peter 3:16]] [[KJV]]).

	===Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy===		===Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy===

Nick: /* Textual tradition of the New Testament */

2019-02-21T12:33:26Z

Textual tradition of the New Testament

Nick: /* References */

2019-02-21T12:23:11Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 21 February 2019
Line 140:		Line 140:

	==References==		==References==
	*[[Gleason Archer]], 2001. ''New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties''. ISBN 0-310-24146-4
	*[[N. T. Wright]], ''The Last Word: Beyond Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture.'' Harper-San Francisco, 2005. ISBN 0-06-081609-4
	* Kathleen C. Boone: ''The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism'', State Univ of New York Press 1989, ISBN 0-88706-895-2
	*Ethelbert W.Bullinger, ''Figures of Speech Used in the Bible'' Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
	* [[Bart D. Ehrman]], 2003. ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''. Oxford University Press, Inc. ISBN 0-19-518249-9
	*{{ Harvard reference \| last = Finkelstein \| first = Israel \| authorlink = Israel Finkelstein \| last2 = Silberman \| first2 = Neil Asher \| title = [[The Bible Unearthed\|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 \| id = ISBN 0743223381 \| url = http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Finkelstein+Bible+Unearthed+Exodus+unoccupied&btnG=Search+Books }}.
	*[[Norman Geisler]], ed. (1980). ''Inerrancy''. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
	*Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, (1999) ''When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties.''
	*Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
	* {{ Harvard reference \| last = Herzog \| first = Ze'ev \| authorlink = Ze'ev Herzog \| title = Deconstructing the walls of Jericho \| publisher = [[Ha'aretz]] \| year = 1999 \| date = October 29, 1999 \| url = http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 }}.
	*Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, [[F. F. Bruce]], Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). ''Hard Sayings of the Bible''
	*[[Charles Caldwell Ryrie]] (1981). ''What you should know about inerrancy''. ISBN 0-8024-8785-8
	*[[R. C. Sproul\|Sproul, R. C.]]. ''Hath God Said?'' ([https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=HAT01VC video series]).
	*[[John Walvoord]] (1990). ''What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life''. ISBN 0-929239-31-8
	*[[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.
	*[http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html Dei Verbum] Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965)

	==External links==		==External links==

Nick: /* Inspiration */

2016-03-24T05:43:31Z

Inspiration

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 24 March 2016
Line 70:		Line 70:

	====Inspiration====		====Inspiration====
	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. As Lutherans confess in the [[Nicene Creed]], the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The [[Apology of the Augsburg Confession]] identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible. Because of this, Lutherans confess in the [[Formula of Concord]], "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel."The apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, by inspiration; they contain errors~~<ref>(~~Tobit 6, 71; 2 Macc. 12, 43 f.; 14, 411),~~</ref>~~ and were never included in the Palestinian Canon that Jesus used, and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture. 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. A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.		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. As Lutherans confess in the [[Nicene Creed]], the Holy Spirit "spoke through the prophets". The [[Apology of the Augsburg Confession]] identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible. Because of this, Lutherans confess in the [[Formula of Concord]], "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel."The apocryphal books were not written by the prophets, by inspiration; they contain errors E.g.:Tobit 6, 71; 2 Macc. 12, 43 f.; 14, 411), and were never included in the Palestinian Canon that Jesus used, and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture. 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. A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority.

	====Divine authority====		====Divine authority====

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 21 February 2019
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Textual tradition of the New Testament==		==Textual tradition of the New Testament==

	There are over 5,600 Greek [[manuscript]]s containing all or part of the [[New Testament]], as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps ~~500~~ other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the [[Patristic]] writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.		There are over 5,600 Greek [[manuscript]]s containing all or part of the [[New Testament]], as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 20,000 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the [[Patristic]] writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.

	Most of these manuscripts date to the [[Middle Ages]]. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]] (~~most~~ possibly a forgery), dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]] which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.		Most of these manuscripts date to the [[Middle Ages]]. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]] (possibly a forgery), dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]] which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.

	The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, we have about 1.3 million pages of text.		The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, we have about 1.3 million pages of text.
Line 19:		Line 19:
	In the 2008 [http://www.greer-heard.com/ Greer-Heard] debate series, agnostic [[Bart Ehrman]] and critical text supporter [[Daniel B. Wallace]] discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.		In the 2008 [http://www.greer-heard.com/ Greer-Heard] debate series, agnostic [[Bart Ehrman]] and critical text supporter [[Daniel B. Wallace]] discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.

	For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed several flawed techniques of [[textual criticism]] to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier [[recension]]s of the texts. However, KJV-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., [[Textus Receptus]] which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., [[Novum Testamentum Graece\|Nestle-Aland Greek Text]] which is the basis of Modern Translations), arguing that the [[Holy Spirit]] is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation.		For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed several flawed techniques of [[textual criticism]] to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier [[recension]]s of the texts. However, KJV-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., [[Textus Receptus]] which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., [[Novum Testamentum Graece\|Nestle-Aland Greek Text]] which is the basis of Modern Translations), arguing that the [[Holy Spirit]] is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation and inspiration.

	[[Jack Moorman]], in his book ''Missing In Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story Being Told?'' found that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the [[Textus Receptus]] and the [[Novum Testamentum Graece\|Nestle-Aland Greek Text]].		[[Jack Moorman]], in his book ''Missing In Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story Being Told?'' found that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the [[Textus Receptus]] and the [[Novum Testamentum Graece\|Nestle-Aland Greek Text]].
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the [[Textus Receptus]] thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the [[Pericope Adulteræ]] ([[John 7:53]] - 8:11), the [[Comma Johanneum]] ([[1 John 5:7]]–8), and the longer ending in [[Mark 16]] ([[Mark 16:9]]-20).		Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the [[Textus Receptus]] thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the [[Pericope Adulteræ]] ([[John 7:53]] - 8:11), the [[Comma Johanneum]] ([[1 John 5:7]]–8), and the longer ending in [[Mark 16]] ([[Mark 16:9]]-20).

	Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents, yet often focus on corrupted manuscripts which have been historically rejected by the church~~. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these~~.		Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents, yet often focus on promoting corrupted manuscripts which have been historically rejected by the church.

	===Inerrantist response===		===Inerrantist response===
	====Evangelical inerrantists====		====Evangelical inerrantists====
	Many [[Evangelical Christians]] generally accept the findings of [[textual criticism]] without question, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular [[New International Version]], work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism. ~~This is a~~		Many [[Evangelical Christians]] generally accept the findings of [[textual criticism]] without question, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular [[New International Version]], work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism. Since this position requires the belief that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the [[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]] says, ''We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture''. This is a complete abandonment of the doctrine of preservation.

	Since this ~~means~~ that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the [[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]] says, ''We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture''

	Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups:		Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups:
Line 39:		Line 37:

	====Textus Receptus====		====Textus Receptus====
	Similar to the King James Only view is the view that [[King James Only#Similar Movements in Non-English Speaking Countries\|translations must be derived from]] the [[Textus Receptus]] in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. It should also be noted that the [[New King James Version]] was also translated from the Textus Receptus but has about 500 major differences in translation, departing from the KJV, and the Textus Receptus.		Similar to the King James Only view is the view that [[King James Only#Similar Movements in Non-English Speaking Countries\|translations must be derived from]] the [[Textus Receptus]] in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. It should also be noted that the [[New King James Version]] was also translated from the Textus Receptus but has about 500 major differences in translation, departing from the KJV, and at times the underlying [[Textus Receptus]].

	==Logic for arriving at the doctrine of inerrancy==		==Logic for arriving at the doctrine of inerrancy==