Talk:Biblical inerrancy/Archive 2

Neutral Point of View

Frankly, this article reads more like an argument for Inerrancy than an explication of it. For example, to say that the view was "ably" defended by the Chicago Statement stretches NPOV. Likewise, the overly broad equation of classical doctrines of inspiration and authority with inerrancy is often used by Evangelicals to bolster the inerrantist case, but significantly misinterprets those positions. The article makes no mention of the philosophical underpinnings of inerrancy (i.e. foundationalism), and fails to recognize the doctrine (or at least the language) of inerrancy as a fundamentalist innovation. It also fails to give any attention to the most significant criticisms of inerrancy from (e.g.) Grenz and Murphy. -- (from User:63.146.9.89)

Good observations. KHM03 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. This is part of the rationale for the proposed merging-in of the material from Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible - atm we effectively have one page by those for inerrancy, and one by those opposed to it. For a better balance, I think the pages should be merged (I'm happy to help with this). Where do we vote for this? Thomas Ash 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the merge suggestion at the head of the article has been replaced - was this because a vote was taken? Thomas Ash 12:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Full disclosure; my personal opinion is that the Bible is hogwash in terms of factual accuracy. That said, I wonder whether the merge you suggest would be a bad idea. I confess that this might not be the best reason, in terms of building an encyclopedia, for making a decision but I reckon such a merge would cause one almighty edit war; whereas the current state of affairs might tend towards each potential combatant feeling they have their own patch on which they can air a view. I hasten to point out I've had nothing to do with edits on either page, nor with the removal of the merge boiler/suggestion. --bodnotbod 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems that the NPOV issues about the article have been resolved. There is ongoing editting of links, and it appears there are too many links, but I don't think that warrants an NPOV designation. Removing catagorization. PhatJew 10:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism & inerrancy

Is it not misleading to say that Catholics believe in Biblical innerancy? Openness to evolution on the path of both the last Pope and (if recent reports are to be believed) the current one would certainly imply accepting that Genesis is not innerant if taken at face value. And, especially in the 20th century but also earlier, mainstream Catholic theology (cf. the summaries thereof in the New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition) has advanced some fairly liberal interpretations, and acknowledged outright contradictions. Perhaps someone with knowledge on Catholicism (or several people - at least one liberal and at least one conservative) could be brought in... Thomas Ash 18:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic doctrine only admits inerrancy for that truth which is necessary for our salvation: "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (CCC 107) Endomion 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should edit the article to make this crystal clear then? It seems misleading as it stands. (I'm afraid I lack the time atm.) Thomas Ash 12:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Lately I've been getting all my edits zapped by whatever clique is hovering over the article, but here goes, I'll give it a whirl. Endomion 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! I'll try to help revert any reversions that are too egregious - strength of numbers and all that. I think the article as it stands is somewhat POV, so will try to counter this. Thomas Ash 18:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Endomion was right. Ronconte keeps on editting the last paragraph of 'The Catholic Position', either deleting it entirely or adding the (ungrammatical) prefix "It should be noted that some Catholic believe" which is completely besides the point - I believe Vatican II was quite clear on this point, and unless someone can show otherwise I think this paragraph should stay. I've asked Ronconte to come and discuss this here twice now - but unless someone can explain why this paragraph should be softened/deleted, I'll keep reverting any attempts to do so. Thomas Ash 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary: The wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal opinion or bias. There is currently a debate among Catholics as to whether or not Vatican II narrowed the definition of Biblical inerrancy to only those truth that pertain to salvation. Since it is a matter of disagreement among Catholics (and even among Cardinals and Bishops), this article should not unequivocally state this as the Catholic Position.

The Vatican II statement that is often cited in support of a narrow view of inerrancy is at least debatable, when read in the context of the previous statements: "they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted." (Dei Verbum, n. 11)

Also, numerous previous Popes taught complete Biblical inerrancy, e.g.:

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

So I'm changing the article again. --Ronconte 13:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But Leo was pre-Vatican II...

I really don't think you should have cut the quote - you do refer to it after all. I also think you're coverage of the Catholic position is POV - in which, despite your accusations, the earlier version (which simply quoted!) wasn't. I do think your edits give a misleading impression - you've changed the crucial early sections of the article, talking of "Catholic teaching affirm[ing] infallibility" and "[Catholicism']s belief in the inerrancy of the Bible". Can't we find a compromise rather than having an edit war? Thomas Ash 19:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Church teaching is unchanging, so it is irrelevant if Leo was pre-Vatican II.

Any claim that a teaching of the Church on an essential doctrine has fundamentally changed, such as by being narrowed, is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The earlier version, by whoever wrote that section, claimed that Vatican II narrowed the definition of infallibility. This is a claim contrary to the Catholic faith. Therefore, it cannot be said to be the Catholic position.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that Thomas Ash describes himself on his web site (Big Issue Ground) as an atheist. It is absurd for an atheist to put himself in charge of deciding what is or is not the Catholic position, or any other position, on Biblical inerrancy. A statement in an online encyclopedia as to what the Catholic position is about the Bible should not be a compromise between the Catholic understanding and the understanding of an atheist.

On the other hand, I'm a practicing Catholic with a degree in theology from a Catholic university. And I have researched and written (elsewhere) on the subject of the Catholic position on Biblical inerrancy. I have therefore edited out several serious doctrinal errors in regard to the Catholic position. --Ronconte 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking your points in turn...

"Church teaching is unchanging, so it is irrelevant if Leo was pre-Vatican II." This may be a position of Catholic faith, but the claim at issue is one capable of external judgement - and many who judge externally (as well as a not inconsiderable number of Catholics) think that, whatever is claimed, Church teaching has changed at least in some respects over the course of two millenia. The view on inerrancy may be a particular case - so that some Catholics qualify their endorsement of inerrancy, and quote Vatican II in their support, deserves mention. You may think this is contrary to the Catholic faith - you may be right. That's not the point.

As for my being an atheist, I've never pretended otherwise. It doesn't disqualify me from helping edit this article. Nor would I want to "put myself in charge of deciding what is or is not the Catholic position" - you seem to be the only one trying to do that. Also, your tone doesn't precisely preserve etiquette.

As for your appeal to authority: authority is certainly well and good, and you may ultimately be right. But please prove this rather than cutting passages (otherwise, an appeal to authority amounts to a notorious fallacy). I still think the quote from Vatican II should stand. It's notable. Let people decide for themselves. Thomas Ash 00:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the full passage from Dei Verbum, n. 11, Second Vatican Council, per your suggestion. And I've added a summary that states the controversy, rather than deciding it.

Regarding your comments: If something is contrary to the Catholic faith then, de facto, it is not the Catholic position. And the appeal to authority is relevant, when the appeal is to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding that Church's official teaching. Furthermore, the number of Catholics who take a certain point of view is not relevant to the Church's official position. --Ronconte 00:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ronconte: I've edited your contribution on the catholic position to a stub. The reason is this: The encyclopedia has to state the 'official position of the Catholic Church - your edit lead with the statement of the bishops of England, Scotland and Wales, which unbalances the picture. The Vatican II document is that official position at the moment, even if it's not been endorsed by the magesterium. If the Vat II document is controversial, that should be noted and explained, but it should come after the offical position is stated. I do value what you, as a Catholic with a degree in theology, can add to this article, but I feel it needs a re-write. Also, when you do, please keep in mind the overall balance of the entry as a whole - the section on the Catholic position should be about the same length as the section on the Chigo Statement. I promise to keep my own edits of what you write puerly to matters of style (defined broadly, not just use of words, but overall structure as well).

You might also like to look in on the New Entry section at the bottom of this discussion page - it sets out an ongoing discussion on the overall improvement of the entry.

PiCo 02:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the stub to something more succinct than the last version. This new text states the official position of the Catholic Church without comment by quoting the two most often cited sources for that position, Vatican II and Pope Leo XIII. In fact, other Popes, then writing about infallibility have also quoted the position of Pope Leo XIII as the official position of the Church. --Ronconte 03:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the revision much more - short and to the point. I've revised the first para a little to give it a little more context, including a date (there's a date for the Chicago Statement, and I think readers would like to have the information). I'm not sure about the second para - if Leo XIII was saying the same thing, why mention him at all? (Even if he's an alternative authority, he's not an essential one, given Vat. II is saying the same thing). Finally, I'm a little puzzled by this: I end up with the impression that the official Vatican position is that the Bible is totally inerrant, pretty much in line with the Biblical literalists - surely this isn't so, as I thought the Catholic position was that the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and salvation only (not, that is to say, on matters which are essentially scientific, a position which relieves the Church from interpreting the 6 days of Creation literally), and even then only as interpreted by the Church? (i.e., Catholics are not encouraged to go direct to the Bible, but should check with the Church first - which would prevent, I imagine, such things as snake-handling as a sign of personal salvation). Look forward to your input. PiCo 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The date and context is helpful. According to the Church, Catholic teaching does not change substantially over time. So in establishing the Catholic position, it is helpful to cite more than one authoritative reference. Also, Vatican II chose not to issue any infallible Canons, so the status of the Dei Verbum statements, whether fallible or infallible, is an open question. The Leo XIII statement is often cited, even by other Popes.

Yes, the Vatican position is that the Bible is totally inerrant, when understood according to the meaning of the text. In the Catholic view, not every text is to be taken literally, e.g. the 6 days of Creation are not literal days. So, with a correct interpretation, each passage is true and inerrant. And the Magisterium has the authority to decide the correct interpretation.

The idea that the Bible is only inerrant on faith and morals has been condemned by several Popes, so it cannot be said to be the official Catholic position. --Ronconte 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare:

A second and immensely important area is the relationship between science and faith. I had the honour to be President of the interdisciplinary Commission that, at the request of the Pope, investigated the Galileo Case. That sad and symbolic episode, we discovered, was born mainly from the limitations of the culture of the time: it lacked the intellectual tools to distinguish between methodologies and fields of knowledge. Thus the theologians who judged Galileo were unable to see that the Bible does not make claims about the physical world as such. As a result they were mistaken in transposing "into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question that in fact pertained to scientific investigation" (John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 3 November 1992, pp. 1-2).

Bishop Donald Murray [1]

It's only a problem of insufficent theological insight, you see? As the Bible does not make claims about the physical world as such, it cannot err on this matters.

OK, I know the statement lacks canonical authority, but it summarizes a wide de-facto consensus in catholicism.

Pjacobi 13:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the way I've redrafted the entry now: I've kept the Leo XIII material, but edited it somewhat purely in the interests of making it shorter and more accessible to the general reader. (My personal opionion is that His Holines tended to run on too long). And combined it with the first para, since they deal with the same material. Then I've added a new second para setting out what I understand you've said here.

(For Pjacobi: the Bible does indeed make claims about the physical world - the description of the universe given in Genesis, for example, supposes, if taken literally, a solid dome over the Earth in which stars etc are set. The problem for literalists has been to explain these cosmologies in terms of modern knowledge. The Chicagosists and Catholics have no real problem, as they can say that the passages were never meant to be taken literally, but they are, nevertheless, statements about the physical world). PiCo 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PiCo said: "I thought the Catholic position was that the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith and salvation only (not, that is to say, on matters which are essentially scientific, a position which relieves the Church from interpreting the 6 days of Creation literally)".

This is exactly the impression that I had (and in addition it's explicitly stated in numerous pages accross Wikipedia - which would need some correction if they're wrong...), and it's what I think deserves mention. In his last response to me, Ronconte said: "Regarding your comments: If something is contrary to the Catholic faith then, de facto, it is not the Catholic position. And the appeal to authority is relevant, when the appeal is to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding that Church's official teaching. Furthermore, the number of Catholics who take a certain point of view is not relevant to the Church's official position." This had me slightly wrong - dropping the appeal to authority point (which was simply a request to prove something doesn't merit inclusion before deleting it), my point was that, although I condede that "the number of Catholics who take a certain point of view is not relevant to the Church's official position", since a lot of Catholics are under the impression PiCo and I are, this deserves mention.

I fully concede that these Catholics - who include both laiety and clergy - are on the liberal side of the Catholic spectrum, and by no means exhaust what Catholicism has to say on the matter. Perhaps, as I've think you've said, they've been condemned by the Vatican. If so, a quote would be good - I take the point about not making this section too long, but do think that if there's a debate going on, it's an important and interesting one, possibly worthy of a new page. Thomas Ash 15:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

(To clarify, I'm not suggesting a new page, only saying that if we really think describing the debate would make the Catholic section too lengthy, it would be better to get this material in somewhere than to drop it altogether.) Thomas Ash 15:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Where else is this stated in Wikipedia? --Ronconte 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

@Pico: As most holy scriptures, the Bible doesn't speak for itself. What it says is a matter of exegesis and therefore may vary wildly by exeget. The statement of Bishop Donald Murray, and many other contemporary statements of catholics, seem to indicate, that the bible, according to contemporary catholic exegesis, doesn't make claims about the physical world. Wikipedia isn't in the business to decide, what the bible "really" says. --Pjacobi 17:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm much happier with the catholicism now - it's not over-long, it's coherent and clear, and is approved (and largely drafted) by the only qualified Catholic to have taken an interest to date. Whether it's accurate I have no way of knowing - I'm sure if any other theologically-minded Catholics (or non-Catholics) take issue they'll let us know. But if they do, PLEASE rty to let it get no longer than it already is, AND keep it clear and eradable. I'm now taking this page off my watch-list. Bye all, best of luck :) PiCo 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Move

• I would oppose a move. I am no fan of inerrancy and do not find it particular Biblical or Christian. That said, WP doesn't have an article "Beliefs about Atheism" or "Beliefs about Calvinism" or whatever. Inerrancy is a prominent view in Christendom and needs to have an article named appropriately. The article needs to mention, of course, the problems with the theory...that's NPOV and fair...but a move is not necessary. KHM03 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with pretty much everything KHM03 just said. - SimonP 02:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose the move. — Omegatron 04:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. LuiKhuntek 06:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with KHM03 - and would add that no-one is going to take it from the title of this article that the Bible necessarily is inerrant. Thomas Ash 12:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose "Beliefs about ..." only buries the topic under excess verbiage. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Since Biblical inerrancy is a belief, an article called 'Beliefs about Biblical inerrancy' would be a discussion of a second-order belief of a belief, which is redundant, like "homes that are houses". Endomion 03:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For my taste the section regarding the Catholic position is dated and in error.

The fragmented quote from Vatican II:

 "...all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely ... at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

omits this crucial portion: "it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" This has been taught to mean that those stories raised in the text which are concerned with morality and salvation are inerrant.

Thanks for commenting, if you feel you have a good grasp on the official position of the vatican on inerrency, by all means please edit this article. Just remember that our view points are irrelivant and that any quotes or claims must be cited. (not too hard with allot of the doctirinal stuff. Most of it's online somewhere anyway). :) --DjSamwise 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete

This article is no more than an argument in favour of inerrancy. It should be deleted.

I agree that it's biased as stands, but it can be salvaged - help us! Thomas Ash 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that the belief in Biblical inerrancy is a legitimate subject for an encyclopdeia, but it's obviously one which attracts very strong opinions, and therefore has to be as neutral as possible. This particular article seems to me both too inclined to polemicism, and too long. In general terms, it should simply state that there is a belief that the Bible is free from error, state who holds this belief and why, and leave it at that. Here's my thoughts in more detail:

• 1. The introduction is too long. One sentence should be quite enough. This current first sentence is probably on the right track: Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error in the original autographs. I'm not sure, though, that it really expresses the nuances of the belief - for example, it seems that the Catholic Church doesn't believe that the Bible is infallible and without error in every detail. So I'd like to see a re-written sentence which summarises the belief in a single sentence - the details can come in subsequent sections. The sentence might be something like: "Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Christian Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is free from error. The various nuances of this belief range from holding that the original autographs of the Biblical texts are totally free from error, to the belief that only those texts which express fundamental spiritual truths are to be so regarded" (or whatever might be the fact - I'm not a theologian).
• 2. The Basis of Belief section has a good heading, and is correct to mention Divine inspiration, but I think fails to mention the philosophical/theological concept that if God is infallible (and surely infallibility should be an attribute of God), then His Bible should also be infallible. It also strays too far into argument instead of explication. So I'd like to see it re-written.
• 3. The Protestant and Catholic sections are also good headings. Much of the material from the present introduction can be moved down here. I'd re-write them, though, to emphasise beliefs rather than to set out arguments. For example, the sentence which begins the section on the Protestant belief: The Protestant argument for inerrancy, rather than relying on authority or inspired Tradition, attempt to demonstrate that the Bible affirms its own divine inspiration, and that the texts are authoritative accounts and records of the teachings or the various Prophets or (in the case of Jesus Christ) God himself, and from that very fact derive infallibility, can be re-written as: The Protestant belief is based on the concept that the Bible affirms its own Divine inspiration, and that its texts therefore derive infalliblity from that inspiration." (And I might add a reference to the Biblical text that does affirm this).
• 4. The section Views Regarding Inerrancy should be deleted in toto - it's nothing more than a catalogue of examples of either inerrancy or errancy, depending on the bias of the contributor.
• 5. The section on postmodern Christianity seems close to meaningless - certainly very difficult to grasp the idea being expressed - if it's to be kept, it needs to be worded much more tightly and clearly.

PiCo 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You have some sound ideas, PiCo; go ahead and be bold in those edits! KHM03 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad Language anyone using such an ugly word as 'inerrancy' should be ignored. Whats wrong with 'reliability', 'trustworthiness' or plain old fashioned 'truth' ?82.38.97.206 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL

The word inerrancy is a generally-accepted theological term used to describe this particular concept. --Ronconte 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would you call inerrancy an ugly word? And why should anyone using it be ignored. No offense, but this statment just makes you look foolish... Lue3378 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This is a very prominent viewpoint in Conservative evangelicalism and it should have an article to let, whoever wants to know, what exactly it is. --DjSamwise 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

Several links in the "external links" section are, in my view, not directly related to inerrancy. We ought to have a few links which support or refute the belief in Biblical inerrancy, but contradictions in the Bible, while they may strike at the root of this belief, are not direct refutations, and these links probably belong in another article which directly addressed these contradictions and/or inconsistencies. I was going to be bold in my deletions, but thought it better to discuss it here first. KHM03 11:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I disgree. Inerrancy, like creationism, is an ongoing theological controversy. I think it's appropriate to have links to both sides of this controversy: and, inevitably, the "errancy" side will be citing Biblical errors. Either the Bible has errors, or it does not: that IS the issue here. "Errancy/Inerrancy" with censorship of all mention of Biblical errors is crippled. Indeed, I've just added a link to ErrancyWiki...

Ditto to the above comment - I think the articles on inerrancy and on contradictions present two sides of the same coin. Thomas Ash 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But pointing out alleged inconsistencies is not the same as refuting the doctrine. Granted, I am not an inerrantist, so I may be incorrect. But the issue here is NOT that "...the Bible has errors, or it does not...", as an editor above has stated. We aren't here to prove or disprove anything...just to say "Here is this belief held by some but not all Christians." This is an encyclopedia, not a position paper. KHM03 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed KMO3 and lets keep it simply that. --DjSamwise 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new text

I've made a large edit to produce a new text. Please bear in mind that this is a proposal only. I've tried to represent the Biblical innerancy fairly but succinctly, in a way that can satisfy everyone. Please don't simply revert to the old text without discussing first the new proposal. I repeat, I'm trying to be fair to everyone.

I believe that a radical re-write is needed for 2 reasons: First, the old one is just too long, and the longer it gets, the worse it gets - the concepts and history of inerrancy should be capable of being expressed in half the persent length. Secondly, and more importantly, the old text doesn't do what an encyclopedia entry should do - instead of simply setting out the idea of inerrancy, it attempts to offer proofs (or disproofs, depending on one's bias). It forgets that an encyclopedia is intended to describe, and not to convert.

That said, here's what I've done, and why: Introduction

• ...has been drastically shortened, in keeping with Wiki guidelines. Some material has been moved down into explanatory sections further below, some has been deleted. (If you think something has been deleted because you can't see the wording you're used to, look carefully: I've also re-dreafted in order to tighten up the language, so that your idea may be there still, but in new words). Essentially only the first sentence from the old version has been kept, with a second new sentence added.
• I removed the part that says the belief hold that the Bible is "in every detail infallible and without error in the original autographs", as it seems from the article itself that this represents only one form of the belief.
• The new second sentence clarifies that there are various shades to the belief. The present article tries to explain some of these details in the introduction, but I feel it's better to move those details to the subsections.

Basis of belief

• I've emphasised what I gather is the basis of the belief, which is essentially theological - that if God is infallible, then the Bible must be too, at least in some sense. (In fact I don't think you could be a Christian and logically hold any other view).
• I've also moved here any material which sets out the particular positions of the Catholic and Protestant traditions, so far as these relate to why they believe the Bible to be inerrant. Discussion of the nature of that inerrancy are reserved for sections further down.

Biblical Literalism A new section, because it seems to me that this is a position slightly different from that of the Chicago Statement - the Chicago people wouldn't agree that there is a specific text which is totally inerrant in every word, and they wouldn't agree (I think) that the KJV was Divinely inspired (which would imply that the KJV can't be checked against earlier Greek or Hebrew texts).

Mainstream Evangelical Position in the US So called because this is in fact a very US-centric view (it may not seem that way if you're an American, but it does if you're not). Which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of Evangelicals outside the US who do subscribe to the Chicago Statement - but they do tend to be offshoots of US churches. Anyway, this is the section where I treat the Chicago Statement.

Postmodern Christianity I cut two paragraphs off this because they seemed to me incomprehensible. If I can't understand what the author is saying, then other casual users of Wiki probably can't either. I left one para which seems clear enough and possibly useful. If the author feels that anything essential has been left out, please go ahead aand put it back - but please, please, put it in language that anyone can understand.

Views affirming, qualifying and against I expect to cop most flack over this. I cut it because it's all polemical, just a list of places where various people think the Bible either errs or doesn't err, depending on taste. That's not the business of an encyclopedia, which is to explain, not to prove or convert. Things like this are fine on a bulletin board or in a chat room, but not here. (Anyway, it was taking up over half the article without adding anything of value).

Ok, views please.

Responses

A good rewrite in general, and it certainly benefited from the shortening (the intro now looks like a proper Wikipedia intro). I've made a few edits:

• Qualified description of the RC position in 'Basis of belief', adding "(at least in vital matters of faith and morals)". I know you give the relevant quote under the Catholic section, but a) some people might not read that! and b) the earlier description gave a misleading impression im(h)o.
• At the end of 'Biblical literalism', I added "Modern translations have however diverged from the KJV at numerous points, sometimes on the basis of better access to early texts." I think this is fair enough - uncontroversially factual and valuable information. I don't think we should keep what could be interpreted as criticism (or justification) out of the article at all costs.

That's it so far - I'll add to the above list as and when I make further edits. Now for my criticisms/suggestions...

• I'll start with what's not really a criticism :) There's been some debate on whether it should be 'Biblical' or 'biblical'. I notice you capitalised. I tend to think this looks best, but thought we should arrive at some consensus on what's correct.
• I think the section on postmodernism needs be expanded, or else cut. It's too unclear atm. Does "the author" refer to God? If so, the position appears... er... kooky, and it's controversial whether it deserves the name 'Christianity'.
• I do think some brief mention of arguments against inerrancy is called for, with a 'main article' link at the top of the section (of course, there are several possible candidates for this - Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible is one of the mores specific, but quite targeted on Biblical inerrancy.

But, again, a good rewrite in general! Regards, Thomas Ash 10:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: There are a lot of evangelicals in the US who do not believe in inerrancy. We need to make sure that the article reads "some" or "many" in that regard. KHM03 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PiCo replies:

• I've deleted the section on postmodern Christianity. I find it very difficult to understand the point being made - it almost seems to be arguing that God Himself wasn't aware of what he meant in the Bible. The article simply has to be comprehensible to the "common reader", of whom I regard myself as a good example. If the author of this section feels there's a eral need for this aspect to be explained, he/she is asked to please try to express it clearly and in just one paragraph. (The discipline of erstricting oneself to, say, 5 lines, is actually a very good way of clarifiying one's thoughts and producing a good piece of prose).
• Under Biblical Literalism I've separated the section into 2 paras, as it actually discusses two related but slightly different viewpoints - one holding that only ancient autographs are inerrant, the other holding that the KJV is. I've also changed Thos. Ash's addition from saying that modern translations 'diverge' from the KJV to saying that they 'differ' from it - the difference is slight, but 'diverge' carried an implication, at least to my ears, that modern versions take the KJV as their starting point, which I doubt. I've also added a sentence saying what this means for the KJV-is-authoritative-ists.
• Evangelicals who do not believe in inerrancy: I agree with the point made by KHM03. In fact this is true of any community - all these current reversions under the catholics section are from someone who doesn't believe that Vatican II is correct (I assume). The way round this is to refer always to official positions, not communities - so the article should say "Vatican II stated...", or "The Chicago Statement affirmed...", not "Catholics (or Protestants, or evangelicals) believe..."
• Biblical/biblical: I don't have any view on this, but do agre that useage should be consistent.
• Arguments against inerrancy: I don't think there should be any arguments either for or against inerrancy - just state the form/s of the belief and leave it at that. To go further would be to stray into POV, andcertainly open up again that whole can of worms of claim and counterclaim. Certainly there can be links to other articles/sites.

PiCo 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Move request

There does not seem to be consensus for the move, so I am removing the request from WP:RM. Please re-add the request if consensus is reached. Thanks! --HappyCamper 19:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Redundant links

I removed several links. In my view, we ought to only link to a site once. So, I left only one link to "Answers in Genesis", "Skeptic's Annotated Bible", etc. Happy to talk about this if someone disagrees. KHM03 19:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gastrich.org site is a scholarly discussion of the hermeneutical methods of inerrantists, and is a fitting link on the 'Cons' list. Do you have any reason for removal of this link, other than POV? It is also noted that the page contains no personal attacks whatsoever, but is based entirely on exposition of method. 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The site is a personal attack on a particular evangelist. Yes, it critiques his methodoology, but that's peripheral to the attack itself. Not sure what POV you are referring to, but please review both WP:SPAM and, more importantly, WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 21:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the site, and understand that the site ONLY comments on the work of Jason Gastrich, and never on the man himself. If you see any exception to this, please actually identify it. If you fail to do so, it will be evident that this is only a POV removal. 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the site...it is a personal attack site. So, yes, it was removed for POV, and my POV is accuracy...I'll accept your compliment! KHM03 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have failed to meet my challenge to locate a criticism of Jason Gastrich himself, rather than a criticism of his work as a Biblical Inerrantist. I doubted that you would be able to find one, because the stated aim of the site is quite accurate, that is:

"Inerrancy Exposed @ http://www.Gastrich.org examines Inerrantist Jason Gastrich's misguided attempt to harmonize all of the errors in the Bible. Jason Gastrich has attempted this in his publication, 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained'.

By examining the work of a single representative Inerrantist, this website seeks to expose the method of Inerrantists, which may be summarized as:

1. A primary interest in finding any interpretation of a text which supports their doctrine of Inerrancy.

2. Only a secondary interest in establishing the best interpretation of the text.

In showing how Jason Gastrich's forced and tendentious 'harmonizations' have been constructed, and pointing out the weaknesses in these same 'harmonizations', we hope to demonstrate the fatal weaknesses of the doctrine of Inerrancy itself. We conclude from the evidence that there are many errors in the Bible. It is possible to invent harmonizations for any of them - but you will see from the examples listed below that this involves twisting and perverting the text of the Bible itself! Ironically, while Inerrantists imagine they are defending the Bible, they are in fact perverting it.

"This stance - any answer will do, so long as it adheres to the inerrancy principle - is frequently found in fundamentalist scholarship."

- Kathleen C. Boone"

It is evident that your personal bias has led you to censor this link, contrary to Wiki rules. 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes...my personal bias toward accuracy and against personal attacks and spam. Thanks again! If we're in agreement now, perhaps we can move on. KHM03 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you have produced no evidence of attack against the person, and that gastrich.org ONLY contains articles that attack the METHOD of inerrantists? Or do you not appreciate the difference? 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The site itself is structured as a personal attack. It isn't "Failures of Inerrancy.com"...it's "Gastrich.org", designed to discredit an individual by way of his methodology. It's a personal attack site. The evidence is at the site itself. KHM03 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your comments are demonstrably incorrect. The site is clearly structured as a refutation of the method of Inerrantists, by concentrating on the work of one representative Inerrantist. This is stated quite clearly on the main page, http://www.gastrich.org.

No attempt has been made to discredit the individual as a person, but ONLY his work as an Inerrantist has been examined. For example, no mention is made of any other aspects of Gastrich's life, his evangelistic background, his well-publicised use of the term "Dr" taken from a spurious degree-mill type organization, nor his behavior on internet groups. And even you can only argue that it is designed to discredit an individual "by way of his methodology". Well, my friend, if that is the case, then logically you must admit that gastrich.org is aimed at METHODOLOGY, not the person. Sure, criticism of Dianetics would indirectly reflect on L Ron Hubbard, and criticism of Darwinism would indirectly reflect on Darwin. But if all critical commentary were banned because it involved criticism of the ideas of persons, then you would end up with precisely NOTHING on Wikipedia. Surely you can see the flaw in your reasoning here?

Gastrich.org is a well-conceived examination of the flawed methodology of inerrantists, which has wisely limited itself to one particular Inerrantist. After all, as soon as one harmonization is criticised, it is possible for an endless number of harmonizations to be posited. No doubt that many Inerrantists who read the site would do just that. But what the site does, in examining the work of just one Inerrantist, is expose the faulty METHODOLOGY. And if the methodology of harmonization is recognized to be faulty, it is no longer necessary to argue the endless permutations of individual harmonizations, because the end does not justify the faulty means.

So, as Gastrich.org demonstrably does not offend either personal attacks or spam, but your refusal to list it offends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The site itself is designed to discredit an individual. That's fact. Denials won't alter that truth. Please review WP:NPA when you have an opportunity. Also, please review WP:SPAM. If this site were "inerrancy.com" and set up to discredit inerrancy, that might be better (depending on the nature of the site, of course). It's a "hate site", and has no place on this article. Thanks...KHM03 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of links on the "pro" side which were either redundant (two links to "Answers in Genesis"), unrelated (dealing with Scriptural authority or history, not inerrancy directly), or irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a link farm. KHM03 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, despite the silly graphics, I found http://www.Gastrich.org to be a fairly interesting resource, with content not widely found elsewhere on the web. That alone might justify linking to it, as many other anri-inerrantists contrain roughly similar content, with similar contradictions, etc. (I did add my own essay a while ago [[2]], on the grounds that besides a list of contradictions on which I'm trying to keep only the most powerful, least dubious cases it also contains an essay on what to make of them - I hope this is OK.) So, while I can see KHM03's point, and while I'm aware that he's no inerrantist pushing POV, I think a link to Gastrich.org isn't totally out of order. It's a judgement call, really. Thomas Ash 13:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Anonymous user 202.180.83.6 has repeatedly placed a poor link on the article. It apparently is his/her own personal site. It began as a personal attack site against a California evangelist, and I repeatedly pointed out Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. The user then apparently changed the site to a different address and altered a bit of the language, and has still repeatedly placed it on the site. I have pointed out Wikipedia's spam policy to the user, to little avail. The user was blocked earlier for other violations. I just wanted to alert the editors of this article about these violations. Thanks...KHM03 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The link began as a personal attack site and was repeatedly removed as suc. The site owner then changed the address and has continually re-added it; it remains spam. KHM03 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Although I do not believe in biblical inerrancy, this article seemed neutral to me. I didn't read anything suggesting it as a truth, simply a belief that some people have. Feel free to point out any specific portion that are bias or otherwise inappropriate.

Lue3378 02:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

9 Feb 2006

I removed two new additions, not because they were poor sites, but because I think we need to try and keep the balance here between pro- and con- inerrancy views. We've had several instances of spam in the last couple of months, and we want to keep some sort of peace, consensus, and balance. Maybe we can go through and pick only the best links in each section. KHM03 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted unscholarly links

These links below appear to fail to cite scholarship nor are they cited by scholars. I deleted them.

Here they are:

• Skeptics Annotated Bible
• A Few Bible Contradictions
• ErrancyWiki

I think it's a good idea to maintainlinks to scholarly work and delete links to work that just appears to be inflamming argument for it's own sake. --DjSamwise 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how ErancyWiki can be described as "unscholarly". Richard Carrier is undoubtedly a scholar, and his article appeals to relevant scholarship, as do numerous other entries. And if anyone is aware of any relevant scholarly articles pertaining to any Biblical problem described therein, they can simply add a link to whatever scholarly article they consider to be appropriate! ErrancyWiki is intended to become the most scholarly source of information on individual Biblical errors on the Internet. I am restoring the link. --Robert Stevens 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Added links which appeal to scholarship

I added these links which appeal to scholarship at their respective webpages (For example, Kenneth Kitchen and sources like are appealed to.

• Inerrancy.org
• Christian Thinktank

Christian Thinktank over and over again appeals to scholarship and a quick view of the site will show this.

Here is an example of innerrancy.org appealing to scholarship:

"In Mt 24:34, since "this generation" will not pass away until Jesus comes, how can this be? (The liberal humanitarian Albert Schweitzer raised this objection) A: Christians have three different answers. a) There is only a one-letter difference between this and the Greek word for race, gonea, so this might be a typographical error. However, all New Testament manuscripts we currently have say genea. b) The Greek word for generation, "genea" itself can imply race. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, (p.112), "genea" meant: b1) men of the same stock, or a family: Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 51.1 (written about 93-94 A.D.), Septuagint Genesis 31:3, etc. b2) successive descendents: Philo b3) an age: Herodotus 2,132, Heraclitus in Plutarch, Acts 14:16. c) The Greek word for all these things, ponta touta, means that this generation was the generation that saw the preceding signs. (Difficulties in the Bible p.173-174, Now That’s a Good Question p.495-496) See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.132 for more info"

taken from www.inerrancy.org

One problem is that Kitchen is an Egyptologist, not a Biblical scholar, so his opinion doesn't count for much more than anyone in a related field. The "ThinkTank" wasn't academic in the least, so I removed it. I also restored the other links. We've been trying for some time to achieve some kind of balance on this article between the various perspectives. Please don't destroy that work...thanks. KHM03 20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user: That's also a fairly weak example of "scholarship". KHM03 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

we don't need unscholarly links for balance. I deleted the Skeptic's annotated Bible (SAB) and other unscholarly links. Please show me where the SAB cites scholarship. Christian Thinktank cited Kenneth Kitchen to attack the documentary hypothesis which is a Bible inerrancy issue.

Kitchen isn't relevant here at all. The ThinkTank isn't academic, it's polemic. To remove SAB (which I don't particularly like) because it isn't scholarly but add the ThinkTank is way over the POV line. I removed all the questionable unacademic links until we can reach a consensus here. KHM03 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user...you are now in violation of WP:3RR. Please stop this behavior or you may be banned. I will allow you to revert your final violation without any report of the violation, which I hope was unintentional. KHM03 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

restored CreationWiki link which cites the scholar Professor Stoner. please stop removing links which appeal to scholarship)199.29.6.2 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Anonymous user

Appealing to scholarship is not the same as scholarship. You have violated WP policy and have been reported. KHM03 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in violation of 3RR rule. Did individual one entry edits.

Not in violation of 3RR rule. Did individual one entry edits. 199.29.6.2 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)anonymous user

You have been reported. KHM03 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeleton rewrite

(see Biblical inerrancy/rewrite)

In the section Basis of belief:

Since it is the Bible itself which asserts the infallibility of God, the principle of biblical inerrancy runs the risk of resting on circular reasoning.

This statement confuses faith (belief) with reason (logic). Those who believe in inerrancy simply have faith that it is so; they say that the Bible was written or inspired by an infallible single God. This is not a rational argument, fallacious or not; therefore circular reasoning is a straw man.

I realize that many supporters of the position taken invite this kind of attack by using and misusing the tools of rational argument to advance their faith. But any attempt to justify any system of belief using the tools of logic eventually ends up in a chain of circular reasoning. Given a set of axioms, many conclusions may be justified through logic (and others falsified). But axioms are unprovable. Even that bastion of rationality, mathematics, is ultimately upheld by assumptions that cannot be proven or even shown to be self-consistent.

I'm tempted to remove the statement in question in its entirety; but I can see that it's valid to criticize the attempts of some to defend inerrancy with fallacious logic. But this needs to be reworded so as to point the finger at the weak defense itself, not at the thing defended. My failure to prove it is night does not advance the notion that it is day.

My chosen wording for this statement:

Since it is the Bible itself which asserts the infallibility of God, the principle of biblical inerrancy rests on faith alone.

This is true, accurate, neutral, and still invites the reader to question that faith (as barren of logic). This is as far as we need to go here in critique of the principle itself.

The difficulty is that the very next paragraph begins Catholic teaching seeks to avoid this problem...

• I don't see that faith is a problem -- personally, I avoid it whenever possible and hew closely to a rational view of the world; but others find it useful and I'm not able to say that's entirely wrong. In the end, we must all believe in something, if only in rationality; and that faith can never be justified by logic.

• I may be ignorant of Catholicism, but it seems to me that all denominations point to the resurrection as evidence of Jesus' mission. This paragraph conflates Biblical inerrancy with Papal infallibility. I think this article would be better to stick with a single topic.

• Nor does resurrection itself remove the need to believe; it does not permit one to make assertions of fact free from faith. It's entirely possible that teen alien visitors resurrected Jesus as a holiday prank using advanced medical technology. Christians simply believe otherwise.

I'll go further and say that all three paragraphs -- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant -- don't belong in this section. These are descriptions of how inerrancy is valued, modified, or compared with other authority; and this ground is covered in the remaining sections. They say nothing about the basis of belief -- which is just belief itself.

This returns me to a criticism of the section header and the lead The theological basis of the belief... The longer I hammer at this text, the less meaning it seems to contain. Would it not be equally true to say:

There is no logical basis for inerrancy; it is a belief. This is beating a dead horse.

The remaining value in the first paragraph is the exposure that inerrantists range from literalists to those who permit a more liberal, traditional interpretation. This ground is covered briefly in the article lead and then in detail in the next three sections -- indeed, the bulk of the article consists of classification of various lines of inerrant thought.

I prefer to fix things rather than insist others do; but this is not my area of expertise. I suggest that:

• The first section be eliminated entirely and all text within be rewritten and merged either to the article lead or to other sections.

• A new section be written exposing the Orthodox view on inerrancy; this will receive the appropriate paragraph from the first, deleted section. Right now this is a serious omission.

• It would probably be wise as well to note that there is a major position that opposes inerrancy, yet still considers itself well within mainstream Christianity. This should be noticed in the article lead and also given its own section.

• And, yes, it's appropriate to summarize the rationalist/materialist/agnostic position here, rather than somewhere else.

• The article as a whole would be improved if all six sections thus far -- literalists, conservative evangelists, Catholic, Orthodox, and opponents of both kinds -- were demoted to subsections of a single section, Interpretations or perhaps Positions. This major section should be introduced with a brief summary.

• This opens the door to other material needed to flesh out the article, such as the history of inerrancy as a doctrine. There is room for two or three more major sections. This topic is too notorious to be passed over lightly.

As I say, I'm not competent to do all this; but I've constructed a sort of skeleton rewrite of the article. I hope it may prove useful.

My bias: I consider the subject of this page to be an article of faith, not a point of fact; however the faith is widely held and that itself is fact. I don't share this faith but I see no problem with describing it objectively. This is not the place to attack or support the positions taken, only to explain them. John Reid 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite is terrible. It's filled with refferences to theologies that don't exist. I vote. NO MERGE. --DjSamwise 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

merged external links subsections

Once upon a time the "pro" and "con" subsections of this article really were pro and con - and how! That situation no longer holds, and so I merged the two. PiCo 11:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Errors

Would it not be appropriate to give evidences of where the Bible, as recorded, is not felt to be original, but the addition/error of later copyists? Currently, the article seems to focus solely on the philosophy of inerrancy without addressing example where some Bible scholars feel the Bible contains errors of several varieties included. I am thinking of the Johannine comma, John 1:1-18, last 12 verses of Mark, the challenge of early Christianity in maintaining the written word without trained copyists, etc. I am torn and seek other opinions. Storm Rider 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I'm not an inerrantist but do think we need to be respectful toward the view. KHM03 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM, as with all religious subjects, a high degree of respect should be maintained. The object is not to "prove" the Bible is errant, but rather what what current manuscript scholarship has added to our current understanding. You seem to have some of the same trepidations that I have; it makes me think of the old adage where angels fear to tread, fools walk blindly in. I would ask for all of us to be diligent in maintaining a neutral position through proper use of references as we proceed. Personally, I fall into the camp that believes the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Translation errors to not disprove the veracity of the work, but we should simply be aware of them. I will attempt to add some language this week. Storm Rider 00:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Past experience suggests that putting actual examples of errors down in black and white opens up a whole can of worms - on the one side you have those who believe the bible is one long catalogue of errors from beginning to end, eagerly putting down their proofs, and the other you have champions of the literal truth of scripture rebutting the heathen, and the whole thing turns into a theological dogfight. Have a look way back in the History page to see what it used to look like. PiCo 00:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the history sections of both the article and the discussion page. This page has gone through conflict and I do see your point. The article seems to evade the question of biblical translations, the early copyists of scripture, and the conflicts between the manuscripts known to exist. Errors took many forms; accidental and intentional. Do you think the article would be iimproved to include some information regarding this history? If it were included I think we could sidestep the whole issue of what verses are "contested" as being part of original scripture. Storm Rider 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting idea. Go ahead. One point possibly worth raising is this matter of the Vulgate translatoin of Genesis - the Vulgate said something about God sending a 'second Eve' to set right the wrongs of the first, this being used by the Catholic church as a referenceto Mary. In the 15th century it was discovered to be a mistranslation, but the Council of Trent, faced with the Protestant attack on "Mariolatry", nevertheless said that, although the Vulgate was wrong in the letter, it was correct in the spirit. I only have a secondary reference to this, unfortunately, (in a book about Baroque art), but will provide it if you want to use it. PiCo 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My intent would be to focus on how manuscripts are read versus how some versions of the Bible currently read. I think if we focus simply on how manuscripts came into being and how they differ we may succeed. I do not want to get into the position of say which is better, only that some are regarded as closer to the autographs and differ from current scripture. You second Eve scripture would be appropriate; however, I am not familiar with it. I tend to resist going to deeply into OT manuscripts and focus on NT documents. Thanks for your help and viewpoint; I find them valuable. Storm Rider 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as (and if) you start posting errors to the Bible on this article explanations will be posted on each one and this article might be filled up with useless (or not) Bible debate. Perhaps a better approach would be create a new article entitled (Biblical errors) and simply make a comment or a link form here to there. Just trying to stay on topic with the article. --DjSamwise 01:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Editorial abuse by User:Alienus

I do not have any particular axe to grind on this page, however, as an administrator who patrols for vandalism, spamlinks and other abuse, I recently reverted an abusive reinstallation of an edit from quite aways back, which was done by Alienus, and which removed several apparently serious edits by other editors. He has subjected me to personal attacks, the latest in the last edit summary, where he accuses me of being a sockpuppet. I don't know the editor that he refers to, except from old summaries, and I was here a long time before whatshisname was. I consider this sockpuppetry lie to be very serious; the accusation is an editorial abuse which certainly hurts the credibility of the one making the accusation. I and other admins will be watching this page more closely now, not so much for content as for further abuse. Pollinator 19:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The link to Inerrancy Exposed is a favorite target of Jason Gastrich, aka kdbuffalo. He removes it, I restore it. If you're NOT his sock puppet, then stop deleting the link. Alienus 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing an unworthy link does not make me an ally or enemy of anyone. However this seems to be entirely what you are about. You are much too emotionally involved with this link. It appears that you and Jason are opposite sides of the same fundamentalist coin; the black-and-white attitude is the same; you just identify different ones as having the black hats. It's obvious that you and Jason would like to cut each other's throats. Wikipedia is not about supporting either side of such a conflict. Link removed. Pollinator 13:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Im familiar with the link and its a worthy link. I added it back.Giovanni33 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you consider "worthy" to be synonymous with "conveniently ignores facts that show his position is without base," then yes, it is amongst the most "worthy" writings I have read. Please, that site simply uses hyperbole becuase the arguments presented have little or no substance. Even the title is hyperbolic. El Cubano 22:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really fitting under this heading, but related.

I've stopped looking into this page for some time, and now I see, it's still rather bad. However well intended it is, the addition of http://www.inerrancyexposed.com has some issues with our WP:V policy (Self-published sources). Not that a lot of the pro-inerrancy stuff doesn't fit under self-published, but this fits vaguely under the Self-published sources in articles about themselves (a.k.a. the Stormfront clause).

Heck, it shouldn't be impossible to find some relevant links and literature which are fine with WP:V.

Pjacobi 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Same thing just happened to me. After much discussion and consideration some work was being done. Alienus pops in and reverts without adding to the discussion. I've no problem with edits Alienus, but come discuss it to see why the changes were made. They pertain to verifiable scholarly viewpoints on the subject that supercede the opinion of you and I per wikki policy. Peace. --DjSamwise 04:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon's comments

The phrase "Authenticity, and inerrancy, therefore resides in the earliest and most accurate texts. Of course, because no one has access to these original, inerrant autographs, this claim is impossible to prove." is problematic (and not NPOV) ... If said writer had the original autographs, how would he/she be able to prove their inerrancy? ... The absence of the earliest versions clearly raises some questions, but presumably the adhernts of inerrancy would argue that the subsequent copies were guided by the same inspiration and reflect inerrant versions of the originals.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.21.251.195 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 May 2006.

I am not sure where, but I read a very interesting article about the tradition of the Hebrew scribes. Basically, they held that the newest manuscripts were the most reliable. In particular, because over time the older manuscripts and scrolls would become worn and aged and more difficult to read. Now, we know based on historical records the pains which they took to preserve the Hebrew Bible. I am not certain that the same traditions existed early in the Christian church, or else there would not be so much debate over Byzantine versus Alexandrian text types and so on. Either way, the point is that people the believe in biblical inerrancy believe that in addition inspiring the original writings themselves, God has inspired their preservation as well. From a doctrinal perspective, this makes sense. It is sort of like if a teacher tells you will be tested on such and such material and the teacher's assisstant hands out notes on the material but tells you he isn't sure if it is the same as what the teacher will use to write the test from. You would rightly say that the teacher needs to make sure that he gives the correct information to the assisstant. Otherwise, how you can be expected to study for a test when you don't the correct information that the test will cover. El Cubano 22:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no theologian or Church or school of thought applies the idea of inspiration to the preservation or copying of the books of Scripture. In fact, all manuscripts contain copyist errors of various kinds. It is only by comparing many manuscripts that scholars arrive at a reliable version of a text. --Ronconte 14:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Inerrancy of translations

I deleted this sentence:

"Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible, not to translations of it."

This isn't strictly true - there's a strand which holds the KJV to be an inspired English translation. KJV literalism isn't exactly the mainstream, but it's important enough to mean that this sentence can't stay. PiCo 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

However, this is a very common position taken, just search google. Maybe we need to cite a source and qualify the claim by saying "sometimes/often" or "Some/most Christians state..." But I do not feel that having one counter example of something taht you say yourself isn't the mainstream is enough to simply remove an actual argument used by some inerrants.--Andrew c 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although KJV-only is not a common position, TR-only is more common, as well as the idea that any translation undertaken by godly men is inspired. Though, I am not aware of any major proponents of the latter. El Cubano 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is the argument that original texts are true and translations may not necessarily be so? Given that no "original" documents exist, is there a source that clarifies the position? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The spectrum goes something like this: it's all lies --- only the "originals" are inspired --- the originals and their copies are inspired (in the original language) --- any translation is of the original is inspired --- only particular translation(s) of the original are inspired --- the translation(s) are more inspired than the original. This is a simplification, but kind of gets the point across. Other issues that complicate it is the issue of what constitutes an original. For example, Textus Receptus, Masoretic Text, Critical Text, Alexandrian Text, Byzantine Text and so on. Personally, I believe that any TR-based translation undertaken by godly men is the inspired and preserved word of God. People like Peter Ruckman and others who subscribe to his beliefs believe that the KJV is an advanced revelation. That is, if there is a difference between the KJV and any document considered to be an original, the KJV represents a further revelation from God and takes precedence. It is really a complex issue and simply stating that adherents to biblical inerrancy believe originals are inspired and translations are not is simply not true. El Cubano 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew C. that it is the most commonly held view, in scholarship as with most Christians who believe in inerrency hold that the original manuscripts are inerrent and most modern translations are adequate representations of that but that minor translational errors occur but not in a significant enough way as to cause doctrinal error. th KJV only belief is by far a less than 1% belief. --DjSamwise 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Inerrancy cannot apply only to the original manuscripts, because we do not have any of the original manuscripts. If the Bible is inerrant, then inerrancy must survive transcription. Also, we do not have transcriptions of some of the original manuscripts of the Bible; all we have are translations, in some cases. Therefore, if the Bible is inerrant, then inerrancy must survive translation as well as transcription. But individual editions of the Bible (transcriptions and translations) can have errors particular to that edition, but not particular to the Bible in general. --Ronconte 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that some inerrants admit that there are alleged errors and contradictions in the translations and manuscripts we have (in fact, how can this be denied?), but they claim the hypothetical (no longer existent) autographs were themselves inerrant. It's easy to make claims that cannot be verified, right? Anyway, since this position does exist, how can it be re-incorporated with the article in a NPOV manner that everyone is happy with?--Andrew c 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of someone who believed in inerrancy and accepted that there are manuscripts with errors. I know that some folks believe that certain groups of manuscripts are no good (e.g., the Alexandrian manuscripts and Dead Sea Scrolls). However, that is not an indication of a belief in errors in the manuscripts, just that those manuscripts were not produced under inspiration of God. That alone would disqualify them from being held as inerrant. El Cubano 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PLease allow me to clarify. Whereever human opinion is involved there is error. Go to any website of any seminary that believes in inerrent scripture and the words "in the orignial" always appear. God canot lie and when His word was first recorded it was perfect. The manuscripts we have now are prooven by historical record to be extremely reliable with no poblematically significant changes. (the dead sea scrolls confirmed this) However with every transaltion there is always the same/new argument that particular wording is incorrect or that the tense is wrong or whatever.. So go check it out, look at the beliefs of http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/ arguably one of the strongest proponents of inerrency today. Note the words "as appears in the original manuscripts". Again, this is not problematic because the manuscripts we had 100 years ago and the manuscrpits that were found at Wadi QumRan (dead sea scrolls), even though the new ones were 1000 years older than enything else we had they still confirmed thier accuracy. :) But just because some joe translates a new version and slaps the name "Bilbe" on it doesn't make it inerrent right? --DjSamwise 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that they believe in the inerrancy of the original version, not necessarily each and every copy. Conveniently, this allows them to blame any errors on poor copying. Al 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate.. when have you ever seen a Scholar blame an error on poor copying? --DjSamwise 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew c, I like your solution to the statement on inerrancy. You should get a gold star or something! El Cubano 01:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think its perfect yet (a couple weasel words, and maybe it draws too much attention to the KJV-only movement, when there may be other inerrants who prefer another translation...) but as it stands I'm glad we all could compromise and settle on this. A side note, you may want to look at WP:STAR. You do not have to be an admin or anything special to reward other wikipedians. --Andrew c 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentance needs to be restored with qualifiers as most people who hold to Biblical inerrency do not believe thier version is inerrent but rather the original text was. Perhaps we can reword the intro yet again. --DjSamwise 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

smokeys opinion

I am a Christian but totally opposed to Biblical innerracy. Let me tell you why. One counterexample destroys inerrancy. We may sure that God doesn't change, agreed? Consider then Genesis 11;1-9 the Tower of Babel. Are to believe that there was one human language until people tried to build a tower up to Heaven and God felt so threatened by this he created multiple languages to confuse man? Yet the same God had no apparent objection to men landing on the Moon in the 20th century. Come on. Jesus asks us to accept God like children but not like idiots. As for the Bible being inerrant because the Bible says so - always something of a circular argument - consider 2 Corinthians 3; 2-6 "The letter killeth but the spirit gives life." Surely we have learnt *something* in the 2500 years since the Old Testament was written? SmokeyTheFatCat 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Misnomers

Removed false definition of "Textual Critisism". Feel free to try again.. I might when I get the time. --DjSamwise 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain this one a bit further please? The Textual criticism article seems to be in line with the use of this phrase in this article.--Andrew c 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious error in the paragraph was that textual critisicm is a tool of adherrants of inerrency when in fact textual criticism is a technique more like than not in todays academic environment to be used to attempt to disprove the inerrency of the Bible. It shouldn't be listed as a key tool of the inerrencist. :) <-- neat word. --DjSamwise 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's please have a discussion regarding the "Textual Critism remark as well as the "Historical Method" before any furhter revisions. I'd like to point out again that niether presupose Biblical inerrency, choosing rather to consider thier observations more inerrent than the scripture. If you feel the burning need to insert your view on that again Please created a new section for it, appropriately titled and cited. Thanks --DjSamwise 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review the WP:NPOV policy. We must present all relevent POV in a fair and unbiased manner. When we mention how people establish bible reliability, we can't ignore the scholarly view. It needs to be made clear that the methods of inerrants are contrary to the methods of historians. This isn't POV pushing, and it isn't my personal view, it is simply laying out all POVs per NPOV policy. We must present all sides. NPOV is one of the 3 most important policies with wikipedia, and I don't take actions to ignore or censor one POV in favor of another lightly. Maybe the problem is the format of the article, and maybe we simply need to add a criticism section, but until we get to that point, we need to present all POV in some manner. This may not be the best solution, but its clearly better than not including this content. This might be a good opportunity for someone to practice writing for "the other side" by creating a criticisms section. --Andrew c 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If in your opinion you feel the need to represent a certain perspective, please do it in the appropriate section and with the approrpiate verifiabillity. Don't create a subject called how the Xfactor do it and then start writing about the Yfactor. Especiialy if the information is false. @@--DjSamwise 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused. The section is on how biblical reliability is determined. A brief reference to how mainstream scholarship determine reliability is more than justified under the NPOV policy (have you read it?) Just because inerrants use one set of criteria does not mean we censor other POVs. And how are my statements inaccurate? Is the historical method and textual criticisms not tools used by historians to determine biblical reliability? We need a 3rd opinion so I'm putting in a RfC. --Andrew c 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

First of all, I think some of us should have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Try your utmost to discuss and reach compromise, rather than just reverting. Now, DjSamwise, I don't think it's possible to have your preferred paragraph as is - no offence, but it isn't particularly stylish, and could do with a little wikifying, so stop reverting it as is, and try to take on board other people's improvements. I do however, agree that it seems a little jarring to have the methods historians examine biblical inerrancy in a section on establishing it, so perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a section, not on how inerrencists establish inerrancy, but on general evidence or lack therof for inerrancy. That way, you could mention the evidence inerrencists give and the methods they use to gather it, with the caveat that these are not the techniques used by mainstream historians, and the problems this causes. One last thing; could all of you please try not to make as many edits in a row - it increases the load on the servers, and makes it very hard to get a picture of what's going on. Put all your changes into one edit - if the edit summary isn't big enough, put it on talk. --Scott Wilson 10:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to give a third opinion. I like your suggestion, but I'm not sure that I am the one who could properly impliment it. I will give it a shot if necessary, but I'll wait to see how DjSamwise responds to your post. Thanks again.--Andrew c 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just got back on after a long haitus. And I agree in part. My writing is not great. I need to assimilate others' suggestions and the methods of hostorians do not have a place in the opening line of a section describing the view of how biblical inerrency is established. I think of the article in this way.. I am a student and I want to know more of the subject so I get here and instead of organized point by point discussion of the topic I see random editorial opinions strewn all over the place as if people are shouting to have thier opinion heard. Andrew, if you need this to be a debate who am I to say you shouldn't post your stuff. Just make a different section for it allowing the section of verifiable and published view of the experts on the subject to stand. Like I said if I were a student and wanted to find solid information that's what I'd want a full solid chunk of good information, followed by another. Please if I've erred in the ways of wiki on this view, let me know. --DjSamwise 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There.. I've moved the textual critisism part to the section on establishment of the autograph which seems more appropriate. --DjSamwise 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Protestent vs Evangelical

I removed most of the refferences to Prostestant in favor of Evangelical. reason being is that the title Protestant referrs to one's belief about Catholosism. Those who consider themselves Evangelicals hold a wide variation of beliefs about Catholics (from Apostates to Equals). Most(many) Charismatic, pentacostal and non-denom groups do not use the term Protestant. The only problem with this is it leaves out the Mainstream Churches (Lutherans, Church of Christ, etc). Who may not consider themselves Evangelical.. --DjSamwise 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I see an error in my edits so I reverted to Protesant. I'm considering reworking this article so that the various stances are not listed in order of which groups hold them to be true. Hmmm.. any suggestions? --DjSamwise 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Observe how the article "Biblical Inspiration" is written. Perhaps we should use that template but cover different material. To many the terms Inerrency, Infalibillity and Inspiration are not mutually inclusive. --DjSamwise 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How Inerrantists establish reliability

This section is poorly written in that it takes one aspect of what inerrantists consider and labels it, "How they do it". I altered the section to be more accurate to such books as are written by the bibliologists Geisler and Nix on that very subject. Please don't revert. Add to it if you need to but dont blatently discount the currently widely accepted scholarly material on the subject. Thanks. --DjSamwise 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For information on the subject please refer to "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix, refferenced in the article. There are also many other sources out there to obtain the views of theologians who hole to the view on inerrency. When writing, please remember to represent their views, not your own. Neutral and verifiable yes? We are not having the argument as to whether or not the Bible is inerrant. We are simply linking the doctrine of inerrency from the source to those who would like to know about it. Thanks. --DjSamwise 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Links and Citations

Would someone mind helping fix these (especially mine) I can't seem to get them to show up appropriately andit would be really cool to have all the citations in thier place linking to the source at the bottom (I'm new to wikki tags if ya can't tell) :) Thanks! And you guys that have been exchanging edits with me, keep up the good work this article is becoming clearer and more useful! --DjSamwise 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK.. I think I broke the article YARG! I can't figure out how to get the citations to link correctly. --DjSamwise 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet is to copy and paste the text from template:cite web and fill in as much information as possible, then deleting the categories left blank. If you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to try and help. Also, you can look at other working pages and try to copy their working code. --Andrew c 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, please be patient while I learn. ;) --DjSamwise 16:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

my edit

From top to bottom:

• Citing another wiki does not seem to go along with citing Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• Neither link said God coauthored these books, so I changed to the wording of the reference "inspired by God".
• Used the template:cite web to format the citation
• There was a one sentence paragraph, so I combined it with another paragraph that fit.
• "Multitude" seems like a hyperbole, toned down the POV by changing word to "a number of".
• Did some minor POV issues to the new paragraph that cites Geisler
• Fixed a LOT of spelling errors. Please run spell check before adding content. Also, the semicolon is generally used to seperate complete sentences. A comma can seperate multiple subjects.
• Rearranged see also
• Combined 'references' with 'literature', alphabetized

--Andrew c 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent thank you. Several things I shold comment on, the POV of the established experts is wha we're going for here yes? In our writing we maintian neutrlity in presenting thier point of view. That is we don't endorse or discount it but demonstrate what thier POV is.

Also, IN the section "How inerr.. establish.." You keep bringing in how Historians establish reliabillity. Do to it being a different discussion altogether, Please consider a new section entitled "The Historians view of iner.. " Instead of presenting their view in that section. --DjSamwise 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I created a Historical Perspective section to aleviate confusion of topics. Enjoy. :) --DjSamwise 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainline protestantism

This article does not discuss, even briefly, the way mainline protestantism views biblical inerrancy, nor the history these views. It would be very useful if someone wrote a section on this -- I would, but my ignorance is holding me back (well, and time). Furthermore, we should mention the views of a church as important as the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, and other European Lutheran views. Even if they arent inerrancists, some of them used to be, and a paragraph about this is needed. --Zantastik talk 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

giant quote

Ok here it is. Please, wikipedia is not a primary source. Summarize, and or include a much more concise quote. 11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11 & 12) --Andrew c 06:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A Protestant Christian position: Which denominations?

The article says "In 1978 a large gathering of Protestant churches, including representatives of the Conservative, Reformed and Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations, adopted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." There is no monolithic "Lutheran Church." Major Lutheran churches in the US include the more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. the more conservative Missouri Synod, and the extremely conservative Wisconsin Synod. They very rarely agree on anything and rarely work together on anything, except some worldwide relief efforts. There is likely an increasing ageeement with inerrancy as one moves from left to right among them. When I look at the article for Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy it refers to "300 evangelical scholars at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy." The article identifies five men who are in their own articles said to be Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Reformed Presbyterian and Calvinist. Without further identification of any Lutheran, Methodist, or other Protestant mainstream denominations having official representatives, this article goes way too far in making unsupported claims that mainstream protestant denominations support biblical inerrancy. Please provide some support for that claim, or I will trim it back to saying that the Chicago Statement showed that fundamentalist protestant denominations support inerrancy. I have seen articles on the home pages of some protestant denominations to say that they do not support inerrancy at all, that they perhaps see the Bible as inspired and as inerrant in faith in morals, but not in science and history. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (4.9 million members) website at http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=16 says that that Lutheran denomination does not believe in biblical inerrancy. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (2.6 million members) website says that denomination does indeed believe in biblical inerrancy, at http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2516 . The Wisconsin Synod (400,000 members)says "When the church fathers of the past referred to the Bible as the Word of God, inspired, infallible, inerrant, all of these terms meant the same thing: they believed that since the very words of Scripture were given by God, they were true in everything that they said. The reason that it is especially important to stress the word "inerrant" today is that some, including many or even most in the ELCA, have watered down the other words to make them mean less than they did in the past." at their website http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=39&cuItem_itemID=12772 . The article speaks of a "Wesleyan" viewbut should include a link to the United Methodist Church, the largest Wesleyan denomination in the US. The UMC says, from their official "Book of Discipline," "We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith,..." which falls far short of inerrancy in matters of science and history as believed by Fundamentalists. See at http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1809 . So perhaps some individual Lutheran minsisters signed the Chicago Statement and two of three major US Lutheran bodies endorse fundamentalist inerrancy, but the ELCA with more members than the other two bodies combined, does not.Edison 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)(edited)Edison 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying. The mainstream position has changed in the last few decades from one of a fundamentalist perspective of inerrent to one of a post-modern perspective of spiritual applicibillity (infallible on matter of faith not inerrant). You should definately create a section entitled "the mainstream churchs' response to inerrency" or something like that.

Side note, Wesley was a staunch believer in the inerrency of scripture. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true)" ("The Means of Grace," Sermon #16). "We know, 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' and is therefore true and right concerning all things" ("On Charity," Sermon #91). "If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that 'all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes.' Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth" (Journal, 24 July, 1776). Wesley wrote a letter to the Bishop of Gloucester in response to the Bishop's tract "On the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit." In it the Bishop claimed that the Holy Spirit so directed the writers that "no considerable error should fall from them." Wesley objected to this language by writing, "Nay, will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture, shake the authority of the whole?" (Works, Jackson ed., 9:150). Peace in Christ. :) --DjSamwise 19:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction edit

The introduction was edited today and now reads:

Biblical inerrancy is the personal belief and theological stance that in it's original form,

I think this is a more correct statement, but "original form" should now be defined. This is the crux of much debate in and of itself given the lack of "original" documents. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

you mean like "original manuscripts" or something? Dallas Theological seminary has this in thier statement of faith: "We believe that all “Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts.."

Go ahead and change it if you like. :) --DjSamwise 19:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)