Talk:Biblical inerrancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go to: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Biblical Inerrancy and Catholicism

Several paragraphs of Dei Verbum were included to get the point across as to the PRECISE position of the Catholic Church on the Bible. Your edit makes it appear that the Church holds a position other than the precise position. Maybe it can be paraphrased several years from now, but until then, it should be left there until Catholics understand the official position of the Church so they do not contribute to Biblical inerrant nonsense. If you object to its relevance at this time, please note that about one in six people in the world are Catholic. I do not mean to justify unnecessary additions (the complete document is on the Vatican's website, and I understand your concern about primary sources), but I think you get the point. JBogdan 01:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but quoting that much from a primary source IS against wikipedia policy. There is no argument there. I understand your concern about giving due weight to the majority Christian view (the Catholic POV), and that is a valid concern. However, the reason you stated for including it, to education Catholics about official policy, and calling Biblical inerrancy nonsense is clearly POV. Wikipedia's job is not to take sides and judge POV, and wikipedia's job is not to inform Catholics on Catholic doctrine. You may want to review some key policy points including Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please, either select a more concise selection of your quote, cut it down by using ellipses to eliminating less important sentences, or better yet, paraphrase and summarize the content in an encyclopedic manner. Do you honestly think a huge quote from a primary souce is better for an encyclopedia than simply describing the position? Please consider Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:The perfect article and note that none of them suggestion quoting primary sources to this extent. I have removed the quote again. The full text is already included this talk page, above. So you are welcome to try and rework it, summarize, cut it down, or whatever it takes to bring it up to wikipedia standards. --Andrew c 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing has come to mind why this quote is not helpful. Wikipedia:Explain jargon. It is very theologically dense, and Catholic specific in its language. To a layreader, is reading that going to help understanding, than having an encyclopedic overview of what the document is trying to say? Clearly not.--Andrew c 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. That works. I will leave it the way you have it now. JBogdan 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this information doesn't belong here. I'll review the quote and the current content and see if I can't come up with something a bit better.--Andrew c 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


________________________

Again ... the discussion seems to be misplaced! Does Biblical Literalism sufficiently overlap with what is known as Literal Inerrancy to warrant merger into the same discussion. Of couse they do! Again, to assist, nobody has to resolve whether or not literal inerrancy is objective truth, nor does anyone have to accurately and with anguish of perfection, upon pains of torture and death by dissolving eyeballs and skin sloughed off, detail every single 'perspective' on this question. That can and should be done, with brevity and clarity in mind, IN THE MERGED SECTION ITSELF.

Now ... for a great exmaple if one looks at the passages of Isaiah that pertain to the prophecies of the Moshiach (Messiah) one runs into (at least by all appearances anyway) immediate problems with LITERAL inerrancy, for YESHUA did not embrace the ascetical life of honey and curds (so as to tell good from bad) but was to some (not I) a glutton and a drunkard, as discussed in the later and subsequent gospel accounts. And this no doubt called upon many to deeply ponder what Isaiah meant--for John the Baptist himself, after declaring "behold the lamb of God ...," sent word to Messiah, asking, "are you the one or are we to expect another"? He--John the Baptizer--expected one thing from the prophecies but was seeing something of a twist to those prophecies before his very eyes and, in turn, this led to his own crisis of faith while in prison. This is important for even the Jewish people today as yesterday deny and reject Yeshua as Moshiach because of what they believe to be an incomplete or (depending on scholar or writer or partisan)even total failure to meet Isaiah's prophecies. Thus ... literal inerrancy, for most of Judaica, precludes Messiah's having yet arrived! God Himself will absolutely resolve those questions for all minds, He has already done so for many hearts. We do not have to resolve who is right. God does that.

My point, then, is we can split infinitives until gnats become invisible specks to strained eyes, and for all wisdom and truth we all should, I suppose, but DOING SO is not relevant to whether or not the topics are PROPERLY MERGED. That's the question--not what do Catholics believe or what do Protestant's believe or what do atheists believe?

If and when anyone speaks of Biblical Literalism they necessarily speak of what many know as Literal Inerrancy or its progeny. MERGE THEM and stay on task at defining these things carefully. Why put six packs of beer with toothpaste? __________________________________

I disagree with anything that would throwa bunchofinfo on this page on how pepole interperate the Bible. That belongs in Hermeneutics. THe discussion here is Bibliology, it's devine origin and status are being discussed,not how to interperate the content. peace. --DjSamwise 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Figurative language and Bullinger

While the paragraph may need work, deleting it is not the way to do this. The issue of figurative language is relevant to an article about inerrancy and Bullinger is still one of, if not the, pre-eminent figure in this area. Wjhonson 05:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes figurative language is a good topic of discussion but it doesn't belong in anarticle on what inerrency is. NO ONE believes in "biblical literalism" it's just nota real term. --DjSamwise 00:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical literalism

"In its most stringent form, biblical inerrancy holds that the Bible is literally true in every word" Who invented this? Biblcial inerrency in it's purest form doesn't deal at all with the application of scriptures.. only to say that it's pure untainted word of God originally with no error. There's still room for analogies and parables (fireballs coming out of God's nostrals) (David and bathseeba being described as a Rich man stealing sheep). No ones's gonna argue that Nathan thought bathsheeba was a sheep. I'm going to delete or rework this paragpraph soon. --DjSamwise 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Hermenutics deals with how to interperate the meaning in its proper context. This article does not (or rather should not) deal with Hermenutics. It's function is to discuss Bibliology. Views on the actual state of Scritpire (historicity and factual content, etc) not to demonstrate various responses of interpretation in light of that. :) Just a clarification. --DjSamwise 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do so. --Ronconte 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In progress. :) --DjSamwise 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps adding the Biblical Literism garbage? There is no such school of thought. Editor PLEASE restrain yourself from inventing original research. --DjSamwise 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Again, Arbeiter, please do not add info on "Biblical Literalists" explaining why thier position is wrong until you actually find one. They don't exist. So maybe that's a good thing, wee you win, you've conquered them all! :) OK seriously, try not to attack a "them" with out a good refference as to who "they" actually are. --DjSamwise 03:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Intro

OK, I cleaned up the introductionary sentance to a brief precise definition and nothing but. No POV, no extras, just the facts jack. :)

I also included created a second paragraph to help define the term using the clear, accepted definitions. I'd appreciate any help to clean that up but please don't delete the terms and becareful when using words like "infallible" or "inspired", etc. Each one carries it's own specific meaning in the theological world. I tried to make that distinction clear in the most recent edit. What do you think? --DjSamwise 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree those concepts are theologically important, and I'm glad to see them in the article. However, I think the part about what inerrancy applies to such as the lost original autographs vs. english translations like the KJV-only movement, was also important information. Maybe the jist of that could be restored?--Andrew c 01:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think it could go well in the second paragraph. I'll hit that up after work tonight unless someone wants to beat me to it. --DjSamwise 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite/redo/rework/rehaul? just fix it.

It doesn't look like the rewrite merger page is going anywhere. The rewrite is filled with more diambiguity, POV and uncited material than this one. --DjSamwise 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag. This one is allready a way better article than the rewrite. --DjSamwise 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's put all rewrite info in this talkpage, come to consencus and get this page looking nicer. See below for the rewrite of all the differing religious views section. --DjSamwise 23:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Views on the Bilble

Ok ya'll.. I'm not sure what we're going to do with this section. First things first. This article IS NOT titled "the BIBLE" so I suggest we start slimming down the paragraphs to start including ONLY materials related to the topic of inerrency. Also, why do we need two Catholic positions? OK, so don't get offended if your religion's section gets slimmed down to remove all the doctrine and what not that's cited better in that religious own article. Let's keep on topic yes? Peace. --DjSamwise 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You think we could also learn to spell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infalibility --JoeyKelly

feel free to edit my friend. :) I never claimed inerrency on myself. --Home Computer 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy contains this sentence: "Of course, knowing the intent of the original authors is impossible." Is this part of the Chicago Statement, or is this a POV sentence in response to the Statement? Does this sentence really belong in a paragraph that just purports to describe the Chicago Statement? Sentences that begin "Of course" always throw up a red flag for me. 209.203.91.195Glenn R. Wichman

[edit] Working on fixing citations and links

I'm working on getting every claim on this page tagged with a good source. Please feel free to help. I'm using the refference foot note thing. Just type (leftarrow)ref(rightarrow) link to where ever (leftarrow)/ref(rightarrow). It will look real nice. ;)

My personal library doesn't have any books relevent to this topic, so my resources are limited in regards to helping out. However, I commend these efforts. In case the above wasn't clear, to include text in a footnote, surround the text with <ref>footnotetext</ref>. And there is always the Wikipedia:Citation templates that can help format citations.--Andrew c 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As always, Thanks for the tips. :) --DjSamwise 00:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horribly, horribly, horribly POV

From the article

"Among those who subscribe to infallibility is the belief that though the minute details may contain errors, but maintain what the scriptures say regarding spiritual issues is ultimately useful and true. Inerrancy goes one step further and includes that the scientific, geographic, and historic details and of the original text is ultimately true and real."

Ok... so read the "Basis of Belief" and "How Inerrancy is Established" and tell me with a straight face that the article isn't horribly biased. Basically, what's been done is someone has posted the religious equivalent of a "the moon landing was faked"-type conspiracy theory, written supporting arguments and not bothered to mention the GLARING flaws in such a theory.

Merely stating that some Christians don't believe in inerrancy isn't enough. Biblical Inerrancy isn't a religious or moral proposition; it's a perfectly testable, objective assertion. If we accept the definition of Biblical Inerrancy (as distinct from Biblical Infallibility) as the belief that all scientific, histocial details in the Bible are factually true, then we must mention where the Bible diverges from history and blatantly contradicts both itself and the natural world. See Internal consistency and the Bible, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html , and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html for more information.

I agree that something needs to be done with "How Biblical Inerrancy is Established": because, of course, it isn't "established" in this fashion! It's an entirely faith-based position, the belief that the Bible should be inerrant. It isn't a conclusion reached from studying the evidence, nor is it a belief that can be confirmed by studying the evidence. But inerrantists claim otherwise, and I suppose we need to note this somehow.
Horribly POV? This isn't a debate forum. This is the section where the Christian doctrine of biblical inerrency is defined. The section on establishment discusses how the theologians establish it. It's not about OUR pov. It's about the POV of those notable, citeable experts on the subject.
But this isn't how they establish it! It's a faith-based and entirely unscholarly position (that denies actual scholarship), and I don't see that we have a duty to pretend otherwise (as the apologists themselves often do). We need some caveats in here. --Robert Stevens 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I challenge you to ignore your feelings at the moment and examine the sources. Like it or not, inerrecy is what is currently taught at conservative institutions and seminaries. This article is NOT arguing that they are right. This article's purpose is only to document (accurately) what the teaching is and whois teaching it. Peace. --Home Computer 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


POV would be an article arguing for it. There is no argument here, it sumply states what is believed, leaving OUR POV and yours behind. --Home Computer 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The guidance on the NPOV policy is sketchy regarding examples where one side of a controversy holds views that are factually incorrect (e.g. inerrantists, creationists etc). This isn't a "Britney Spears is a talented singer" sort of issue. --Robert Stevens 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, it's very clear. We are NOT to try to push our own POV. We are not to try to present all sorts of arguments to demonstrate our pro or con arguments. We present the reliable notable citableinfor,mation on the subject. If the subject is a Christian doctrine we don't need to include if any of us agree or disagree. Like saying Hitler is evil or bannanas taste good.. it doesn't belong here. The theology is currently accurately presented. If you don't agree with the theology, that's fine.. from reading this article you will have a better reason to not believe. And if you do believeyou'll havea better understanding of where the belief came from. NPOV article are good like that. You can read it, it presents the view accurately and you can still see clearly why you would not (or would) agree with the view. Peace. --Home Computer 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
...Then, by your own argument, we are required to edit the heading which suggests that Biblical inerrancy has been "established": because it has NOT been "established". Would headings such as "How Hitler's Evil is Established" or "How the Great Taste of Bananas is Established" be acceptable? I think not! --Robert Stevens 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhm No dude. Did you even read the section? If you read the section perhaps you will not be so upset. The doctrine of inerrency is established. The doctrine exists. The doctrin has existed for a long time and the doctrine will continue to exist. How can that be construed as POV. The sectiondoes not say this doctrine is true and if you don't believe it you're stupid. it says, this is how it was established.. this is how they justify it. Pleas read the section. --Home Computer 15:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The heading refers to "Biblical inerrancy", not the "doctrine" of Biblical inerrancy. The POV implication is that the Bible IS inerrant. The paragraph then goes on to list tests which, if true, might have established that the Bible WAS inerrant: it doesn't mention that the Bible fails the tests listed (according to actual scholars). But the doctrine originates in a belief not mentioned in this paragraph (though mentioned elsewhere in the article): "The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the Word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error" (i.e. a faith-based position). THIS is how the doctrine was "established". It has nothing to do with "historical accuracy" or "fulfilled prophecies" or whatever. The rest is apologetics (i.e. inventing excuses for the Bible's errors, which are rejected by non-inerrantists): which did not "establish" the doctrine in any meaningful sense. So why does this paragraph claim otherwise? At best, this refers to strategies for defending the doctrine: not for "establishing" it. --Robert Stevens 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the definition using proper citattion to adress your issues. We are now discussion the doctrine of "Biblical Inerrency" as taught by conservatice universities. So now we don't need to worry about why people believe things, lets stick to what the theory is and keep all discussion related to what is and what isn't Biblical inerrency as defined by reputable citable experts on the matter. Furthermore, Lets agree not even discuss IF the Bible is or isn't inerrent. The discussion isn't the Bible, it's the doctrine of inerrency. --Home Computer 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is from the NPOV policy page:

"Attributing and substantiating biased statements Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems."

So, this appears to be suggesting that a POV that is factually incorrect CAN be addressed by substantiating the factual claims against it: this would not violate the NPOV policy. But do we really want to go there? I think we can all see what would happen... --Robert Stevens 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This version from two weeks ago looks more sane. Shall we simply revert? --Pjacobi 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to change. What is listed now is the unaltered, notable, current, scholarly opinion on the matter. We are not supposed to edit that opinion based onour POV. Our opinions are irrelevant. Weare simply documenting what the teaching is and various facts about it, such as who teaches, how they establish it, what it means, etc. We DO NOT i repeart DO NOT edit the opinion of the experts to water it down. We are reporting precicely what is taught, whether it be racist or controversial or bland or truthful or a complete lie in our mind is irrelevant because we're not reporting our response we are reporting accurately what is taught. Who cares if Robert Stevens doesn't like what is taught in conservative seminaries and universities. It's irrelevant to the article. --Home Computer 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it is NOT the "current scholarly opinion" on this matter. Nor does the offending paragraph accurately report "how they establish it". Nor are these people "the experts". This is all POV. --Robert Stevens 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it help if the title "How Biblical Inerrancy is Established" was changed to "Strategies for Promulgating and Defending the Doctrine" or something similar? With a few occurrences of "alleged" inserted into the text before the actual strategies listed? --Robert Stevens 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, adding your opinion (that commonly taught proofs are simply strategies for promulgation) would not be appropriate. The fact that the teachings which were cited are established teachings on the matter is not in dispute if you examine the source. The source will clairify for you that the material is well established. Established doesn't mean that it's automatically true btw. Established means more along the lines of "accepted". Hope this helps.

Also please see the following: http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/ that link should clarify for you that prominent conservative Bible seminaries do in fact teach inerrency. Peace. --Home Computer 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no commonly-taught "proofs", because it is only a matter of opinion that these are "proofs" of anything: the word "proof" has a very specific meaning, and apologetics don't qualify. My point is that the doctrine is "established" only in the minds of those who have chosen to believe it: in that sense, it's no more "esatablished" than geocentrism or flat-Earthism. It is very misleading to use the word "established" in this fashion. I could just as easily write an article entitled "How Flat-Earthism is Established" and claim that advocates of this doctrine base their claim on "astrophysics", "observations from space" and so forth. Do you see why this claim would be problematic, even if there is evidence that flat-Earthers believe that such evidence supports their position? More detachment is required.
'm not sure why you're picking at this point too but "Established" in this instance means on which grounds it's founded. To establish a point = to come to a conclusion regarding that point. If the conservatives came to that point why do you care so much which point they've established among themselves? --Home Computer 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And I have no doubt that "prominent conservative Bible seminaries do in fact teach inerrancy" within the "Bible Belt" of the southern states of the USA. And I have no objection to this being stated. But it's still a minority position even among Christians, and rejected almost unanimously by scholars all over the world (not just Biblical scholars, as experts in many areas of science and history reject those parts of the Bible which contradict what they know in their fields of expertise). Which again makes the use of the word "established" problematic: it is undoubtedly the established scholarly consensus that the Bible is errant, even if some disagree. And Dallas Theological Seminary is hardly an example of a "scholarly" source, for the very reason that your link demonstrates: true scholarship involves drawing conclusions from evidence, it doesn't involve "doctrinal statements" of beliefs imposed by fiat. --Robert Stevens 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry pal but the refferences proove you wrong. Conservative Christian scholarship holds to this teaching, as do conservative Christian Universities. Look at the doctrinal statement of anyof them and you'll see. I challenge your abillity to look past your own view point and see what's actually being taught.--Home Computer 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Based upon this conversation, I reviewed the article and made a few edits. The article seems disjointed to me. The statements of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals (which is Protestant and should be one section), etc. has little applicability to the topic. These sections need to be more clearly tied to the topic; do they believe in Biblical inerrancy or not. From what is written, I can't tell. Further, throughout the article text are short, opposing statements. I think that there needs to be definite case made for why some disagree with this topic within Christianity at large and from the secular arena as well. As a LDS I have grown comfortable with the concept that you must have the "con" side in an article to be NPOV. For example, one can't simply say LDS are Christians without giving the full litany of churches and individuals who argue against such a statement. It may be tiresome, but it is part of having a balanced article. Storm Rider (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...It's a step in the right direction, yes. I'll add a few qualifiers. Maybe some critical citations later. --Robert Stevens 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Robert please..

Hey man, keep your POV off the article. If you disagree with what current scholars at Christian conservative universtities and seminaries teach that's fine. Don't go messing up the page that accurately descibes what their position is thought. If they teach a doctrine, and the doctrine is accurately quoted. Don't throw the world "alledgedly" in there everytime you disagree with them. That's what POV is. --Home Computer 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Home Computer, qualifiers are necessary in this article because it attempts to state "truths", which WIKI can not appear to support or deny. We just report with statements that demonstrate they are attributed to supporters of this position. Robert, I think using allegedly, claims, etc provide a negative connotation and tone that is not appropriate. Qualifiers are necessary, but we should choose words that do not taint the tone; seek objectivity. Cheers Storm Rider (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]:As a number of users have stated above, the use of the word "established" is controversial. I do not believe there is any consensus to keep the word "established", so we all should work together to find a more apt title that we can all agree upon. I also agree that the NPOV policy is being stretched here. I think the most relevent section of the policy is "Attributing and substantiating biased statements". It is POV to say "The bible is historically accurate". We need to attribute that claim, and specifically say that it is a claim/belief/position, and not a fact. I've worked on this issue here in this article in the past because it used to be worse, but I still think these are things we need to look out for. And as I have mentioned before, there needs to be a criticism section added, or else we may face having to insert the mainstream POV to counter the inerrancy POV in each section. The point of the NPOV policy is not "write an article favorable to the POV being discussed" but instead to include all relevent POVs (without giving undue weight to minority views) in regards to the topic in question. That means that the view of mainstream scholarship needs to be included, even if it IS critical of the inerrancy POV. As discussed in the past, perhaps the best place for this sort of thing is in its own criticism section, however, I personally have not had the motivation, resources, nor time to do that myself. Anyway, I'm glad there seems to be more interest in this article.--Andrew c 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't this is the appropriate place for a discussion on whether or not the Bible is truthful, which is a likely result of us including information on why people might disagree with the topic of inerrency so there would have to be somethng in place to direct the editing.. like proper categorization that we all agreed on.

First and foremost, for this to be a good article, the article must accurately present what the concept is (biblical inerrency). Included in that I've attempted to demonstrate who believes it and why with whatever they use for it. I've not given my own opinion and I've not offended anyone. If they want to take offense to what is taught in conservative Christian circles.. I can't help that, not my fault. :) But I've been true to what is taught without flavor or persuasiveness. Now if we can move forward maintaining that, awesome. If we can't the most important thing on my agenda as far as trying to keep a clean article is concerned is accurately presenting what the doctrine is. Like as what's stated before, you don't need to go on the Hitler article and start arguing that Hitler was evil. Just present the facts, let them speak for themselve. You don't say Hitler taught that the Jew were alledgedly evil. WE ALL KNOW that Hitler taught that. Most of us know that Hitler was evil. We don't need to make sure our opinion is heard, the fact speak for themselves. So lets all agreee to present the fact, quoted, intact, verifiable, etc. --Home Computer 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

...And I have already pointed out that I have no problem in conveying to the reader that this is what inerrantist sources claim. Indeed, I don't have a problem in pointing out that this is what Giesler and Nix claim. But that doesn't mean that inerrancy has been "established". And we must avoid any implication that the Bible IS "historically accurate", that it DOES contain "fulfilled prophecies", and so forth: we must make it clear that these are inerrantist claims. Qualifiers of some sort, or a very clear limiting of the context of such controversial statements, is needed.
As I'm obviously not the only one who objects to "established", I'll revert that. And I'm open to suggestions regarding "neutral-tone" qualifiers. I'll replace "teach" with "claim", because "claim" is more neutral and "teach" implies the imparting of facts: but I'll avoid "alleged", and a single qualifier relating to everything claimed by Giesler and Nix may be sufficient. And claiming that Giesler and Nix is "the" text on the subject is a little overblown. --Robert Stevens 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, who else objected to the term establish and on what basis? I may have missed something. --Home Computer 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is precedence for this

Sorry for making another section, but I want everyone to read this:


Wikipedia is not a place to post someone's unchallenged beliefs if those beliefs are provably wrong (or at least extremely questionable), even if those beliefs are widely held. As an analogy, look at the page on the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations--there is a point by point refutation of each of the claims made by Hoax proponents. What we're asking for here is even more concrete and irrefutable than the counterpoints outlined in that article--the KJV Bible (and most other versions) contradicts itself, and the fact that some people believe that it doesn't contradict itself does not change the fact that it very clearly does (especially between the New Testement gospels--in several cases, descriptions of the same event are CLEARLY incompatible.) As another example, you could also look at the Common Cold--do we simply state that "many people believe that cold weather directly causes the common cold" and leave it at that? No, this is a scientifically debunked assertion so we explain why this belief is, for the most part, completely unfounded. Likewise, there is HUGE precedent here to include objections to inerrancy--just look at the absolutely MASSIVE number of articles that have sections like "objects to" or "criticism of" or "controversy." Every single debatable concept I've seen on wikipedia has included facts and points of view of both pros and antis. Abortion mentions both negative and positive effects. Creationism includes a "Criticism of" section.

The Earth isn't flat, and this is reflected in Flat Earth Society. Faith Healing doesn't work (at least not alone vs. physiological diseases), and we're thus under no obligation to pretend that it does (and this is reflected in the "Criticism" section.) And the Bible isn't literally inerrant--it contradicts itself, known history, and the natural world in thousands of ways. I'm sorry if this conflicts with your beliefs, but NPOV doesn't mean only mentioning those beliefs that support Biblical Inerrancy any more than Santa Clause should only contain sentiments supporting his existence.

There is SOLID precedence for including at the very least a brief refutation of Biblical Inerrancy, and no precedent I can think of for including only the patiently absurd pro- arguments and omitting any anti- arguments.

--Lode Runner

Lode, I see no contradiction in what you are stating and the direction we are moving and the statments being made. I agree with you to a point. The article should initally state what is Biblical inerrancy, who believes it, and why. Then it should have those churches that don't use the doctrine and why, finally it should provide a secular position. It might also be interesting to identify what other religion have a similar concept i.e Islam in this case regarding the Quran.
If we truly are moving in that direction then great, but Home Computer said that he didn't see any need to change anything, and that our "opinions" (e.g., any factual observation that disagrees with BI) weren't relevant. At least two uncredited responses agreed with him. I am arguing that HC's philosophy is misguided and not supported by precedent--predecent dictates that this article is not just about those who believe in, support, and teach Biblical Inerrancy, but also about the commonly perceived flaws in the concept (just like the commonly perceived flaws in the belief in a Flat Earth are mentioned in the appropriate articles.) Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that we remove any section or even necessarily change any of the wording, just that an addition MUST be made to address the simple, profound logical problems that arise with the current definition of Biblical Inerrancy.Lode Runner
Lode, I'm pretty sure that would be considered both POV and Original Research. What's presented so far is not that the Bible is inerrent, but that a doctrine of inerrency exists and a brief summary of what that belief entails. The fact that people who don't believe the Bible will have a different view is redundant. Like the guidelines say, you don't need to have a "why Hitler is evil" argument on the Hitler page. You just cite the facts of the matter as presented by the noteable experts on the subject. We don't even get to put 2 and 2 together, we don't even get to put up 2. We only get to quote that notable exert so and so says 2, and then cite it. --Home Computer 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I am not speaking in an absolute outline, but using broad brushstrokes to descibe what I think is needed. Home Computer's position, I think, is that the article first needs to clearly and unequivically state what BI is and who believes it without an immediate refutation of such doctrine. Does this make sense? Storm Rider (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I don't have a problem with it (so long as a rational, non-religious refutation is eventually made), but that's not how HC's arguments came across. --Lode Runner
Storm, so long as no one is making thier own claims or obervations eitherway. The OR and POV guidelines make it so that what we have is a clearly documented scholarly article, and not a bunch of people voicing our opinions. There are many notable authorities on inerrency. Liberal Christianity, Athiesm and other groups are all represented by intelligent scholarly discussion on the matter which could be appropriatly included in a tasteful manner.. so long as it does not dissipate the article into an edit war of conflicting opinions and what not. :) In my POV if you it concise and appropriately managed (categorised appropriatly, cited appropriately from notable reputable experts). What we are trying to avoid is the rebuttal, people desperately disagreeing with the content the experts have probided so they want to come up with something to demonstrate the experts as being wrong on every point. As said before, we allready know lost of people don't agree with it. Peace. --Home Computer 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the people who disagree with inerrancy are themselves "the experts". Let's not forget that. Their expert opinion needs to be made clear at some point. --Robert Stevens 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup I think you are right. I request that you keep it concise, so as not to dominate the point of this article and make sure every claim is coming from a cited notable expert.--Home Computer 22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"At least two uncredited responses agreed with him": as far as I can tell from the edit history, this is not the case. What seems to be happening is that when one person posts a paragraph or two and ends it with a signature tag, and another person breaks the first posting to interject something, the top half of the first post is left apparently "anonymous". But leaving all comments to the end of the post makes the context of subsequent remarks hard to follow. Maybe we should get into the habit of cutting-and-pasting the signature tags of others where appropriate. --Robert Stevens 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I realise my spelling and grammer are often horrid. :) With that disclaimer I think that the nouns and pronouns used to describe God or His Word are supposed to be capitolised as proper names usually are. Exceptions are when the generic refference to a non specific god, like the gods of rock wouldn't be captiolised.. --Home Computer 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MOS; names of deities are capitalized, but pronouns referring to deities are not. Titles such as the Bible are capitalized, but adjectives such as biblical verse are not. Nouns describing texts and documents that are not titles, such as "God's word" are not capitalized on Wikipedia, even though other websites may use that protocol. --Blainster 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is the more specific page. Generally, titles, proper nouns, and the first letter in a sentence is capitalized. Informal names that reference proper nouns (like scripture for the Bible) are not capitalized, and pronouns refering to deities are not capitalized, while actual deity names are (God/Juno vs. his/she). Hope this helps, and hope it isn't redundent with the good info Blainster gave. Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, I didn't see the concern raised here until now.--Andrew c 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth."? Proper titles are also capitolised..such as "the former President Nixon" or the "infallible Word of God". I know an argument can be made for or against but in general in all theological writings it's capitolised. --Home Computer 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." It would be nice in my mind to follow the same format as the notable citations on the subject. --Home Computer 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Word of God" is probably a proper noun and the whole phrase would be capitalized, but we can all agree that the phrase is POV, and unless quoted, there are much better words that we could use. I agree that flexibility in the rules can be a good thing, but I feel strongly that we shouldn't capitalize pronouns just because some sources do it. I also feel strongly about an informal name for the Bible being capitalized, thus my edits. Blainster's edits I cannot defend as well, so I will leave that up for them to do. Is there something specifically you think needs to be capitalized that isn't? Could you explain your concern a little more?--Andrew c 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Bible Claim to Be Inerrant?

The "Basis of belief" section of this article refers to "the Bible's claims on its own inerrancy," but does not offer a citation. I just searched for "inerrant" and "inerrancy" at BibleGateway.com, which includes at least a dozen English translations. Number of passages found: zero. This has left me wondering whether the Bible does indeed claim to be inerrant. If so, it would be good to include a citation. If not, I wonder if the bullet point about "the Bible's claims" needs to be altered or deleted.

Me again. I changed "claims on" to "claims of."

Please let me clarify. That entire section displays what the inerrentists teach. The entire section is taken from the well established text on the subject by Geisler and Nix. It is not original research. If we (you or I) make a claim about what we percieve the Bible to say and back it up with quotes and an exigesis that would be original research. At wiki, we stay away from that, its not the place to publish our findings but rather to refference the findings of the notable experts on the subject.

That being said Geisler offers several different texts on the subject of what the Bible claims for itself from the Old testament and the new. If you are interested check out the citations for more info. Peace. --Home Computer 06:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't actually use the word inerrant, but that doesn't mean there isn't something that means its inerrant... Homestarmy 17:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Geisler and Nix demonstrate very clearly in a different chapter how God makes claims of His Word's inerrency. They'd probably give permission for us to reprint that here.. --Home Computer 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Can we come to a concensus on which links need to be here before the links list is longer than the article itelf? :) Plus it seems like we have some warring going on in linkland. --Home Computer 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have been a bit too bold, but I tried to pare down the links and split them into supportive and critical links. I just "eye-balled" it so if a a link is incorrectly placed, please correct it. I do not think it appropriate to have specific church links and thus have deleted all of them. The objective is to limit it to thologians from different shools of thought: Weslyan, Calvinist, Evangelical, etc. Does this make sense and is it an acceptable format for everyone? Storm Rider (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I like what you've done. :) That makes it easier to understand and gives a quick reference as to whether or not it's a balanced list. --Home Computer 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I move the Chicago statement to the top of the list, I feel it is The definitive source on the matter. I also deleted the exposed webpage link. I know there was concern about it by someone else earlier who deleted it for it being just a sales page for some not so well known book on the subject but it keeps popping back up. Possible author plug? --Home Computer 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Inerrency exposed. It's not scholarly at all. The webpage is just a few excerpts from a book refuting the webpage page http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ Looking further into it, it links to a bunch of humous anti-christian strawman type pages. Even the arguments listed are not listed for qualitative stuy but to see how many times the bible can easily be interpreted to contradict itself. The site doesn't even pretend to be about scholarly refutation of inerrency.. calling itself a refutation of a single "pop-appologist" " concentrates on the popular apologetics of a single representative Inerrantist". I don't think a non-nontable ebook, written to refute the position of a nonnotable book written to refute the position of a non-notable website qualifies as a "good external link". Take a look at the webpage. Thoughts? --Home Computer 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree with Home Computer on this. In reviewing the site, I think we can do better. Do you have an recommendation for another site? Storm Rider (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a history with that link, and I supported including it because there was support on talk for it (in the archives and on other talk pages). A known abusive user used to edit war about removing the link. However, I agree it isn't the BEST page possible, and has notability, self-publishing, verifiability, and sourcing/citation issues. If we are going to be strict about these links, I suggest we also apply the same harsh criteria to all links. I have removed a number of other links, and tried to explain why. There was a link to a commercial site. There were 2 links from non-notable people that didn't cite sources, and had low hit ratings. I hope we can agree on keeping only the best links here, and we can all search for better links to replace the recently removed ones!--Andrew c 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I totally agree that the same rules apply evenly acrost the board. :) I don't feel that we're being that strict though, as you said even that site had just about everything wrong with it. Any website on any side of any argument simmilar to that should be removed.. Peace --Home Computer 03:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of biblical inerrancy

The current version of this article does not contain a section on criticism of biblical inerrancy. Perhaps those criticisms are self-evident, yet pretty much every other article has a "criticism" section. Anyone care to write one? Grover cleveland 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree. Jonas Liljeström 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revision of "recovering the autograph" section

I have attempted a revision of the section entitled "recovering the autograph." I describe my reasoning here, as I suspect my revision may soon be reverted.

First, I have changed the title of this section. Textual scholars, for a number of reasons which I will be happy to explain at length, would disagree that the project of "recovering the autograph" even makes any sense. Some would disagree that there is even necessarily an autograph to recover. Instead, this section is about the textual tradition of the New Testament, and I have called it that.

I have deleted this passage entirely: "However, because the church fathers cited the New Testament abundantly, it is possible to reconstruct most of the New Testament without reference to the manuscripts. While this may be true for minor errors, such as misspellings, deletions, and word order errors; other differences are more difficult to account for or notice."

There are a number of problems with these statements. First of all, the writings of the church fathers, together with their biblical citations, are themselves transmitted to us only by manuscripts. So there is no way to reconstruct the text of the New Testament without looking at manuscripts. Secondly, the church fathers themselves used manuscripts to read the texts of the New Testament. We know very little about these manuscripts, though much ink has been devoted to analyzing early scriptural quotations and trying to understand their relationship to surviving New Testament manuscripts, to quotations in author others, to later manuscripts, and so on. Thirdly, the writings of the church fathers are generally transmitted to us by fewer manuscripts, and by later manuscripts, than the texts of the New Testament, for a variety of reasons. All of this means that no textual scholar would ever endorse the notion that the texts of the New Testament, which are abundantly witnessed by good and early manuscripts, could ever be reliably reconstructed solely on the basis of indirect tradition.

I also eliminated the claim that textual criticism is "another technique" for "evaluat[ing] ancient texts such as the books of the Bible." The article does not mention whatever the first technique is supposed to be. In fact the collection of methodologies known as "textual criticism" are the only methods we have for reconstructing lost archetypes from extant manuscripts.

These edits are not the end of the matter. The section could still benefit from significant expansion and many references. But I do think they improve matters somewhat. ECKnibbs 12:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What is important in this article is the opinion of the experts. Your opinion and mine on the subject is unwelcome in the article. Statements such as "..are the only methods we have for reconstructing lost archetypes from extant manuscripts" are extremely POV. And while personal belief are a good tool to motivate us, if you attempt to reform an article to comform to your limited perceptions (as any one persons are) then the article will suffer. --69.244.153.46 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inerrancy in context/ papal infallibility

I'm a newbie at this, so I am not exactly sure how these discussions work, but someone edited out a factual statement that I added for which I provided two credible references. I'm just going to add the following back in for now:

Contrary to common misunderstandings, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility is extremely limited in application and is subject to contingencies. Established at the first Vatican Council in 1870, papal infallibility has been invoked only once, in 1950. [1] [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim333 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


"Contrary to common misunderstanding" is not encyclopedic in tone, and it is original research or POV to say that there are misunderstandings. While the dogma was established at Vatican I, there were pre-Vatican delcarations by popes that have been considered infallible. Saying that there has only been 1 is misleading to say the least. I Also, your initial edit was problematic because it deleted any reference at all the ecumenical councils. This is why I reverted your edits. Also, please sign all your talk page comments by typing four tildes (~~~~)-Andrew c 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how do you know?

could you please show me the site where you got the info about the 5600 manuscripts and such as that? i have never heard of this before (in fact i have heard quite the opposite) and would love to know where you can get this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KatieS.1127 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/b/Talk%7EBiblical_inerrancy_6158.html"