Biblical inerrancy - Revision history

GregSmith at 19:03, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T19:03:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 26 May 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation:Bible}}		{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}
	{{~~Header~~}}

	~~<onlyinclude>~~		=Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?=
	=~~=Question:~~ Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?==		==The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant==
	===The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant===

	As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":<ref>On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.</ref>		As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":<ref>On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.</ref>
Line 15:		Line 13:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=~~=Question:~~ Is any book of scripture perfect?==		=Is any book of scripture perfect?=
	===No book of scripture is "perfect"===		==No book of scripture is "perfect"==
	Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy\|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:		Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy\|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:

Line 31:		Line 29:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=~~=Question:~~ Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?==		=Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?=
	===Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today===		==Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today==

	It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.		It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.
Line 42:		Line 40:
	The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.		The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.

	===In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps===		==In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps==

	Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.		Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.
Line 56:		Line 54:
	BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they ''do'', in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.		BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they ''do'', in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.

	===Early LDS study of biblical languages===		==Early LDS study of biblical languages==

	One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.<ref>Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.</ref> Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'		One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.<ref>Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.</ref> Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'
Line 62:		Line 60:
	What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.		What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.

	===The Book of Mormon on the Bible===		==The Book of Mormon on the Bible==

	Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.		Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.

	It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.~~</onlyinclude>~~		It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.

			{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Trustworthy/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

	{{~~Critical~~ sources ~~box:The Bible/Trustworthy/CriticalSources~~}}		{{Endnotes sources}}
	~~{{endnotes sources}}~~
			<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	[[Category:Questions]]		[[Category:Questions]]

GregSmith at 06:18, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T06:18:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 30 April 2024
Line 68:		Line 68:
	It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.</onlyinclude>		It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.</onlyinclude>


			{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Trustworthy/CriticalSources}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
	[[Category:Questions]]		[[Category:Questions]]

GregSmith at 16:40, 27 April 2024

2024-04-27T16:40:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 27 April 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.<ref>{{FR-11-2-3}} {{io}}</ref>		The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.<ref>{{FR-11-2-3}} {{io}}</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	~~{{endnotes sources}}~~
	~~{{Back to top}}~~


	==Question: Is any book of scripture perfect?==		==Question: Is any book of scripture perfect?==
Line 34:		Line 30:
	The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.<ref>{{JDfairwiki\|author=George A. Smith\|vol=12\|start=335\|disc=63}} [15 November 1863]</ref>		The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.<ref>{{JDfairwiki\|author=George A. Smith\|vol=12\|start=335\|disc=63}} [15 November 1863]</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	~~{{endnotes sources}}~~
	~~{{Back to top}}~~


	==Question: Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?==		==Question: Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?==

GregSmith at 16:32, 27 April 2024

2024-04-27T16:32:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 27 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation ~~the~~ Bible}}		{{Navigation:Bible}}
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

			<onlyinclude>
	==Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?==		==Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?==
	===The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant===		===The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant===
Line 73:		Line 74:
	Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.		Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.

	It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.		It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.<ref>See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.</ref> Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.<ref>Benjamin McGuire, "[http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Nephi_and_Goliath.html Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi]" (text), or [[Topical_Guide/Multimedia_presentations/Videos/YouTube/FAIR_Conference/2001#Benjamin_McGuire_-_.22Nephi_and_Goliath:_A_Reappraisal_of_the_Use_of_the_Old_Testament_in_First_Nephi.22\|video]].</ref> This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.</onlyinclude>

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
	[[Category:Questions]]		[[Category:Questions]]

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T21:17:57Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Main Page}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation the Bible}}		{{Navigation the Bible}}

	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T20:01:09Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{Navigation the Bible}}		{{Navigation the Bible}}


	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

GregSmith: /* The Book of Mormon on the Bible */bot - tag "Questions"

2024-04-13T03:31:49Z

The Book of Mormon on the Bible: bot - tag "Questions"

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 13 April 2024
Line 78:		Line 78:

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
			[[Category:Questions]]

DavidSmith: content consolidation

2023-11-29T23:05:38Z

content consolidation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 29 November 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:

	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}
			{{Back to top}}


			==Question: Is any book of scripture perfect?==
			===No book of scripture is "perfect"===
			Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy\|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:

			<blockquote>
			When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.<ref>{{JDfairwiki\|author=Brigham Young\|vol=9\|start=311\|disc=64}} [13 July 1862]</ref>
			</blockquote>

			So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.

			Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:

			<blockquote>
			The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.<ref>{{JDfairwiki\|author=George A. Smith\|vol=12\|start=335\|disc=63}} [15 November 1863]</ref>
			</blockquote>

			{{endnotes sources}}
			{{Back to top}}


	==Question: Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?==		==Question: Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?==

DavidSmith: content consolidation

2023-11-29T23:04:03Z

content consolidation

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{FairMormon}}
-<onlyinclude>
+{{Navigation the Bible}}
 ==Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?==
 ===The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant===
@@ Line 11: / Line 15: @@
 The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.<ref>{{FR-11-2-3}} {{io}}</ref>
 </blockquote>
-</onlyinclude>
 {{endnotes sources}}

DavidSmith: DavidSmith moved page Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant? to Biblical inerrancy: wiki update project

2023-11-29T23:03:09Z

DavidSmith moved page Question: Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant? to Biblical inerrancy: wiki update project

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:03, 29 November 2023
(No difference)