Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But the one angel is outside. The two were inside.
you've already established the account is goal-driven not chronologically driven so you've answered your own question. it is inerrant for the points it's making.Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John. This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him.
John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.
This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice.
It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, orde
Inerrancy/Infallibility of Scripture doesn't infer we who read and interpret scripture will do so infallibly, just that the Scriptures themselves contain no error.
That's an interesting question. Can a book contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear. I don't think it can. The Bible doesn't contain meaning in the same way an apple contains Vitamin C - everyone views it from their own unique perspective although we can learn from one another.
God Himself is objective truth that stands independent of those understandings...
That's an attempt to harmonize the accounts. That harmonization isn't inherent to the texts themselves. The important matter is that Jesus' physical resurrection really happened.
Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John. This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him.
John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.
This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice.
A couple of things here:
1. So many modern Christians don't understand how ancient histories were written or how professional historians use them to formulate a "history."
2. Directly relating to "how ancient histories were written" is the fact that different cultures and times have different epistemologies. That is, different ways of determining and relating "truth."
We are taught history as blocks of "facts," such as discrete dates and names and places and items. We are taught that way because we follow a Greek-based epistemology that posits "truth" as residing in such things as discrete dates and names and places and items, and places a high value on absolute consistency of such from one reporter or context to another reporter or context.
That is our idea of what constitutes "truth," and it has not been a universal idea nor even is it necessarily the best idea. For a 1st century ancient Jew, "truth" was firmly established by the testimonies of two or three witnesses. Based on the testimonies of witnesses, the truth of Christ's resurrection was established firmly enough for early believers...that's why they didn't attempt to verify it by, say, deliberately preserving the location of Jesus' tomb or persevering the spikes and such. They had the witnesses, and in their epistemological system, the testimonies of witnesses fully established "truth."
I think most Christians and others who cast doubt on biblical truth based on inconsistencies of literal "facts" of the biblical texts would be surprised to learn that biblical texts are some of the best supported ancient records in all the science of history. Most of what we consider "ancient history" rests on much scantier, much less supported information.
Going back to the OP, what is further important for Christians is, indeed, to make the distinction of what scripture actually claims its purpose is: The full guide to righteousness. That's all it claims.
It's fallacious to claim that it's either valid for other purposes (such as astronomy, archology, geography), or that it's invalid because it does not suit other purposes. It's valid for the purpose it claims to be valid for.
That's an interesting question. Can a book contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear. I don't think it can. The Bible doesn't contain meaning in the same way an apple contains Vitamin C - everyone views it from their own unique perspective although we can learn from one another.
Do the Resurrection Narratives Hinge Upon Biblical Inerrancy?
On March 22, 2001 Dr William Lane Craig debated Dr Massimo Pigliucci on the topic, "Does the Christian God Exist?" at University of Georgia in the U.G.A. Chapel. The conclusion of the debate provided a lengthy Q&A session. Questions were asked of each debater allowing the other time to respond.
This is well stated-and makes sense. The Catholic church for its part teaches this way:While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.
The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.
Another way of describing this distinction is that the Bible is inerrant in a limited sense, on matters of doctrine and practice, rather than in an unlimited sense, on every possible historical and scientific detail. The Bible, like Jesus, is fully divine and fully human.
To insist upon unlimited inerrancy seems like docetism, ignoring the element of human authorship. We have four Gospels specifically to give us four uniquely human, though divinely inspired, perspectives.
When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail. For example, Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John.
This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him. John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.
This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:
Those who hold to unlimited inerrancy insist that the Bible is inerrant in every possible detail, while those who hold to limited inerrancy, also known as Biblical infallibility, regard the Bible as inerrant in matters of doctrine and practice.
It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, order.
While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there:
While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.
This same point is made in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, one of the best-selling evangelical titles in the last twenty years. There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.
In traditional Jewish commentaries, the Book of Job might be entirely allegorical, rather than a historical account. This is only a problem if the Bible is seen as inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:
That the Book of Job might be an allegorical theodicy doesn't give us license to interpret Jesus' virgin birth and physical resurrection allegorically, because these truths are essential to historic Christian faith, just as the giving of the Commandments on Sinai is central to Judaism.
Those who believe in limited inerrancy have a higher view of scripture than Martin Luther did:
Those who insist upon unlimited inerrancy miss the point as to why the scriptures were written in the first place, "to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," to instruct in righteousness, to equip for every good work, and to correct false doctrine, none of which requires that the Bible be word-for-word inerrant on every possible historical and scientific detail.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
If unlimited inerrancy were true, then the mustard seed would be the smallest of all seeds, which it obviously isn't. Jesus' point was to illustrate the power of faith, even if the size of a mustard seed, rather than teach botany. Matthew 13:31-32
This is well stated-and makes sense. The Catholic church for its part teaches this way:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while He employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though He acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "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."
While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.
To declare the Bible inerrant is simply affirming that God has a purpose for every jot and tittle of the Word and has made no unintentional blunders in its transmission.
In traditional Jewish commentaries, the Book of Job might be entirely allegorical, rather than a historical account. This is only a problem if the Bible is seen as inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?