Sentences with word «inerrancy»

What good is it to refute all the arguments against inerrancy of Scripture if in the process, we fail to speak and act with love, patience, kindness, gentleness, and respect?

Downing takes it a step further and says, «it is no coincidence that the concept of biblical inerrancy developed in nineteenth - century England almost simultaneously with Darwin's idea of natural selection: both were influenced by Enlightenment empiricism.»

I do believe in inerrancy as well, but only in the original manuscripts.

I will try to look at these questions about inerrancy in the next couple days, but for now, what do you think?

We must not confuse our understanding of Scripture with inerrancy.

Such behavior does more to refute Scripture than any logical argument against inerrancy ever could.

Biblical inerrancy does not mean that we are to stop using our minds or accept what the Bible says blindly.

- I do not expect any return to the strict inerrancy assumption on the part of informed biblical scholarship.»

Indeed, they themselves often speak of being committed to the literal inerrancy of Bible.

Since inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts which no longer exist, what's the point?

However, the manipulation, in my opinion, comes not from inerrancy, but divining one's own (or the church's) interpretation.

Confronted with undeniable contradictions if we take the words of the Bible in their normal understanding, many advocates of Biblical literalism choose to defend the Bible's inerrancy by abandoning its literal meaning in this way.

I can't see them taking up the mantra of Bible inerrancy, sinfulness of gays, and opposition to science that would be required of them choosing the «born again» path, do you?

It's only a risk for those who believe in the literal truth of your bronze - aged god and the absolute inerrancy of his bronze - aged collection of books.

It did conflict with the position of the ETS on inerrancy so I inquired as to his view on that.

The bible is full of wonderful wisdom and knowledge, but it must be read the right way, beginning with giving up preconceptions of complete inerrancy and verbatim divine inspiration.

A number of people who lean towards literalism / inerrancy recognize that these problems exist.

While biblical criticism examines these claims without presupposing that the words are divinely given, the approach of the modern inerrancy writers is one that affirms the absolute factual accuracy of the text and then seeks to explain away any conflicts.

Many biblical inerrancy fundamentalists look foolish and backward when they try to defend things that they shouldn't waste their time defending.

the infallibility of Benedict XVI, Heaven, Hell, Limbo, a priests ability to forgive sin.the inerrancy of the bible, Fatima, Lourdes, Knock etc, that humans actually needed a redeemer etc etc etc If so she is a jacka **.

For those wanting to explore the issue of biblical inerrancy more deeply, the following article by Mark Mattison of Auburn University is an excellent starting point.

I have observed that the people I personally know who spend inordinate amounts of time discussing Biblical inerrancy follow a program: 1) The Bible is absolutely inerrant, 2) The Bible says....

I will be interested to get your input when we start dealing with inspiration and inerrancy next week.

The way inerrancy is often used, it is not exactly the Bible that is inerrant, but «my interpretation» of the Bible.

«Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages — the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity — are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.»

Actually, BC, one of the problems with your position and so many others is that you assume the total inerrancy of scripture and automatically require everyone who listens to you to subscribe to that same belief.

Though people here have made some very good points about the supremacy of love and being «living epistles», I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the apologetics of inerrancy entirely.

I lean strongly towards inerrancy.

Or let it put me this way, you frame the meaning of inerrancy differently, than the most people would, who use this word.

So, is the concept of biblical inerrancy nothing more than a byproduct of modern rationalism?

I read the Wikipedia article on the Chicago Statement... it seems to imply that there exists inerrancy in the original manuscripts which to our knowledge no longer exist... really?