Talk:Biblical inerrancy/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Figurative language and Bullinger

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In progress. :) --DjSamwise 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical literalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the merge tag. This one is allready a way better article than the rewrite. --DjSamwise 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 footnotetext. And there is always the Wikipedia:Citation templates that can help format citations.--Andrew c 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, Thanks for the tips. :) --DjSamwise 00:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite/redo/rework/rehaul? just fix it.

message: 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)
thread_title: Religious Views on the Bilble

message: 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 footnotetext. And there is always the Wikipedia:Citation templates that can help format citations.--Andrew c 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, Thanks for the tips. :) --DjSamwise 00:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on fixing citations and links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does the Bible Claim to Be Inerrant? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External Links

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

text: While it is true that the Bible's errancy is blindingly obvious to anyone with basic comprehension ability, there are nonetheless many who have somehow managed to erase these numerous errors from their minds, denying their very existance in the scriptures.
Therefore I, too, heartily agree that a long criticism section (or at least references to some of the major criticisms) be included in this article. The sheer number of historical, scientific, and internal (self-contradictory) errors in the Bible are far too numerous to cover in a single Wikipedia article, but we could at the very least cover the major ones. Kwub 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because of the lack of a criticism of the position of Biblical inerrancy, I have attached a POV label.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to be non-point of view, and unless this article can demonstrate that it should either be completely re-written or deleted as not up to Wikipedia standards. John D. Croft 12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends on your definition of "few" and "several". The Hebrew of the bible is not the present day Hebrew, and the ancient writing style did not include vowels, so ambiguity was introduced, in addition to difficulties understanding the meaning of text in a dead language that is several thousand years old. Aramaic and Greek have also evolved in the last 2000 years, so the current versions bear little resemblance to their antecedants.--Filll 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Be careful not to build a Straw man. The argument is more sophisticated than that. Peter Ballard 07:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please sign talk page comments. Next, refer to the WP:MoS. Only proper nouns are capitalized. For example "The University of Toronto offers..." but also "The univerisity offers" (not "The University offers..."). Similarly, the Bible is capitalized, but scripture, or sacred book, or others non-propoer nouns are not. "Traditional" capitalization in these instances is honorary, similar to capitalizing He when referring to Jesus. Wikipedia however does not follow these "traditions", and uses. Also, the Chicago Manual of style, point 8.112 specifically says scripture isn't capitalized. Next, the word "fiery" isn't exactly encyclopedic. Basically, the same meaning can be conveyed without using the colorful language. This is a matter of encyclopedic tone. Finally, the term Churchmen isn't exactly clear. It is listed as obsolete in the OED. I felt "religious leaders" was more specific, not not as archaic language. I hope this explains things. I appreciate you coming to talk to discuss this, and I appreciate you finding a source for the new content.-Andrew c [talk] 15:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of biblical inerrancy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  revision of "recovering the autograph" section 

message: 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. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909531,00.html?iid=chix-sphere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kim333 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  inerrancy in context/ papal infallibility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  how do you know? 

message: Given that it is a factual truth that the Bible contains numerous scientific, historic, and internal (self-contradictory) errors, I don't see why this should not be incorporated into the article. It is no more valid to call the Bible an "inerrant" historical and scientific account than it is to say the same of The Odyssey. There exists an equal amount of scientific and historical evidence for the validity of the supernatural, miraculous events in both these works of literature (read: NONE). It doesn't matter whether people believe the Bible is inerrant or not - the point is that it has been proven errant by overwhelming consent.
At the very least we require a Criticism section, and a long one at that.
- Kwub 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual, not "opinion" 

message: Inerrancy transcends the SBC. Many denominations embrace inerrancy so there is no reason why the SBC infobox should be attached to the article. The SBC infobox, like all infoboxes, should be used in articles that are specifically SBC related, like Al Mohler and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and in secondary articles like Lottie Moon or Landmarkism where the SBC is closely linked to the subjects at hand. --One Salient Oversight 11:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of SBC infobox 

message: From the article:
:(For instance, the atheist Ricky Gervais has argued, in a DVD commentary to Animals (comedy), that God lied about the consequences of consuming forbidden fruit in Exodus 3.)
Could someone clarify this? I just went and read Exodus 3, and it does not appear to mention "forbidden fruit". 70.20.144.161 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, somebody goofed (possibly Gervais, or possibly the one citing him).  The lie is in Genesis 2:17, and is exposed in Genesis 3. --Robert Stevens 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've put a "fact" tag on "the Bible need not be inerrant even if it is entirely the Word of God, because God is capable of lying" because it sounds like a rather bizarre position and it's hard to imagine many people subscribing to it. I've deleted the Gervais opinion because it is not relevant - since he is an atheist he obviously does not believe either of the positions advocated in that sentence (i.e. (a) that the Bible is the Word of God, and (b) that God deliberately slipped some lies in). Peter Ballard 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting that.  It's bad form to say "citation needed" after deleting the citation!  His argument is a legitimate one, it isn't lessened by his atheism (indeed, atheists often see Biblical "issues" more clearly than many Christians do, and frequently come up with arguments against Biblical inerrancy).  Though I agree that it might be preferable for a "liberal" Christian to make this argument, if one can be found to have done so in a citable source. --Robert Stevens 09:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The assertion is "Some have argued that the Bible need not be inerrant even if it is entirely the Word of God, because God is capable of lying". Just who are those "some"? Whoever they are, Gervais certainly isn't one of them, so it was perfectly proper to delete the sentence about him. Peter Ballard 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you quite sure that Gervais "certainly isn't one of them", and how do you know?  I do agree that Sxeptomaniac might have a point: there might be a "synthesis" issue here.  Is anyone sufficiently familiar with the context of the Gervais comment to tell us whether HE made the connection between a "lying God" and an errant Bible?  If so, then there's no problem (not "original research" by us). --Robert Stevens 09:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I get it. Gervais isn't advocating the position himself (obviously, because he's an atheist), but he's saying "Here's a flaw in the reasoning, because the Bible presents God as lying". In that case, I think it needs a rewrite to make it clearer (starting with it having its own paragraph), as well as the counter arguments, since God's truthfulness is part of the argument for inerrancy, see e.g. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I also don't think a comedian is a good "authority" to quote - some things comedians say to make a joke sound plausible, but are easily dealt with after a little reflection (because their point is not to make a watertight argument, but to get a laugh; e.g. "Why do ballerinas tiptoe - why don't they just use taller girls?") Peter Ballard 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to consider the Gervais line a spam insertion, though.  It's barely relevant, and it's by a comedian in the commentary to a DVD.  He's not a religious leader, theologian, expert, or anything of the sort, so pushing his opinion seems to be giving it undue weight.  It seems less about supporting the point than pushing Gervais' name and the DVD. Sxeptomaniac 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricky Gervais and Exodus 3 

message: This article seems to deal with the different ways Biblical inerrancy is viewed, rather than discuss individual errors (or supposed errors). I think that's a good way to go, because errors are discussed in articles such as Internal consistency of the Bible and Science and the Bible. Now in the last day or so someone has added a whole pile of articles, on individual Bible problems or criticisms, to the "See also" section. My opinion is they should be deleted, and the "See Also" section should instead only link to a couple of "top-level" "discussion of alleged Biblical errors" pages. Plus, the multiplicity of "See also"s obscures the important ones. So... is there agreement that these "See also"s should be deleted? Peter Ballard 12:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The section badly needs to be pruned.  Too many of them are barely relevant, as in the case of all the references to Biblical giants. Sxeptomaniac 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of "See Also" section 

message: This article covers much material far removed from its title of inerrancy. perhaps it could be more constructively entiled "Biblical Authority" in order to better represent the many diverse convictions on these issues. After all the mainstream positions paragraphs are views of biblical authority- they are not about inerrancy. any thoughts anyone?Benny the wayfarer 12:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Biblical inerrancy is an important topic and needs its own article. The article itself is very badly organised and needs a cleanup, and I agree parts of are off topic. But I believe the solution is to write a better article, not rename it. Peter Ballard 12:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree. Biblical inerrancy, biblical infallibility, biblical literalism, and biblical authority are all important and separate concepts. There is definitely a need for better and clearer writing on these topics. Just renaming biblical inerrancy, when that is a very common phrase and subject, really would not help matters.--Filll 13:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont know enough about it to do it, but I would support you if you wanted to try it. First get yourself a login, and then start out in a sandbox. Get some feedback from other editors. With any luck, you will make a new article on Biblical authority.--Filll 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with there being a separate article called "Biblical authority". But I don't think it should replace the one on inerrancy, because that is a big topic also. Peter Ballard 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of This Article

message: Sounds pretty close to the truth to me. Maybe should be reworded a bit, but I agree with the general gist. Comments?--Filll 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In truth I have encountered this kind of thing on more than one church website, a while back. The fact that these are primary sources does not really mean that this is independent research. the websites are sources, but it could be tricky to find them now. it would be hard to find a secondary source for this kind of thing as most people may have more sense than me, and they just ignore it. feel free to rephrase as a style lesson.Benny the wayfarer 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that it's listed prominently for those groups that believe it, though anything along that line should probably be part of the "Religious views" section.  However, attributing that priority to the belief's controversial nature is the questionable part.  Without a good source, I would most definitely argue against the inclusion of that content, as it would be merely guessing at their motivation. Sxeptomaniac 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea WHY they include it as a prominent assertion, but many of them sure do. I am not even sure if the churches that include it really understand why they include it as a prominent belief, but they definitely do include it. They must feel it is important, but I am unsure if I even understand the phrase "The dogma of Biblical inerrancy is so controversial that..."--Filll 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Perhaps the statement, stripped of the speculation as to their reasons, would be appropriate under Biblical inerrancy#Evangelicals? Sxeptomaniac 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. Why don't you slip it back in there, appropriately stripped-down?--Filll 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree with the removal of this statement 

message: I don't think that section (added yesterday by Seventhcroak) should have been re-inserted. Inerrantists generally do not directly Bible = "Word of God". Also there are a number where the parts of the Bible are described as God's words, without using the exact phrase "Word of God" (e.g. Romans 3:2, Hebrews 1:3-13). In short, the section was of too low a standard for the article and I'm rather disappointed that it's been re-inserted. Peter Ballard 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had a mental blank. Of course they do. So the section can stay, but needs a lot of work. Peter Ballard 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Word of God" 

message: it could be true that some stuff in criticism is about fundamentalism, which term some inerrancy thinkers may dislike. However the source for these comments is the Oxford Professor's book of that name. Inerrancy, he writes, is the central and uniting concern of fundamentalism. criticism of inerrancy cannot be separated from the faith tradition to which it is welded. Why water down the debate?these arguments are best drunk neat.Benny the wayfarer 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be true if you were blogging an argument against inerrancy and fundamentalism, but not in an encyclopedia article.  The connection between fundamentalism and inerrancy should be documented at Fundamentalism, and, to a lesser extent, in the Biblical inerrancy#Major religious views on the Bible section of this article, but not in the criticism section.  The criticism section is only for criticisms of inerrancy itself, not fundamentalism. Sxeptomaniac 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The connection between the two should be addressed.  However, it is a simple piece of information, not a criticism, and should therefore go elsewhere in the article. Sxeptomaniac 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalism and Inerrancy 

message: The books that are included and excluded from the Bible are the result of a historical process, which was only finalised during the reign of Constantine, when finally certain books were included and others excluded as Aprocrypha from the Biblical canon.  For a position of Biblical inerrancy to be accepted, those holding this view must also believe that the separation of Canon from Apocrypha was also divinely inspired (for example Catholics accept 1 & 2 Maccabees within the Canon, Protestants exclude it).  Surely the article must reflect this view too? John D. Croft 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that occured to me a few days ago. That would be a 4th point in addition to the 3 I list above. Peter Ballard 04:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Process of [[Biblical canon|Canonization]]

message: Since the bible says god can not lie and the bible is the word of god LOL, and it contains statements where god has told angels to lie to humans to which resulted in them being tricked and therefore spend eternity in hell. Why isnt the fact that god uses lies for his own purpose is not included? its very telling--203.192.92.73 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, as it's not a common criticism of inerrancy, but rather a theological discussion (specifically regarding what God's character is).  A well-sourced addition on this subject would probably be acceptable, but the lack thereof is not a gaping hole in the article. Sxeptomaniac 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section talking about god might be lieing, Where is it?