Talk:Biblical inerrancy/Archive 1

message: This would be so much more informative if we knew what these folks mean by "liberal," in their reading, and— especially— "neo-orthodox" (!!). Wetman 23:25, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's not merge with liberalism.  Makes more sense for inerrancy to stand by itself, and it is not strictly an antonym of liberalism even though they are opposed.220.245.180.130 00:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aug 2

message: I would like to solicit your opinions on the best way to arrange the external links. I don't know if there are any Wikipedia "style" guidelines in this area. It seems to me the best way to keep our point of view out is to simply arrange them alphabetically. Points can be made for arranging in order of importance, but that view of "importance" can get back into one's point of view. Perhaps it doesn't matter that much here since the links are divided between "pro" and "con". Thoughts? - Rlvaughn 14:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion - External links? 

message: You keep putting the 2/3 of Bible scholars don't believe the Pauline Epistles were written by Paul.   You have no citations.  Please support this statement if you choose to post it.  Also, please put it in the CON-Bible inerrancy section and not the Pro section.  There is no sense making the page confusing and disorganized. --ken 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TO: MDuffy

message: In making a few changes to improve the reading, it has become apparent to me that some of the stated views are actually attestations to the value of the biblical text, rather than affirmative evidence for inerrancy.  Following the merely weak but understandable argument on "no contradictions" (no neutral party would assert this), the list really goes downhill.  There is the ridiculous straw man argument "it would be illogical to believe in inerrancy if the Bible itself disclaimed inerrancy". If I was an inerrancy advocate I would be embarrassed to see that on the page.  The view that "trustworthiness of the Bible may simply be accepted on faith" is surely widely held, and thus a valid presentation, but does nothing to advance the argument of evidence of inerrancy.  Neither does the undisputed claim of its continuing widespread popularity.  Similarly its influence on culture is ismpressive, and perhaps an indication of its cultural, literary, and spiritual value, but that is not evidence of inerrancy.  --Blainster 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I'm not a believer in inerrancy either, so I'm not sure I can answer these concerns.  To be honest, I don't quite get the theory, so I won't be much good.  KHM03 20:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Views affirming inerrancy, or value?

message: The Bible is a book title and properly capitalized.  However when used as an adjective it should not be capitalized.  To take a similar example, "Hebrew" is a capitalized when used as a noun, and even when used in an adjectival sense "a Hebrew book" it is still capitalized.  But when converted to an actual adjective it is not capitalized: "hebraic literature".  The same usage rule should be applied to the Bible.  So the form "Bible story" is OK but "biblical literature" reverts to the uncapitalized form.  --Blainster 20:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decapitalize adjective "biblical"

message: :Compared to Papal Infallibility, the Protestant doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not necessarily imply that any particular traditional interpretation of the Bible is without error.
The comparison is not as relevant as it may appear at first glance, insofar as former is a global view in regards to an institution and a leader, whereas the former regards the Bible solely. --Dpr 11:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic comparison

message: Can we get a consensus on what belongs in this section? I think the criticisms (criticisms of inerrancy itself, as opposed to criticisms of related issues like Fundamentalism) fall into a small number of (I think 3) pretty clear categories, which can each get its own subsection:
* Is the doctrine disproved by actual Bible errors? (The current "Arguments regarding falsifiability" section, but lots more could be added, though probably a link to something like Internal consistency of the Bible will be required to stop this section getting too long).
* Does the Bible teach its own inerrancy? (The current "Meaning of the Word of God" section is one small part of this, again lots more can be added).
* Is inerrancy meaningless when it is restricted to the autographs? (rather than copies or translations) (Sort of addressed in the current "Translation" section).
In my opinion the "Arguments regarding purpose of passages" and "Conflicting world-views" sections don't really belong in the criticism section at all. The former can go in a section on how inerrancy is handled in practice, though strictly I don't think it's a criticism. The "Historical Origins" probably belongs in its own section (with a serious rewrite) rather than being part of the "Criticism" section. Peter Ballard 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: This paragraph is one long string of quoted jargon-phrases which would mean nothing whatsoever to a reader not already intimately familiar with Geisler & Nix's viewpoint. What this section needs instead is an exposition of G&N's arguments in support of their (bullet-pointed) claims -- as otherwise the reader has no alternative except to blindly accept, or blindly reject their conclusions. Hrafn42TalkStalk 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impenetrable jargon 

message: This article could use a history section.  That is, how long has inerrancy been a belief?  From where did this idea originate?  Muslims claim the Koran is word for word perfect (from God to Mohammad), and Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is also a perfect word for word translation.  Did either of these faiths have an influence in the belief of the Bible's inerrancy?  Rklawton 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Biblical Inerrancy and Catholicism

message: Currently, the article claims that the cannon was solidified during the reign of Constantine - but I happened a little bit later - at the Council of Constantinople. Is there any evidence that there was a universally accepted Cannon by the end of Constantine's reign? "The Da Vinci" code claims so, but historically it is unsound. Dmitry Kotik 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were debates about what constituted the Canon ever since Irenaeus of Lyons in about 150 CE.  However, it remained dusputed until the Easter letter of 367, when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.  Athanasius had been in dispute with the Arian Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine, who despite his support from Eusebius and Sylvester, seems to have inclined towardfs Arianism himself. John D. Croft 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The text says "finalised during the reign of Constantine" (my emphasis) -- which is inaccurate. Constantine died in 337, and the first recorded advocacy of the eventual canon (no more, no less) was by Athanasius in 367. It was probably "finalised" by Augustine of Hippo's advocacy of it at the Council of Hippo (in 393, for which no record now exists), but the first surviving record of its acceptance was at the Council of Carthage in 397.  HrafnTalkStalk 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, it is well discussed in the Biblical canon article and there needs to be nothing more than a passing reference here. in fact, the "Textual Tradition of the New Testament" section is almost entirely off topic - all that is needed is a reference to the fact (which is important, I might add), and a pointer to Textual criticism. Peter Ballard 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canonicity

message: This section needs a little work. The basis of inerrency is not the logical conslusion presented. The basis is in Scripture, such as where Paul argues the tense and gender of the word "Seed" thus setting a president. Does anyone have a good refference for this discussion? My books are packed away currently. --68.62.67.187 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis of Belief

message: Is this article still POV suspect? It doesn't seem to promote or demean the subject. It appears to simply report what the views are. Can we remove the POV tag? --68.62.67.187 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that your edits will require citation and some straightforward typographical editing to justify the statements before they can be accepted.  I've removed them for the moment, so you may not want to remove the POV tag. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's not delete them, lets leave them up for proper editing. One step at a time my fellow wikipedian. --68.62.67.187 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vioala, a simple "citation needed" tag works just fine there while more effective editors than you and I can clean it up. --68.62.67.187 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: Does anyone know what the POV contention currently is? I cannot find it on this discussion page. Thanks. --68.62.67.187 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV probably refers to the referencing almost exclusively supporting an inerrancy point of view, and an exclusion of references arguing against it. John D. Croft (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not counting the scripture refs which don't really belong in the footnotes, what I call references (the footbotes) are about 50/50 I reckon. Dodd, Ehrman, Barr, Spong, I think Hick, and the New Jerusalem Bible, are all cited against inerrancy. The article has horrible organisational problems, but I think we need something more specific to call it NPOV. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I've rearranged on the following basis:
* Section 1 (Textual tradition of the New Testament) Defines Inerrancy. (Though needs some balance).
* Section 2 (Basis of belief) gives the basis for Inerrancy.
* Section 3 (Criticisms of biblical inerrancy) gives arguments against inerrancy (so logically belongs adjacent to section 2).
* Section 4 (Major religious views on the Bible) gives different denominations positions on inerrancy. 
Peter Ballard (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement 

message: I have been reading the work of the theologian Anne Primavesi, and she speculates upon the function of the belief in biblical inerrancy.  Given that there is not a section on the various functions that biblical inerrancy serves, I wonder if we need a section on this in the article? John D. Croft (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea whether Primavesi's opinions are notable enough, but certainly a section - or subsection - on the topic would be worthwhile. I suspect it would belong under theological criticisms. There is already a note of a comment by Spong to that effect ("paper pope of Protestantism"). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Function of Biblical inerrancy

message: There are a lot of Christians who think there are errors in the Bible. The current Archbishop of Canterbury for one. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of this in the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's necessary.  The article specifically states that it's a conservative evangelical belief, implying it's not found throughout Christianity.  Also, the Biblical inerrancy#Theological criticisms section implies that there is criticism of the view from other Christians.  Still, there might be room for some clarification in the Biblical inerrancy#Major religious views on the Bible section.  I was looking at it, and it might be worth expanding, but we'll need sources. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians and inerrancy 

message: I've narrowed the scope from what everyone and thier brother thinks about the Bible to specifically the conservative Christian doctrine of Biblical Inerrency that is much discussed in modern theological literature. I've added a new disambiguation tag and removed that huge ugly section on what every religion in the world thinks about the Bible. Enjoy. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be sure to use the language from the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrency. That is THE definitive text on the matter of what evangelicals believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy We don't need everyone and thier brother's differing definitions of how they feel about the concept. Use Disambigs for that. Let this article accurately document from reliable sources what exactly biblical inerrency is. The afformentioned text is the main source. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup attempt 

message: Should be merged with Biblical infallibility. Somebody be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Apart from the issue of whether Glueck is speaking here as a rabbi or an archaeologist, there is also the issue that his quotation is terribly out of date.  See, for instance, this article in Harper's:  At any rate, obviously WP:NPOV demands that the more mainstream current views in modern archaeology should be given in the article, rather than presenting this single quote as though it represented the final authority on archaeological consensus on the matter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Glueck 

message: The text says: 'There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "The Word Of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the "Decalogue" which many Christian denominations consider "passed away".' This needs clarifying. What is it for the ten commandments to have "passed away"? Myrvin (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this statement concerning the ten commandments is not clear, rather misunderstandable here. I am deleting this part. If any reader of this article wants to know more about the decalogue he can read at the article "Ten commandments" more about the different Christian views in the section "Religious interpretations". There is anyway a link to the Decalogue. Nikil44 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "Word of God"

message: This section makes little sense at the moment. Part of it is indented as if it was a quote from Wallace - but it doesn't give a Wallace citation. 
More importantly, it also says that Warfield looks at the bible as a historical document, but does not say what this has to do with induction. Myrvin (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy 

message: The new addition: "Another deductive argument would be the streangth of falsifiability. The argument is that Biblical inerrancy is a falsifiable stance (it can be proven false), therfore if it were false it would be proven false. It has not been proven false; therefore it is not false. (sic)", is logically inaccurate. It assumes that, if a statement is false it has been proven false, and that, if a statement has not been proven false it is not false (therefore true). If it CANNOT be proven false then this is weak not strong falsifiability . Unless this is all irony. Either way, I suggest it is removed. Myrvin (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deductive Reasoning - falsifiability 

message: Under the subheading "clarification of the doctrine of inerrancy" it might be good to include something about the difference between a literal and an inerrant view of the bible? I've never heard any Christian claim a totally literal interpretation is correct, but i have heard lots of people say it in a disparaging way. if those people come to the page, it might be good to include some coverage of the issue, or to direct them to the appropriate page if such exists.
I can't find anyone online who argues for a literal interpretation; there seems to be agreement that, for instance, poetic language is not literal; proverbs are true but not universally so; and so on.
  - Rho  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.41.214 (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  inerrant vs. literal 

message: The last "theological criticism" (quoting a Catholic bishop) does not appear to be a theological criticism of Biblical inerrancy. Or Biblical infallibility. Or anything Biblical at all. If appears to be a criticism of Protestants and Protestantism.
I have no problem with quoting Catholics or summarizing the Catholic perspective on Biblical inerrancy. Just make the headings appropriate. In this case, I think this entry is not actually a theological criticism of Biblical inerrancy.
If it is, tell me how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.94.16 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote mentions "the infallible Scriptures" rather than the "inerrant Scriptures"; is that the focus of your objection? Otherwise, it seems to be a theological criticism of the origin of the belief. It is certainly a criticism; can you suggest a better category for the criticism than "theological". -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological Criticisms 

message: When you discuss Lutherans in this article, you should specify that you are talking about Missouri Synod Lutherans (LCMS).  You've quoted texts from Concordia Publishing House which is an LCMS publishing house.  The largest Lutheran denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) views the scriptures as inspired and not inerrant.
''
The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world. c2.02.C ELCA Constitution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.215.58 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutherans 

message: How does Biblical inerrancy explain the fact that the value of pi given in the Bible is 3?  I Kings 7:23-26, describing a large cauldron, or "molten sea" in the Temple of Solomon: states "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."  This is clearly in error, either the caldron was not 10 cubits in diameter, it was not circular, or it was not 30 cubits around.  By definition this proves the bible is not inerrant.John D. Croft (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion forum. It's for discussing how to improve an article about the theological concept of Biblical inerrancy. Please explain how this would relate to improving the article. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical inerrancy

message: I noticed that one of the recurrent arguments for inerrancy is not because everything is historically literal, but because the Holy Spirit himself is thought to have written the Book. It's difficult to imagine what it means for the infallible Spirit of God to actually write a book. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity, while Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. An important problem in all this is that many Christians simply do not know much about who exactly the Holy Spirit is and why he plays such an important role in Christianity. There are a few Jews and Armenians who believe that the Holy Spirit is the Archangel Metatron, and that Metatron is the exalted and transfigured character of Enoch, who is mentioned at the beginning of Genesis. That is perhaps controversial however. ADM (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say the Holy Spirit wrote the books of the Bible are you really saying he inspired men to write it? If so, that is already covered in the article. The second issue you bring up is not germane to this article...that of the identity of the Holy Spirit. It seems simply saying that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity or Godhead is enough. --StormRider 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Spirit as author of Bible

message: The bible has been proven to be false, this should be commented on. Otherwise the article is Extremely biased. Noahs ark fairy tale has been proven wrong by so many differant means. Let alone everything else. --203.192.91.4 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's obvious that the original author of this article was referring to the Bible in the original autographs, in stating that the Bible is inerrant.  It has been shown again and again and again that any "mistakes" in the Bible are limited and do not affect doctrine.  Since the article is discussing inerrancy, it stands to reason that the term must be defined and must be defined based on how it has been used over the centuries. Beyond all of this, it's doubtful that we would know if we DID possess any of the original autographs!  To what would they be compared? --DeRuvo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.146.42 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean to achieve by making this point? Biblical inerrancy exists as a documented doctrinal position that can and has been written about encyclopaedically, whatever your personal opinion of it might be. --McGeddon 11:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you've mistaken the Bible for the Koran.  The Koran quite specifically and clearly claims perfect transmission from God to Mohammed, and Mohammed explained the means of this transmission just to make sure his followers were clear on that point.  The Bible, on the other hand, makes no such claim at any point.  Rklawton 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On scientific grounds the bible is most assuredly erroneous. Take for example Genesis 30: . --Healyhatman (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, we have not mistaken the Bible for the Koran.  The Bible is completely inerrant for the fact that the only thing you guys could possibly be saying by this is that small, careless spelling and grammar errors cause the whole Bible to be tainted.  And, by the way, I only have one thing to say to Healyhatman, what in the world are you talking about?  Genesis 30 talks about how Jacob had children and moved away from Laban...how does that make the Bible "erroneous"?Spyropyro2 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone who claims that the bible is inerrant is completely ignorant.  None of the manuscripts agree with each other.  There are not only differences within the Massoretic text, but there are many differences between it and the Septuagint.  The Septuagint in turn is not in agreement with the Samarian Pentateuch.  The Christian texts are just as bad.  Thus, before addressing all the scientific, mathematical, and historical errors within the bible, we can spend years addressing the contradictions among the manuscripts themselves.  So, please stop wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense regarding inerrancy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.115.254 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This is all entertaining but it has nothing to do with the article. If you are not talking about how to improve the article, please take your conversation to your home discussion page where personal opinions and statements of faith are fine. Editors can report through referenced statements the positions of experts, etc., but opinion has no place here. Cheers. --StormRider 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that the Bible is inerrant, in Jewish and even Christian Catholic and Orthodox belief, is considered by many religious and observant people to be a form of idolatry.  It is to ascribe to a thing (an idol), a characteristic which belongs to G-d alone.  Only G-d can be inerrant.  To say that the Bible is inerrant is to elevate the Bible to the level of G-d and to replace him as that which is to be worshipped.  Worshipping the Bible as inerrant is to worship a false G-d, and is to break the first commandment "I am the Lord thou G-d and thou shall have no false G-ds before me". John D. Croft (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find citations to this effect then put it in. You may have to say God though Myrvin (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First bible Inerrant, but none of the others can be 

message: I forgot to mention this in my edit summary. While tidying up  Seventhcroak's edits, I also deleted the following paragraph:
:Some have argued that the Bible need not be inerrant even if it is entirely the Word of God, because they claim that God is capable of lying and may even have purpose for this. However, a number of verses of the Old and New Testament state that God cannot lie.Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man that He should lie..."; Hebrews 6:18 "...it is impossible for God to lie..."; Titus 1:2 "...eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised..."
Let me make one thing clear, God does NOT lie. Except in those verses you mention above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.165.169 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God is always considered to be omnipotent, capable of anything.  To say that God cannot lie is to take a heretical position, as it denies God's omnipotency and is saying that the power of God is limited to fit within human categories.  If God is not omnipotent, then this is a denial of Anslem's proof of the existence of God. John D. Croft (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But if he does lie then that denies Descartes' proof of reality. Presumably he could lie but mostly chooses not to. Bit like everyone else. 'Heretical' from what? I bet there are good christians out there who think God can't do just anything. (PS Is this the same as 'G-d'?) Myrvin (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  On this point, see the omnipotence article. To say that a god can do absolutely anything is too simplistic. Myrvin (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it should go back in, with the "citation needed" tag.  It definitely didn't originate with Gervais (I've seen it used before).  As for it being "a fairly easy one for an inerrantist to deal with": I guess that depends on what you mean by "deal with".  I'm familiar with the usual excuses, and an inerrantist will choose to believe those: but he would not be correct in doing so.  In the story, God did indeed lie in Genesis 2:17: that's what the Hebrew actually says, and it's also very clear in the Sumerian original from which this story is derived (the "Adapa and the South Wind" myth) in which the god Enki lies to Adapa (the Sumerian "Adam") to stop him eating the food of the gods, falsely claiming that this will kill him. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Genesis_2:17 Robert Stevens 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case it belongs somewhere like Internal consistency of the Bible. It's just an (alleged) Bible error, like hundreds of others, and I don't think it - rather than any of the hundreds of others - deserves a place in this particular article. So far this article has been for listing arguments concerning errancy, rather than Bible errors themselves. I think that's been a fairly good way to go, because discussing a list of Bible errors gets extremely long. Peter Ballard 06:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anon editor says "the fact that god could be lying in the bible must be added back in". No, it only goes back in if it has a WP:Reliable Source indicating its importance. (Actually most of the article is unsourced, but let's at least not make it worse). As I've tried to explain, I believe it is neither a widely held position by Christians, nor an important anti-inerrancy argument - aside from it being an example of an (alleged) Bible error, and there are hundreds of those. And no, my use of "alleged" does not mean I subscribe to inerrancy (of KJV or otherwise). It's simply to avoid taking sides. Peter Ballard 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So where's the WP:Reliable Source using these as anti-inerrancy arguments? Peter Ballard 11:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW I'm not trying to be deliberately evasive. I'm just trying to keep this on topic, i.e. work on improving the article. This page is not the place for me to offer my personal opinions on your personal questions. Peter Ballard 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter is correct here.  Anon, it doesn't matter if you have a source that argues that God lies if that source isn't using the argument against inerrancy.  Your recent insertion was removed because it violated rules against using a synthesis of published material, and also gave undue weight to what is a virtually non-existent argument regarding inerrancy. Sxeptomaniac 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, we've got a mindreader here, someone who knows what I believe! In fact I do not subscribe to inerrancy myself, see my web page http://www.peterballard.org . But in any case an inerrantist wouldn't have problems with this, because Jesus was just referring to seeds his hearers knew about, and wasn't attempting to be scienticially accurate. To quote article XIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, "We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision... observational descriptions of nature... (or) the use of hyperbole." Peter Ballard 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm amazed this idea was ever removed. Perhaps it was because it was stated in the criticisms rather than in the statement of 'proofs'. Another quote: Because God cannot lie and because Scripture is inspired by God, the bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept. SJ Grenz Theology for the community of God.Also: Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the Scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the Scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.NL Geisler, Inerrancy. Myrvin (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of whether God lies also depends upon who is recognising the lie.  1 Kings 22:23 for instance states "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."  It would seem that here God is lieing by proxy, deceiving prophets so they speak falsehoods. Even in the New Testament, the image of God telling lies by proxy holds.  Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." John D. Croft (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "God is capable of lying" para

message: The last edit of User:Koakhtzvigad is odd. It seems to suggest that Moses wrote all of the Hebrew Bible. Also it says Jews for Judaism - with an extra m - is a Christian sect. Also, the ref to Ehrman has been replaced by one for Tov, with no comment.  Perhaps there is more to come. Myrvin (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, was late and I misread Jews for Jesus. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy done. Did you do the thing about Moses too? If so, did you mean they believe he wrote the Torah or Pentateuch? I think "original books" is vague. Myrvin (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked for 72 hours for editwarring and for his attitude towards 3RR, see my talk page for that. This isn't a commentary on whether he is right or wrong, but his editing style. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  I changed it. Myrvin (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses etc 

message: I don't see the need for this heading any more. I propose to delete it and promote its sub-headings. Myrvin (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical objections 

message: In the lead it reads: "Because the holy books of the world differ from each other, only one of them—at most, by implication—can truly be inerrant." I think this is logically incorrect reasoning. It isn't necessarily so that if there are two versions, only one can be true... Truths can coexist. "1+1=2" and "red is a colour" for instance. Maybe only one can be inerrant because of a contradiction, but not because of a difference. Mark in wiki (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference would have to be such that both could not be correct. But the words say differ. It turns out that the words are a staight quote from the cited website. As they stand, you are right that they do not say what they are claimed to mean. The whole quote is: The Torah, Hebrew/Christian Scriptures, and Qur'an do not agree on many topics including the nature of God; creation and origin of life, the world and the rest of the universe; various scientific topics; morality and ethics; personal salvation; the afterlife; abortion access; equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered persons; same-sex marriage; and many other cultural matters. Because the holy books of the world differ from each other, only one of them -- at most -- can be inerrant. Some people suggest that none are inerrant.  But I guess this was too big for the lead. Why the website doesn't say disagree rather than do not agree and differ, I don't know: since that's what they must mean. Hard to know what to do here. Let's remove it and see what happens. Myrvin (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. Although I like the source website, I feel iffy about it as a source for this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  only one inerrant because of differences? 

message: There was a controversy during the Second Vatican Council on whether the Roman Catholic Church taught infallibility or inerrancy. Some have interpreted Dei Verbum as teaching the infallibility position, while others note that the conciliar document often quotes previous documents such as Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu that clearly teach inerrancy. Rome's Battle for the Bible ADM (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Vatican Council

message: The text now has "Inerrant" means there are no errors; "infallible" means there can be no errors AND (in History) Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.
 So, these semianries think that the bible CANNOT contain errors, but it does?? Myrvin (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inerrant & infallible 

message: When I post links to this page, the WikiProject Christianity logo is automatically appended.  As a non-Christian I don't appreciate the cross planted in my messages.  Is there a way to stop this logo from appearing (either at the WikipediA level, or at my personal level)?  Thebiggnome (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had that. To where is it appended? Myrvin (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears as a thumbnail to the left of the link.  Here's where I posted it; it's about 20 replies down: http://www.facebook.com/TheBibleTruthOrFiction/posts/249346261756258 Thebiggnome (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Christianity logo 

message: Someone has twice deleted this whole section on the grounds it is not about biblical inerrancy. It seemed obvious to me that if Christ was not born of a virgin, or Matthew's assertion that such a birth was predicted was wrong, then that part of the bible which said it was could not be inerrant. I have again reinstated the text and tried to add an explanatory introduction. Also, the deleter, user:Grafted, does not seem to have a user page. Myrvin (talk)
:User:Grafted is now adding comments to the text that seem to be confusing inerrancy with Biblical infallability. Myrvin (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin birth 

message: There is no place in this article that describes how this belief came to be.  It opens with the presumption that scripture was always considered perfect, but is is obviously not so, as the argument of which books were right was fought for centuries --Blue Tie (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article lacks some important components of history

message: A good faith change has been made to the lead to say that the doctrine is only a Protestant Evangelical one, originating in modern times. The only citation for this assertion is the Geisler one that has been moved forward. I don't see that the Geisler quote supports the assertion; the quote is about the distinction between inerancy and infallibility. For the "modern times" idea, in another work, Geisler says that the idea of inerrancy has "a venerable history.. rooted in the early fathers of the Church" . Geisler seems to be a supporter of inerrancy and is probably saying that doubt about it has only crept in in modern times.
The later addition about Catholics etc. has no backing citation at all. I propose to revert this whole edit. Myrvin (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, after looking this over again, I'd just like to retract my earlier edit voluntarily.  I agree with various weaknesses of applicability in the Geisler quote.  But worse, I got the article's focus wrong.  The issue I was seeing really wasn't with inerrancy, but with "the doctrine".  About inerrancy itself, without embellishments, I think there is much greater agreement throughout the branches of Christianity, so the limitations I was trying to express don't apply to that.  About "the doctrine", it depends; is there just one?  Now I have some useful questions - always a valuable prize in itself - but not answers; sorry I didn't recognize that sooner. Evenssteven (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest change to the lead 

message: I have tried to clarify the Trypho citation. The old version fooled one editor, and I still think it is iffy. Can someone else do better? Myrvin (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trypho 

message: The lead has become a very week introduction to the topic. We need a cited set of words that is much stronger. It should be about the inerrancy of current scripture, not original manuscripts. Myrvin (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a cited sourced referencing "original manuscripts", which seems to be the generally accepted position. If you want to change the lede, you'd need strong sources suggesting that the main argument is about current translations. Gusworld (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not sure that Plummer does say just that. He also says we can reconstruct the originals. Myrvin (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I think the Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility should be merged because (1) The difference between the two is convoluted. Biblical infallibility can be defined as either stronger or weaker than inerrancy. (2) Everything that the two articles talk about would overlap: the difference between the two terms, what groups believe in inerrancy for historical facts, criticism, etc. —Enervation (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize, and agree about the topics being convoluted. I'm Orthodox Christian, not of a group that often discusses this matter. I think there's a general Orthodox position that the Bible is one or the other (or both) in that it is divinely inspired, a part of Holy Tradition, and the most foundational writings about our faith. To what degree that coincides with others' views as to one or both of these terms, I simply am uninformed, but given discrepancies among those others, I am sure there must be some dissimilarities somewhere: more convolution. I think the varieties of view largely stem (likely) from the Protestant orientation of "sola scriptura", and hence are unlikely to match with precision either the Orthodox or the Catholic views. Some Protestants appear to treat the entire Bible as uniformly suitable for the formation of theology. Orthodoxy doesn't; and I suspect Catholicism doesn't also. I think that difference also accounts for the questions or differences that some have about the biblical canon itself. In Orthodoxy, Bel and the Dragon is biblical, but would still be considered unsuitable as a sole basis for doctrine. In Protestantism, it would have to be suitable if it were to be considered biblical. (That's an oversimplification, but still to the point.) Yet this is a matter not readily addressed in either of these articles, or even in a combined article. Perhaps. I tend to favor the idea of the merge, as it ought to give a little larger scope for dealing with the ins and outs of the views, even among Protestants. And I tend to think that can also help in permitting the merged article to gain some perspective about where the roots of the differences lie. Perhaps that will help the article to disentangle convolutions somewhat. Evensteven (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: No, I think the articles need to remain, since so much historically (at least within the last century) has been made of the distinction. StAnselm (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will defer to this view. The distinctions are highly important to many, especially Protestants, and I think it is up to those to whom it matters most to decide how best to organize the material. Then, hopefully, it will make the same sense to the readers who look the articles up for those reasons. Evensteven (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Seems to be settled. I have removed the tag.Myrvin (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 2 

message: Removed the equivocal unreferenced declarative statement "Another deductive argument would be the strength of falsifiability. The argument is that Biblical inerrancy is a falsifiable stance (it can be proven false). In this case, if errors are proven in the Biblical text then the stance of Biblical inerrancy is itself false." This statement is equivocating as it does not differentiate between the question of errors in the extant manuscripts (which even the most conservative evangelical scholars admit to having errors http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf")), and the question of inerrancy in the original autographs. This distinction was already well established earlier in this wiki. Since the extant copies obviously contain error and these errors are readily admitted to by the preponderance of conservative Christian scholarship, then the real debate centers around errors in the orginal autographs. Since there are absolutely no orignal autographs to be found for any scripture anywhere on the planet, the claim is obvioulsy non-falsifiable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAS2011 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertions you removed was uncited, so it should go. However, you have added other uncited assertion. You need to find references for it. Otherwise, it too is original research. I have removed the words until a citation turns up. This should really go later in the article as a detailed criticism of the idea. Myrvin (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306230810/http://www.archive.org:80/details/MN41551ucmf_1 to http://www.archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060712193848/http://showcase.netins.net:80/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt to http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090807175513/http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C to http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CANON.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807135035/http://showcase.netins.net:80/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt to http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070807135035/http://showcase.netins.net:80/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt to http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070807135035/http://showcase.netins.net:80/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt to http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a specific term for the viewpoint of "biblical inviolability" or stability?
This is not such a strong claim as inerrancy or infallibility, but rather the belief that the Bible remains constant and unchanged, through transcription or translation.  Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical stability? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221231334/http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 to http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 to http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biblical inerrancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=HAT01VC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010509124520/http://pcusa.org/101/101-bible.htm to http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-bible.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The Bible, literally interpreted, has no errors" is heresy for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Of course, this has to do more with "literally interpreted" than with "has no errors". Can anyone find WP:RS about it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this of any use? https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nOMFpzVPemMC&pg=PA37&dq=%22Inerrancy+for+Catholics+means%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjluOiu94XeAhXKdd4KHeabCaQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Inerrancy%20for%20Catholics%20means%22&f=false PiCo (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it makes clear what inerrancy means for Catholics. But Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regard Sola Scriptura as heresy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heresy 

message: Is inerrancy a matter of doctrine within any Christian denomination?  Perhaps I missed it when scanning through the article.  If so, then I think this information should be highlighted.  Rklawton 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rklawton: I agree with your concern.  I have re-opened the question below. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrine