Skip to main content
38 votes
Accepted

According to those holding that Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention it?

Commentators give a number of explanations for the silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus: To protect Lazarus from persecution Differing source material Distinct criteria for what to ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
30 votes

According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

The target audience of the writers of the gospels was to people who did not know about or did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. They included the virgin birth story because it was an ...
Mark Anthony Songer's user avatar
21 votes
Accepted

According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

Advocates for the virgin birth make the following arguments for why Paul didn't mention it: It wasn't controversial and therefore not worth mentioning It didn't need to be mentioned in order to ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
15 votes

How do Biblical inerrantists explain disagreements about the interpretation of the Bible?

How do Biblical inerrantists explain disagreements about the interpretation of the Bible? The same way I fundamentally understand that two different people could misunderstand something I said even if ...
Ben's user avatar
  • 251
12 votes

According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

I much prefer Nathaniel's answer to mine (the accepted answer), as it is considerably more thorough and answers more questions. I still believe the Paul's mission to the gentiles is a piece of the ...
Nate Bunney's user avatar
  • 1,882
10 votes

Spectrum of Interpretation on Great Flood

There are 4 basic views regarding the interpretation of the great flood. Generally speaking, these connect to the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as well. Global Flood The first camp is from those who ...
James Shewey's user avatar
  • 2,626
10 votes
Accepted

Do a significant number of Biblical scholars presently support inerrancy?

Even a "nearly" comprehensive list of inerrantist scholars from the past 100–200 years would be virtually impossible to compile and maintain. However, the best list that I am aware of that ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
10 votes

How can a reasonable faith be placed in the Being that inspired the Bible if it is "inspired" but not "inerrant"?

I think this can be addressed in a similar way to how theists respond to the Problem of Evil objection against the existence of God: how can a perfectly loving, omnipotent and omniscient God allow ...
Mark's user avatar
  • 4,937
7 votes

When was the Bible formally declared to be inerrant and/or infallible?

A biblical case for inerrancy can certainly be made on the basis of passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:16, but these are limited in that they do not obviously refer to the entire Bible, both ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
7 votes

Why did God allow for the original Biblical manuscripts to be lost to history? And how to reconcile that with Matthew 24:35

"the modern Bibles are bounded (sic) to have contradictions because of copyist errors and translation errors." The premise of the question is insubstantial. I am assuming the question ...
Nigel J's user avatar
  • 25.8k
6 votes

Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism

While Paul Chernoch's excellent answer addresses the general case, in the specific example you cite there is no significant difference in the message. You write " should not or shall not ... ...
DJClayworth's user avatar
  • 32.2k
6 votes

Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism

Between God's speaking and our hearing, many steps intervene: The prophet hears from God, either face-to-face (Moses), or through dreams, or visions The prophet speaks The scribe records Other ...
Paul Chernoch's user avatar
6 votes

According to non-inerrantist Christians, what are the strongest arguments against the inerrancy of the Protestant Bible?

The strongest argument for there being at least one error in the 66 books of the bible is that there are so many plausible candidates for such an error. Defenders of inerrancy are left having swat ...
Dan Fefferman's user avatar
6 votes
Accepted

How do errantists distinguish the parts of the Bible that are trustworthy from the parts that have errors?

I would divide approaches to Christian biblical studies by those who doubt the Bible's inerrancy into two categories Believers that the Holy Spirit generally inspired the Bible, and Christian ...
Dan Fefferman's user avatar
5 votes

According to those holding that Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention it?

I believe it is simply because when Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their respective Gospels, Lazarus was still a living testimony to Christ having raised him to life. They had no need to mention the ...
007's user avatar
  • 6,555
5 votes
Accepted

According to biblical inerrantists, are the apostles' recorded speeches in the book of Acts inerrant?

One way to demonstrate that, according to inerrantists, the apostles' recorded speeches are not necessarily inerrant, would be to find a speech that inerrantist theologians admit contains an error. ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
5 votes

Are there sola scriptura inerrantists who reject sensus unum as a general hermeneutic?

I am answering the question : "Are there any reformed persons who argue for such a position" that is to say who "reject sensus unum and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus ...
Nigel J's user avatar
  • 25.8k
5 votes

How can a reasonable faith be placed in the Being that inspired the Bible if it is "inspired" but not "inerrant"?

The answer for me depends on how one thinks of God's omnipotence. If God is absolutely all-powerful then inspiration = inerrancy. However, if God limits his power to allow for human freedom, then ...
Dan Fefferman's user avatar
5 votes

How do Biblical inerrantists explain disagreements about the interpretation of the Bible?

The specific Catholic answer would be: God did give us Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ not found in the Bible but passed on by the apostles (we call those Traditio) and a divine ...
ABM K's user avatar
  • 2,126
4 votes

Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism

The Bible speaks of the scriptures being twisted. This is Peter speaking about Paul's letters. Many of which are in the Bible. 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, ...
L1R's user avatar
  • 1,524
4 votes

According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

The question comes down to whether Paul, Mark and John failed to mention the virgin birth because: They never heard of it or They did not think it was necessary to include in their writings. Each of ...
Jon Ericson's user avatar
  • 9,736
4 votes
Accepted

How are emendations to the Masoretic Text viewed within the doctrine of inerrancy?

Inerrantists do not view the Masoretic text as inerrant in itself, but they consider it highly reliable. John Wenham, in Christ and the Bible (170ff.), outlines a variety of evidence for its faithful ...
Nathaniel is protesting's user avatar
4 votes

Do a significant number of Biblical scholars presently support inerrancy?

The Evangelical Theological Society is a large academic society committed to inerrancy. Its members must affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and it refers to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ...
curiousdannii's user avatar
  • 20.5k
4 votes

Why did God allow for the original Biblical manuscripts to be lost to history? And how to reconcile that with Matthew 24:35

Because humans are stupid. If we had an original manuscript we would treat it like the Snake that Moses lifted up and worship it. Hezekiah had to have it melted down. Thus it's really better we don't ...
Joshua's user avatar
  • 442
4 votes
Accepted

According to evangelicals, does the use of historical criticism violate the doctrine of inerrancy?

The Wikipedia article you linked to explains that "historical" criticism involves several methodologies, including source, form, and redaction criticism, all of which are readily accepted ...
curiousdannii's user avatar
  • 20.5k
4 votes
Accepted

Who signed the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics?

I emailed [email protected] (owner/source of articles from OP) asking for signatures and this is the response List of Signatures for the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, 1982 (The typed ...
depperm's user avatar
  • 9,919
4 votes
Accepted

How do Biblical inerrantists explain disagreements about the interpretation of the Bible?

TL;DR Borrowing @Acccumulation's philosophical terms distinguishing "ontological inerrancy" (which I associate with the truths primarily in the mind of God and only secondarily in the text) ...
GratefulDisciple's user avatar
3 votes

When was the Bible formally declared to be inerrant and/or infallible?

Within various scripture texts can be found declarations that, because the written words are God's words to humanity, they are inspired of God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2 & Hebrews 6:18). A few ...
Anne's user avatar
  • 31.9k
3 votes

Why did God allow for the original Biblical manuscripts to be lost to history? And how to reconcile that with Matthew 24:35

There are a number of practical reasons why the original texts - the very first copies that were written down by the original bible writers - would not have survived, as well as some scriptural ...
Frank Townend's user avatar
3 votes
Accepted

Use of single and double quotation marks in Isaiah 7

This question on the English Language Stack Exchange site talks about the Multiple Quotation Rule. When a speech goes over more than one paragraph then the opening quotation marks are repeated at ...
davidlol's user avatar
  • 7,902

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible