Given that many conflate evangelicals and fundamentalists and there are significant overlaps, how have evangelical thinkers responded to James Barr's claim in his 1978 Fundamentalism book that: "For fundamentalists the Bible is more than the source of verity for their religion... It is part of the religion itself, indeed it is practically the centre of the religion, the essential nuclear point from which lines of light radiate into every particular aspect." These excerpts came from someone else's review of that book, instead of from an available copy such as on the Internet Archive. My question has been rephrased from my initial attempt, which was closed, and is edited here in hopes of avoiding the identified issues.

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

My question comes in two parts, the second being a direct result of the first. **Is the Bible infallible?** I have often heard that it is, but the most conclusive proof that I have heard essentially states that, since it is inerrant, it must be infallible. This makes no sense as it is inerrancy is necessary due to infallibility, not the other way around. When bringing into question the infallibility of The Bible. I am not asking about The Canon, or the books selected, but rather the actual content of scripture. **If The Bible is not infallible, then on what grounds do we say it is inerrant?** Assuming that The Bible cannot be proven infallible, can we at least say it is inerrant? The Bible certainly is proven legitimate with historical evidence and its teachings are proven true in practice. This points to the conclusion that it is inerrant, but does it conclusively and certainly prove its inerrancy? Is there any way to show that, without a doubt, The Bible is inerrant? **EDIT:** To clarify what I’m asking further, I am defining - **Infallible**: Without ability to err - **Inerrant**: Without error - **The Bible**: The actual, original content of widely accepted Scripture and its meaning My first question can also be examined as a question of Divine Inspiration. Is every word a product of God’s Will?

The [Protestant Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible) consists of 66 books. Some believe this set of books is inerrant. Others do not. **Question**: According to non-inerrantist Christians, what are the strongest arguments for the belief that **at least one of these 66 books contains at least one error**? ___ **Addendum - What do I mean by error?** I'm borrowing the meaning of 'error' from the definition of Biblical inerrancy: > Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without **error or fault** in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is **contrary to fact**". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not. > > The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts **with great accuracy**." > > ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy))

Several Christian Bible scholars / theologians, for various reasons, want to interpret the flood in Genesis 6-9 as "not global" (see [various interpretation](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/56054/10672)) . Those who believe there was a **historical but regional/local** flood would also supply various ways to reconcile what the text is saying and the *fact* of that flood, to come up with the **theological message** that remains true for us today. That is, the telling in Genesis 6-9 was meant to be primarily a *theological* story of God's covenant with humanity *regardless* whether the description it provides (as details in the story) was scientifically and historically accurate. *One* of those ways (i.e. *NOT* the only way, see Note below) is to say that the author was using the Ancient Near East *hyperbole* literary technique we see in common use in contemporaneous non-Biblical texts. Examples of 21st century support for this way of interpretation: - John Walton and Tremper Longman in their book [The Lost World of the Flood](https://www.ivpress.com/the-lost-world-of-the-flood) . A summary can be read through [this interview with them about the book](https://biologos.org/articles/the-genesis-flood-through-ancient-eyes-an-interview-with-john-walton-and-tremper-longman) . - Gavin Ortlund in his 2015 blog article [Why a Local Flood?](https://truthunites.org/2015/01/03/why-a-local-flood/) and his recent 2024 *TruthUnites* video episode [Was Noah's Flood Local?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq5tUg4SWzs) But in at least 2 places there is reference to *everyone except 8* who are destroyed: Gen 6:17: > "Understand that I am bringing a flood—floodwaters on the earth **to destroy every creature under heaven with the breath of life in it**. Everything on earth will perish. and in 2 Peter 2:5: > ... and if he didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected **Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others**, when he brought the flood on the world of the ungodly; ... But with the flood being *regional* rather than *global*: - It seems God was *not* telling the truth in Gen 6:17. - The implication that only 8 people were alive in 2 Peter 2:5 would not be true either. - Consequently, we may have a problem with Biblical inerrancy. - The typology that **salvation is *only* for those in Noah's Ark** (as place of safety) may not work either. **How do proponents of Noah's flood as *historical but not-global* where not everyone died, solve the above problem?** ---- **Note**: (thanks to @TheodoreReinJedlicka) 1. Not all local flood proponents may agree with scientific consensus, and still hold to a local flood. 1. Several local flood proponents may not believe the account to be hyperbolic. 1. There is an ontological difference between saying that the flood is a hyperbolic story, versus saying that the story is told using hyperbolic language typical of the ancient world to communicate both historical and spiritual truth. Two very different positions – I don't want scientific consensus and the various ways to tell about the historical local flood to cloud this question. What matters is simply this: not every human died in that historical local flood. A related point is that there is a high probability that the historical local flood didn't affect several pre-historic human settlements far away from the Mediterranean, such as the aboriginal Australia or ancient China. If we find ***ungodly* people in those areas were not killed by God's action in that flood**, would we have a problem? I understand that an answer can be limited to hermeneutical analysis, but when integrating that interpretation to *theology* (this is a question to C.SE rather than to BH.SE) we want to at least address this anthropology / archaeology angle.

Suppose X is a neutral, honest, open-minded truth seeker, and let's say Y is an apologist for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). If Y intends to persuade X of the truth of YEC, must Y first establish the validity of Biblical inerrancy? Let's explore two approaches Y might take to convince X: - **Approach 1**: - Y begins by presenting arguments to persuade X of the validity of Biblical inerrancy. - Then, assuming X accepts Biblical inerrancy, Y proceeds to argue that YEC offers the most reasonable and parsimonious interpretation of the Bible. - Thus, Y concludes that YEC is true. - **Approach 2**: Y can bypass the necessity of relying on Biblical inerrancy. Instead, YEC can be supported through alternative arguments and lines of evidence. Do proponents of YEC consider Approach 2 viable? If so, what are these separate arguments and lines of evidence supporting YEC? If not, does Approach 1 stand as the sole viable option, implying that Biblical inerrancy is indeed fundamental to YEC? In such a scenario, how might YEC advocates go about arguing for Biblical inerrancy to convince someone like X? --- Some of my previous questions this question builds upon: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101106/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101101/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101067/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101027/61679

If God can preserve an inerrant Bible despite the fallibility of the humans who transmitted it, shouldn't He also be able to ensure an inerrant interpretation of that Bible despite human fallibility? Yet, disagreements on interpretation persist among Biblical inerrantists. After all, we only have access to our understanding of the text, not the text itself. So, what's the point of presupposing that we have an inerrant manuscript if its interpretation is prone to error? Take, for instance, the dispute between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists over Genesis 1-11. Why presuppose the inerrancy of Genesis if interpretations are likely to be flawed? Similarly, consider debates about miracles, like [whether we should expect miracles from God or only those of Satan in the end times](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100994/61679) . Or the debate between cessationists and continuationists on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. Or disputes over how to interpret certain writings from Paul, with implications on the role of women in ministry. What's the use of assuming textual inerrancy if most interpretations are bound to be fallible and ambiguous anyway? How do Biblical inerrantists make sense of this prevalent phenomenon of exegetical disagreements? According to Biblical inerrantists, why hasn't the God who inspired an inerrant Bible also inspired an inerrant interpretation thereof?

This question (and two related sub-questions) is directed towards **those who believe that the Bible is inspired but not inerrant**. I understand inerrant to simply mean "without error". "Inspired" tends to have more nuances in it's meaning and so a valid answer should include a short definitional statement describing "inspired" as well as one regarding "inerrant" if it is taken differently. If the Bible is not inerrant, i.e. if it contains errors, and yet is inspired by God does this not mean that the errors are inspired? 1) How and why would God inspire error without being deceptive or fallible? 2) Without an inspired and inerrant listing of Biblical error, how can one reliably discern Biblical error and should one make the effort if the error is inspired?

It's accepted by most Christians nowadays that only the original documents are inerrant, therefore the modern Bibles are bound to have contradictions because of copyist errors and translation errors. And we can see that in numerous verses with at least numerical discrepancies. So we can never compare them with the original. So, I have two main questions: - Why did God allow that? We do not have the original texts anymore, so we can never see this supposed inerrancy, and that can put heavy discredit on the Bibles we have today, one can wonder what else there is wrong without us being able to know, isn't that counter-productive to Christianity? He supposedly intervened on the writing and canonization, but didn't on the copies and translations, He could at least make someone lock up the original documents in secure vaults (even an angel), but chose not to, and as a result we ended up with only the fallible texts at the end, why? That goes against God's nature of being the most responsible being who is deeply concerned with having his message understood. - How can this be reconciled with [Matthew 24:35](https://www.bibleref.com/Matthew/24/Matthew-24-35.html) ? My reasoning goes like this, since we don't have the autographs, we don't have the inerrant words of Jesus written down to us, so they don't exist anymore, they "passed away" at least barely. Or, we can accept that in regard to Jesus' words, at the bare minimum, are written down to us without error (this requires a strong dose of faith, but that's what religion is supposed to look like either way). God simply wanted His infallible words to be lost forever, and I want to know why.

From my understanding and through examples in history and my life as well, God allows good and bad things to happen. Although I would always be curious as to why certain things happen, especially when it comes to bad stuff, I know His reasonings would go beyond my comprehension and understanding as He knows all. God will only allow certain things to happen if He wants it to happen. The devil, on the other hand, can only do things as he is allowed to by God. With that being said, would it be possible for God to allow the devil to skew His Word (Bible) in any way, shape, or form? Knowing that the devil is pure evil and one who deceives, manipulates, and twists the things of God, one would wonder what kind of things he would do prevent Christians from fully benefitting from reading God's Word and progressing in their spiritual life. An example that I think could be something that he would do or has done is change certain words in the Bible. As you may be aware, one word or phrase can have the power to change a sentence or meaning completely, whether in the Bible or just everyday conversation. **John 3:16** > For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. > ~ NLT (New Living Translation) > For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. > ~ BLB (Berean Literal Bible) Both are the same verse, that pretty much says the same thing, but one glaring difference is the words **will not** and **should not**. Would it be fair to say that **will not** is pretty definitive, that if I truly believe in Jesus, I **will** be saved regardless of what happens afterwards? As opposed to **should not** or **shall not** (in other translations), which would indicate that it could happen but not guaranteed. For this verse, I would think that figuring out which translation or meaning is the true meaning would be pretty crucial. One implies that I'm good once I'm saved and the other implies that I should be good to go once I'm saved but... It would seem that either you can or cannot lose your salvation once you accept Christ. If you **can't**, then that would allow me to focus on other aspects of the Bible and if you **can**, then that makes me wonder what I must do to make sure that I keep it that way and not mess up (unforgivable sin comes to mind). God is not one to cause confusion when it comes to those that want to seek Him and His Word, so I'm wondering to what lengths or permissions would He allow the devil to do his thing? These are beliefs from **Arminianism** vs **Calvinism**, which if I'm not mistaken, for this topic, is that you are good once you're saved vs you can be unsaved, respectively. I'm not asking which view is correct, but clarification of which words would more accurately reflect the original texts/Scriptures. Would it be **will** or **should**? And if you read my responses in the comments, I made a point about why I'm not convinced that they are the same words. Unless I'm misunderstanding something and that back in the day, those words meant the same thing or something, those two words do not convey the same meaning to me. I would be much more convinced that something was or wasn't going to happen with the words **will/will not** than **should/should not**.

Not all Christians hold to the view of Biblical inerrancy. For example, whenever there are alleged inconsistencies or alleged scientific errors in the Bible, they consider that the verses in question don't give the exact events. How are those views justified in the Bible? What verses do opponents of Biblical inerrancy cite to support their views and contradict the idea that the Bible is inerrant?

For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings? In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes. Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?

Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one. See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3384/by-what-mechanism-could-the-bible-be-inerrant It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the "true" rendition of the text or meaning. Since clearly not _everyone_ that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, **how are we to know which translations _are_ reliable?** Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know?

Fundamentally*, an inerrant Bible is one without errors and an infallible Bible is one that cannot have errors, as David Stratton pointed out in his answer . As for the Roman Catholic Church, all of its doctrines are infallible , so presumably, they believe the Bible is infallible as well. My question is: ***when* and *why* was inerrancy/infallibility formally declared?** I'm looking for any combination of these four sources: 1. an Old Testament text declares itself or another OT text to be inerrant/infallible, 2. a New Testament text declares itself or another NT text to be inerrant/infallible, 3. one or more early church authors declare some OT/NT text to be inerrant/infallible, or 4. the closed canon (with or without the Deuterocanon) is declared inerrant/infallible by the Church, before or after the Great Schism. I'm most interested in writings from the early church fathers, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is allowed in the answer only if the link between "God-breathed" and "infallible"/"inerrant" is shown in a clear and direct way. Also, declarations of inerrancy/infallibility should apply to the whole text, not just God's directly-spoken words. --- *[Stealthy](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthPun) or [lame](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LamePunReaction) , take your pick.

The Great Flood of Noah is a classic Bible story - and a contentious one. Many would argue that traditional or literal interpretations cannot be squared with modern scientific thinking - others reject that science. I'm sure you also have an opinion. **I'm primarily interested in knowing what the main streams of interpretation are.** How, for example, do the major churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) interpret this story — is there an official teaching? Beyond doctrinal arguments, what's the spectrum of belief in interpreting the Flood, and in reconciling it with later NT references and concepts of inerrancy?

How do errantists, i.e. Christians who reject the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, distinguish the parts of the Bible that are trustworthy from the parts that have errors? How do they know which parts have errors and which parts are trustworthy and authoritative? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92924/50422

From the [official repository of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI)](https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml) we can see [the list signers](https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1_typed.pdf) for the [1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy](https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI-1978-11-07.pdf) out of over 300 who attended Summit I on Oct 26-28, 1978. But there is no mention of signers for the [1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics](https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_2.pdf) although the [repository homepage](https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml) said "approximately one hundred people attended [Summit II] and adopted [the statement]". The 1984 book [Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310370817) , containing papers presented at Summit II, the statement, and other materials, does **not** contain a list of signers either. Nor is it mentioned in the related [*Wikipedia* article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy) . The question: **Who signed the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics?** I think the question is important since the Biblical Hermeneutics statement places more restriction on how the Chicago doctrine of Inerrancy is applied to Evangelical exegesis, especially with regards to Genesis 1-11 (Article XXII).

Many denominations teach that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God." Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions. Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14 ). Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures. Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible *is* the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.