Featured Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

I would reply, any true evangelical scholar. Specifically, if 1997 is not too ancient for you, I refer you to Simon J. Kistemaker in his commentary on 2 Cor (Baker Book House, New Testament Commentary Series). He spends some time examining all the various theories and concludes by saying that unity is entirely possible. As JoJ says, there is no mss evidence to the contrary.

 

I see that some contributors to this thread have not so much as a clue as to what literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are, and know even less about their methodology. Therefore, here is a link to an introductory (and very brief) survey of biblical criticism that includes some additional helpful links: http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-criticism

 

Inspiration yes, but mode of inspiration is not an essential doctrine.

The word "inerrancy" requires the qualifiers, and clarifications. Textual critics probably don't use the word at all. How many qualifiers does the Chicago Statement have, 25, 26? Even in this thread the question has been asked more than once "what do you mean by inerrancy?". Without error...but

 

Asking what someone means by inerrancy in no way negates it or shows a problem with it. The issue is with people who want to muddy waters unnecessarily.

 

Thank you for bringing to my attention the commentary by Kistemaker. I have in my personal library approximately 900 commentaries on the individual books of the Bible, including first edition copies dating as far back as 1692. However, I seldom purchase commentaries written by scholars who are not internationally known for their contribution, after many years of research, to the study of book of the Bible that they are commenting upon. Obviously Kistemaker is not such a scholar as he has written commentaries on a number (9?) of books of the New Testament rather than on only one or two, and therefore could not devote much of his time to any of them. (Ernest de Witt Burton tells us in his preface to his commentary on Galatians that the study of that epistle was his primary area of study for 25 years. Ernst Käsemann tells us in his preface to his commentary on Romans that his commentary is the fruit of 50 years of studying and teaching that epistle). Therefore, I ask you, “Has Kistemaker ever published a research paper in a peer-reviewed biblical journal on the subject of the textual integrity of 2 Corinthians? If he has, please provide citations for those papers.


Have you read the commentary (2005) on 2 Corinthians by Murray J. Harris in “The New International Greek Testament Commentary” series? It is very much more extensive and detailed (1,117 pages) than Kistemaker’s commentary, and devotes 54 pages to the literary issues involved in the study of the structural integrity of the Greek text of the epistle.

 

Their posts prove a VERY different reality!

 

Ad nauseum ad infinitum. Yes, I am familiar with all of the criticisms you mention. Had to study them in seminary, you know, and have studied some in more detail since then. Oh, and the article you linked to missed several, such as reader response criticism.

Nice side step--instead of actually answering my challenge for historical proof, you elect to pretend that I am in ignorance, and decide you must be my Bible college prof.

 

Old Craig has been hostile to this board, Christians, and anyone who does not see things his way ever since he first posted on this board.

 

Well, it is, but only if you claim to be an evangelical.

You nicely sidestepped my query as to whether you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, and also my allusion to Paul's hapax legomena in 2 Tim. 3:16.

Textual critics don't use the term unless they are discussing the doctrine of inspiration. The term "inerrancy" is not immediately relevant to textual criticism. As for their beliefs on that score, Metzger is not an inerrantist but Robinson is. The gamut varies.

And it has been answered. It means without error in all areas, including doctrine, history, science, etc. Everyone acquainted with the debate knows this. Read Harold Lindsell, W. A. Criswell, Francis Schaeffer, The Infallible Word (by the Westminster faculty). They are all clear about what inerrancy means. Those who are not clear are generally trying to muddy the waters.

 

And thinks we owe him respect because of the greatness of his library, of which he often informs us.

 

Hmmm, wonder about the level of the Holy Ghost. Not knocking a library but it kind of sounds like church members who can quote the bylaws long before they can quote scripture.

 

I have no idea, but one does not get to be Professor of New Testament at a seminary without publishing a few peer-reviewed research papers. You're the alleged expert on academia; go and look it up.

This is a new idea to me. So the quality of someone's research is assessed by the number of pages he writes? Has the man trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation? If not, whatever he writes, and however much he writes, is a waste of time. Evangelicals in Britain are advised very strongly not to study theology at universities like Oxford or Cambridge because the Professors, however much they know about their subject academically, they don't know the Lord, which is all that really matters.(Jeremiah 9:23; Matthew 15:14).

 

Didn't side step, said mode wasn't essential. Plenty of folks consider themselves evangelical without affirming plenary inspiration. But you knew that. Even the NAE doesn't prescribe a mode of inspiration in its doctrine statement, inerrancy either. Baptist Faith and Message 1963 and 2000 make no mention of mode of inspiration. Are these folks not evangelical or is that you don't consider them evangelical?

http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/

http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

So we agree the textual critic, I think?

Read two of those books...