Changes

Evangalical Evangelical Christians believe that the original biblical manuscripts, as opposed to translations or later versions, were inerrant.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant0.htm Introduction to Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and authority]</ref>

These scholars included [[James Boice]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[John Gerstner]], [[Carl F. H. Henry]], [[Kenneth Kantzer]], [[Harold Lindsell]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]], [[Roger Nicole]], [[J. I. Packer]], [[Robert Preus]], [[Earl Radmacher]], [[Francis Schaeffer]], [[R. C. Sproul]], and [[John Wenham]].<ref>[http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]</ref>

Some A few Christians<ref>[http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/decision.asp Your decision]</ref> take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today. The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in Psalm {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12:|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref>[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts. People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref> The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.<br /><br />WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.}}</ref> As suggested earlier, many true Christians claim that statements in one language can be reduced to a [[logic|logical]] propositional form and as such rendered in any other language with total fidelity.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics Creation Ministries International: The Bible and hermeneutics]</ref> Nonetheless, Biblical preservationists view the Chicago Statement as a relatively recent, [[postmodernist]] theological innovation that leads to questioning of the text and ultimately to a lack of any final authority.<ref>[http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol13_2c.htm Modern Denial of Preservation]</ref> They also ask why we should trust the Chicago Statement concerning God's Word instead of trusting God's Word concerning God's Word.

The belief can be divided into two schools of thought. The first is that the Bible is without flaw or error with regards to History, Science, and Spiritual truth, also called [[Biblical literalism]]. The second is Some Christian believe that the Bible is inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places (eg, the six day creation). Both views are supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. The former view is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Evangelical Christians]], while the latter is the official stance of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Books on Divine Action&mdash;''[[Divine Action and Modern Science]]'' ([[Oxford University]] Press, 2002) and the Vatican Observatory-sponsored ''[[Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action]]''&mdash;also presuppose a [[Religious right|conservative]] biblical authority over science, which is inherent in the doctrine of inerrancy.

As many as one third This view is the official stance of Americans hold this position<ref>http://wwwthe [[Roman Catholic Church]].gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx</ref> See [[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)]].

In general, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal liberal Christians]] tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in both all forms, since certain passages<ref>http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm</ref> clash with their liberal ideology regarding things like [[Homosexualityhomosexuality]] and the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_womenNew Testament statements on the role of women|role of women]]. What they fail to realize One problem which is that if one seen with this view is allowed to toss aside those that by rejecting the Bible or passages which disagree with their personal politicstherein as inspired, due to them being contrary to a desired meaning or practice, then the authority of the Bible itself document quickly loses any its authority or relevance as a guide to morality and [[Christian]] behavior. After all, how can any of it It is reasoned that the Bible cannot be held as sacred if one arbitrarily decides that [[Cafeteria Christianity|some of it isn't]]? Also, how can . Nor could someone who does not take the Bible seriously as God's preserved word [[hypocrisy|call on others to do so]].  Some argue that if the Bible cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5</ref> Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>

Some argue progressive Christians acknowledge that if the an [[Alleged Bible contradictionsomnipotence|Bibleomnipotent]] cannot be proven inerrantGod could easily preserve His words and conclude that, then the claim within it would be irrelevantfor whatever reason, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>Geisler & Nix (1986)[http://www. ''A General Introduction to the Biblepatheos.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-8024fundamentalisms-2916grand-5illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref>