- Mar 23, 2014
- Reaction score
Fair enough. I suppose Christianity does not stand or fall on the inerrancy of Scripture, as its main intention is to show mankind the path to salvation, not to make a documentary on antiquity. I believe that there are other good reasons to believe in the physical Resurrection of Christ, independent of the inerrancy of the Gospels.TheTrisagion said:How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?byhisgrace said:I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.TheTrisagion said:Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
If the claims presented in Fr. John Whiteford's blog are accurate, though, it could call into question the reliability of the Fathers. I'm no expert in Patristics, though, so I digress.