Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible inerrancy和infallibility的聖經

Editor's Note 編者的話

Inerrancy regarding the Bible is rather different than what a lot of people think it is! inerrancy關於聖經,是相當不同的,比很多人都認為這是! Skeptics can easily show many differences in wording between different (English translations of) Bibles.懷疑論者可以不難看出,許多分歧,在措辭上不同(英文譯本)聖經。 They also seem to know a list of Verses in the (modern English language) Bible that seem to contradict otherwise known details or even itself.他們似乎也知道,名單印在(現代英語)聖經說,似乎有矛盾,否則被稱為細節,甚至本身。 Therefore, they claim that Inerrancy is not true of the Bible.因此,他們聲稱inerrancy是不正確的聖經。

If the actual subject at hand was the modern English-language Bible, they might be right.如果實際的議題,一方面是現代英語語言的聖經,他們可能是正確的。 But scholars never really claim that ANY modern Bible is absolutely inerrant.但學者們從來就沒有真正聲稱任何現代聖經是絕對inerrant 。 They claim that the Original Manuscripts were!他們聲稱這些原始手稿! If it is accepted that God Inspired the writing of the Books of the Bible, then to claim otherwise would imply that either He made or permitted mistakes in the Bible or that He is nowhere near as all-knowing as we believe He is.如果是接受上帝的靈感,編寫這些書籍的聖經,然後聲稱否則將意味著,無論他或允許犯錯誤,在聖經或者說,他是無處接近全知,因為我們相信他是。 So, the claim of Inerrancy in the Bible is only made regarding the Original Manuscripts.因此,索賠的inerrancy在聖經中是只作了關於原始手稿。 As far as anyone knows, all of those Original Manuscripts have long since disintegrated, and only Scribe-made copies of any of them still exist, so the claim of Inerrancy regarding the Original Manuscripts is probably beyond any possible proof.據有人知道,所有這些原始手稿早已土崩瓦解,只有刀作出的副本他們任何人的存在,因此索賠的inerrancy關於原始手稿可能是超越任何可能的證據。

In any event, skeptics and critics might be correct regarding some minor errors about details in modern English Bibles, but their criticism is claimed to not apply to the Original Manuscripts.在任何情況下,懷疑論者和批評家可能是正確的關於一些小錯誤的細節在現代英語聖經,但他們的批評是,聲稱不適用於該原始手稿。

Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible inerrancy和infallibility的聖經

Advanced Information 先進的信息

The question of authority is central for any theology.權力的問題,是中央為任何神學。 Since Protestant theology has located authority in the Bible, the nature of biblical authority has been a fundamental concern. The Reformation passed to its heirs the belief that ultimate authority rests not in reason or a pope, but in an inspired Scripture. Thus, within conservative Protestantism the question of inerrancy has been much debated.由於新教神學已設管理局在聖經中,其性質聖經的權力已經從根本上關注的問題。 改造傳遞給它的繼承人,相信最終權力落在沒有理由或教皇,但在激勵著經文,因此,在保守新教的問題inerrancy一直備受爭議。

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息來源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects我們所列出的2300名宗教科目
The two words most often used to express the nature of scriptural authority are "inerrant" and "infallible." Though these two terms are, on etymological grounds, approximately synonymous, they are used differently. 這兩個詞是最常用的表達性質聖經的權威是" inerrant " , "犯錯" ,雖然這兩個名詞是,就詞源理由中,大約同義詞,他們是用不同的。 In Roman Catholic theology "inerrant" is applied to the Bible, "infallible" to the church, particularly the teaching function of pope and magisterium.在羅馬天主教神學"的inerrant " ,是適用於聖經, "犯錯" ,以教會,尤其是教學功能的波普和magisterium 。 Since Protestants reject the infallibility of both the pope and the church, the word has been used increasingly of the Scriptures.因為新教徒拒絕infallibility雙方的教宗和教會,這個詞已經被用於越來越多的經文。 More recently "infallible" has been championed by those who hold to what BB Warfield called limited inspiration but what today is better called limited inerrancy.較近期的"犯錯"一直倡導的那些擁有什麼BB心跳沃菲爾德所謂有限的靈感,但今天是更好的所謂有限inerrancy 。 They limit the Bible's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, particularly soteriological issues. Stephen T Davis reflects this tendency when he gives a stipulative definition for infallibility: the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice. In this article the two terms shall be used as virtually synonymous. 他們限制聖經的inerrancy事項的信仰與實踐,特別是soteriological問題。斯蒂芬噸戴維斯就反映了這種趨勢時,他給出了stipulative定義為infallibility :聖經作任何虛假或誤導的陳述,事情的信念和實踐,在這篇文章中的兩個任期應被用來作為幾乎是同義詞。

Definition of Inerrancy定義inerrancy

Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences. inerrancy是認為,當所有的事實,成為眾所周知的,他們將以行動證明聖經在其原來的簽名和正確解釋,是完全正確的,絕不虛假,在所有它肯定了,這是否涉及教義或道德或社會,身體,或生命科學等。

A number of points in this definition deserve discussion. Inerrancy is not presently demonstrable. Human knowledge is limited in two ways.諸多共同點這個定義值得討論。 inerrancy目前還不能證明的,人類的知識是兩個方面的限制。 First, because of our finitude and sinfulness, human beings misinterpret the data that exist. For instance, wrong conclusions can be drawn from inscriptions or texts.首先,由於我們的有限性和罪孽, 人曲解的數據存在。舉例來說,是錯誤的結論,可以得出題字或文本。 Second, we do not possess all the data that bear on the Bible. Some of that data may be lost forever, or they may be awaiting discovery by archaeologists.第二, 我們並不具備所有的數據都肩負著聖經中的一些數據可能永遠失去了,或者,他們可能會發現,等待考古發現。 By claiming that inerrancy will be shown to be true after all the facts are known, one recognizes this. The defender of inerrancy argues only that there will be no conflict in the end.聲稱inerrancy將證明屬實後,所有事實都是已知的,一認識到這一點。 捍衛inerrancy辯稱只是將不會有任何衝突中結束。

Further, inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Bible as originally written. This means that no present manuscript or copy of Scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant. 此外, inerrancy同樣適用於各部分的聖經,因為原先寫這意味著不再需要本手稿或拷貝的經文,不管如何精確,可被稱為inerrant 。

This definition also relates inerrancy to hermeneutics.這個定義也涉及inerrancy以詮釋學。 Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation.詮釋學是科學的聖經詮釋。 It is necessary to interpret a text properly, to know its correct meaning, before asserting that what a text says is false.就是要詮釋一個文本得當,要知道它的正確含義,然後聲稱是一個文本說的是假的。 Moreover, a key hermeneutical principle taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which demands that apparent contradictions be harmonized if possible. If a passage appears to permit two interpretations, one of which conflicts with another passage and one of which does not, the latter must be adopted.此外,其中一個關鍵詮釋學原則,由教改革者,是比喻的信仰,它要求這種明顯的矛盾加以協調,如果可能, 如果一個通道似乎許可證兩種解釋,其中之一是衝突與另一條通道之一,而這並非本後者必須通過。

Probably the most important aspect of this definition is its definition of inerrancy in terms of truth and falsity rather than in terms of error.大概是最重要的一環,這個定義是它的定義inerrancy而言,真相與虛假的,而不是在計算誤差範圍內。 It has been far more common to define inerrancy as "without error," but a number of reasons argue for relating inerrancy to truth and falsity.它已遠遠更為常見界定inerrancy為"無差錯" ,但有很多原因據理力爭有關inerrancy真理,是虛假的。 To use "error" is to negate a negative idea.用"錯誤" ,目的就是要否定消極的想法。

Truth, moreover, is a property of sentences, not words.真相,而且,是一種財產的刑罰,而不是言辭。 Certain problems are commonly associated with views related to "error."某些問題是普遍聯繫的觀點與"錯誤" 。 Finally, "error" has been defined by some in the contemporary debate in such a way that almost every book ever written will qualify as inerrant.最後, "誤差" ,已確定了一些在當代辯論中,以這樣一種方式,幾乎每本書在寫會獲得資格成為inerrant 。 Error, they say, is willful deception; since the Bible never willfully deceives its readers, it is inerrant.誤差,他們說,是隨意的欺騙;以來,聖經從來沒有隨意欺騙讀者,這是inerrant 。 This would mean that almost all other books are also inerrant, since few authors intentionally deceive their readers.這將意味著幾乎所有其他書籍也inerrant ,因為很少有人作者故意欺騙自己的讀者。

Some have suggested that the Bible itself might help in settling the meaning of error.有人認為聖經本身可能幫助解決的含義的錯誤。 At first this appears to be a good suggestion, but there are reasons to reject it.起初這似乎是一個好建議,但除此以外,還有理由拒絕它。 First, "inerrancy" and "error" are theological rather than biblical terms.首先, " inerrancy "和"錯誤"是神學,而不是聖經中的條款。 This means that the Bible applies neither word to itself.這意味著聖經適用既不詞本身。 This does not mean that it is inappropriate to use these words of the Bible.這並不意味著它是不恰當使用這些詞的聖經。 Another theological term is "trinity."另一種神學來說,是"三位一體" 。 It is, however, more difficult to define such words.但是,它更難以界定聽到這樣的話。 Second, a study of the Hebrew and Greek words for error may be classified into three groups: cases of error where intentionality cannot be involved (eg, Job 6:24; 19:4), cases of error where intentionality may or may not be involved (eg, 2 Sam. 6:7), and cases where intentionality must be involved (eg, Judg. 16:10 - 12).第二,研究的希伯來文和希臘文中的誤差可分為三組:案件誤差凡意向性不能介入(例如,工作6時24分; 19時04分) ,案件誤差那裡的意向性可能會或可能不會參與(例如, 2薩姆。 6時07分) ,和的情況下,意向性必須參與(例如, judg 。 16:10 -1 2) 。 Error, then, has nothing to do with intentionality.誤差的話,那麼,完全與意向。

Admittedly, precision of statement and measurement will not be up to modern standards, but as long as what is said is true, inerrancy is not in doubt.誠然,精密的聲明,並測量將不會達到現代標準,但只要是什麼所說的是事實, inerrancy是毫無疑問的。

Finally, the definition states that inerrancy covers all areas of knowledge.最後,如何界定國家inerrancy涵蓋所有領域的知識。 Inerrancy is not limited to matters of soteriological or ethical concern. inerrancy並不限於事項soteriological或倫理的關注。 It should be clear that biblical affirmations about faith and ethics are based upon God's action in history.我們應該弄清楚聖經誓詞信仰和道德都是基於上帝的行動在歷史上。 No neat dichotomy can be made between the theological and factual.沒有乾淨的二分法,可以取得與神學和事實。

Arguments for Inerrancy論據inerrancy

The primary arguments for inerrancy are biblical, historical, and epistemological in nature. 主要論點為inerrancy是聖經,歷史和認識論性質。

The Biblical Argument聖經的說法

At the heart of the belief in an inerrant, infallible Bible is the testimony of Scripture itself.處於核心地位的信念,在一個inerrant ,犯錯的是聖經的證詞經文本身。 There is some disagreement as to whether Scripture teaches this doctrine explicitly or implicitly. The consensus today is that inerrancy is taught implicitly.也有一些分歧,以決定是否聖經教導這種學說以明示或暗示的。 共識,今天是inerrancy是教含蓄。

First, the Bible teaches its own inspiration, and this requires inerrancy. 首先,聖經教導自己的靈感,這需要inerrancy 。 The Scriptures are the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16), which guarantees they are without error.聖經是呼氣的上帝( 2添。 3:16 ) ,從而保證了他們沒有錯誤。

Second, in Deut.第二,在deut 。 13:1 - 5 and 18:20 - 22 Israel is given criteria for distinguishing God's message and messenger from false prophecies and prophets.十三-第5和1 8時2 0分- 22以色列正在考慮的標準區分上帝的訊息和信差,從虛假的預言和先知。 One mark of a divine message is total and absolute truthfulness. A valid parallel can be made between the prophet and the Bible. 1馬克一個神聖的訊息是完全和絕對的真實性。有效平行,可取得與先知和聖經。 The prophet's word was usually oral, although it might be recorded and included in a book; the writers of Scripture communicated God's word in written form.先知的字通常是口頭的,儘管它可能被記錄在案,包括在一本書;作家的經文傳達上帝的話語書面形式。 Both were instruments of divine communication, and in both cases the human element was an essential ingredient.兩地均文書神聖的溝通,而在這兩種情況下,人的因素是一個重要因素。

Third, the Bible teaches its own authority, and this requires inerrancy. 第三,聖經教導自己的權威,這就需要inerrancy 。 The two most commonly cited passages are Matt.兩個最常被引用的文章是馬特。 5:17 - 20 and John 10: 34 - 35. 5點17分-2 0和約翰1 0: 3 4- 35 。 Both record the words of Jesus.這兩個記錄的話,耶穌。 In the former Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest detail of the law fails to be fulfilled.在原耶穌說,天地會過世之前,最小的細節的法律未能得到履行。 The law's authority rests on the fact that every minute detail will be fulfilled.法律的權威在於,每一個微小細節將得到實現。 In John 10:34 - 35 Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken and so is absolutely binding.在約翰10時34分-3 5耶穌說,經文不能被突破,所以是絕對的約束力。 While it is true that both passages emphasize the Bible's authority, this authority can only be justified by or grounded in inerrancy.雖然確實有這兩個通道,強調聖經的權威,這個權威只能是有道理或既存inerrancy 。 Something that contains errors cannot be absolutely authoritative.一些載有誤差不能絕對權威。

Fourth, Scripture uses Scripture in a way that supports its inerrancy.第四,聖經經文使用某種方式支持其inerrancy 。 At times an entire argument rests on a single word (eg, John 10:34 - 35 and "God" in Ps. 82:6), the tense of a verb (eg, the present tense in Matt. 22:32), and the difference between a singular and a plural noun (eg, "seed" in Gal. 3:16). If the Bible's inerrancy does not extend to every detail, these arguments lose their force. The use of any word may be a matter of whim and may even be an error.有時整整一個論點,就必須一個字(例如,約翰10時34 -3 5和"神" ,在P S。 8 2:6) ,緊張的一個動詞(例如,目前的緊張,在馬特。 2 2時3 2分) ,並區別奇異和複數名詞(如"種子"在加爾。 3:16 ) , 若聖經的inerrancy並未延伸到每一個細節,但這些論據失去了力量。使用任何字可能是一個問題,隨意的,甚至可能是一個錯誤。 It might be objected that the NT does not always cite OT texts with precision, that as a matter of fact precision is the exception rather than the rule.它可能會反對說,台幣並不總是舉酒店文本與精度,即是眾所周知的事,其實精確度是個例外,而非常規。 This is a fair response, and an adequate answer requires more space than is available here. A careful study of the way in which the OT is used in the NT, however, demonstrates that the NT writers quoted the OT not cavalierly but quite carefully.這是一個公平的回應,並享受適當的答案,需要更多的空間比可以從這裡下載。 仔細研究以何種方式職能治療是用在新台幣,但是,顯示新台幣作家引述城市旅遊局不傲慢,但還有相當仔細。

Finally, inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God's character. Repeatedly, the Scriptures teach that God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).最後, inerrancy如下從聖經說,神的性格。再三,聖經教導說,上帝不能睜著眼睛說瞎話( num. 23時19分, 1薩姆。 15時29分; 1:2弟兄;以弗所書6:18 ) 。 If, then, the Bible is from God and his character is behind it, it must be inerrant and infallible.如果,那麼,聖經是由上帝和他的性格是其背後,它必須inerrant和犯錯誤的。

The Historical Argument歷史論據

A second argument for biblical inerrancy is that this has been the view of the church throughout its history.第二個論點,為聖經的inerrancy的是,這已是鑑於該教堂的整個歷史過程。 One must remember that if inerrancy was part of the corpus of orthodox doctrine, then in many discussions it was assumed rather than defended.我們必須記得,如果inerrancy的一部分語料的正統學說,然後在許多討論是假設,而不是辯護。 Further, the term "inerrancy" may be a more modern way of expressing the belief in the English language.進一步而言, " inerrancy "可能是一個更現代的方式,並表示相信,在以英語進行。 Nevertheless, in each period of the church's history one can cite clear examples of those who affirm inerrancy.不過,在每個時期,教會的歷史可以舉出明確的例子,那些肯定inerrancy 。

In the early church Augustine writes, "I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."在早期教會奧古斯丁寫道, "我學會了產量,這尊重和榮譽,只是向正書的經文:這些僅是我最堅定地認為,作者完全擺脫錯誤" 。

The two great Reformers, Luther and Calvin, bear testimony to biblical infallibility.這兩個偉大的改革者,路德和卡爾文,見證聖經infallibility 。 Luther says, "But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they (the fathers) have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." While Calvin does not use the phrase "without error," there can be little question that he embraced inerrancy.路德說, "但每個人,而事實上,也知道有些時候,他們(父親)有偏差,作為男人, 所以我願意信任他們時,才證明了他們的意見,從經文中,從未犯錯" ,而卡爾文不用"無差錯" ,可以毫無疑問,他擁抱inerrancy 。 Of the writers of the Gospels he comments, "The Spirit of God . . . appears purposely to have regulated their style in such a manner, that they all wrote one and the same history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways."對作家的福音,他評論說: "上帝的精神… … 。似乎故意要調節自己的風格,在這樣一個方式,即它們都寫在同一個歷史,以最完美的協議,但方式不同。 "

In modern times one could cite the works of Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, AA Hodge, and BB Warfield as modern formulators and defenders of the full inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.近代以來一個可以列舉的作品普林斯頓神學家archibald亞歷山大,查爾斯Hodge的,機管局Hodge的,和BB沃菲爾德作為現代制定者和維護者的充分inerrancy和infallibility的經文。

The biblical and historical arguments are clearly more important than the two that follow. Should they be shown to be false, inerrancy would suffer a mortal blow. 聖經和歷史的論據,顯然是更為重要的兩個後續是否應該被證明是假的, inerrancy將遭受致命的打擊。

The Epistemological Argument認識論論點

Because epistemologies differ, this argument has been formulated in at least two very different ways.因為認識論不同,但這種說法已經制定,在至少兩個非常不同的方法。 For some, knowledge claims must, to be justified, be indubitable or incorrigible. It is not enough that a belief is true and is believed on good grounds.對一些人來說,知識的申請必須是合理的,予以indubitable或不可救藥的, 它是不足夠的一個信仰卻是貨真價實,相信對很好的理由。 It must be beyond doubt and question. For such an epistemology inerrancy is essential. 它必須毋庸置疑的問題,對於這樣一個認識論inerrancy是必不可少的。 Inerrancy guarantees the incorrigibility of every statement of Scripture. inerrancy保證incorrigibility的每一個發言的經文。 Therefore, the contents of Scripture can be objects of knowledge.因此,在內容的經文,可物體的知識。

Epistemologies that do not require such a high standard of certitude result in this argument for inerrancy: If the Bible is not inerrant, then any claim it makes may be false.認識論不需要這樣一個高水準的certitude結果,在這場爭論inerrancy :如果聖經不是inerrant ,那麼,任何人聲稱它使得可能是假的。 This means not that all claims are false, but that some might be.這意味著並非所有的索賠是假的,但有些可能。 But so much of the Bible is beyond direct verification.但這麼多的聖經是超越了直接核查。 Thus, only its inerrancy assures the knower that his or her claim is justified.因此,只有其inerrancy保證能知他或她的要求是合理的。

The Slippery Slope Argument滑坡說法

Finally, some see inerrancy as so fundamental that those who give it up will soon surrender other central Christian doctrines. A denial of inerrancy starts one down a slope that is slippery and ends in even greater error.最後,有些人看到inerrancy如此基本而那些放棄的話,將很快投降等中央基督教教義。 否定inerrancy開始一個一個斜坡,就是滑完,在更大的錯誤。

Objections to Inerrancy反對inerrancy

The arguments for inerrancy have not gone unchallenged.論據inerrancy並不能完全置之不理。 In what follows, responses by those who object to each argument will be given and answers will be offered.在什麼情況如下,回應那些反對每一個論點,將給出答案,將可。

The Slippery Slope Argument滑坡說法

This argument is both the least important and most disliked by those who do not hold to inerrancy.這一說法是對雙方最不重要,最不喜歡的是那些沒有舉行,以inerrancy 。 What kind of relationship exists between the doctrine of inerrancy and other central Christian doctrines, they ask, that the denial of all inerrancy will of necessity lead to a denial of other doctrines?是什麼樣的關係存在主義inerrancy和其他中央基督教教義,他們所要求的,即剝奪所有inerrancy將必然導致否定其他學說? Is it a logical relationship?是一個邏輯關係呢? Is it a causal or psychological relationship?它是一種因果或心理的關係? On close examination, none of these seems to be the case.如果仔細研究,但這些似乎是如此。 Many people who do not affirm inerrancy are quite clearly orthodox on other matters of doctrine.很多人不肯定inerrancy是很清楚東正教對其他事項的教義。

What has been said to this point is true.什麼有人說,這一點是事實。 It should be noted, however, that numerous cases do support the slippery slope argument.但應該看到,但是,許多個案都支持大滑坡的說法。 For many individuals and institutions the surrender of their commitment to inerrancy has been a first step to greater error.對於許多個人和機構移交其承諾inerrancy一直是第一步,更大的錯誤。

The Epistemological Argument認識論論點

The epistemological argument has been characterized by some as an example of overbelief. A single error in the Bible should not lead one to conclude that it contains no truth. If one finds one's spouse wrong on some matter, one would be wrong to conclude that one's spouse can never be trusted on any matter.認識論論據的特點一直是有些人的一個例子overbelief 。 單一誤差在聖經中不應該導致一個結論,認為它包含不符合事實,如果發現一個人的配偶錯就一些問題,其中一個將是錯誤的結論,認為一個人的配偶可以永遠信賴的任何事宜。

This objection, however, overlooks two very important matters. First, while it is true that one error in Scripture would not justify the conclusion that everything in it is false, it would call everything in Scripture into question. We could not be sure that everything in it is true.這項異議,但忽略了兩個很重要的事: 第一,雖然這是事實之一,誤差在經文中,將沒有理由的結論是,一切都在它是假的,它將要求一切經文成問題,我們也不能肯定一切它是真實的。 Since the theological is based on the historical and since the historical is open to error, how can one be sure that the theological is true?由於神學是基於對歷史和因為歷史是開放的錯誤,我們怎麼可以肯定的是,神學是真的嗎? There is no direct means for verification.有沒有直接的手段,以供檢驗。 Second, while the case of the errant spouse is true as far as it goes, it does not account for all the issues involved in inerrancy.第二,而案件的錯誤配偶證明所言屬實,因為就不用,這並不帳戶中涉及的所有問題inerrancy 。 One's spouse does not claim to be inerrant; the Bible does.一個人的配偶不聲稱自己是inerrant ;聖經是否。 One's spouse is not omniscient and omnipotent; the God of the Bible is.一個人的配偶是不是無所不知,無所不能;上帝的聖經。 God knows everything, and he can communicate with man.上帝知道一切,他可以溝通的人。

The Historical Argument歷史論據

Those who reject inerrancy argue that this doctrine is an innovation, primarily of the Princeton theologians in the nineteenth century.那些拒絕inerrancy說,這只是學說,是一個創新,主要是普林斯頓神學家在十九世紀。 Throughout the centuries the church believed in the Bible's authority but not its total inerrancy.整個世紀以來,教會認為,在聖經中的權威機構,而不是它的總inerrancy 。 The doctrine of inerrancy grew out of an apologetic need. Classical liberalism and its growing commitment to an increasingly radical biblical criticism made the orthodox view of Scripture vulnerable. Therefore, the Princeton theologians devised the doctrine of total inerrancy to stem the rising tide of liberalism.中庸inerrancy的前身是一個道歉的必要。 古典自由主義及其日益增長的承諾越來越激進聖經中所作出的批評,正統的看法經文脆弱,因此,普林斯頓神學家制定的教義總inerrancy ,以杜絕日益猖獗的自由主義。 This represented a departure from the views of their predecessors in the orthodox tradition.這是一種偏離了意見,他們的前輩在東正教的傳統。

Calvin, for example, speaks of God "accommodating" himself to man in the communication of his revelation.卡爾文,例如,說上帝的"遷就"自己是人類在溝通他的啟示。 Calvin also says that the Bible's teaching does not need to be harmonized with science, and that anyone who wishes to prove to the unbeliever that the Bible is God's Word is foolish.卡爾文也表示,聖經對他的教誨,並不需要加以協調,與科學,與任何人的意願,以事實向異教徒之說,聖經是上帝的話語,是愚蠢的。

These objections to the historical argument do not do justice to the evidence. They fail to reckon with the host of clear affirmations of inerrancy by Christian theologians throughout the church's history, only a few of which were given above. 這些反對意見,以歷史的說法不公道的證據,他們不能算好與東道國明確的誓詞的inerrancy由基督教神學家在整個教會的歷史上,只有少數人,其中給予以上。

Moreover, the treatment of figures like Calvin is unfair.此外,治療的人物一樣,美女是不公平的。 While Calvin talks about accommodation, he does not mean accommodation to human error.而卡爾文談住宿,他並不等於住宿人為錯誤所致。 He means that God condescended to speak in language that finite human beings could understand.他的意思就是神condescended發言語言有限人能夠理解。 In one place he says that God spoke only baby talk.在一個地方,他說,神祗寶寶談話。 He never implies that what God said is in error.他從來不意味著什麼上帝說,是在錯誤的。 On matters of science and proof, the same sort of thing is true.對事項的科學和證明,同樣的事情是否屬實。 Calvin nowhere says that the Scriptures cannot be harmonized with science or that they cannot be proven to be the Word of God.卡爾文無處說,聖經不能統一,與科學或者說它們不能被證明是上帝的話。 He felt rather that such an exercise is futile in itself because of man's sin.他覺得,而不是認為這種演習是徒勞的本身,因為人的罪過。 Hence, he relied on the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever.因此,他靠的證詞聖靈向異教徒。 The problem is in man, not in the Scriptures or the evidence for their origin.問題是,在人,而不是在念經或證據,為自己的出身。 The theologians of the church may have been wrong in their belief, but they did believe in an inerrant Bible.該神學家的教會可能已被錯在自己的信仰,但他們相信,在一個inerrant聖經。

The Biblical Argument聖經的說法

A common objection to the biblical argument is that the Bible nowhere teaches its own inerrancy.共同反對把聖經的說法是,聖經沒有教導自己的inerrancy 。 The point seems to be a subtle one.這一點似乎是一個微妙的一個。 Those who make this point mean that the Bible nowhere says "all Scripture is inerrant" in the way that it teaches "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (11 Tim. 3:16). While it is true that no verse says explicitly that Scripture is inerrant, biblical inerrancy is implied by or follows from a number of things the Bible does teach explicitly.那些使這一點意味著聖經無處說, "所有的經文是inerrant "在這樣它教導: "所有的經文賦予靈感的上帝" ( 11添。 3:16 ) , 而這是事實,沒有詩句說:明確表示,經文是inerrant ,聖經的inerrancy是隱含的或從以下幾件事聖經教導是否明確。

Another objection is that inerrancy is unfalsifiable.另一種反對意見是inerrancy是unfalsifiable 。 Either the standard for error is so high that nothing can qualify (eg, even contradictions have difficulty in qualifying), or the falsity or truth of scriptural statements cannot be demonstrated until all the facts are known.無論是標準誤差是如此之高,沒有任何東西可以有資格(例如,甚至存在矛盾有困難的排位) ,或虛假或真理的聖經報表不能顯示出,直到所有的事實是眾所周知的。 The doctrine of inerrancy is not, however, unfalsifiable in principle; it is unfalsifiable only at present. Not everything that bears on the truth and falsity of the Bible is yet available. How then is it possible to affirm so strongly the doctrine of inerrancy now?中庸inerrancy是沒有,不過, unfalsifiable原則,它是unfalsifiable只是目前並非所有事關真相與虛假的聖經是未定。如何,然後是有可能申明這麼強烈的教義inerrancy現在? Should one be more cautious or even suspend judgment?一要採取更為謹慎的態度,甚至暫停判斷呢? The inerrantist wants to be true to what he or she thinks the Bible teaches.該inerrantist希望成為真正的,以他或她認為聖經教導。 And as independent data have become available (eg, from archaeology), they have shown the Bible to be trustworthy.作為獨立的數據,已成為可用(例如,從考古) ,他們都表現出聖經中被可以信賴的。

Another criticism is that inerrancy fails to recognize sufficiently the human element in the writing of Scripture. The Bible teaches that it is a product of human as well as divine authorship. 另一項批評是inerrancy未能承認不夠人的因素,在寫作的經文。聖經教導我們,它是一種產品的人,以及神聖的著作權。 This objection, though, underestimates the divine element.這項異議,但低估了神的元素。 The Bible is a divine - human book.聖經是一個神聖的-人的書。 To de-emphasize either side of its authorship is a mistake.貶低任何一方,其著作權,是一個錯誤。 Furthermore, this criticism misunderstands man, implying that humanity requires error.此外,這種批評誤解男子,這意味著人類需要的誤差。 This is false. The spokesmen of God were human, but inspiration kept them from error.這是假的。 代言人上帝是人,而是激勵他們不斷從錯誤。

The objection has been raised that if one uses the methods of biblical criticism, one must accept its conclusions.在提出反對,如果一個使用方法的聖經批評,就必須接受其結論。 But why?但為什麼呢? One need accept only the methods that are valid and the conclusions that are true.一有需要,只接受該方法是有效的和得出的結論是正確的。

Finally, it has been objected that since the original autographs no longer exist and since the doctrine applies only to them, inerrancy is meaningless.最後,它一直反對說,由於原簽名不再存在,而且自學說只適用於他們, inerrancy是沒有意義的。 The identification of inerrancy with the original autographs is a neat hedge against disproof. Whenever an "error" is pointed out, the inerrantist can say that it must not have existed in the original autographs.鑑定inerrancy與原簽名是一個整齊對沖反證。 每當一個"錯誤" ,是指出, inerrantist可以說,它必須根本不存在在原來的汽油。

Limiting inerrancy to the original autographs could be such a hedge, but it need not be.限制inerrancy至原來的簽名,可這樣一個對沖,但它是沒有必要的。 This qualification of inerrancy grows out of the recognition that errors crop up in the transmission of any text.這項資格的inerrancy出承認錯誤出現在傳送任何文字。 There is, however, a great difference between a text that is initially inerrant and one that is not. The former, through textual criticism, can be restored to a state very near the inerrant original; the latter leaves far more doubt as to what was really said.有,但很大的差異,一個文本就是最初inerrant之一,是不是。 前者,通過考證,就可以恢復到一個國家非常接近inerrant原件;後者葉遠懷疑,因為是什麼真說。

It might be argued that the doctrine of inerrant originals directs attention away from the authority of our present texts. Perhaps inerrantists sometimes fail to emphasize the authority of our present texts and versions as they should. Is the remedy, however, to undercut the base for their authority?也許有人會說中庸inerrant正本指示注意力從權威的,我們目前的文本。 inerrantists也許有時會失敗,強調權威,我們目前的文本和版本,因為他們應該是對症下藥,但是,削弱基地他們的權力? To deny the authority of the original is to undermine the authority of the Bible the Christian has today.否定權威原來是破壞權威根據聖經,基督教有今天。

PD Feinberg鈀feinberg
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) ( Elwell宣布了福音字典)

Bibliography 參考書目
For inerrancy 為inerrancy
DA Carson and JD Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth; NL Geisler, ed., Inerrancy; JW Montgomery, ed., God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture; BB Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible; JD Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers / McKim Proposal.大卡森和JD伍編,經文和真相;荷geisler ,版, inerrancy ;李鍾鬱蒙哥馬利,海關,上帝的inerrant詞:一個國際研討會上的可信賴性的經文; BB心跳沃菲爾德,啟發性和權威性的聖經;第納爾伍德布里奇,聖經的權威:一種批判的羅傑斯/麥克金姆的建議。

Against inerrancy 針對inerrancy
DM Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility; SA Davis, The Debate About the Bible; J Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority; J Rogers and D McKim, The Interpretation and Authority of the Bible.馬克beegle ,經文中,傳統和infallibility ; SA服務戴維斯,辯論有關聖經; j羅傑斯版,聖經的權威; j羅傑斯和D麥克金姆,釋義和權威的聖經。

Also, see:此外,見:
Infallibility infallibility

This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們:電子郵箱

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁(和索引科目),是在