Inspiration
This is the place to start to get caught up on the inspiration and inerrancy discussion that has taken place on The Naked Bible. If you posted a comment or complaint about something in the Naked Bible’s position, and I said “do the reading and get caught up,” this is what I’m talking about. To really follow the discussion, you need to read the items below IN ORDER — including the PDF readings. If you aren’t willing to invest the time to catch up, I won’t invest the time to reply.
1. The post that started it all, with readings – Beginning a Serious Discussion about Inerrancy
2. Looking at the Inerrancy Definitions, Part 1
3. Pre-Scientific Worldview “Problem” and Inerrancy
4. A Short Explanatory Note on the “Westminster Addendum”
5. Sifting the Posts and Comments on Inerrancy
6. Parsing the “God Alone” View of Inspiration
7. The Naked Bible’s Thoughts on Inspiration, Part 1
8. The Naked Bible’s Thoughts on Inspiration, Part 2
9. The Naked Bible’s Thoughts on Inspiration, Part 3 – The Myth of the Holy Stapler
12. 1 Samuel 13:1 – The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible
13. Inspiration and Inerrancy: Distinguishing Ends and Means, Process and Product
14. Let’s Talk About Divine Accommodation
15. Inerrancy and Literary Fiction in the Bible
16. Another Consideration for Inerrancy: The NT Author’s Quotation of (or Alteration of) the OT
17. One Last Illustrative Problem for Inerrancy and its Literary-Critical Solution
18. Another Whack at Bellingham Statement 1
19. Moving to Bellingham Statement 2
More recent posts:
21. Guest Blogger: John Hobbins Responds to the Bellingham Statement
22. Mike’s Response to John Hobbins
24. Another Proposed Bellingham Statement (March 12, 2009)
14 Responses to “Inspiration”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
[...] Naked Bible’s Inspiration Discussion [...]
[...] Naked Bible’s Inspiration Discussion [...]
I wonder if you would be interested in looking at/commenting on this three part series:
Part I: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/special-revelation-part-i/
Part II: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/special-revelation-part-ii/
Part III: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/special-revelation-part-iii/
@Diane: I’ll have a look
@Diane: Read Part I. Seems to be objecting to the (old) idea of dividing revelation from the Bible so that “revealed truth” can be found (or resides) in sources (conduits) other than the Bible. Not sure it adds anything — but did you have a specific question that prompted the links?
[...] I have pointed numerous times to the thinking of those for whom it is important to use the language of “inerrancy” in describing the Bible, but whose use of the term is far more nuanced [...]
[...] those of you who really want to dig deep: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/naked-bibles-inspiration-discussion/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)David Flynn: 33 1/3 Explained and The Alien [...]
I am new to your website but I find that it goes indepth on subjects
Maybe you can help me-I contend that there is no such thing as a Palestinian but Jews and Arabs that live in Cannan. Palestine was a roman term and the UN is full of BS
@Marvin Johnson: I agree the UN is basically worthless. “Palestinian” is a modern term that derives from modern politics.
[...] Naked Bible’s Inspiration Discussion [...]
[...] Naked Bible’s Inspiration Discussion [...]
super posts last two days
Please comment on the validitiy of Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended. The book was written in the 1950′s, so the title has nothing to do with the modern King James Only position. The title really means that Hills is defending the Received Text. But he also goes deeply into the views Bible Believers should have concerning the preservation of Scripture. I have read the book about three times in 35 years, and I learn something new every time. Hills is one of the few who defend the Textus Receptus who is also recognized as a textual scholar even by the unbelievers.
The KJV / TR only is utterly useless and misguided. One example: *which* TR? There were 26 editions of it. The KJV only position ought to be mined in every logic class for logical fallacies. It is almost as silly as the Bible code nonsense since it proceeds along (some) similar lines of assumption.