I receive regular emailers from leading evangelical apologist, Dr William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith. I have just read his article, "Is Biblical Inerrancy Defensible?"
He supports the teaching that
Why don't you read his defense of this position and decide if this is supported by biblical teaching?
Oz
He supports the teaching that
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our access to it; in any case we do have the text of the autographs, even if we don’t have the autographs themselves.
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by copyists’ errors; in any case the manuscript variants are trivial, so that no Christian doctrine hangs on them.
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our uncertainty about ancient culture; in any case we know much, more of first century culture than almost any previous succeeding generation, and no Christian doctrine hangs on any uncertainty.
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our uncertainty about the meaning of various words; in any case those words that remain uncertain in their meanings are more than counterbalanced by the clear teaching of Scripture.
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by translations into modern languages; indeed, a plurality of translations is a great benefit in understanding the nuances of the original text.
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by the absence of inspired interpretations; fortunately, the major Christian confessions agree on most of the doctrinal essentials.
Why don't you read his defense of this position and decide if this is supported by biblical teaching?
Oz