Talk:Biblical inerrancy

Suggested additions
1. Add Jesus's thoughts about the Scriptures and the Apostles thoughts. Both spoke highly of the Scripture.

2. Add this:

If the resurrection of Christ is true then by extension the whole Bible is true. 

Various arguments having been put forth by eminent legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery and others claiming that Western legal standards argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. In addition, the former Chief Justices of England Lord Darling and Lord Caldecote stated there was overwhelming amount of evidence for the resurrection of Christ. In addition historians such as Thomas Arnold, A. N. Sherwin-White , and Michael Grant have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection

3. The Bible is seen by some as being fully in accordance with the discoveries of science and claims of the Bible having factual scientific errors are the result of poor exegesis. 

4. The Bible has evidence of Bible scientific foreknowledge.

Creationist 21:40, 15 December 2005 (GMT)creationist

More suggested additions or new article
I think the Bible influence is a sign of divine inspiration and thus inerrancy since the God of the Bible is not portrayed to be accident prone. In short, if He inspired it then it is error free.

But perhaps a separate article could be made on the Bible's influence and inspiration.

Here are some ideas:


 * Christianity and the Bible are seen as having a very positive and profound effect on the individuals and societies to which it has been exposed to. This is a sign of biblical inerrancy.


 * Lawrence Greenslade in the Cambridge History of the Bible stated, "No other book has known anything approaching this constant circulation."


 * The biblical text is remarkably well preserved over the centuries despite attempts to destroy and ban it.

Creationist 21:52, 15 December 2005 (GMT)creationist
 * sounds like a good idea ... maybe you could start it as a subsection on this page titled "Evidence for Biblical credibility" or something to that effect, then branch out to a second article if it gets really long? Ungtss 22:40, 15 December 2005 (GMT)


 * TO: ungtss
 * Chris does not want me to make contributions to most articles except for articles I started and certain sections. It was because my Wiki skills were pretty bad in the beginning in regards to formatting.  I think I know what I am doing now though.  In addition, I won't be making any more contributions for a long while due to time constraints/priorities.   Perhaps, Chris Ashcroft will lift the restrictions though or you or others will take my ideas given at the talk pages.   I did make a few changes to Bible inerrancy and athiesm statistics because I want CreationWiki to be very precise/factual/convincing.  I wish you the best in regards to your contribtions here.  Creationist 22:53, 15 December 2005 (GMT)creationist

Why were the Tektonics links removed? I was not aware that JP Holding was anti-YEC. PrometheusX303 23:13, 14 January 2006 (GMT)

I restored the link to JP Holding Tektonics Ministry. I want to let everyone know that I do not endorse Theology Web which is a forum which I think may have unfair moderation towards young earth creationists (although I am not fully convinced of this). JP Holding's site links to Theology Web. Lastly, JP Holding holds to the eschatology of preterism which I also disagree with (the earliest church fathers were premillenial futurists, etc. etc.). Overall though, I really like JP Holding's material! Creationist 01:57, 15 January 2006 (GMT)creationist