If it is in print, it must be righteous?
Challenge: Support textual infallibility
and/or
Take on issue vs alternatives to those of Christian.
EX: Is Quaran infallible, inerrant, or both
Or is infallible = inerrant
[following comment is for defining some context]
<your turn>
and/or
Take on issue vs alternatives to those of Christian.
EX: Is Quaran infallible, inerrant, or both
Or is infallible = inerrant
[following comment is for defining some context]
<your turn>
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Closed. [question was classed as abandoned]
ASKER
From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrancy." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'"Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the Biblical narratives. For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated." [Wiki]