DOCSLIB.ORG

Explaining Biblical Inerrancy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Explaining Biblical Inerrancy 1 Explaining Biblical Inerrancy Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Dr. R.C. Sproul 1980 Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Dr. Norman L. Geisler 1983 2 Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: Official Commentary on the ICBI Statements Edited by Norman L. Geisler and Christopher T. Haun Copyright © 2013 - Norman L. Geisler. All rights reserved. Published by: Bastion Books P.O. Box 1033 Matthews, NC USA 28106 http://BastionBooks.com Biblical Studies | Apologetics | Systematic Theology | Inerrancy | Orthodoxy | Normative Ethics No portion of this e-book may legally be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form and by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, digital or analog recordings, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Norman L. Geisler or Bastion Books. However, the following rights are hereby granted only for the legal owner of this e-book: (1) You may store a copy of this e-book file may be stored in safe and unshared location as a backup in case the original is lost to electronic malfunction or theft. (2) You may place a copy of this e-book file on two electronic devices that you own. (3) The purchaser of this e-book may print one paper hard copy and replace that hard copy when it is discarded due to wear, lost, or stolen. (4) Properly attributed quotations of 100 words or less with clear citations is considered “fair use.” (5) Pastors and teachers may purchase one copy of the e- book and share it in digital form with their students so long as this e-book is being used as a primary text book and no financial profits are made. Redistribution of this e-book beyond these limits could result in legal action. Other requests regarding the use of this material may be made by postal mail or by emailing [email protected]. 3 CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: Articles of Affirmation and Denial (1978) .............. 15 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics: Articles of Affirmation and Denial (1982) ........ 18 Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ................ 22 Foreword by Roger R. Nicole ............................................................................................................ 22 The Word of God and Authority ........................................................................................................ 24 ARTICLE I: Authority ................................................................................................................... 25 ARTICLE II: Scripture and Tradition ............................................................................................. 27 The Word of God and Revelation ................................................................................................... 28 ARTICLE III: Revelation .............................................................................................................. 29 ARTICLE IV: Human Language.................................................................................................... 30 ARTICLE V: Progressive Revelation ............................................................................................. 32 The Word of God and Inspiration .................................................................................................. 33 ARTICLE VI: Verbal Plenary Inspiration ...................................................................................... 34 ARTICLE VII: Inspiration ............................................................................................................. 35 ARTICLE VIII: Human Authors .................................................................................................... 37 The Word of God and Inerrancy .................................................................................................... 38 ARTICLE IX: Inerrancy ................................................................................................................ 38 ARTICLE X: The Autographs ....................................................................................................... 41 ARTICLE XI: Infallibility ............................................................................................................. 43 ARTICLE XII: Inerrancy of the Whole .......................................................................................... 44 The Word of God and Truth ........................................................................................................... 46 ARTICLE XIII: Truth .................................................................................................................... 47 ARTICLE XIV: Consistency ......................................................................................................... 51 ARTICLE XV: Accommodation .................................................................................................... 53 The Word of God and You .............................................................................................................. 55 ARTICLE XVI: Church History .................................................................................................... 56 ARTICLE XVII: Witness of the Spirit ........................................................................................... 57 ARTICLE XVIII: Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 58 ARTICLE XIX: Health of the Church ............................................................................................ 60 4 Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.... 62 ARTICLE I: Authority of the Scriptures......................................................................................... 62 ARTICLE II: The Written Word And the Incarnated Word ............................................................ 63 ARTICLE III: The Centrality of Jesus Christ ................................................................................. 64 ARTICLE IV: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Revelation ............................................................... 65 ARTICLE V: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Application ............................................................... 65 ARTICLE VI: Propositional Truth Corresponds to Realty .............................................................. 66 ARTICLE VII: One Meaning, Multiple Applications ..................................................................... 67 ARTICLE VIII: Cultural Universality ............................................................................................ 68 ARTICLE IX: Hermeneutics and Meaning..................................................................................... 69 ARTICLE X: Adequacy of Variety of Literary Forms .................................................................... 70 ARTICLE XI: Adequacy of Translation ......................................................................................... 71 ARTICLE XII: Limits for Functional Equivalence Translation ....................................................... 72 ARTICLE XIII: The Value and Limits of Genre Criticism ............................................................. 73 ARTICLE XIV: Literary Forms and Factual History ...................................................................... 74 ARTICLE XV: The Grammatical-Historical Sense ........................................................................ 75 ARTICLE XVI: Roles and Varieties of Biblical Criticism .............................................................. 76 ARTICLE XVII: Scripture is Self-Interpreting ............................................................................... 77 ARTICLE XVIII: Meaning may Transcend Human Understanding ................................................ 78 ARTICLE XIX: Danger in Preunderstandings ................................................................................ 79 ARTICLE XX: Extrabiblical Sources............................................................................................. 80 ARTICLE XXI: Harmony of General and Special Revelations ....................................................... 81 ARTICLE XXII: Genesis 1-11 as Factual ...................................................................................... 82 ARTICLE XXIII: Perspicacity of the Scriptures ............................................................................. 83 ARTICLE XXIV: The Value of Biblical Scholarship ..................................................................... 83 ARTICLE XXV: Preaching as Exposition of Scriptural Texts ........................................................ 84 Short Exposition of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ................................................... 85 Short Exposition of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics ............................................. 87 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Application ................................................................................. 98 5 INTRODUCTION It is a fact of human experience that when the living eye-witnesses to events die off, the process of developing myths
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biblical Exegesis in African Context
    Biblical Exegesis in African Context Frederick Mawusi Amevenku Senior Lecturer, Trinity Theological Seminary, Legon-Accra & Research Associate, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Isaac Boaheng Research Fellow, University of Free State, South Africa Series in Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2021 Vernon Press, an imprint of Vernon Art and Science Inc, on behalf of the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Science Inc. www.vernonpress.com In the Americas: In the rest of the world: Vernon Press Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, Suite 1200 C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 Malaga, 29006 United States Spain Series in Philosophy of Religion Library of Congress Control Number: 2021936399 ISBN: 978-1-64889-176-2 Cover design by Vernon Press. Cover image: Education photo created by wirestock / Freepik. Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respective owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in
    [Show full text]
  • Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?
    MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 75–90 INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION? Jonathan Moorhead Instructor, The Master’s Academy International, Czech Republic The claim that the church has always believed in the inerrancy of Scripture has been challenged for over a century. In particular, it has been charged that the doc- trine of inerrancy was invented by Princetonian theologians and proto-fundamental- ists. This article will show from primary resources that this claim is without warrant. ***** In 1970, Ernest Sandeen (Macalester College) claimed that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the doctrine of iner- rancy to combat the burgeoning threat of liberalism.1 In particular, Sandeen posited that the doctrine of inerrancy in the original autographs “did not exist in either Europe or America prior to its formulation in the last half of the nineteenth century.”2 In 1979, Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) and Donald McKim (Dubuque Theological Seminary) wrote, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Ap- proach, which popularized this theory on a broad scale. Over the past forty years, the conclusions of Sandeen, Rogers and McKim have affected how many Christians think about the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, if the doctrine of inerrancy was not promoted throughout church history, why should the church fight for it now? 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Sandeen did not originate this charge. As early as 1893 Philip Schaff claimed, “the theory of a literal inspiration and inerrancy was not held by the Re- formers” (quoted by B.B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer
    The Inerrancy of Scripture: By Kevin Vanhoozer, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh – Republished with permission from Latimer House 131 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AJ Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature. By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other). Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness. The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path. If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? It is true, as some have suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology? In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is a need for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Writing Your Exegesis Paper of a Psalm
    1 Guidelines for Writing an Exegesis Paper Prepared by Ross Cole, March 28, 2011 The Goal of Exegesis An exegesis paper attempts to understand a passage in terms of its original context. Our goal in ministry is to apply the text to our present context. Application is not the same thing as exegesis. Nevertheless, exegesis must come first, if we as inspiring yet uninspired teachers are to make accurate applications to contemporary situations. Organizing Your Paper Exegesis is normally defined in terms of three contexts: Historical context Literary context Linguistic Context There are characteristically a number steps involved in establishing each of these, and we will here deal with each of them in order. However, these contexts and steps are listed in an order, simply because it is impossible to describe them all in one breath. There is nothing sacred about the sequence, and each context and step may interact with other contexts and steps. There may be better ways of organizing the final paper than just following the order below. What is important is that the paper needs to exhibit a logical flow. By the end of the paper, you need to present a wholistic understanding of the passage, in accordance with how the first readers/listeners would have understood it. It should not be like a string of disconnected beads (as one lecturer describe an exegesis paper I did as an undergraduate student). It should instead be like a stew with the aromas of the different ingredients mixed together. Use of Sources The exegetical methodology here described is meant to give you a certain independence from commentaries and other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa
    Theological Studies 49 (1988) THE EXEGETICAL ROOTS OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY MICHAEL SLUSSER Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa. N RECENT YEARS systematic theologians have been showing increased I interest in studying the doctrine of the Trinity. An integral part of that study should be an exposition of the origins of the doctrine. The question of origins can be posed in an analytical fashion, as Maurice Wiles has done: .. .we seem forced to choose between three possibilities: either (1) we do after all know about the Trinity through a revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead; or (2) there is an inherent threefoldness about every act of God's revelation, which requires us to think in trinitarian terms of the nature of God, even though we cannot speak of the different persons of the Trinity being responsible for specific facets of God's revelation; or (3) our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance.1 I think that this analytical approach is in important respects secondary to the genetic one. The first Christians spoke about God in the terms which we now try to analyze; surely the reasons why they used those terms are most relevant to a sound analysis. The main words whose usage needs to be fathomed are the Greek words prosöpon, hypostasis, ousia, andphysis.2 Prosöpon is the earliest of these terms to have attained an accepted conventional usage in early Christian speech about God, and therefore the chief determinant of the shape which the complex of terms was to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Patristic Exegesis and Theology: the Cart and the Horse
    WTJ 69 (2007): 1-19 HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDIES PATRISTIC EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY: THE CART AND THE HORSE DONALD FAIRBAIRN his article grows out of two dominant perceptions that I have developed Tthrough my work with theological students and teachers. The first of these perceptions is that there is strong and growing interest in patristic interpretation of the Bible among evangelical biblical scholars and theologians. The second perception is that virtually all biblical studies students and professors I have encountered are working from a model for understanding patristic exegesis that is inadequate and does not reflect what patristics scholars have been writing about patristic exegesis for the last several decades. I have in mind the model that divides patristic exegesis into two competing—and largely mutually exclu- sive—schools, one based in Antioch and the other in Alexandria. Now I should hasten to add that the inadequacy of such a model is not some- thing that biblical scholars and theologians could necessarily have recognized themselves, and I hope that nothing I am about to write will be taken as a criti- cism of contemporary biblical scholars. Rather, the prevalence of this model is an unfortunate example of the way the scholarly arena sometimes works. What patristics scholars were saying seventy or eighty years ago about patristic exege- sis has worked its way into the historical theology, church history, and herme- neutics textbooks in the last forty or fifty years. As American patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser recently pointed out, a great deal of work on patristic exegesis done by biblical scholars from about 1950 onwards treated the literal and figurative senses of biblical passages not as interpretive options for the texts under investigation, but rather as general exegetical methods, and these methods were bound to local ‘‘school’’ requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of Satan
    Scholars Crossing The Lucifer File Theological Studies 5-2018 The Doctrine of Satan Harold Willmington Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lucifer_file Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Willmington, Harold, "The Doctrine of Satan" (2018). The Lucifer File. 1. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lucifer_file/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theological Studies at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Lucifer File by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN I. The Existence of Satan – There is scarcely a culture, tribe, or society to be found in this world that does not have some concept or fear of an invisible evil power. This has been attested by Christian missionaries and secular anthropologists alike. Witch doctors, shrunken heads, voodoo dolls, and totem poles all give dramatic evidence of this universal fear. One may well ask where this fear came from and of whom are they afraid. The study of the doctrine of Satan may not thrill the soul of man, but it will answer these questions. A. His existence is doubted by the world. 1. As shown by the typical “Walt Disney cartoon concept” – Most of the world today pictures the devil as a medieval and mythical two-horned, fork-tailed impish creature, dressed in red flannel underwear, busily pitching coal into the furnace of hell.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evangelical Theological Society and the Doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles
    EQ 80.4 (2008). 323-338 The Evangelical Theological Society and the doctrine of the Trinity Kevin Giles Kevin Giles served as an Anglican rector in Australia for 38 years. He now lectures, writes, travels and helps with grandchildren. This paper was read at the 2006 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in Washington, DC. KEY WORDS: Arianism, being, Christoiogy, Father, Wayne Grudem, George Knight Ill, role, Son, submission, subordination, Bruce Ware, women. In America the Evangelical Theological Society is a very significant organiza­ tion with over four thousand members. It claims to be the voice of conservative evangelical scholarship. In its Doctrinal Basis only two matters are made funda­ mental to the evangelical faith: belief in the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs and belief in a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three 'uncre­ ated' persons, who are 'one in essence, equal in power and glory'.! In the history of the ETS the first fundamental belief has caused many a painful disruption in the evangelical family, the second has not. In this paper I argue that critical consideration should be given to what several leading theologians of the ETS are teaching on the Trinity because it would seem to implicitly contradict what the ETS statement of faith says on the Trinity. ETS members are bound to believe that the three divine persons are one in essence and equal in power. To argue that the Son is eternally subordinate in authority to the Father, denies that he is equal in power with the Father and the Spirit and by implication, that he is one in es­ sencelbeingwith the Father and the Spirit.2 The novel post 1970s doctrine ofthe eternally subordinated Son In his highly influential book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship The words on the Trinity were added in 1990 to exclude people with a high view of inerrancy who rejected the historic doctrine of the Trinity as spelt out in the Creeds and Reformation confessions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics
    The Journal of Ministry & Theology 50 The Inerrancy and Authority of Scripture in Christian Apologetics Lee Allen Anderson Jr. INTRODUCTION Scripture’s call to Christians to engage in the apologetic task is markedly obvious. For example, 1 Peter 3:15 instructs believers to always be “ready to make a defense (ἀπολογίαν) to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” Similarly, Jude 3 exhorts Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Here, the “faith” refers not to the subjective element of personal trust in the Lord God, but instead to that “body of truth that very early in the church’s history took on a definite form,” that is, the content of Christian faith—doctrinal truth (cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Tim 4:1).1 Implicit in this verse, therefore, is the acknowledgment of the fact that a certain body of doctrinal truth exists, which in turn implies a source or origin for that doctrinal truth. For the Christian, the principle, authoritative source of doctrinal truth is the “God-breathed” holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16). The reliability of Scripture as a standard for Christian doctrine hinges on the fact that, as the inspired word of the true God who does not lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18), it is wholly true (Ps 119:160; John 17:17). To echo the words of the longstanding affirmation of the Evangelical Theological Society, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”2 This affirmation is not a peripheral issue to Christian theology; it is germane to the life of the church and, of logical consequence, the upholding of the Christian faith.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: a New Missional Paradigm for Community Transformation
    Digital Commons @ George Fox University Doctor of Ministry Theses and Dissertations 4-2021 Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: A New Missional Paradigm For Community Transformation Michael J. Berry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin Part of the Christianity Commons GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY RE-IMAGINING ECCLESIOLOGY: A NEW MISSIONAL PARADIGM FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PORTLAND SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY MICHAEL J. BERRY PORTLAND, OREGON APRIL 2021 Portland Seminary George Fox University Portland, Oregon CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ________________________________ DMin Dissertation ________________________________ This is to certify that the DMin Dissertation of Michael J. Berry has been approved by the Dissertation Committee on April 29, 2021 for the degree of Doctor of Ministry in Leadership in the Emerging Culture Dissertation Committee: Primary Advisor: W. David Phillips, DMin Secondary Advisor: Karen Claassen, DMin Lead Mentor: Leonard I. Sweet, PhD Copyright © 2021 by Michael J. Berry All rights reserved ii DEDICATION To my wife, Andra and to our daughters, Ariel and Olivia. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks for everyone’s support and assistance to get me through this process: Dr. Len Sweet, Donna Wallace, Dr. David Phillips, Dr. Loren Kerns, Dr. Clifford Berger, Dr. Jason Sampler, Rochelle Deans, Dr. David Anderson, Dr. Tom Hancock, Patrick Mulvaney, Ray Crew, and especially Tracey Wagner. iv EPIGRAPH The baptism and spiritual
    [Show full text]
  • Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples
    CHAPTER XIV EXEGESIS IN PRACTICE: TWO SAMPLES R. T. France This chapter is intended to bring the reader down to earth. Many theoretical points have been made in the preceding pages, and many ideals expressed, with carefully selected examples to illustrate the points at issue. But in practice the exegete, be he professional or amateur, is seldom con­ cerned with carefully selected sample verses, but with the actual New Testa­ ment text in its entirety. He finds himself faced with the task of determining the meaning not of the odd word or phrase here and there, but of a whole connected passage, which may involve quite complex thought-patterns. He soon finds himself forced, whether he likes it or not, to read the individual words and phrases in their context. This chapter will consist, then, not of lists of rules for correct exegesis, but of an attempt to interpret two actual New Testament passages as a whole (Matthew 8:5-13 and 1 Peter 3:18-22). The passages have been chosen to represent two quite different literary genres, which between them raise many of the problems of method which confront the exegete in practice. We shall not stop to point out at every juncture precisely what methods are being employed. It is for the reader to notice where and how the various techni­ ques of textual criticism, literary criticism, lexical study, study of religious or literary background, etc. are brought into play. These various techniques will not occur in any logical order, but as the passages themselves require them.
    [Show full text]