Defining Inerrancy
Affirming a Defensible Faith for a New Generation
Failed to add items
Sorry, we are unable to add the item because your shopping cart is already at capacity.
Add to Cart failed.
Please try again later
Add to Wish List failed.
Please try again later
Remove from wishlist failed.
Please try again later
Adding to library failed
Please try again
Follow podcast failed
Please try again
Unfollow podcast failed
Please try again
Get 30 days of Standard free
Auto-renews at $8.99/mo after 30-day trial. Cancel anytime
Buy for $15.64
-
Narrated by:
-
Philip D. Moore
A frontline of traditionalist Evangelical Christian commentators, like Norman Geisler and David Farnell (coeditors of The Jesus Quest), are promoting a concept of biblical inerrancy that rejects biblical scholarship and fosters an indefensible conception of the Christian faith. In Defining Inerrancy, authors J. P. Holding and Nick Peters lay out the case for a defensible form of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which respects the social and literary contexts within which the Bible was written.
©2013 James Patrick Holding (P)2015 James Patrick HoldingListeners also enjoyed...
This book is well-written overall but it could have been much better. Much of the book centers on the death of Judas which was very unsatisfying despite adequately demonstrating the differences between the two views. I would have liked to have seen many other supporting examples and questions answered such as "Would God inspire someone to write a conversation that included God that didn't take place?". There was a great opportunity here to cover controversial topics such as the Exodus, the inclusion of legend within historical writings, etc., yet the book feels like one long bitter response to Norman Geisler.
It sounds like this was originally an online PDF and in that context I understand why this feels like more of a rebuttal, but as a "book" titled "Defining Inerrancy", I expect much more depth.
Authors focus too much on criticism
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
An engaging critique of literalist inerrancy
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Not big on substance.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.