Biblical authority
[2] In modern Christian research, academics have challenged certain beliefs about biblical authority and the Bible as an exact replica of the word of God.
Significant perspectives suggest that the standards of accuracy most likely differ between ancient times and now, which must be considered when interpreting the Bible.
[3] Biblical authority refers to the notion that the Bible is authoritative and useful in guiding matters of Christian practice because it represents the word of God.
[4] For example, in the Reformed tradition (especially in presuppositionalism) Scripture is regarded as self-authenticating, and does not require any further confirmation of its divinely authoritative nature other than the interior and subjective witness of the Spirit in a believer.
John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1.8.13), says that 'it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God.
[6] Nevertheless, God is said to provide additional proofs, such as Scriptural prophecy, to further confirm the faith of believers and refute the objections of unbelievers.
[5] Additionally, research explores the idea that the New Testament of the Bible is a recording of oral teachings of Jesus, which means that there is a degree of flexibility in the interpretation of biblical literature.
According to the English Standard Version (2016), in the second book of Timothy (3:16) "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".
[8] Current theological research offers an alternative perspective that the nature of the oral transmission of stories from Jesus Christ to the New Testament means that there must be room for flexibility within the principle of biblical inerrancy.
[7] According to university professor Andrew C. Witt's review of biblical research, there is error in the ancient recording of the oral word that differs from the standards of modern print practices.
[15] Alternatively, in their 2013 review, Walton and Sandy raised the argument that due to the oral nature of Jesus’ stories in the New Testament, it cannot be assumed that every word should be taken literally.
[16] There was the potential for visual confusion and mistakes, as graphics written in certain language versions of the Bible have similar characters that could be mistaken.
[16] Visual problems might include: During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a debate over biblical authority arose between Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, on the one hand, and John D. Woodbridge, on the other.
Rogers and McKim, in their 1979 book, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach,[17] advanced the view that the Bible has authority over social endeavours (issuing imperatives for human conduct, for church organization, and for articles of faith) but isn't necessarily reliable in its reportage of historical events and scientific facts.
The belief that scripture is "inerrant" in matters of history and science, argued Rogers and McKim, constituted a 19th-century innovation.
In several Protestant factions (namely the Lutheran and the Calvinist traditions), the doctrine of sola scriptura ("by scripture alone") guides biblical authority.
