From my non-favorite quasi-creedal statement:
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to
spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in
the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific
hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the
teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to
standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such
as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or
How is it coherent to distinguish "irregularities" in spelling and grammar from errors in history and science? In other words, the Chicago Statement will allow for a Bible writer to misspell a word, but not to misquote a fact of history. Are these categorically different types of error? I don’t see how.
(Someone I know is studying Greek and Hebrew in seminary and vaguely claimed there may be a good answer for this because of something to do with ancient grammar, but he did not sound very confident when he said it.)
(Sigh), the postmodernists on the left, the inerrantists on the right…
Also, you might wonder why I go on and on about these relatively obscure things. The reason is because I believe Prov. 23:7.