tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3423027685391940226..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Further notes on inerrancyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3731134297900812542007-09-23T15:29:00.000-07:002007-09-23T15:29:00.000-07:00Actually, I agree pretty much 100% with that.Inter...Actually, I agree pretty much 100% with that.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, Chris Tilling (over at <A HREF="http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/09/ben-witherington-iii-on-inerrancy.html" REL="nofollow">Chrisendom</A>) reported Ben Worthington III saying something extremely similar to John's statement, too (back on Sept 17) .<BR/><BR/>Chris noticed, though, that a concluding statement from BW3 would probably run plop into BW3's own caution about "forcing it to die the death of a thousand qualifications". (Actually, I agree with Chris on _that_, too. {g})<BR/><BR/>Note: who exactly came up with the "dying the death of a thousand quaifications" line, isn't the point of this comment. (Just trying to head off a spurious thread meltdown at the pass. I wrote this to _agree_ with something John said.)<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68552838814449520432007-09-19T17:49:00.000-07:002007-09-19T17:49:00.000-07:00I just wrote something recently that concerns iner...I just wrote something recently that concerns <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/bible-inconsistencies.html" REL="nofollow">inerrancy</A>.<BR/><BR/>I think those who try to define inerrancy force it to die the death of a thousand qualifications, so to speak. Paul Feinberg did this in “The Meaning of Inerrancy” in <I>Inerrancy</I>, ed., Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), pp. 267-304. Feinberg argues that inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar; nor historical or semantic precision; nor does it demand the technical language of modern science; nor verbal exactness in its use of quotations; nor does it demand we have the exact words of Jesus. He even goes so far as to say “inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the non-inspired sources used by biblical writers” (p. 302). But anyone familiar with the J.E.D.P. theory or the Two Source hypothesis with regard to the composition of the four gospels knows that if Feinberg is correct, then much of the NT and OT can be in error, and yet he can still affirm inerrancy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com