From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 17:39:06 EST
George wrote: " I don't approach the issue in terms of "inerrancy" at all."
I am a little puzzled. If "inerrancy" isn't the issue, what is?
"That term has been so compromised by being associated with the idea that
narratives can be considered true only if they are accurate scientific &/or
historical accounts that it just isn't useful
anymore outside of debates with fundamentalists."
Partially, I agree. That is why I like Davis's book. He uses "infallibility"
and defends that term. Even so, I note, he sees "bad morality" in some parts
of scripture and does not believe that God really did order the slaughter of
women & children of the Caananites (in Joshua) but holds that the writer of
that book appropriated the favor of God when it was not given.
Have you ever read Davis's book? Or my notes on it?
" ...it's clear that there are some errors like those in Mt.27:9."
I am aware of several ad hocs for Matthew 27:9 -- IMHO I could see it as w/o
error much more easily that Mt 1.
As I said before, I wrestle with this stuff. I'd dearly love for the Bible
to be inerrant. But I cannot assume that a priori. Lacking that, I think I
can accept the term "infallible," at least as Davis uses it.
I appreciate the discussion.
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 17:39:48 EST