Re: Newbie Question:Inerrancy
|From:||John Leland <lelandconlang@...>|
|Date:||Monday, June 14, 2004, 0:53|
In a message dated 6/11/04 2:39:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< That is all quite true and inerrant, but the thing is
nobody has any of the originals. ALL we have are
translations and copies of copies. This "doctrine" is
infamous for being referntless ('m not sure that's the
right word)... there's nothing extant for it to apply
I would note that I said this is what the Chicago Statement said;
I did not get into my personal views on the subject (which are rather
more complex) , since we are supposed to have a "No cross no crown"policy on
I do think that whether one agrees with it or not, it is important
to discuss the issue in terms of what "inerrancy" is actually
supposed to mean. I used to receive newsletters from a man
who devoted himself to picking out trivial variations in
various English translations of the Bible, under the impression
that this was a valid challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy.
I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to him that he was wasting his time.
At this point, I see no purpose in discussing this issue on this list,
though I am willing to do so off-list..