Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Inerrant means without error, but you have made the definition to include perfection. By raising the standard to that level, then, by your definition, none of scripture should be trusted, because we have no "proof." But your standard is a false standard. Biblical scholars of textual criticism never use your approach. Where is the error that would make the text "errant?"
|
I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."