> At 11:46 AM -0500 9/24/97, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
> >Filoi,
> >
> >I get the impression, from a number of posts on this list (and other
> >lists as well) that being an inerrantist is being unscholarly - it's as
> >though the attitude is well, "you're an inerrantist - that speaks for
> >itself - you can't be a thinking scholar and an inerrantist". In other
> >words "only a complete moron would be an inerrantist."
> >
> >Is this what people think - That's the impression I get anyway.
> >
> >Of course, there have been and still are many brilliant inerrantist
> >scholars...
>
> I've already seen Peter Phillips' response to this question. I only want to
> say two things in response to Andrew's question:
>
> (1) I think it is neither profitable nor appropriate to discuss the
> doctrine of inerrancy on this forum.
>
I'd like to clear up a few things about my honest question.
It was never intended to provoke a debate on inerrancy - I agree that
this does not belong in this forum.
The question is exactly what it is: an honest question. I felt a bit of
condescension in the ranks, so I wanted to know what people really felt.
> (2) I think that inerrantists and scholars and those who view themselves
> either as either or neither or both inerrantists and scholars ought to feel
> equally welcome to participate in list discussions, and I don't think
> there's any privilege attached to any one of those categories here.
>
Sometimes, I feel like I am not, which is why I asked the question.
Some responses even gave the indication that this list is only for
"scholars"
I make no bones about the fact of being an inerrantist, which I see as a
governing presupposition *for me*. Therefore I argue from that position.
Yes it is a subjective affirmation but it is no more subjective than the
errantist view, considering we are finite humans that don't know everything.
I don't exepct everyone on the list to agree with me as I don't agree
with others. But I think we should all respect each others view and not
resort to ad hominem and cavilier dismissal just because we have vastly
different presuppositions.
It helps to acknowledge our presuppositions up front, as I did in my post
to Jack Kilmon, where I said "why not stick to the inspired inerrant (in
my view) scriptures..."
Now I can understand Jack's motivation but I still don't understand his
methodology of backtranslation which could result in anything. This is the
reason for the above comment.
Someone arguing clearly from an inerrantist position (and there are not
that many situations where inerrancy comes up anyway) does not deserve the
response "this is unscholarly and does not belong on this list".
cheers,
Andrew