> Being an inerrantist does not disqualify you from being a scholar. It
> just
> makes you into a very confused scholar who has to do a lot of
> complicated
> juggling of arguments not to sound very unconvincing indeed. It seems
> to
> me that inerrancy and the juggling of breakable objects are not the
> most
> essential things to worry about in order to be faithful both to Jesus
> and
> to the accurate translation of Greek
I dont think this serves the purpose of the list focus. To me, as
one ofthe interlocutors of this thread, the issue is whether the study
of the Aramaic
substratum to some of the Greek is a valid approach to understanding the
Greek. I believe it is essential. Some of the greatest theological
scholars
of history have been inerrantists and I do not eschew that paradigm nor
dismiss those that do. To me it is a matter of definition. John 4:2
contradicts
John 3:22, apparently one is a gloss. Is one errant and the other
inerrant?
This could go on forever while not being useful nor list-focussed.
Jack
-- Dâman dith laych idneh dânishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)