At 04:46 PM 9/24/97 +0000, Andrew Kulikovsky wrote:
> 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."
In all the responses this message generated, I've been surprised not to see
the simple observation; whether you are an inerrantist doesn't have any
necessary correlation to whether you are a thinking scholar. Appeals to
inerrancy of the text as an argument for any particular position are,
however, not scholarly and should not appear here. Similarly, discussions of
whether the text is inerrant belong elsewhere.
------
Paul J. Bodin <pjbodin@sirius.com> http://www.sirius.com/~pjbodin
For PGP public key finger pjbodin@sirius.com
or check your favorite keyserver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNCloUfgoFkdd29RxAQF0mgL8DgCM/t3Ljd1IYow7cP/o6YMOlUoCckVk
kKEuejURAPe67dqXszAfF1mSnMsvetQHGgwDFvK3qtEI+DHVUJaFVQIEawipUBZt
iEIV7i1ey0YrkQT1glqtnduNwhrzVRW7
=xNhu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----