From: CAROL CLARK TAYLOR (TAYLOC@micah.chowan.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 08 1995 - 08:48:28 EST
As several have pointed out, inerrancy, in depth, really doesn't
belong on this list, but if one is going to get in the pool, one may
as well swim.
There has been some equation of God with "failure" if Scripture is
NOT inerrant, someone even asked when God failed if it does err. Why
does this have to be looked at as God "failing"? (BTW, if you do
choose to look at it like this, He "failed" when he brought humans
into the picture instead of just dropping a copy from heaven).
Why can't we allow God to work as He chooses? And this is from
someone who used to be an inerrantist and didn't believe any other
way of evaluting Scripture was possible. That was until I came back
to school and learned about all these manuscripts and discrepancies,
etc. that I'd never heard about at Church. The evidence is there,
and while it may have been news to me, it wasn't news to God.
The point is, God is well aware of the problems and can work anyway.
He isn't dependent on human efforts, which BTW, were very good and
extremely faithful, especially considering first-century working
conditions and lack of technology.
I suggest God hasn't "failed," Scripture hasn't "failed," and even
the Biblical authors (who weren't writing to be published as Biblical
authors) didn't "fail." Maybe we're the ones "failing" by bickering
over this issue instead of acknowledging the miracle of Scripture and
working from there...not to mention getting back to Greek.
Carol
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT