The inerrancy series
Just a quick post as I’m short on time. With all the discussion surrounding the ETS adoption of the Chicago statement, I thought I’d link to my old series on inerrancy. It goes without saying that my opinions on these matters are not inerrant (did I hear some of my more conservative friends shout ‘Amen’?!), and my thinking has developed since then. To be honest, the podcast was never that great, and I would formulate things differently now. But apart from that, I still stand by the general thrust of these posts.
The links to the inerrancy posts are as follows:
Part 1. What I meant by inerrancy, and have Christians always believed it?
Part 2. Does the bible assert its own inerrancy?
Part 3. intro and main post. What errors in the bible?
Part 4. The original manuscripts were inerrant?
Part 5. Four more problems with inerrancy.
Part 6. The concluding post in this series was a podcast suggesting a way forward. As I mentioned above, my thinking has, however, significantly developed since this was recorded, so I would reason things rather differently now – and that partly because of feedback and debate with you, my readers.
UPDATE
See now the three part series in which I develop my thinking more constructively:
posted by Chris Tilling @ 3:26 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Chris, I will still need to challenge that you left out part 0: Inerrancy without scholars and malpractice is like Reformation without Catholicism and corruption. You will gain exactly nothing on understanding.
Thanks for linking back to some treasures from the archives. Good to give things a second run.
I seem to remeber you said you are a scientist, Looney. So you will know that a certain Englishman once said: 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. You believe the scholarship that provoked the formation of strict inerrancy was faulty, yes? I would submit that the reaction of certain theologians in the direction of inerrancy can be seen as an equal and opposite reaction - also arguably faulty in its overstatements.
Looney is actually an engineer, according to remarks on his own blog, not a scientist. It is my experience that engineers have very little understanding of philosophy of science which is why one finds so many engineers in "creation science."
I didn't want to say it Michael but you went and did it for me. Looney's claims of malpractice look like an exercise in apologetics to me.
Mr. Rushdie
Wow Chris, at last I agree with something that you've written on inerrancy:
It goes without saying that my opinions on these matters are not inerrant
AMEN & AMEN!
Those who are interested in inerrant opinions should read my comments on your posts!
Mr Exiled Preacher!
Cheeky
but funny!
Post a Comment
<< Home