From: John M. Moe (John.M.Moeemail@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 24 1997 - 06:43:58 EDT
Peter Phillips wrote:
> 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
> Good naturedly yours,
> Pete Phillips
> New Testament Tutor, Cliff College, England
> From: Andrew Kulikovsky [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 24 September 1997 17:47
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: an honest question...
> 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
Since this thread was begun by an inerrantist, may I as a fellow
inerrantist, suggest that it is off topic for B-Greek and ask that it
end right here before we get into extended arguments about just who are
the "confused scholars" and who are not. Any folks who want to go down
that road can do so off list and I for one would be pleased if they
would do so.
John M. Moe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT