Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Kevin, Yitzhak,

Inerrancy is a presupposition that to fundamentalists/Biblicists is an
automatic assumption when dealing with the text of the Bible whether it be
the Tanakh or the NT. Should there be any errors, then it will be because of
scribal/textual transmission errors. Inerrancy is ONLY for the ORIGINAL
manuscripts, it does NOT apply to the copies. I look at it from this
approach which also involves "Hermeneutics: The Art and Science of
Interpretation."

BTW, this is an item that is not allowed to be discussed on the list since
it does involve presuppositions that can cause the opposing sides to heights
of disrespect toward one another. This will be all that I say on the topic
because of list restraints; otherwise, discussion will have to off-list.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism


> In practice inerrantists are very likely to be opposed to deconstruction
as
> it strikes at a central issue for the overwhelming majority of
inerrantists
> - that the text has one plain, intended meaning and all other meanings are
> to some degree false.  To accept deconstruction as a valid way of
> approaching scriptural texts is only possible if you have rejected most of
> the assumptions on which inerrancy is based and are at least willing to
> assume that the text *may* have more than one valid meaning.  The idea
that
> a Biblical author may in fact have communicated more than a plain reading
of
> what the text itself reveals is not likely to sit well with most
> inerrantists.  The "interpretive lenses" of inerrantists and
> deconstructionists are in reality likely to be very different, even if on
a
> strictly logical basis it may not be a necessity that this be so.
>
> Kevin Riley
>
> -------Original Message------- 
>
> From: Yitzhak Sapir
> Date: 5/04/2007 12:22:39 AM
>
> Dear David,
>
> In your original use of the word "desconstructionists," it was used in
> The following sentence: "I am not making an argument for the inerrancy
> Of the TN'K here but the unbridgeable difference between the interpretive
> Lenses of those who accept the inerrancy of the TN'K as originally
> Scripted and those deconstructionists who work from their own
> Preconceived notions." As such, it places deconstructionists in
> Opposition to those who hold by biblical inerrancy. This is not
> Deconstructionism. While you have quoted a dictionary definition,
> This definition is a very succinct summary of the entire method and in
> Fact does not do much to explain what it really is. So, here are
> Examples of deconstruction of some biblical texts:
>
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Ethics.html
> http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_66.pdf
>
> I suggest you read them, and then ask yourself how really are
> The deconstructionists opposed to inerrancy? In reality, it seems that
> You have used deconstructionism as a label, emptying it of what it
> Really means.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
of Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.24/742 - Release Date: 4/1/07
8:49 PM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!