I think this is where I find this list [and others] at times frustrating.
There is an equation of believer = someone who views the Biblical text is
inerrant, and this is contrasted with those who are unbelievers.
.... It isn't
that simple. There are many believing Jews and Christians who either
question or deny inerrancy, and that is a long tradition in both faiths.
One can believe in inspiration without supporting inerrancy. That is in
fact the view of the majority of Christians - or at least, of the
denominations they belong to.
.... My understanding is also that neither
conservative nor reformed Judaism requires a belief in inerrancy. All of us
who belong to one of those traditions, plus those who belong to no religious
tradition, should be able to discuss our understanding of the text and its
history without constantly being subjected to attempts to persuade us that
the text is inerrant. The question of inerrancy is almost always irrelevant
to what the Hebrew says. So too is the question of inspiration. The text
of Genesis is not going to change simply because someone moves from viewing
it as purely human to seeing it as divinely inspired. How we interpret it
will not change either. How we apply it will, but that isn't the issue for
this list. The story of David and Solomon will not change if I become
convinced there is no real history behind it - it will still say the same
thing. Why can we not just let dates of the exodus, and whether Gen 1-11 is
history or myth, just go past without comment and concentrate on what the
text says?
.... And until someone can show me a verse where God unambiguouslyAs I stated above, that was not an issue in those days, hence not
states that he views the text as inerrant and that he chose every word, I
will continue to hold that view of the text to be just as much a human
opinion as any other.
Kevin RileyKarl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.