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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.