A Couple of Posts on Inerrancy and Infallibility
There have been a couple of posts on inerrancy and infallibility within the last day or so that readers might find interesting. You can find them HERE (Chris Brady) and HERE (Jim West). Frankly, I normally find modern notions of inerrancy so watered down as to make them almost meaningless. I remember the one I learned in seminary including in it that inerrancy only applied to “original autographs” when “interpreted properly.” Okay … I’m fairly moderate (read not conservative) in my views and I guess I could probably still ascribe to that since we don’t have the original autographs and “interpreted properly” is fairly open to interpretation …
Other Theology Posts:
Live’s “Heaven” & General Revelation
7 responses to “A Couple of Posts on Inerrancy and Infallibility”
Leave a Reply

the bible is inspired. nothing more, nothing less.
I can agree to that. I think the mantra for the Catholic scholars I follow (e.g. Raymond Brown) at Vatican II was “inspiration without inerrancy.” Though I’m not sure that’s what made its way into the official documents, that’s what I hold to.
Don’t miss my recent post, “Why I am Not an Inerrantist”. It is the first part in a series.
Joseph,
What is the link?
http://kolhaadam.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist-part-one/
I just realized you had only posted that today. I’ve used the example of MT and LXX Jeremiah to discuss the matter with people before. I’ve found it to work pretty positively. But, I also like to use Isaiah because many who hold to inerrancy like to cite how similar DSS Isaiah is to much later scrolls. Yet there a couple of textual variants in Isaiah 53 alone (verses 5 and 11 I believe) that point to the importance of a change in only one word.
[...] on the matter December 30, 2009 | Posted by Polycarp The topic of Inerrancy is going around the biblioblogosphere, among other topics, so I thought I might take a moment to dialogue this post. In [...]