Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: nunes@cs.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 90 05:21:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Lines: 19 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This is a comment on the discussion of II Tim 3:16-17 as support for inerrancy. The following bracketed comment is present in the posting itself. --clh] [My apologies for once again interfering in one of your discussions, but ...] In my opinion there seems to be little point in using comments from a text as evidence for the accuracy of that text (i.e. Paul could be *wrong* about the Scriptures being God-inspired). [I agree that one can't use a text's claims to inerrancy alone as proof. On the other hand, it seems at least useful to know what the Biblical authors thought about the authority of the Bible. If they explicitly rejected inerrancy, that would seem to be pretty convincing. If they claim it, this may tend to narrow one's choices, since it favors rejecting the Bible completely as an authoritative document or accepting the claim of inerrancy. I agree that it doesn't completely rule out an intermediate view, but at the very least it seems an argument against it. --clh]