Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: inconsistencies in the Bible (digest of postings) Message-ID: Date: 15 Dec 89 06:55:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho Lines: 24 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >It seems to me that there are 4 possible positions a Christian can >take with respect to Biblical inerrancy: > 1. The Bible is totally inerrant and all must believe this to be saved. > 2. The Bible is totally inerrant but belief in this is not > a condition of salvation. > 3. The Bible is not inerrant and all must believe this. > 4. The Bible is not inerrant but those who believe > otherwise can still be saved. There are also two different views on the definition of `inerrancy': 1. The Bible as we know it is totally without error. 2. The Bible as it was originally written was without error, but that does not mean that the extant manuscripts are without error. I hold to position 2. -- Geoff Allen \ Wise men still seek Him. {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ ----- ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \