>
> held, the view is a serious error. Inspiration does NOT imply inerrancy.
> The notion of inspiration of the writers of texts that became part of the
> Bible is a good one -- I think it's true. But being inspired does not mean
> that one is inerrant.
>
I believe we are trying to put XX century thought to events that happened
XXXV to XX centuries ago.
A closer studying of what meant to be a scribe back then, specially a
scribe of a prophet in old Israel will give us a slightly different point
of view.
Lets remember that men who claimed to be inspired and were proved wrong
died. No questions asked. If a helper decided to go his own way in the
name of the prophet, he ended up very bad if not dead.
Today if a doctor in theology is wrong, all he has to say is I'm sorry but
I was mistaken. Back then he was stoned to death.
So when someone said back then I'm inspired by the Spirit of God and thus
say The Lord, he very well be or he'll wouldn't have been inspired for too
long in this side of heaven.
Now, Jesus gave creedence to the Scriptures and even acknowledged the
story of Adam and Eve, Jonah and Noah as something to believe. Paul went
further to exhort Timothy to rely on them as infallible and they were
given to teach, correct, discern and separate what is good and not.
I'll take the inerrant view of Scriptures every time regardless what the
current thought pattern is.
And let me add that inerrant (that is no errors) isn't the same as
literal. For example, one can't ascertain the true meaning described in
the garden when Jesus prays: 'Father if possible let this cup pass but
nontheless let it be your will not mine' unless one understands the
meaning of a jewish groom drinking from the cup when he is told of the
price that must be paid for the bride.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington