What View of Inerrancy?
errancy@freethought.tamu.edu errancy@freethought.tamu.edu
Sun, 17 Sep 95 20:08 CDT (00811408080, 950917210509_101932455@emout06.mail.aol.com)
< Now, it is entirely possible that the post
that originally led to Davis' response did not contain an explicit
definition of the version of inerrancy in question, and if such is the case
it is understandable that a misunderstanding has arisen. If Till were
writing a piece intended for publication in a scholarly journal of
philosophy, he would be remiss in leaving out such an explicit definition.
Given the somewhat less strict standards of lay discussion on e-mail lists,
however, and given the established context of the ERRANCY list, Till's
failure to explicitely define inerrancy is quite acceptable.>
Actually, the article that Davis is so upset about was about the fourth in a
series of articles on the resurrection narratives that I published in *The
Skeptical Review.* Furthermore, the article appeared when TSR was in its
third year of publication, so by then, it was clear to all subscribers what
the fundamentalist position on inerrancy was. I do not take the time in each
issue to explain to readers what "variety" of inerrancy I am writing about,
because that is already known.
I do appreciate Mr. (or is it Dr.) Featherston's comments on something that
I have felt should be obvious to all. BTW, my wife is an alumna of SIU at
Carbondale and so is my daughter.
F. Till