Dedicated to the study of all things Biblical.
Kind of funny. Historically wrong though. About 30 years ago John Woodbridge (Trinity Univ) wrote Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal in which he refutes their assertion that the inerrancy idea was only a couple hundred years old. Unfortunately when one flubs on this fundamental point it detracts from the rest of his presentation.
Anonymous, I hope you appreciate the irony in your post. You are doing exactly what he said in the video.
OK, DRT, I'll bite. What am I doing that he is talking about in the post?
"The Biblcal World"...I think you read DRT's post too quickly. DRT was referring to "Anonymous" only, i.e. that anonymous finds one flaw in the argument, and throws the whole argument out (flaw being inerrancy began 200 years ago). I don't think he was referring to you. As an aside, I would be interested in whether the innerrancy thing began 200 years ago in the US. My assumption would be, just like most doctrine (except premillennial dispensationalism) inerrancy and non-inerrancy must have began immediately in church history, as soon as you had two people get together and talk about it. One bought inerrancy, one did not. But I don't know, and don't particularly want to research out the citations that anonymous gave. I'm too lazy.
Ah, Gary, thanks. I see. You are right. I read it too quickly. Thanks.As far as inerrancy in the church, history, I don't think it was really a question. When I did my work on Cain and Abel I discovered that the church fathers allowed for a very flexible text.