george murphy wrote:
> Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> > george murphy wrote:
> >
> > > & any attempt to find some historical niche for Gen.6:1-4
>& perhaps some
> > > historical evidence for the _nephilim_, the descendants of the
>"sons of the
> > > gods" and "the daughters on men," seems to me to be a _reductio ad
> > >absurdum_ of
> > > concordism.
> >
> > Why not (possibly) of innerancy?
>
> Because this doesn't eman that there's any error in the text.
But if the text were in error (because those writing it thought they
were telling real
history) , then it would be a problem of inerrancy.
So how is one supposed to tell the difference? It seems as though you
are saying that:
when it is real history, then it is real history. When it is not real
history, then it
was something other than real history. Either way the OT gets to be inerrant by
definition. (Good thing too, since the Bible never decreed itself to
be inerrant. Left
that to other people.)
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 21:20:43 EDT