From: Rich Blinne (rblinne@frii.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 19:59:51 EST
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:42:43 -0000, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> said:
> We need to get away from the myth that Inerrancy =YEC. It is not a
> necessary consequence.
>
> Michael
The following is from a USENET post I made in April 1989(!) that became
the basis for the inerrancy FAQ of soc.religion.christian:
[N.B. Be careful what you say on the Internet it can last a long time!
You can still find this at
http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/others/inerrancy.txt.]
>WHAT ABOUT GENESIS
>Here is an interesting turn of events. Most inerrantists who are
>specialists in the field (and particularly OT scholars) do not hold to
>the "literal" six-day creation. An example of this thought is Gleason
>Archer. It seems that inerrantists and six-day creationists are thought
>to be one and the same, but from what I can tell six-day creationists
>are only a small subset of inerrantists.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 27 2003 - 20:00:11 EST