From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 20:09:15 EDT
>My point is that (1) we don't know what the originals said and (2)
>to therefore claim inerrancy for them is an empty claim, having no
>usefulness.<
Useful must be defined. Claiming inerrancy for the originals
generally makes more of a claim about God's revelation than about
understanding the text. Thus, it is not useful in the sense of being
able to directly consult them. However, it does imply that seeking
to replicate the original as closely as possible is the way to arrive
at an authoritative version. This does have practical applications
for understanding Scripture. For example, it contradicts the KJV
only view because the KJV includes phrases now considered to be later
additions.
>My KJV-only friend claims inerrancy for a particular text -- the 1611 KJV.<
The 1611 KJV includes the apocrypha, assorted tables and
supplementary information, an introduction, etc. Are all these
inerrant, too? What about the previous translations that were used
in making the KJV-were they partially inerrant? This is partly an
expression of incredulity at the merits of the claim, but partly a
question about just what is included in the claim of authority (have
they actually seen a 1611 KJV or just later versions, which were
revised up to the 1700's?), and so I would be interested in any
specific comments from your sources about such things.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 16 2002 - 21:42:05 EDT