Is Inerrancy an Essential?

[Apologiaphoenix]

We all thought Geisler had decided to quiet down. Well okay. Stop laughing. We all know he won't. Here's a response to the latest article he has put up. http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...-an-essential/

[Cerebrum123]

You say "bad science" when talking about evolution when you mean "good science". Thought I would let you know.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It was corrected

[ikaika777]

AP, you say "It is in Geisler’s world and that of his followers that if you disagree with a more literalist interpretation, a style that is foreign to the text, then you disagree with Inerrancy."

Can you give me examples of a "literalist interpretation" and a "non-literalist interpretation" of inerrancy? I just want to make sure I understand the argument. Thanks.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Matthew 27:51-52.

If the text says "Saints rose from the dead" then that has to be a historical fact!

Of course, we could consider what that does with the age of the Earth in Genesis 1....

[Truthseeker]

Good essay!

One thing though I wondered about: Possibly you meant "tilting at windmills," from Don Quixote.

[Cerebrum123]

Matthew 27:51-52.

If the text says "Saints rose from the dead" then that has to be a historical fact!

Of course, we could consider what that does with the age of the Earth in Genesis 1....

[KingsGambit]

For a less controversial example, one might take the book of Revelation. I would think most of us could agree that much of it can be understand as symbolism and not necessarily a blow by blow account of the end of the world, though some people do take it that literally. Both interpretations are compatible with inerrancy.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Actually, I figured you'd like that. Henry Morris didn't want to sign ICBI because he thought it was giving an exception to Genesis 1. When I read Genesis 1, I do see 24-hour days. That presents no problem.

I'm just not a YEC.

[Apologiaphoenix]

For a less controversial example, one might take the book of Revelation. I would think most of us could agree that much of it can be understand as symbolism and not necessarily a blow by blow account of the end of the world, though some people do take it that literally. Both interpretations are compatible with inerrancy.

Yes. I know a few in the Geisler camp, maybe even Geisler himself, take the dragon literally.

[ikaika777]

Matthew 27:51-52.

If the text says "Saints rose from the dead" then that has to be a historical fact!

Of course, we could consider what that does with the age of the Earth in Genesis 1....

So are you saying they didn't rise from the dead?

[Cerebrum123]

Actually, I figured you'd like that. Henry Morris didn't want to sign ICBI because he thought it was giving an exception to Genesis 1. When I read Genesis 1, I do see 24-hour days. That presents no problem.

I'm just not a YEC.

Aren't you giving an example of a "literalist" interpretation?

[ikaika777]

I'm confused.

[KingsGambit]

So are you saying they didn't rise from the dead?

You're familiar with the Michael Licona controversy, right?

[ikaika777]

You're familiar with the Michael Licona controversy, right?

Yes, on what the topic has been exactly I forgot already.