Though I disagree with the term “inerrant,” in all other ways I think Keith Matthison is right on target. I would add that you can be just as firm regarding the basis for your interpretation and why you believe it is right and other interpretations are wrong, without saying that your opponent simply doesn’t believe the Bible.
(HT: Dr. Platypus)
… or any other human relationship, for that matter. I got back yesterday from displaying books at Methodist annual conference for Alabama/Northwest Florida. We had the joy of having our daughter Janet join us there to help out, and we got to chat a bit. We were talking about raising children–she has two–and I mentioned…
Allan Bevere has again done the hard work and posted this weeks MBWR.
Every so often in wandering around the blogosphere I notice a blog that makes me say, “Why haven’t I noticed this before?” I found one today, The Christian Cynic, and I wanted to call attention to his post dealing with formal issues of an argument from ignorance. I think I’ll have fun keeping up with…
I’ve been acquainted with Troy since back in early Religion Forum days. He’s had a web presence for some time, but now he has finally created a blog, Playing Chess with Pigeons (don’t ask me). Welcome to the blogosphere, Troy! I suspect he’ll talk about antievolution stuff quite a bit, which will be good. He…
I read a large number of blog entries each day, and I never have time to comment on everything I’d like to. Considering how many posts I do write, this may be a good thing. One way to comment without having to write is by linking to extremely good posts, and this morning provided me…
I’ve written a short story to (hopefully) help stimulate thought about Lectionary Proper 12A, which we’ll be discussing at our online Bible study on Monday night.
I’m not a fan of the word “inerrant” either, but I think he puts his finger on something very important for Christians to hear and understand.