Fascinating stuff. I'd like to think that the argument is more easily resolved, although I doubt it would persuade many dyed-in-the-wool believers. The Bible obviously cannot be inerrant. But if it's inerrant, then there is no way in which to interpret scriptures that is not completely arbitrary. Or, like Dawkins asked rhetorically in TGD, what is the criteria for scriptural interpretation?
I like Price though. I'll have to check out some of his stuff.
1 comments:
Fascinating stuff. I'd like to think that the argument is more easily resolved, although I doubt it would persuade many dyed-in-the-wool believers. The Bible obviously cannot be inerrant. But if it's inerrant, then there is no way in which to interpret scriptures that is not completely arbitrary. Or, like Dawkins asked rhetorically in TGD, what is the criteria for scriptural interpretation?
I like Price though. I'll have to check out some of his stuff.
Post a Comment