Does Inerrancy Require Literalism?

Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:04:32 -0800 (00887375072, 2.2.32.19980213070432.006d5690@midwest.net) 

At 07:54 PM 2/12/98 EST, JRhoBurton@aol.com wrote:

>JOHN B

>

>Does inerrancy require literalism?  Many Christians obviously think not.  I

>have quoted from a post to that effect below:

>

>[QUOTE]------------------------

>Path: christian

>Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian

>From: Stan Reeves <sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu>

>Subject: What is inerrancy?

>Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

>

>[snip]

>

>INERRANCY IS NOT IS NOT IS NOOOOT LITERAL INTERPRETATION 

>(Jumping up and down and getting red in the face :-)

>


TILL
I don't like to hear skeptics refer to fundamentalists as literalists
either, because it is not an accurate representation of their position.
They recognize that much of the Bible, especially the psalms and prophets,
was written in figurative, symbolic language.  Figurative, symbolic language
is not literal language.  What fundamentalists really say is that whatever
biblical writers intended to say was inerrant.  In other words, a psalm may
have been written in figurative language, but figurative language also has
meaning, so whatever the psalmist meant in figurative language was inerrant.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net