<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s the big deal about biblical inerrancy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.apologetics.info/whats-the-big-deal-about-inerrancy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.apologetics.info/whats-the-big-deal-about-inerrancy/</link>
	<description>Reasonable Faith</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:16:10 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is the Bible completely without error? &#171; Christianity Q &#38; A</title>
		<link>http://www.apologetics.info/whats-the-big-deal-about-inerrancy/comment-page-1/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>Is the Bible completely without error? &#171; Christianity Q &#38; A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.apologetics.info/?p=1#comment-48</guid>
		<description>[...] To the point about trust, I&#8217;ve never heard a good justification for saying the Bible as a whole must be completely true or totally unreliable.  I don&#8217;t think this is a reasonable assumption to make about a single author, let alone a collection of authors. Suppose, for example, that someone were to point out several pieces of information on Wikipedia that, upon careful review, I would agree are errors.  Must I declare Wikipedia completely unreliable?  No.  I might still have plenty of good reasons to believe that Wikipedia is mostly right, including numerous examples where its facts were correct, and knowledge of the process by which it is assembled, and the testimony of others who rave about its usefulness.  I could legitimately continue using it as a generally reliable reference tool, even if I admit that in some cases it contains errors.  Another Christian blogger makes the same point using the more outdated example of a telephone book. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] To the point about trust, I&#8217;ve never heard a good justification for saying the Bible as a whole must be completely true or totally unreliable.  I don&#8217;t think this is a reasonable assumption to make about a single author, let alone a collection of authors. Suppose, for example, that someone were to point out several pieces of information on Wikipedia that, upon careful review, I would agree are errors.  Must I declare Wikipedia completely unreliable?  No.  I might still have plenty of good reasons to believe that Wikipedia is mostly right, including numerous examples where its facts were correct, and knowledge of the process by which it is assembled, and the testimony of others who rave about its usefulness.  I could legitimately continue using it as a generally reliable reference tool, even if I admit that in some cases it contains errors.  Another Christian blogger makes the same point using the more outdated example of a telephone book. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

