<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bible Podcasts, Part 4</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/</link>
	<description>A biblioblog</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Pate</title>
		<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-19067</link>
		<dc:creator>James Pate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 23:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-19067</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your response.

Is there any ontological basis or foundation for the authority of the Bible?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your response.</p>
<p>Is there any ontological basis or foundation for the authority of the Bible?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin A. Wilson</title>
		<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-18914</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin A. Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 18:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-18914</guid>
		<description>Jesus certainly viewed the OT as authoritative.  But there is a big difference between the OT being authoritative (which is a functional attribute) and being inerrant (which is an ontological attribute).

I certainly agree that the OT, as well as the NT, is authoritative.  But that authority is not tied into a presumed perfection of the text.  The text can be authoritative even if it contains historical and scientific errors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesus certainly viewed the <acronym title="Old Testament / Hebrew Bible">OT</acronym> as authoritative.  But there is a big difference between the <acronym title="Old Testament / Hebrew Bible">OT</acronym> being authoritative (which is a functional attribute) and being inerrant (which is an ontological attribute).</p>
<p>I certainly agree that the <acronym title="Old Testament / Hebrew Bible">OT</acronym>, as well as the <acronym title="New Testament">NT</acronym>, is authoritative.  But that authority is not tied into a presumed perfection of the text.  The text can be authoritative even if it contains historical and scientific errors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Pate</title>
		<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-18824</link>
		<dc:creator>James Pate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 14:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/05/bible-podcasts-part-4/#comment-18824</guid>
		<description>But if Jesus' quotation of Scripture against Satan did not imply inerrancy, then what was his view of Scripture?  He obviously viewed it as authoritative in some sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if Jesus&#8217; quotation of Scripture against Satan did not imply inerrancy, then what was his view of Scripture?  He obviously viewed it as authoritative in some sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
