La La La La, la, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Okay, friends, thank you for joining me today.

I'm reflecting a little bit on some of the responses that I received from my more recent, was it last week's

podcast where I talked about the difference between infallibility and inerrancy.

And, you know, I'm scratching my head at some of these responses.

I have them in front of me.

I'm not going to just necessarily read them, but it's clear to me that there's

been some misunderstanding, okay? So let me repeat what I said last week with the hope of clearing up

any confusion. What I mentioned last week was that given these words

that are applied, are used to describe scripture as a high view of scripture. A low view

is its man's writings, and that's it. A high view entails God's involvement

with it in some significant way. And I said, given that, there are two words that are used to

describe it and are distinguished from each other, and those words are infallibility and inerrancy. Now, I made the

point that many people use those words interchangeably, and I have no trouble with that, because they

generally mean the same thing when they use them, and what they mean is a very high view of Scripture, what I would call now inerrancy.

But when you think about those words, infallible and inerrant, you think about the linguistics of it, those aren't exactly the same. And it does seem like infallible

would be the stronger word than inerrant. If we say that something is inerrant, then we mean

it has no errors. And I mean, I've done lots of things that didn't have any errors, okay, of one sort or another,

depending on the frame of reference you have.

But to say something is infallible, or maybe someone or some text, means it's not capable of errors.

So it might be inerrant because it's not capable.

So on a linguistic basis,

...