A couple of notes for any of you who do me the honor of posting your comments on something I've written on the blog site (as opposed to commenting on Face Book). I do not moderate comments, and I always welcome corrections, as long as they maintain common standards of courtesy, which is a safe assumption with my regular readers. Still I'm having to maintain certain protective mechanisms. One is the image verification intended to keep out robot-produced garbage. The numbers and letters are usually fairly easy to discern, and they're not case sensitive. Unfortunately, as someone put it lately, the mechanism appears to be blind at times. Usually, if it rejects your attempt at first, it just makes you enter another code, and it will probably go through the second time.

If your message simply disappears, chances are that it got hung up in the spam filter. This device is supposed to learn to recognize spam, but it is clearly a slow learner. It discerns the worst of it, but makes a lot of strange decisions. My own responses to your comments almost invariably wind up there, and I have to fish them out. I don't think I can do without a spam filter because there's some pretty awful stuff that people post, though I hate it when the filter holds up a good comment. All this to say, if you made a comment and it didn't show up, I'll make it visible as soon as I find it.

Please keep in mind the description I have given my blog on Networked Blogs: "The mercurial weblog of Win Corduan,. . . yada yada . . . .. Contains humor, visual effects, philosophy, logic, unfounded opinions, and a more or less daily Bible passage." The afm "unfounded opinions" are always happy to receive foundations or to be corrected by erecting foundations.

One more quick note. It's hard to believe that history is repeating itself, and it appears to be doing so in a movement that seems to be spreading pretty rapidly. It's come to my attention that once again various folks are claiming to hold to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, but are advocating a point of view that is not consistent with the meaning of the term as held by those who originated it. This phenomenon may need a whole lot more commentary, though it should not have to. Let me just needlessly remind everyone that there are numerous options available to anyone. To the best of my knowledge, no one is forced beyond a point of resistability to subscribe to biblical inerrancy or to be a member of an organization that includes this doctrine in its statement of faith. Here are a few possibilities:

1. Claim the term "inerrancy" and abide by he meaning of those who framed its definition. For example, consult ICBI's Chicago Statement and its accompanying commentary. Your bloggist was one of the original signers, so feel free to ask him if your view is compatible with what they meant. You don't have to mindread.
2. Disavow the truth of the Bible, in whole or in part. Just let people know that this is what you're doing.
3. Claim the term "infallibility," which, in American circles at least, has come to mean that the Bible is true in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in factual matters.
4. Devise a manner of interpreting the Bible different from the original meaning of "inerrancy" and designate it with a new term.

Whether those who have traditionally claimed the term "inerrancy" are interpreting the Bible correctly is certainly a topic that can be debated. I think they are. To co-opt the term for a different approach, even if you consider it to be superior, is misleading. Please, do not use a term which has a meaning delineated fairly clearly in evangelical circles (i.e. "inerrancy"), give it a new meaning of your personal devising, and pass it off as though it were the same thing as the original. Please stand up for what you believe and don't play games with words so as to confuse God's children. More on this if needed.