“[Robin Parry is] currently reading Kenton Spark’s controversial book God’s Word in Human Words (Baker Academic).  It is a thought-provoking text – one that evangelicals cannot ignore. He’s arguing that evangelicals need to take historical-critical scholarship more seriously. One consequence of so-doing is that we need to abandon inerrant. Inerrant is, he believes, demonstrably false. He argues that such a non-inerrantism is compatible with accepting the inspiration and authority of the Bible.”

Personally, I am in agreement with Kenton Spark’s position as it was stated in the above quote. We need to stop fearing the unknown as we walk into unmapped territories.

For the longest time, I would have mocked this liberal viewpoint and dismissed the author with some snide remark. “How  stupid do you have to be to study the  non-existent Q document. ” However, modern historians have developed a set of critical thinking tools to help them come to an understanding of history and of historical texts. These commonly accepted tools are used in the study of all other history and historical text. Only theologians that have theological doctrines to lose seem to have a problem applying these standards to the biblical text; namely the conservative evangelicals.

As I have come into a rudimentary understanding of some of these techniques, I now see the over whelming likelihood that Q did exist. My only other option is to say that the bible is beyond testing; that the scriptures are a supernatural text that is above any critical investigation. This stance is not only wrong, in my opinion, but it is confrontational and sets up the whole christian message to being easily dismissed as a superstitious antiquated religion not worthy of  investigation.

I am looking forward to getting around to picking up a copy of this book. But for now my bookshelf is full of other unread books.