affirmed as both divine and human, like Christ, and to use the latter to argue for the flawed nature of the former could pose substantial problems for our view of Jesus - which is evident when you find people saying that Jesus, in his humanity, made a mistake about the historicity of Adam)." I am struggling to believe that anyone thinks that a Christian who rejects inerrancy would think this. Hard to find any words for this other than bollocks. "But inerrancy also matters because it rules out what I call "the option of errancy" when interpreting Scripture. Put simply, this is the idea that if you don't believe Scripture is inerrant, then when faced with a biblical "difficulty" (whether a genuine challenge or, more commonly, something you as an interpreter don't like), you can always say that the Bible is mistaken on that point. You may claim that you don't want to use it - and that may be true - but if needed, you know the option of errancy is sitting in your back pocket, like a Presidential veto, as a last line of defence." What utter insulting tripe. Find that cop out in any of my sermons and I'll buy you an custard pie to throw at me (come to think of it you can see if ourt holiday club have any left from using it on me last week). When the only arguments you can find to support your view come from inventing false views for