Is that fair?
iMonk was quoted thus:
I do not doubt God or his ability to express revelation exactly as he wants it to be. The thought that God cannot reveal truth unless it is in a book that is supernaturally prevented from having normal, imperfect, human expressions of its time really never occurs to me. I assume that within the expressions, thought world, worldviews and literary genres of the time, God got exactly what he wanted and I can preach it without having to be concerned about "errancy."My thought on reading this is that the writer has never considered what errors in the text says about the authority of the text. A categorically-perfect comparison is the Scofield notes to the KJV. Scofield's original notes were, frankly, errant – and only the most ardent KJVO clown will demand Scofield's first edition of notes for his KJV. Oxford has been kind enough to repair Scofield's work – twice – so the Scofield III notes are at least serviceable.
Who exactly is prepared to "repair" the book of Luke or of John? And on what basis ought those repairs be made?