I am either too predictable, or predictably steadfast. :-)
and it is certainly the
>answer that the majority of evangelcial theologians who have framed the
>dominant doctrine of biblical inspiration would give. Read any evangelical
>book on biblical inspiration and it will always finally hang its conclusion
>on this syllogism:
>
>God cannot lie
>The Bible is God's word
>Therefore, the Bible cannot contain any lies and is hence inerrant in all
>that it says including its science and history.
>
>That is the syllogism that holds Evangelicalism in its grip.
I do agree with your analysis here.
>It is the
>syllogism that supplies the foundation for creation science. And, it is the
>syllogism that makes many evangelicals look upon those of us in the ASA as
>less than solid Christians.
>
>The way out of this dilemma is to recognize through the teaching of Jesus
>that the divine inspiration of Scripture can encompass temporary CONCESSION
>to cultural beliefs that are contrary to God's perfect knowledge, contrary,
>as one scholar put it, to God's personal opinion. The proof of this is in
>Matthew 19:8 (Mk 10:5) where Jesus points out that Deut 24:1-4 encompassed
>concession to the culturally acceptable practice of the times of divorcing
>wives for reasons other than adultery. (The law could not refer to adultery
>because in cases of adultery the wife was stoned.)
But doing this opens a big can of subjective worms. I can claim that there
really was no resurrection and that it was merely a temporary concession to
the cultural beliefs at the time that men could rise from the dead. Thus
the REAL meaning of Christianity has nothing to do with the resurrection.
It was merely an incorpration of the pagan cycle of winter/spring rituals
(death then life resurrects).
That is the danger of opening that can of worms.
>
>When then I _observe_ (I threw that in for Glenn)
Thank you, I needed that. :-)
> that the references to
>scientific matters in the Bible regularly reflect the science of the times
>(indeed I have never seen a reference to a scientific item in Scripture
which
>reflects any higher understanding of that science than was known by other
>peoples of that time), I have the right in the light of the teachings of
>Jesus about inspiration to conclude that God is NOT REVEALING science, but
>conceding to the views of the time. God has left (in accordance with Gen
>1:26-28) the discovery of scientific truth to humankind as his
>under-sovereigns.
If my reading of Genesis 1:11 implies evolution, then you might not be
correct there. I agree it was a simplified view of evolution but it was
evolution none the less.
>
>Based upon the empirical data of the Bible as well as the revelation of
which
>Jesus has given, it is a perfectly biblical position that the science and
>history in the Bible is inspired by God in the sense that the writers were
>endowed with the Spirit so as to produce the best possible product for their
>times, but not given revelation except with reference to spiritual truths.
>All one has to do is read the theology of Enuma elish and compare it to the
>theology of Gen 1 to see the contrast and the bright light of the divine
>revelation given in Gen 1. But, the science and history is not a divine
>revelation, but a concession, and hence God cannot be accused of lying even
>though the sky is not really solid, there is no ocean above the sky, the
>earth is not flat, the universe is older than 6000 years, etc, etc.
>
>I will only add that even with reference to the resurrection of Jesus, which
>is where the NT makes its ultimate apologetic stand, Paul builds his case in
>I Cor 15 for the resurrection as a historical event upon references to human
>testimony, human sources, not divine revelation (except as prophesying that
>it would happen); and all the apostles do the same thing.
And we no longer have these witnesses to talk to. They are all dead. Thus
we must trust Paul to have told us the truth. This means that we trust this
part of the Bible but not the rest to tell us historical truth? That seems
oddly convenient. Is Paul more trustworthy than the Creator of the Universe?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution