Dave wrote:
>Your question about a text having to be inerrant in order to be inspired
>is one of recent origin.
The Jews had a way of dealing with false prophets - they stoned
them. Primitive perhaps, but it had a way of separating the truth heard
from God versus what could have been a Satanic deception. So if anybody
thought they heard from God they were free to speak out, but if they were
proven wrong they had an early opportunity to meet their Maker face to
face. But that is the importance that was placed on the truth. Make a
mistake - pay with your life.
The necessary elements of being saved versus being condemned had better be
carefully spelled out. No one wants to spend an eternity suffering
hellfire and brimstone on a technicality. We need to be able to separate
fact from fiction. The parables are exactly that. Christ defined
them. The writers identified them, and we should certainly be able to tell
the difference between a parable told to relate a principle and a
historical narrative.
For example, let's say Christ rode an Arabian stallion into Jerusalem in an
act of bravado. But the writer decided to make it a donkey for the
purposes of aligning with prophecy. Would we see no problem there? It is
not a question of inerrancy we are talking about, but of bona fide biblical
truth versus biblical error.
In short, Hyers in his article used Christ's parables as a lever to bring
discredit to the genuine historical aspects of the Genesis account.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Fri Feb 27 19:48:05 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 27 2004 - 19:48:06 EST