16. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,
17. so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Inerrancy is extrapolated from what is actually referenced here. Scripture
was inspired with respect to its usefulness regarding _righteousness_, not
science. So I would not preclude scientific errors from cropping up.
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
--- __o! --- __o -- __o -- __o
--_~\<,_ ----_~\<,_ _~\<,_ _~\<,_
_(_)/_(_)______(_)/_(_)_(_)/_(_)_(_)/_(_)_
==========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jim Eisele
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: Walt Hicks
> Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Historical accuracy?
>
>
> Walt writes
>
> >The reason that Walt did not answer your question is because,
> >as usual, your avoided 90% of a post
>
> Thanks for the communication. At least I know where you are
> coming from now. Very often, I don't respond to parts of a post.
> There are a number of reasons for this.
>
> A) Perhaps I agree with a part of the post, but not so
> completely to warrant comment.
> B) Perhaps I disagree with a part of the post, but not so
> completely to warrant comment.
> C) I intentionally try to keep my posts short. These posts go
> out to a number of people.
>
> But, you have asked why I avoided 90% of a post. Mostly, because
> I felt it would unnecessarily consume time. But, since you have
> pressed the issue:
>
> >Jim Eisele wrote:
>
> >> A) This doesn't seem to be the proper forum for undermining
> >> the Bible.
>
> >First of all, complain to George Murphy who made the statement I
> >responded to.
>
> That was not a discussion that I wished to have. I highly respect
> George. And, I made a judgment that it was not the time nor the
> place to get into a debate with him.
>
> >Second, who suddenly appointed you to determine what issues may or may
> >not be discussed? If I am out line, Terry will will bounce the post. If
> >you want to be the editor, talk to him.
>
> No one appointed me anything. I tend to get ruffled when people seem
> to be undermining the Bible. Sometimes, I call them on it. And yes,
> as one participant of the list, I don't think this is the place for
> undermining the Bible. In my opinion, you are. You disagree, but
> won't answer my question (at least not yet :-)
>
> >> B) If you are going to claim that there are errors in the
> >> Bible, please tell us why you think an omnipotent God
> >> would allow them.
>
> >Since you recently said:
>
> >> Could it be that Bible translators make presuppositions. Who is
> >> correct? The NIV folks, or the NASB and the RSV folks?
> >>
> >> Certainly, both cannot be correct. The proper translation is
> >> either "one day" or "the first day."
> >>
> >> I'm going with the NASB. I guess the NIV folks just figured no one
> >> would notice. Wouldn't it be nice if Bible translators didn't
> >> promote misunderstanding? Maybe ONE DAY I'll get a chance to make
> >> my feelings known to someone who has decision-making power.
>
> >Let me know when you, Jim Eisele, personally declare which version of
> >the Bible is completely error free so that I can be certain only to use
> >that version.
>
> I have never claimed that any particular translation of the Bible is
> completely error-free. Even if it was, we would still err in
> interpreting it. However, the Bible claims that all Scripture is
> inspired, or God-breathed. To me, this means that the originals were
> inerrant. This is the main point of our discussion. Not these little
> sidetracking "jabs." Please try to refrain from excess emotion in your
> next post.
>
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
> http://genesisinquestion.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 16:36:57 EDT