John W Burgeson wrote:
> This afternoon I was reading the responses to my earlier challenges by
> you. It does seem that the issue of "biblical inerrancy" plays an
> important part in our understandings (or misunderstandings).
>
> I found the following definition on a web site and wonder if it in any
> way corresponds to your understanding. I suspect it may be too
> fundamentalist, but I'm not sure.
>
> Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy reads: "We
> affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all
> falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and
> inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes,
> exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further
> deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used
> to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
I avoid the term "inerrancy" as much as possible - not because it
isn't susceptible of an adequate understanding but because most people who
use it mean more by it than "without error." It's implicit meaning for them
is "without error as historical report," thus conflating freedom from error
with assumptions about the genre of biblical texts. This is clearly done in
the above definition with the assumption that scripture must be understood
to contain "teaching" about earth history comparable with that of the earth
sciences.
I believe that scripture is true and authoritative as a witness to
God's revelation in the history of Israel which culminates in Christ. My
earlier post to you focussed on the issue of authority rather than on any
concept of inerrancy.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 21:39:48 EDT