RE: NT inerrancy??

Speakers and writers use all sorts of techniques to convey concepts, ideas, and truths. Christ used parables and we could have condemned Him for not making things clear. I believe there is a struggle in people between their pride, based on their rationality and a particular worldview, and faith, based on rationality and a worldview that encompasses, in addition, the nonphysical. We all choose to believe on the inerrancy or lack thereof of Scripture on both rationality and faith. The atheist is at one end, all rationality, whereas a formally uneducated Christian may be at the other end.

Moorad

        -----Original Message-----
        From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of wallyshoes
        Sent: Wed 12/31/2003 10:19 AM
        To: George Murphy
        Cc: ASA
        Subject: Re: NT inerrancy??
        
        

        George Murphy wrote:
        
>
>
> Well, this is the same issue that's been debated with respect to Genesis 1 & 2
> &c. If those aren't accurate historical reports of things that happened a few thousand
> years ago, are they "lies"? You are trying to make the biblical writers conform to
> modern standards for historical & theological writing, but their purpose needs to be
> assessed in terms of the standards of their own culture. There's a little German
> jingle:
> Wer den Dichter will verstehen,
> Muss in Dichters Lande gehen.
> "Whoever wants to understand the poet must go into the poet's country." & if you want
> to understand a 1st century Christian, you must to some extent be willing to get into
> the frame of mind of a 1st centuryt Christian
        
        I chose the NT because it is a lot closer than Moses' time.
        
        
        But let's just step around the theology and talk about the "real world" of today. By your
        accounts, one cannot expect Matthew to be telling us factual events. Instead he is saying things
        that never happened for the sake of making a theological point. As such, a theologian like you can
        read and understand it. People like me cannot. ---- so I have put the Gospel by matthew on the
        shelf as something I cannot trust. What about Luke. Do you think the same of him?
        
        I also raise the point about the difference of opinion by Matthew and Luke as to the home town of
        Joseph and mary. Do you think that Matthew is making a theological point? If so, what could it be?
        
> First, what is meant by "infallibility"? Is its primary meaning that the texts
> in question describe historical events infallibly, or that they witness infallibly to
> the person & work of Christ?
> In saying that I am not trying to "save" the word infallibility: I can live
> without it. But what does it mean? & if we're going to use it, recognizing the kinds
> of historical questions you raise, what should it mean?
        
        I always choose the dictionary definition. My dictionary says:
        
        "Incapable of error"
        "Not liable to mislead, deceive or misrepresent"
        
        With those definitions, and your notion of Matthew, that text is not infallible --- at least not
        to modern man..
        
        
        Walt
        
        ===================================
        Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
        
        In any consistent theory, there must
        exist true but not provable statements.
        (Godel's Theorem)
        
        You can only find the truth with logic
        If you have already found the truth
        without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
        ===================================
        
        
        
        
Received on Wed Dec 31 10:42:32 2003