Re: Scriptural errors (was Hyers' Article - Cods Wallop!)

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:21:54 -0700 John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
writes:
> >>It's only you and I who don't make misteaks :>).>>
>
> Haha. Well -- you, anyway.
>
> OK, I see better where you are coming from. You can assume inerrancy
> /
> perfection in the original manuscripts -- and that is certainly
> possible.
>
>
> BTW< after a lot of hemming and hawing, Safarti admitted that AIG's
> definition of inerrancy was also that. I guess it is a fairly
> common
> position to take, and is, of course, as irrefutable as Gosse's
> theory.
>
> Keep at it. I appreciate you.
>
> Burgy (your friendly critic)
>
Since we don't have autograph manuscripts, I suppose you can call the
theory irrefutable. But are you willing to take the consequences? Most of
Genesis 1 has to go (provided the reading is honest). Raqia^ (firmament),
for example, cannot be allowed. The difference in timing between chapters
1 and 2 mean that at least one of the stories has to go. Indeed, if one
is totally honest, there will be nothing left as dependable. On the other
hand, if one adopts the notion that scripture gives us the sure rule for
faith and practice, then II Timothy 3:16 stands without a problem.

Dick, of course, is certain that such a belief makes me a false prophet.
That requires that his twist is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. If it, as Burgy indicates, is irrefutable, then a curious
logical principle applies, and it must be devoid of empirical content.
Dave
Received on Tue Mar 2 23:05:52 2004