Re: [asa] Re: How to approach YECs was Empiricism, Faith and

Science
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:01:50 -0700
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk

Vernon wrote,

<<You say, "...God might consider it an error of wisdom to speak to =
ancient people in terms of how things really are rather than in terms
of =
how those people at that time understood the world around them."=20

But what kind of logic is this? Why should "...God _might_
consider..." =
- lead inevitably to - "So the foundation of the belief in a =
historically-scientifically inerrant Bible is neither logically valid =
nor biblical." Really, Paul, you surprise me!>>

Let me explain my logic more fully.
The belief in a historically-scientifically inerrant Bible is based on =
the argument that God inspired Scripture (major premise), God cannot
lie =
or err (minor premise), and therefore Scripture will not say anything =
that is a lie or an error. Although this a formally a valid argument, =
"conservatives" make it invalid by defining "err" .and "error"
strictly =
(exclusively) as a matter of saying something not in accord with the =
facts. They have in effect put God in a box and given him three
choices =
and only three choices: he can lie, accidentally say something not in =
accord with the facts, or tell the absolute truth. Since they rightly =
judge that God will not lie or accidentally say something, he is left =
with only being able to speak the absolute truth, and thus the Bible =
must be inerrant in any and all statements it makes.

  The fallacy here is the fallacy of the excluded middle: God has more =
than these three choices, and in particular, as I said, He might =
consider it an error of wisdom to speak to ancient people in terms of =
how things actually are rather than in terms of how those people at
that =
time understood the world around them In that case, since he cannot =
err, he would not speak in accord with the actual facts but in accord =
with the scientific beliefs of those times. For example, in order to =
communicate to the ancient Israelites that _he_ created the heavens,
he =
might say he created the firmament (the solid sky that everyone
believed =
in at that time). In this case, the revealed theological message would =
be true but the history-science would be the errant science of the =
times. Further, this is not just a theoretical possibility. There is =
good evidence that this is exactly what he did.=20

Your other questions are good ones, and I am not ignoring them, but I =
think they would require more space to answer convincingly than this =
email medium allows for.. If I can finish my booklet or book that I am =
writing for YECs, it will answer them at least implicitly. But, your =
belief in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture is the crucial issue,
and =
as per above, I do not believe it is logical or biblical.

Paul S.=20

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 17 16:59:12 2006