Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

The Reformers, from my reading, certainly held the same view of inerrancy as
I hold. I would agree completely with what the Westminster Confession
teaches on the matter.
Just a question for those who care to answer: how can the bible be fallible
and at the same time be inspired?

If you ever want to demonstrate that the bible contains error, you must, in
my opinion, try much harder than cud chewing rabbits, pi equals three, bats
are birds, etc. examples. Each of the bible's "scientific errors" are
explained as figures of speech, translation errors, modern chauvinism (such
as assuming modern classification schemes are as inviolate as the laws of
physics) etc. These claims tend to be sort of fallacious--in the sense that
they make the "ancients were ignorant" error.

The bible doesn't say much about science, but an example of a scientific
error with no wiggle room would have been any of these: 1) A statement that
the universe always existed, 2) A statement that the earth was flat, or 3) A
statement that the earth was in the center of the universe.

In my opinion, the so-called scientific errors are almost trivial compared
to other proposed types of error. The discrepancies in genealogies, for
example the 400+ years between Shebuel and his "son" Gershom have less
satisfying though still plausible explanations. Even the creation account
"disagreement" between Gen. 2 and Gen. 1 is more serious than the scientific
errors.

David Heddle

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
wrote:

> If you go to the Reformation confessions that mention scripture, you will
> find that they claim authority for faith and practice, how to be saved and
> how to live a life pleasing to God. Calvin was clear that, despite what the
> Bible said, Saturn was much larger than the moon. I note also the
> cud-chewing hyrax and hares, the solid heavens, and other items that came
> from ancient cosmology and folklore.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:07:44 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
>
> I'm arguing with a Pastor friend who supports biblical inerrancy. Here's
> a point I came up with- does it hold water?
>
>
>
> 1. To be "Bible-based," we should teach what the Bible teaches, but not
> go "beyond what is written."
> 2. The Bible claims to be 'inspired' but not 'inerrant'
> 3. Therefore, the popular Evangelical claim that "the Bible is
> inerrant" is to go "beyond what is written" and is not a Bible-based concept
>
>
> * *
>
> Therefore, for someone who wants to teach the Bible in all sincerity and
> truthfulness, should not claim more for the Bible than it claims for
> itself. This is ironic, because this statement says the more the one takes
> the Bible seriously, the less they should claim it is inerrant.
>
> * *
>
> *Back-up:*
>
> * *
>
> *For point 1:*
>
>
>
> *1 Corinthians 4:6<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&version=31&context=verse>
> *
>
> Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your
> benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go
> beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over
> against another.
>
>
>
> *For point 2:*
>
> * *
>
> *2 Timothy 3:16<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&version=31&context=verse>(NIV)
> *
>
> All Scripture is *God-breathed* and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
> correcting and training in righteousness,
>
> * *
>
> * -- and ---*
>
> * *
>
> *2 Timothy 3:16** (KJV)*
> All scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
>
>
>
> *For point 3*:
>
>
>
> National Assoc. of Evangelicals:
> http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
> We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative
> Word of God.
>
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> * *
>
> Please keep comments short, as this post is.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 10 07:26:18 2008