Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

I see that you subscribe to the view that I first knowingly encountered
many years ago. I call it the Evangelical Revised Version. One of my
professors settled the meaning of /oinos/ by declaring, "I cannot imagine
my Lord drinking wine." You've done the same with the Westminster
Confession, which specifies the truth of what scripture teaches on
salvation and morals (not science, history, or other subjects), as well
as with the first chapter of Genesis. I recently noted, in Augustine's
/On Genesis Against the Manichees/, that he says the heavens are solid.
The LXX translators made /raquia'/-firmanent to read /stereoma/, solid,
the root of our "stereo."

Along the way, I found Henry Morris's attempt to deal with the deep or
"waters under the earth" fascinating, with water ascending apparently
without any force being applied. It is also claimed to be the source of
the waters of the flood. But then it is a worldwide reservoir rather than
a single pool connected to the seas.

There was a time when I subscribed to the absolute inerrancy of
scripture, until I took the precise language of scripture seriously. Note
what II Timothy 3:16 specifies as the purpose of scripture. That I accept
without reservation.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:25:12 -0400 "David Heddle" <heddle@gmail.com>
writes:
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?

To be "Bible-based," we should teach what the Bible teaches, but not go
"beyond what is written."
The Bible claims to be 'inspired' but not 'inerrant'
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

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 (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 14:33:27 2008