Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David S wrote, 'One of my professors settled the meaning of /oinos/ by declaring, "I cannot imagine my Lord drinking wine."'

This suggests interesting translations of several verses. E.g.,

Eph.5:18, "Do not get drunk with grape juice ..."

Rev.,17:2, "with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the grape juice of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  To: heddle@gmail.com
  Cc: bernie.dehler@intel.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 2:29 PM
  Subject: 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. 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?

          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

        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 15:09:25 2008