David continues to miss the point. I never said that there were no other arguments for inerrancy besides the two verses I mentioned from the pastorals, nor did I say that the Chicago Statement appealed to either of those verses. I simply noted that those two are often referred to. When David objected to my reference to those verses I characterized his incorrect claim - not that II Tim.3:16 isn't a proof of inerrancy but that it isn't commonly appealed to as such - as nonsense and explained why it was nonsense. Apparently this distinction escapes David & calling his attention to it is snarky. & I suppose that in his view what I've said here is snarky. So be it. It's probably best for him to remain a lurker because he apparently gets his feelings hurt quite easily. (& note, BTW, that he never did try to engage the substance of my argument.)
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Heddle
To: George Murphy
Cc: Merv ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)
The snarkiness is both here, and in the fact that George's first response (on the inerrancy thread) to my claim that 2 Tim 3:16 is not a proof text was to characterize said claim as "nonsense." It is not nonsense, given that there are several historical approaches to inerrancy that recognize (as they should) that one cannot make a crude circular argument. Also we have the recent example that the Chicago Statement does not simply say: "Of course the bible is inerrant, cf. 2 Tim. 3:16. Game over, man."
Now even if Vernon is claiming that the bible is inerrant because of the verse in question, and it is not at all clear that he is asserting that verse as a proof text (it seems to me he is simply using it in a "lofty view of scripture" manner,) it would still not negate the fact that there are serious attempts by serious theologians to affirm inerrancy. Whether they succeed is a matter of opinion, but it mischaracterizes the scholarship that has gone into the question by characterizing 2 Tim 3:16 as the proof text for that position.
I have no problem with someone characterizing my argument as nonsense if it is, in fact, demonstrated to be nonsense. Or if someone claims they proved they are right and I am wrong if, in fact, they have done so.
David Heddle
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:53 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
Well, let's get our terminology clear. David objected to my statement that II Tim.3:16 wasn't a "standard proof text" used in support of the inerrancy of scripture. Opportunely, a post from another list participant on another thread appealed to that text in such a way & I pointed that out as an example of what I meant. Is that "snarkiness"?
I pursue the point not because I care much if someone calls me snarky but because I object to the notion that showing an argument to be wrong is bad etiquette. Cf. C.S. Lewis's account of his first conversation with his tutor in which the older man concluding with "Do you not then see that you have no right to any opinion on the matter?" Lewis was - at least retrospectively - appreciative of that no-nonsense approach.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Merv
To: David Heddle ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)
There are those of us who mostly lurk, but then wish to attempt respectful exchanges (or try to apologize when we fall into 'snarkiness' ourselves). But such seems to be the list serve dynamic that the two most assertive-minded will start a shouting match while the attempted input from the rest gets ignored. I can understand George's impatience as he is presumably a long-time member here who sees the rest of us bringing up things that he has addressed a thousand times in other places as well as here. Yet, it may be patience that we need from him as we wrestle with this stuff or disagree on our own terms.
I've lurked here for a year or two now, David, and while I've seen some of the exchanges get downright nasty, this forum doesn't get nearly so nasty (on average) as other places seem to towards Christians. It takes two to tango, so please don't blame George for all the snippiness. Since we all seem to be in a Timothy kind of mood, how about I Tim. 5:1 for a refreshing change? (and the verse right before it to remind us of the urgency of the topic in the first place.) Advice to Timothy here is good for us as well.
4:16 Pay attention to yourself, and to your teaching. Continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you. 5:1 Don't rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brothers;
--Merv (this is not a commentary on anybody's age!)
p.s. Ephesians 4:1 - 6 would also be apropos to these occasions. --Among believers anyway.
David Heddle wrote:
George,
BTW, I must thank you for citing 2 Tim.3:16 here - David Heddle may note it as one more attempt to use that verse to establish the inerrancy of scripture. I've
already explained why it doesn't.
Man, I had assumed the ASA forum would be respite from the snarkiness I find elsewhere on the web, but it appears that I was naive.
It seems to me you want it (2 Tim 3:16) to be the argument for inerrancy, perhaps because it is such a bad argument.
David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
http://helives.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 11 21:56:48 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 11 2008 - 21:56:48 EDT