Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David H. said: 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.

I respond: I think this goes to what Bethany said: it depends on what you
mean by "inerrant." Here, David H., I agree with you, but that's because at
this point I (and I think you) are applying a special theological definition
to the term "inerrant."

The cud-chewing rabbit is a good case here. Lev. 11 clearly says rabbits
chew the cud; rabbits certainly do not chew the cud, therefore the assertion
in Lev. 11 that rabbits chew the cud is wrong. In ordinary, everyday usage,
I think we'd agree that this is an "error." So, whatever "inerrancy" means
as a theological term, it cannot mean that no assertion in scripture is
incorrect when measured by modern standards of knowledge and accuracy. Once
we agree that the Bible can be inaccurate, from our modern perspective,
about things like cud-chewing rabbits, and yet still be "inerrant" in a
theological sense of that term, it seems to me that much of the sound and
fury of inerrancy debates ought to go away.

The problem, I think, is that the very sophisticated and nuanced discussions
of inerrancy that tend to occur among many evangelical theologians don't
seem to filter down to the pastorate in many instances, and certaintly don't
tend to filter down into the pews. In popular usage in the mainstream
evangelical community, "inerrant' means that the Bible can't possible
mention things like cud-chewing rabbits. And of course, even some
evangelical scholars and leaders seem to adopt a mindless definition of
"inerrancy." Just like with the term "sola scriptura," I think this is a
place where a significant amount of thought and study is required before
defining / revising / contextualizing / discarding or not discarding a term
can be considered. I personally don't think the term should be discarded,
but I also think it's something that isn't easily captured by a simple
formulation. At the end of the day, the formulation continually has to be
assessed in light of the actual phenomena of scripture and the real world in
which we find ourselves -- IMHO.

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:25 AM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.