Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Bernie, these aren't the only options. I think I've given this reference in this forum before but it bears repeating in this context. John Walton of Wheaton College provides another perspective in this most interesting lecture (about 50 minutes long) at the Wheaton College Science Symposium of 2003. Well worth listening and discussing.
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html

Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dehler, Bernie
  To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
  Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 5:46 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

  It relates because of issues in interpreting the Genesis creation story as allegory, or if the Genesis creation account has to be inerrant.

  The way I see it, if one believe the creation account is inerrant, there are three ways to interpret day (with an inerrant viewpoint):

    1.. 24 hrs long
    2.. Day-age view
    3.. Framework view
   

  If Genesis is not inerrant, then it opens another possible Christian interpretation as 'divine myth'.

  The science aspect should then be obvious, as it is dealing with integrating evolution with Genesis.

  .Bernie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
  Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:35 PM
  To: Dehler, Bernie; AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
  Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

  This post seems to belong more on an evangelicalism/missions list than on a list for science and religion dialogue. Sure, perhaps it could overlap with philology or hermeneutic philosophy. Nevertheless, isn't this a predominantly theological (or apologetic) question without any scientific relevance?

  G.A.

  "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

    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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  All new Yahoo! Mail - Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 12 10:14:29 2008