Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

On Mon, 12 May 2008, j burg wrote:

> On 5/10/08, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 have recently come to believe that the best example of error is in
> Matthew's geneology (Chapter 1, 1-17).
>
> 42 generations (14+14+14) are claimed in vs 17, but there are only 41 there.
>
> Burgy

When we come across something which at first glance doesn't seem to make
sense, should we operate by a priciple that says we should automatically
assume that the author has made an error? I think it would be better to
consider the possibility that we didn't understand what the author was
saying. In the case of the Matthew genealogy one might ask about the
significance of using the exile as a dividing point rather than a person.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

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 15:04:05 2008