Date: Mon May 12 2008 - 20:05:05 EDT
In general- thanks for all the responses and views.
By the way, it only takes one error to show the Bible is errant. Here
is an obvious error I think:
I saw it by looking into the book "Inerrancy" and reading the chapter by
Gleason Archer.
Gen. ch. 11 nails down an exact geneology, and Luke inserts an
additional name. There's no room for the name in Gen. 11.
Gen. 11:
12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13
And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and
had other sons and daughters. 14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he
became the father of Eber.
Luke 3:36
the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of
Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
Summary:
Gen. 11 says Arphaxad had Shelah at age 35
Luke 3 says Arphaxad had Cainan who had Shelah.
Comments? I think Gleason Archer avoided Gen. 11 (no mention at all of
Gen. 11) and tried to explain it (Luke/Gen. conflict) with wiggle room
using Gen. 10. That actually strikes me as dishonest-read his writing
in the "Inerrancy" book and you can see what he wrote also.
From research, it looks like Luke added the name because of the
Septuagent version, which was a spurious addition. Some commentaries:
The "Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible" commentary says:
"Abram was the twentieth, inclusive, from Adam, the tenth from Shem, and
the seventh from Heber. A second Kenan is inserted after Arpakshad in
the Septuagint, and in the Gospel according to Luke. But this name does
not occur even in the Septuagint in 1Ch_1:24, where the genealogy of
Abram is given. It is not found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the
Targums, or the ancient versions. It does not appear in Josephus or
Philo. Neither is it found in the Codex Bezae in the Gospel of Luke. It
must therefore be regarded as an interpolation. "
What does he mean by it is an "interpolation" ???
Dictionary.com says:
in*ter*po*late
-verb (used with object)
1.
to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things
or parts; interject; interpose; intercalate.
2.
Mathematics. to insert, estimate, or find an intermediate term in (a
sequence).
3.
to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or
without authorization.
4.
to insert (new or spurious matter) in this manner.
-verb (used without object)
5.
to make an interpolation.
Also "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible" says:
Gen 11:12 -
And Arphaxad lived - The Septuagint bring in here a second Cainan, with
an addition of one hundred and thirty years. St. Luke follows the
Septuagint, and brings in the same person in the same way. But the
Hebrew text, both here and in 1 Chronicles 1:1-28, is perfectly silent
on this subject, and the best chronologists have agreed in rejecting
this as a spurious generation.
Also "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible" says:
Gen 11:12 - And Arphaxad lived thirty five years, and begat Salah.
Arphaxad is the first on record that had a son born to him so early; of
Salah; see Gill on Gen_10:24.
The other 15 sources in e-sword don't have anything to say...
...Bernie
"It's turtles all the way down!"
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:06 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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. <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
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
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&versi
on=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&vers
ion=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.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
