RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

I got those three options from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210638737&sr=8-1

The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation

Randy- to spare me 50 minutes of listening to audio/video- is there a
name for another way to interpret the day than the ones I listed? If
not, it is something unique to that presenter? BTW- Notice the options
I gave is only for those who hold the Bible to be "inerrant" In case
that makes a difference. So far, I interpret Genesis differently
because I don't consider it to be inerrant.

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:13 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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.h
tml

Randy

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>

        To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

        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
<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.

        
________________________________

        All new Yahoo! Mail -
<http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> 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 20:36:41 2008