Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Bernie said: By the way, it only takes one error to show the Bible is
errant.

I respond: Again, that depends on your definition of "error" and your
concept of inerrancy. You mentioned Gleason Archer -- probably that school
-- Lindsell, Archer, Geisler -- would agree with you, though they are a bit
more nuanced hermeneutically than you might think.

But not everyone would use the term "inerrancy" in exactly this way. See,
for example, these articles by Peter Enns, in which he argues that the
humanity of scripture is compatible with its divine inerrancy:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_/ai_n17176284 and
http://peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/CTJ%20Article%20-%20Peter%20Enns.PDF

See also Fuller Seminary's statement on scripture:
http://www.fuller.edu/provost/aboutfuller/believe_teach.asp Personally, I
like this from the Fuller Seminary statement: *"Where inerrancy refers to
what the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches through the biblical writers,
we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters
like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical
allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate."*

I also like this quote from J. Ramsey Michaels, in "Inerrancy and Common
Sense" (an early Gordon Conwell Seminary faculty collection of essays
defending of inerrancy from 1980):
*"God alone, and what He intends, must be the measure of any inerrancy we
confess. Other measures, such as journalistic accuracy in reporting
historical events or discourses, a strict chronological sequence, the
absence of outside sources or redaction, numerical exactness, and uniformity
of perspective, are based on expectations which we bring to the text. They
may or may not be part of what God intends. We have no right to assume that
what He intended to do is different from what He did to....The role of faith
is to accept this revelation on His terms, not ours."*

There's an excellent book, "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology," by Gary
Dorrien, that traces out the contested aspects of the definition of
"inerrancy" (including what led to the Fuller Seminary statement identified
above).

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> In general- thanks fr 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/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <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&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.