RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Day-age has normally meant tying the days to geological periods. I've
always held a day of God's time to equal whatever period of time it took
to accomplish whatever it was He needed to accomplish. See my article
<http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1990/PSCF3-90Fischer.html> : Days of
Creation: Hours or Eons.
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:35 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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
<http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508
/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210638737&sr=8-1>
&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, <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com> Bernie
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> 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:
 
 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&versi
on=31&context=verse> 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:
 
 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&vers
ion=31&context=verse> 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.
  

  _____

 <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> 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 22:58:18 2008