Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dick,

The day-age theory is even more unsupportable than young earth
creationists. At least the YECers go all the way in their conclusions. The
day-age theory is unsupportable both hermeneutically and scientifically.
For one thing, the order of what was created on each day does not line up
with the fossil record. You have fish in the sea long before you have land
plants. Also, what would be the point of flowering plants on day (or eon 3)
before you have pollinators on day 4 or day 5 (depending on how you want to
classify those creatures which pollinate...)? You reject a literal
interpretation, and yet refuse to reject historical concordism. Perhaps you
overlooked the order of the fossil record which you defend, or are you
being... to quote your own accusations of others in your paper... "willingly
ignorant"?
Have you also missed the obvious poetic structure of the passage, three days
to make the world habitable, and three days to fill it? Have you
accidentally overlooked the similarities to other ANE mythologies? Have
you, perhaps, failed to understand the place of ancient biology, cosmology,
and origins in the semitic culture? Maybe you are unsure of the conventions
of genre, and how we should understand a pre-modern writer?
For if you are not, perhaps it could be asked of you and the day-age theory
what you asked of others...
"Why do some persist in maintaining an intransigent mindset?"

Bethany

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
> 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&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.html
>
>
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>
> *To:* AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation <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&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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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 Tue May 13 00:19:19 2008