Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy (firmament is an error)

Well it depends what you mean by "error" Bernie. I'm very comfortable
saying that the solid-dome firmament in Gen. 1 isn't an "egregious error"
because Gen. 1 simply isn't an account of the physical construction of the
material universe. If it reflects common contemporary notions of cosmic
geography, that's not unexpected.

I wonder arguments over the very technical term "inerrancy" sometimes
obscure the basic notion that, however exactly we define the veracity and
authority of scripture, we are still speaking of *scripture*. I'm not sure
we ever want to apply a category such as "egregious error" to scripture. If
God speaks through literature that reflects the humanity of its temporal
authors, that humanity isn't egregious error -- it's part of God's
communication to us.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> Dick said:
> "If there were some egregious errors in Genesis 1 then I think we could
> say that it might have been simple human error in a human account."
>
>
>
> One "egregious error" in Genesis (due to ANE thought) is stating that there
> is a "firmament" in which the stars are hung, with water below and above
> it. To add insult to injury, the NIV mistranslates the "firmament" as
> "atmosphere," because we know today there are no stars hung in the
> atmosphere with water above that. Remember, the firmament, or atmosphere,
> was there to separate the waters.
>
>
>
> Thinking there is a solid dome firmament is akin to the Gilgamesh story
> saying that there is a tunnel thru the earth that the sun travels through so
> it can rise in the east the next day.
>
>
>
> I'm violating the 4 day email max- sorry- but this was too juicy to pass
> up.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Dick Fischer
> *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2008 10:35 AM
> *To:* ASA
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
>
>
>
> Hi George:
>
>
>
> If there were some egregious errors in Genesis 1 then I think we could say
> that it might have been simple human error in a human account. That it does
> correlate with what we can confirm elsewhere persuades me that the writer
> had divine assistance. He had no means to test it or authenticate it
> through any exterior means. So I believe Genesis 1 to be inspired but I
> must admit I'm walking by sight here and not by faith. Starting with
> Genesis 2 the writer (likely a different writer) had oral tradition from
> actual descendants to draw on. Inspired, I believe, but verifiable in
> addition.
>
>
>
> 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 *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2008 6:41 AM
> *To:* Dick Fischer; ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
>
>
>
> Whether or not Genesis 1 is "not a bad fit all things considered" to BB
> cosmology is debatable but let that pass for now. I want to point out here
> that if what Genesis gives us is "what the writer thought God did" then the
> question has to be asked, in what sense was the account inspired by God? If
> it isn't simply one more human document from the ancient near east, on the
> same level as *enuma elish* or Gilgamesh, (which I'm quite sure isn't what
> Dick means) then to say that it's "what the writer thought" *and* in some
> sense the word of God gets close to what I & others have argued, that God
> "accomodated" to the human condition in inspiring the text.
>
>
>
> I would, though, not ascribe everything in Gen.1 (or other biblical texts)
> to simply the common views of the writers or their cultures. That's the
> case with the physical picture presented in the text (dome of the sky &c)
> but not necessarily with the view that's presented of God's relationship
> with the world. I.e., there is accomodation to human ideas about the
> natural & social sciences but not (as least not completely) theology.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:20 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy
>
>
>
> Hi Don:
>
>
>
> What God actually did is better described by Big Bang cosmology. What the
> writer thought God did is described in Genesis and it is not a bad fit all
> things considered.
>
>

-- 
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.