Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dick -

Note that I said, 'God "accomodated" to the human condition in inspiring the text.' I believe that the Genesis account Inspiration is inspired but inspiration and inerrancy are 2 different concepts. That's the point I tried to make about II Timothy 3:16 but it unfortunately got buried by superficiality. The argument that because God inspired a biblical text it can't contain any errors is precisely what has to be questioned.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:34 PM
  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/

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Dick Fischer

    To: ASA

    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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 16 21:16:04 2008