Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

In is an interesting discussion. I was trying to make the point on the other
thread that inspiration and inerrancy are inseparable, but unfortunately
that discussion got diverted by attempts to trivialize the inerrancy
position. Perhaps it could be resumed, narrowly focused on whether a passage
of scripture can be inspired by God in the sense of 2 Tim 3:16 and yet be in
error.

David Heddle

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> 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 <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> *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 <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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 17 09:04:19 2008