Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Let me throw out another passage and ask how it affects your doctrine of
scripture: in 1 Cor. 1:14-16, Paul says this: "I am thankful that I did
not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you
were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of
Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)."

In verse 14, Paul makes a statement that is technically in error. In verse
16, he tries to correct the error, and then he concludes by admitting he
doesn't really remember who he baptized. Assuming 2 Tim. 3:16 can be
applied to the NT, what does it mean that Paul's writings in 1 Cor. are "God
breathed" if Paul wrote down a mistake and then couldn't remember the
details in order to correct it? It seems to me that hyper-technical "common
sense" definitions of inerrancy simply can't handle this.
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>

-- 
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.