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 12:04:00 2008David H. said: 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.I respond: 2 Tim 3: 16 says all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Again, we have to be clear about what we mean by "in error," and we also have to be clear about the context of "reproof, correction [and] training in righteousness." If "in error" means that the use of scripture in the life of the Church for these purposes of spiritual formation and discipleship, you're right, I think, scripture cannot be "in error." So, many classical formulations of the doctrine of scripture speak about scripture being the final authority for Christian faith and practice.But if "in error" means, say, that we're in trouble when Lev. 11 says rabbits chew the cud unless we can concoct some explanation making this technically true, then I think you're off base. The Church isn't and shouldn't be in the business of training in the biology of rabbits. If we now know something the ancient Hebrews apparently didn't -- that rabbits don't chew the cud -- why does that lessen the profitability of Leviticus in the life of the Church for discipleship? Knowing this fact could even deepen our appreciation of what God does in communicating to us, as Peter Enns points out -- it seems that God fashioned dietary laws for the ancient Hebrews that set them apart as a people but that at the same time entered into their existing cultural / knowledge setting (just as He did, apparently, with respect to Levitical laws concerning the treatment of women and slaves).It seems to me you're stuck on categories of "inspiration," "authority," and "error" that just don't fit the written revelation God actually gave us. I'm with you in making an historic affirmation that God doesn't err in scripture, but I think even in many evangelical circles the discussion has moved on from the old "battle for the Bible" categories, as it must.
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.Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:34 PMSubject: 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.
-----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.
--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 17 2008 - 12:04:00 EDT