Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David O,

My question is not "show me the error." Let's grant for the sake of argument
that the passages you site are in error, even in the original autographs. In
what sense would an erroneous teaching of cud-chewing rabbits be
"god breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness." How can teaching an error be profitable?

David Heddle
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
Received on Sat May 17 13:35:11 2008