RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David H:
 
What kind of question is that? Dates are profitable for eating but we
don't ingest the stones. Cars are good for driving but we don't drive
the spare tire, houses are nice to live in but we can't live in the
furnace, etc. Or, maybe a scribe added a gloss to include another
animal that appeared to chew its cud as an example. You do allow for
errors in transmission, do you not?
 
Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:35 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA
Subject: 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 <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <mailto: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
 <http://www.historicalgenesis.com/> 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 <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <mailto: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.