Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dick Fisher,

Of course I allow for errors due to redactions such as the Marcan appendix.
If you don't like the cud-chewing rabbit example (which wasn't mine) then
give me another example, of an error that you believe *was* penned by the
inspired writer and yet is an error, and explain how it is nevertheless
profitable a la 2 Tim. 3:16.

This is, I think, a fair question. I am not using 2 Tim 3:16 to prove
inerrancy, but whether asking how is 2 Tim 3:16 applied to erroneous
scripture.

David Heddle

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
> 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 <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 16:03:47 2008