Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David H. -- I think your focus is too narrow, too "either / or," too black
and white. Maybe a better way to approach this is to ask more generally, in
what sense *at all* is a text like Leviticus profitable for the Church
today? Let's say Lev. 11 is correct and rabbits really do chew the cud.
How does that function for teaching, reproof or correction today? We don't
live by those dietary laws anymore. I'd go back to what I said before --
laws like this demonstrate how God reaches down into the culture of His
people in order to set them apart for His service; they also demonstrate
God's providential guidance in history from the covenant people of Israel
into the new covenant.

Now, does it matter a whit to this heremeneutic whether rabbits
*really do*chew the cud or not? Is the "teaching" that's profitable
for the Church
today about whether rabbits chew the cud, or is it about the things I
mentioned above? Does 2 Tim 3:16 give us a hermeneutic that that hinges on
the scientific accuracy of cud-chewing rabbits, or does it give us a
heremeneutic that says, "whatever you find in the (OT) scriptures, however
strange some of it may seem, all of it is breathed by God and therefore our
faith and conduct can continue to be guided by it today?" Does 2 Tim. 3:16
require us to deny that God's instructions to ancient Israel included
something about cud chewing rabbits, or do we acknowledge the cud chewing
rabbits (or a forgetful Apostle Paul) and ask what this tells us about what
"God-breathed" means?

We can ask similar questions about many other things in the OT -- say, the
OT's apparent acceptance of slavery in the Levitical laws, or its apparent
endorsement of holy war in Joshua. In what sense are these things useful
for teaching, reproof and correction today? Does 2 Tim 3:16 require some
kind of "literal" hermeneutic as to these things, or does it suggest we
continue to study them, in light of the ethical development in the OT and NT
and particularly in light of the cross, in order to learn more fully who God
is and what He is saying to the Church through the entire witness of
scripture?

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
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.