Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Dick, to be fair to David H., I think his focus is more on the "God
breathed" part than the profitable part. I agree with him that this is a
fair concern. God does not err. The scriptures are God's word. If God
breathed the scriptures, then, we should expect that they reflect God's
character, including the fact that God does not err. But at the same time,
"God breathed" doesn't mean the scriptures were dictated directly from the
mind of God. The scriptures necessarily were communicated through human
beings, bound by culture, time, and language. So, what does it mean for the
God who does not err to communicate through fallible human beings? It seems
to me that this is the big question, and simply citing 2 Tim. 3:16 doesn't
answer it -- actually 2 Tim 3:16 is sort of a starting point that
*raises*the question, IMHO. What people like Pete Enns and Kent
Sparks and to some
extent John Walton are asking is, shouldn't we look at what scripture
actually contains when we try to address this question? If we look at
scripture and see its humanness in something like cud-chewing rabbits, does
that mean scripture really isn't God-breathed, or does that help us
understand better what it means for the unerring God to breath His word
through human beings?

Personally, I want to be very clear particularly on a public list that I
affirm the entire trustworthiness of scripture precisely because all
scripture is God-breathed. However, I don't think that means we have to
impose on scripture the sort of Enlightenment-influenced, hypertechnical
notion of inerrancy that it seems to me, respectfully, that David H. is
heading towards.

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
>
>
>

-- 
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.