At the risk of spreading myself too thin on this issue -
1) How is Lev.11 "profitable" &c if rabbits don't chew the cud? How would it be profitable even if they did?
I'm not just trying to be a smart aleck with that. There are a lot of things in the OT that we have trouble seeing as profitable &c for Christian faith & life. If we take II Tim.3:16 - or for that matter just the idea of an authoritative canon - seriously we won't deny that they're profitable but, if we're honest, we'll just say that we can't see how. So I don't think it makes that much difference whether rabbits chew the cud or not.
(Of course another gambit is to allegorize. The Epistle of Barnabas has some unedifying nonsense about the significance of the prohibition of eating rabbits.)
2) Perhaps a better example: The 1st Genesis creation story is certainly profitable &c for setting out who the creator is, and what he creates, and what our place is in creation. (I'm preaching on it tomorrow.) Part of that text pictures the sky incorrectly as a solid dome with waters above it but that doesn't destroy the value of the whole text.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Heddle
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: 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
To: ASA
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
To: ASA
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 16:42:48 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 17 2008 - 16:42:48 EDT