When we speak of the relative reliability of the OT vs. the NT
care must be taken in the language we use. As one ASA publication
(I forget which one) has stated, we have problems when our
*interpretations* of scientific data and our *interpretations* of
Biblical data conflict. The issue is how do we arrive at our
interpretations that does not do violence to the Bible or the
Scripture.
I question whether interpreting the NT is less problematic
than the OT. Certainly the NT provides a clearer picture of
many things, including redemption, the Godhead, etc. However,
witness the wide number of competeting theological viewpoints
within Evangelicalism (Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism,
Pre/Post/A-Millenniumism, Transubstantion/Cosubsubstantion/Etc),
not to mention the cults and heresies. We need to exercise
care in all areas of Biblical interpretation.
I am also concerned when the OT, particularly Genesis, is
regarded as an inferior document containing errors. To hold
that kind of view implies, indirectly, that Christ's confidence
in the OT was misplaced, which in turn puts into question
the integrety of Christ. The question then is if Christ was
wrong at this point, can we trust Him in matters of Salvation
and Faith, and if so, why?
In regards to interpreting Genesis, there is considerable room for viewing
the universe/earth as old and hold to the complete inerrancy
of Scripture. An example of this in action is the Chicago Statement
of Biblical Inerrancy (I'll look for a copy of it on the Web, unless
someone else has a reference to it). One important criteria, however,
is that I interpret a literal Adam and Eve with a Fall, because
without that, NT theology (such as Paul in Romans) would not make
sense.
-Chuck
----
Chuck Noren
Marietta, GA
noren@inetnow.net (home) / noren@es.atl.sita.int (work)