Re: Reading Genesis literally

I can't give a comprehensive answer, but what follows is a compendium of my
thoughts on the issue of inerrancy.

I dislike the addition of "in the original manuscripts" for several reasons. 1)
Exactly what constitutes the "original manuscripts"? Newly discovered
manuscripts pop up from time to time. To date they haven't changed anything
substantial in the Scriptures, but they have helped explain difficult passages;
2) There is the implication that one would have to be able to read the original
manuscripts to really perceive the Scriptures' inerrant message; 3)There is the
implication that God will not protect translations of the Scriptures, nor guide
translators. I agree that any translation that does not accurately render the
original manuscripts is suspect, and I don't consider modern translations
inerrant in the same way the original manuscripts are, but I do believe the
committees which provide new translations are in some sense guided by God (most
of them anyway).

In view of Jesus' promise in John 14:25 that the Holy Spirit would teach us all
things, I tend to say that the Scriptures will guide believers truthfully when
they rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding. This doesn't leave unbelievers
unguided. I believe that the gospels give sufficient information about the
life and work of Jesus Christ so that those who read them and don't commit
their lives to Christ are without excuse. (Of course that doesn't let
Spirit-filled Christians off the hook to witness to unbelievers)

--- Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote:

> What exactly is meant by inerrancy in this context? Different Christian
> groups hold very different views on this subject. Some groups hold that the
> text is inerrant in all regards, others that it is inerrant in the original
> manuscripts, others that it is inerrent with regards to salvation issues, and
> i'm sure there are others and variations on these.
>
> And I'm still curious about what a "conservative viewpoint" (presumably as
> opposed to a liberal viewpoint) is with regards to scripture interpretation.
>
> Best Regards,
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________
> Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of Geology
> Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
> One University Ave.
> Bourbonnais, IL 60914
> PH: (815) 939-5346
> FX: (815) 939-5071
> ccarriga@olivet.edu
> http://geology.olivet.edu/
>
> "To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
> the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
> is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns the
> valley or the mountain:
> but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of a
> former world,
> the mossy covering which obstructs his view,
> and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,
> is no less than a serious subject of regret."
> - James Hutton
> _______________________________
>
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 4/25/2006 7:39:11 PM >>>
>
> I just read a really excellent essay by John Jefferson Davis,
> "Genesis, Inerrancy, and the Antiquity of Man," in "Inerrancy and
> Common Sense," a volume published in 1980 (apparently out of print but
> you can get it used on Amazon). Davis surveys, within the context of
> inerrancy, various ways in which the Genesis accounts have been read
> non-"literally," and offers some interesting suggestions. Very good
> stuff.
>
> On 4/25/06, gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
> > Concerning valid interpretations other than what the author had in mind,
> > there is an interesting passage in John 11:49-52 in which Caiaphas makes a
> > comment about one man dying for the people. We might think of it as
> > ironic, but John says that it was prophetic. Interestingly Caiaphas was
> > not an author of Scripture or even on the right side of the issue.
> >
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 cmekve@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > George is correct (as usual!) As C.S. Lewis said [perhaps quoting
> someone else] "Thoughts beyond their thoughts to those high bards were
> given."
> > >
> > > But I also was thinking of some of the 'critical' approaches to
> Scripture. The traditional "literal" sense (i.e., the meaning of the
> original authors) would imply that detailed "critical" study is both
> necessary and a good thing. But historically (from the 19th century book
> Essays and Reviews to the Jesus Seminar) the overriding approach is that the
> meaning of the original author is the only legitimate meaning. This is
> clearly not the case for any written text (think Shakespeare) and certainly
> not for Scripture -- as the Church has always recognized. Even though
> non-literal uses can be abused, as the Reformers pointed out rather
> vociferously, that doesn't mean we have to toss out the baby with the
> bathwater. Scripture authors themselves were constantly expanding and
> building on and reinterpreting earlier Scripture, e.g., Ezekiel on part of
> Genesis, Jesus (as presented by the Gospel writers) reinterpreting the Law,
> etc. And for a modern approach to retrieve the "typ!
> ol!
> > ogi
> > > cal" interpretation of Scripture (which was prevalent for well over a
> millenium in the Church), see theologian Ephraim Radner's book Hope Among the
> Fragments.
> > >
> > > Karl
> > > *************
> > > Karl V. Evans
> > > cmekve@aol.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> > > To: cmekve@aol.com; williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:44:50 -0400
> > > Subject: Re: Reading Genesis literally
> > >
> > >
> > > Karl's last sentence below refers (I think) to what has traditionally
> been called the sensus plenior of a text. There can be such a "fuller sense"
> of a text even from a merely human author. (Dorothy Sayers gives a good
> example from her own work in The Mind of the Maker.) & if we believe that
> the Holy Spirit is involved in a distinctive the development of biblical
> texts then we shouldn't be too surprised if there is sometimes more in them
> than their human authors intended.
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: cmekve@aol.com
> > > To: williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 3:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Reading Genesis literally
> > >
> > >
> > > It's important to keep in mind that what the Church (including
> Augustine) has traditionally meant by "literal" is the meaning that the
> original authors intended. This is very different from what American
> evangelicals (both YEC and non-YEC) mean by the term. Note also that the
> full meaning of Scripture can and does exceed the "literal meaning".
> > > ....................
> > >
> >
>
>
> > BEGIN:VCARD
> VERSION:2.1
> X-GWTYPE:USER
> FN:Charles Carrigan
> ORG:;Physical Sciences
> EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:CCarriga@olivet.edu
> N:Carrigan;Charles
> END:VCARD
>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Apr 27 10:10:07 2006