>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?
Who are you referring to here? I did not say the OT 'contained errors'.
Please try not to misquote or misconstrue people here. We have
enough problems when we DO understand what the other person is saying.
>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
Good for you. Note that when one says something 'makes sense', he
is talking in the realm of meaning and interpretation, not mathematical
logic. Science, mathematics and history don't have meaning in themselves,
they have meaning when they relate to something that really DOES have
meaning. For instance, E=mc^2 is mathematically precise, but what
meaning does it have? On the other hand, a certain baby was born somewhere
near Bethlehem somewhere around 4 - 6 BC: this is not precise at all, but
nevertheless it has great meaning to us, because of the meanings to which
it is related: namely God and us. From this perspective, manifestos about
'inerrancy' miss the point.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Research Physicist, Signatures Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)