From: George Murphy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 07:32:21 EDT
> In a message dated 05/14/2003 8:31:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2003 PASAlist@aol.com wrote:
> > > Jesus did not believe biblical inspiration
> > >guarantees absolute inerrancy (Matt 19:8), and neither should we---if we
> > are
> > >his followers.
> > It appears that proponents and opponents of inerrancy often have different
> > definitions of the term. Using what I assume that the leading proponents
> > of inerrancy mean by the term, the above quote would suggest that in Matt.
> > 19:8 Jesus said that Moses didn't have his facts straight. Actually, what
> > He indicates is that the standards of the Mosaic Law were less strict than
> > God's standards. There is a difference between pointing out shortcomings
> > in the Law of Moses and saying that something is inaccurately reported.
> I think you have understood Matt 19:8 correctly. You have well said, "The
> standards of the Mosaic law are less strict than God's standards." How this
> bears on the doctrine of absolute inerrancy (i.e., the Bible is inerrant in
> its stated facts of history and science just as much as in its teachings
> about faith and morals) is that this doctrine rests upon an assumption that
> everything stated in the Bible must be factually true (accurately reported)
> because it is God's word and God cannot say anything contrary to his nature
> as truth. This assumption leaves no place for accommodation to the beliefs of
> the Israelites. What Matt 19:8 shows is that God's inspired word can say
> something that is accommodated to the beliefs of the Israelites even when
> those beliefs are contrary to God's absolute standards, knowledge, character.
> Hence it falsifies the basis upon which absolute inerrancy is standing, and
> thereby the doctrine itself.
Mt.19:8 is also claimed by some as proof of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch - an issue not the same as "inerrancy" but closely related to it. Those who
(like myself) don't accept Mosaic authorship in a literal sense would argue that there
is here accomodation to Jewish traditions.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 16 2003 - 07:34:34 EDT