Re: The Flood Hoax

From: george murphy (
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 22:25:30 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > george murphy wrote:
    > > Walter Hicks wrote:
    > >
    > > > george murphy wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > & any attempt to find some historical niche for
    >Gen.6:1-4 & perhaps some
    > > > > historical evidence for the _nephilim_, the descendants of
    >the "sons of the
    > > > > gods" and "the daughters on men," seems to me to be a _reductio ad
    > > > >absurdum_ of
    > > > > concordism.
    > > >
    > > > Why not (possibly) of innerancy?
    > >
    > > Because this doesn't eman that there's any error in the text.
    > But if the text were in error (because those writing it thought
    >they were telling real
    > history) , then it would be a problem of inerrancy.
    > So how is one supposed to tell the difference? It seems as though
    >you are saying that:
    > when it is real history, then it is real history. When it is not
    >real history, then it
    > was something other than real history. Either way the OT gets to be
    >inerrant by
    > definition. (Good thing too, since the Bible never decreed itself
    >to be inerrant. Left
    > that to other people.)

             OK by me.
             Seriously -
             1) In the 1st place, as I've said before, I try to avoid the
    term "inerrancy"
    with reference to scripture. This isn't because it can't be
    understood correctly but
    because the way it's been used in past debates almost always leads
    people to equate it
    with "true as a scientifically and historically accurate report." &
    in that sense it's
             2) On the straight factual level there are errors in the
    Bible. Pace Mt.27:9,
    the quote in question is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. (Yes, I know
    about Jeremiah & the
             3) We can't be sure what was in the mind of the writer or
    editor of Genesis who
    put 6:1-4 in place so I don't know how he understood it. We can,
    however, say something
    about the likely sources of the text & about how it's used in Genesis.
             4) If, as seems likely, these verses function in Genesis in
    the way I've
    suggested, & we read them this way, there is no error involved. If
    we try to read them as
    something they're not then we'll either conclude that they're wrong
    or will try to concoct
    some implausible historical scenario to make them true.

    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 22:25:39 EDT