2 added 97 characters in body
source | link

I have recently been addressed a comment by a user[1], onwhile dealing with the issueissues of whether Abraham left Haran before or after the death of his father TerahTerah's death and of the inerrancy of deacon Stephen's statement on the former issue, criticizing my view of biblical inerrancy in the strongest terms: "Besides, who is going to decide what are minor issues and what are major issues? I urge you to come to your senses, Hebrews 3:12." With Heb 3:12 stating "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."

Besides the hilarious fact thatirony of someone who holdsholding the literal historicity of a narrative that flatly contradicts observations - i.e. what is perceived by the perception of human senses as interpreted by the human reason - urgesurging me to come to my senses, I understand that some people cannot disconnect the belief in the historicity of Jesus' life, miracles and resurrection as narrated in the Gospels (which I hold) from the belief in, e.g., the historicity of the genealogies of Genesis ch. 5 and 11, including the patriarchal ages, so that they adopt a position of unqualifiedwhich I call "unqualified biblical inerrancyinerrancy", which implies holding YEC.

For this discussion, let's define qualifiedI call "qualified biblical inerrancy asinerrancy" the position holding that:

  • the purpose of divine Revelation is to teach the truth which is relevant to our salvation, and not to teach natural science, profane history, or other forms of merely worldly knowledge for their own sakes;sakes, and

  • the errors or lack thereof (i.e. inerrancy) of a text are defined in relation to its purpose.

Thus, qualified biblical inerrancy allows for the presence of factual errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

So the question is: is the position of unqualified biblical inerrancy the only acceptable line for answers in CSE? In practical terms, is CSE's official policy "get YEC or get out"?

[1] https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/46329/29624

I have recently been addressed a comment by a user, on the issue of whether Abraham left Haran before or after the death of his father Terah and deacon Stephen's statement on the issue, criticizing my view of biblical inerrancy in the strongest terms: "Besides, who is going to decide what are minor issues and what are major issues? I urge you to come to your senses, Hebrews 3:12." With Heb 3:12 stating "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."

Besides the hilarious fact that someone who holds the literal historicity of a narrative that flatly contradicts observations - i.e. what is perceived by the human senses as interpreted by the human reason - urges me to come to my senses, I understand that some people cannot disconnect the belief in the historicity of Jesus' life, miracles and resurrection as narrated in the Gospels (which I hold) from the belief in, e.g., the historicity of the genealogies of Genesis ch. 5 and 11, including the patriarchal ages, so that they adopt a position of unqualified biblical inerrancy, which implies holding YEC.

For this discussion, let's define qualified biblical inerrancy as the position holding that:

  • the purpose of divine Revelation is to teach the truth which is relevant to our salvation, and not to teach natural science, profane history, or other forms of merely worldly knowledge for their own sakes;

  • the errors or lack thereof (i.e. inerrancy) of a text are defined in relation to its purpose.

Thus, qualified biblical inerrancy allows for the presence of factual errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

So the question is: is the position of unqualified biblical inerrancy the only acceptable line for answers in CSE? In practical terms, is CSE's official policy "get YEC or get out"?

I have recently been addressed a comment [1], while dealing with the issues of whether Abraham left Haran before or after his father Terah's death and of the inerrancy of deacon Stephen's statement on the former issue, criticizing my view of biblical inerrancy in the strongest terms: "Besides, who is going to decide what are minor issues and what are major issues? I urge you to come to your senses, Hebrews 3:12." With Heb 3:12 stating "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."

Besides the irony of someone holding the literal historicity of a narrative that flatly contradicts observations - i.e. the perception of human senses as interpreted by human reason - urging me to come to my senses, I understand that some people cannot disconnect the belief in the historicity of Jesus' life, miracles and resurrection as narrated in the Gospels (which I hold) from the belief in, e.g., the historicity of the genealogies of Genesis ch. 5 and 11, including the patriarchal ages, so that they adopt a position which I call "unqualified biblical inerrancy", which implies holding YEC.

For this discussion, I call "qualified biblical inerrancy" the position holding that:

  • the purpose of divine Revelation is to teach the truth which is relevant to our salvation, and not to teach natural science, profane history, or other forms of merely worldly knowledge for their own sakes, and

  • the errors or lack thereof (i.e. inerrancy) of a text are defined in relation to its purpose.

Thus, qualified biblical inerrancy allows for the presence of factual errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

So the question is: is the position of unqualified biblical inerrancy the only acceptable line for answers in CSE? In practical terms, is CSE's official policy "get YEC or get out"?

[1] https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/46329/29624

1
source | link

Is unqualified bibilical inerrancy, which implies YEC, the only acceptable line in CSE?

I have recently been addressed a comment by a user, on the issue of whether Abraham left Haran before or after the death of his father Terah and deacon Stephen's statement on the issue, criticizing my view of biblical inerrancy in the strongest terms: "Besides, who is going to decide what are minor issues and what are major issues? I urge you to come to your senses, Hebrews 3:12." With Heb 3:12 stating "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."

Besides the hilarious fact that someone who holds the literal historicity of a narrative that flatly contradicts observations - i.e. what is perceived by the human senses as interpreted by the human reason - urges me to come to my senses, I understand that some people cannot disconnect the belief in the historicity of Jesus' life, miracles and resurrection as narrated in the Gospels (which I hold) from the belief in, e.g., the historicity of the genealogies of Genesis ch. 5 and 11, including the patriarchal ages, so that they adopt a position of unqualified biblical inerrancy, which implies holding YEC.

For this discussion, let's define qualified biblical inerrancy as the position holding that:

  • the purpose of divine Revelation is to teach the truth which is relevant to our salvation, and not to teach natural science, profane history, or other forms of merely worldly knowledge for their own sakes;

  • the errors or lack thereof (i.e. inerrancy) of a text are defined in relation to its purpose.

Thus, qualified biblical inerrancy allows for the presence of factual errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

So the question is: is the position of unqualified biblical inerrancy the only acceptable line for answers in CSE? In practical terms, is CSE's official policy "get YEC or get out"?