Fw: (Ron) Definition of Inerrancy

Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Thu, 3 Sep 1998 22:54:42 -0400 (00904895682, 19980904030352.QMHB6414@109152022worldnet.att.net) 


>> JEFF

>> We start with the assumptions that there is some sort of standard 

upon

>> which we can agree, and which can be applied to observable objects.

>> Standards seem to exist that we would call "hot" or "cold", "red" or

>> "blue".  In fact, many of these turn out to be not boolean (true or

>> false), but to lie along a sort of continuum (Or, possibly, to be

>> discrete but with enough values that it seems a continuum) from 

hotness

>> to coldness, from redness to blueness (color is actually a higher

>> dimensional space, at least three in most models (RGB, HSV, CMYK) but

>> we can pick any mapping we like f(x,y,z,...)->integer to rate colors.

>> I digress.)

>>

>> So, for any object for which we can observe or infer something

>> qualitative about one of these agreed qualities (the color of a star 

by

>> observation or the mass of a subatomic particle by inference, for

>> instance) we can make an ordering.  For example,

>>         Photon

>>         Electron

>>         Proton, Neutron

>> in this list we've ranked some of the subatomic particles in order

>> of their mass.  Of this list, we'd say that "electron" is heavier 

than

>> "photon", and that "proton" is heavier than "electron".  The regular

>> rules of comparison fall right out (a<b & b<c -> a<c, etc.) and we 

get

*snip*

RON
  You said:"When I say "perfect", I sometimes mean "the best in my 
experience"

>> (like "heaviest" from the first example) or even just "among the best

>> in my experience."  I might say, "This pizza was cooked to 

perfection"

>> when I have this sort of idea of perfect in my head.  The kind of

>> perfection I'm arguing about here, however, is among all logically

>> possible things, not just ones that I know to exist.  So, something

>> isn't "perfect" if there's a logically possible greater thing."

  As is evident from this quote your definition of "perfection" is 
relative to your experience. The point I am trying to get you to 
recognize is that your definition, and that of most of western society 
is subjective and based on your cultural indoctrination. What you fail 
to acknowledge (from my previous post) is that your version of a perfect 
God is based on the perspective of the Greek philosophers. Good, evil, 
justice, injustice, etc. are all based on a particular standard. For 
example to a modern american stealing might be considered evil. For a 
Sioux Indian in the 18th Century stealing from someone outside the tribe 
might be perfectly acceptable, in fact good.
  How can you expect God to conform to your definition of perfect? Based 
on your reasoning everyone would have to understand every verse in the 
Bible for God to be perfect. This would have to be true even of 
illiterates or it would fall short of perfection. I think you see where 
this would lead.
  As to the parable of the wedding feast, the meaning is obvious. Either 
you are in or out of the Kingdom when He returns (which would be even 
sooner if you died before His physical return). Either you are clothed 
in His righteousness or not. 

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com