<< Once again, you overlook the possibility of 'frozen words'. These are words
frozen in a language that really don't mean what they sound like. Setting
sun, north POLE, etc. That might not be any more of a concession than you
talking about a beautiful sun rise (which it doesn't).
>>
I answered this the first time you brought it up. I will answer it again in
a slightly different way. Like all the other rationalizations for eliminating
the rock-solid firmament in Gen 1 your "frozen words" idea is resting upon NO
EVIDENCE and worse than that is contrary to all of the evidence that exists.
(I have set forth the evidence for the solidity of the firmament in my paper
on the firmament, and challenge anyone disputing it to find evidence to the
contrary.)
<<So tell me how one can be sure that God, who makes concessions on history
and science doesn't make concessions on theology? What is the difference.
Maybe the Hebrew theology was as screwed up as their history and science
yet God made a concession in order to talk to them? It seems to me that
once you have God making concessions to man, there is no legitimate end to it.
And,
<<Great, so how do you know this isn't a concession to the Hebrews who didn't
view Tiamat the same as the babylonians did? It seems to me one can only
have the view you do if you restrict God's concessions to the subjects of
history and science, but always have him correct on theology. What is the
evidence that this is the way God works? Ruling out theology seems rather
ad hoc.>>
According to Jesus (Matt 19:8/Mark 10:5) God did make concessions in
Scripture to man-and that in the realm of faith and morals. But, the
rationalistic philosophy that informs and underlies the doctrine of the
absolute inerrancy of Scripture would agree with you that once God makes a
concession, "there is no legitimate end to it." The question is: Which is
ultimate for you, the teaching of Jesus or the demands of human Reason for a
rationally coherent philosophical system which must rationalize away some of
his teachings in order to remain intact?
<<Once again, rather ad hoc. You have already said that God doesn't correct
the history mistakes of man when he is writing the scripture, but then you
seem to need a correct history at the resurrection. If the early chrsitians
made mistakes there, and said there was a resurrection when there wasn't,
this would be another example in which God didn't correct the historical
mistakes of mankind and thus consistent with your view. But consistency
there destroys Christianity. So, not being able to allow that, you state
that the resurrection is historical. So does god only correct the history
mistakes of people born in the AD, leaving the BC people to fend for
themselves?
And <<There are only 2 mentions of Jesus outside of religious documents. One
is
Josephus which says he was a teacher and Christ. But there have been some
suggestions that this was a later addition to his manuscript. The other was
by Tacitus and he was condemnatory of the whole thing. What other
historical documents aside from the Bible are you using as your basis?
Without something else, I don't think there a way to avoid the tautology.>>
I already answered these question too; but, I will say it slightly
differently: My consistency is not the consistency of a rationalistic
idealistic philosophical system. I believe in empirical data, not building
great rationally coherent systems that float above the real world. My
consistency is that I am willing to apply historical criticism to all the
historical books of the Bible. When I do, the gospels do not suffer
historical demise the way Genesis 1-11 does because the gospels as history
qua history are based on eye-witnesses, whereas Gen 1-11 as history qua
history is based on ancient Mesopotamian traditions. There is a world of
difference between those two sources.
<<Your response really didn't answer the question of what it means to be
inspired. If God doesn't correct science and doesn't correct history
(except corrections where the resurrection is concerned) then what do we
get from inspiration?>>
I answered this question too. I will only add that the word "inspiration" is
only used one time in the Bible: II Tim 3:16. I have already shown in my
book that none of the classic proof texts prove that divine inspiration
implies the revealing or correcting of science; so, my question would be What
proof do you have that inspiration includes the revealing and correcting of
science and history and that you are not just accepting a man-made definition
of inspiration because it meets your desire to have a coherent rationalistic
philosophical system?
Many so-called conservative evangelicals have an ultimate commitment to an a
priori rationalistic philosophy which demands that the Bible be historically
and scientifically inerrant. If there is even one error, they say, you
cannot trust anything. This is Rationalism. Many atheists have that same
commitment. Christians who have that commitment sustain it by rationalizing
away not only the empirical data which falsifies it, but the teachings of
Jesus as well. This a priori philosophical commitment functions as an
intellectual graven image which subordinates both the real Bible and Jesus
Christ to it. When some Christians ostensibly move from Christianity to
atheism, the reality is that they have fundamentally not moved at all, but
only exchanged a right wing form of their commitment to rationalism for a
left wing form. The ultimate commitment is the same. The antidote to both
forms of idolatry is to make an ultimate commitment to Jesus. Trust Him.
And that brings me to Bill Hamilton's and George Andrews' posts which I
really think are of the essence.
Paul S.