>Nowhere in Deuteronomy are the laws of Moses distinguished from God's laws;
>and I doubt you can find many if any NT scholars who would say that Jesus is
>speaking of Moses as opposed to God.
Let me ask something. Have you ever considered the possibility that God
isn't behind Moses? You seem to consider all possibilities except this one.
Why?
In my opinion, if all we have is the words of Moses, claiming to have god
behind him, we are in trouble. It seems that you are willling to change
anything exept the idea that God somehow is speaking to us, even though he
constantly makes concessions to us which makes it very difficult to know
what is from God and what is a concession and what is from Moses. I simply
can't see how your view can sustains a viable christianity. Even my
suggestion last night has serious problems as Janet pointed out.
>Assuming that Gen 1-11 comes from Moses, dated c. say 1300 BC, even if these
>accounts are from eye-witnesses (which is a good question in itself) they
>would have to come down essentially intact for at least 1000 years
>(traditional date for the flood), which raises a lot of questions as to how
>accurate the report would still be.
Lets assume you are correct. The flood couldn't come down to us intact for
1000 years (something I don't agree with given the genealogies of the
Maori, but that is another story). Then what on earth makes you think that
the story of the fall can be more accurate than the story of the flood?
Afterall if the flood can't be accurately transmitted for 1000 years, why
do you believe in a Fall which must be related to us from an even more
distant time. If you say that the fall isn't historical then what is the
point of Christianity?????? We better find a new religion.
?And on your view, to come down
>essentially intact for 5.5 million years, well... I don't think any
>historian would expect to have any reliable information that much later.
>Whereas in the NT, the historical events are not more than one generation
>removed from the eye-witnesses. That is a very significant difference.
Then by that standard, no history book written and use today would be
trustworthy. They are all written generations after the events. Charlemagne
didn't have an Empire or at least we cant trust that he did because we
don't have eye-witness testimony. We don't have eye-witness testmony for
the 1st century christian events. Why? Because scribes have had to recopy
most documents and we can't be sure of how they are put together. Don't try
the fragmental approach about the NT which F.F. Bruce uses. We can't know
the order.
>
>I could have sworn I sent a one-sentence definition of inspiration in one of
>my posts; but, I can't find it; so, apparently you're right. If anyone knows
>of my one-sentence definition, let me know; or, I am going to have to
>increase my dosage of gingko biloba. (-:
>
Since the merger of my company and the overwhelming amount of work I find
myself forgetting more and more. Please pass the G. biloba I need some also
and my boss would agree. :-)
>So here is my definition: Because of the singularity of the word
>"God-breathed" there is little to go on from II Tim 3:16 except its
>grammatical form and the fact that God's out-breathing elsewhere in
Scripture
>results in effects willed by God. Combining these facts, the most that can
>be claimed for II Tim 3:16 is that all Scripture is a product of God's
>out-breathing. The nature of the product is left for definition from other
>data. I think the context of II Tim 3 is related to the wisdom literature
as
>is the moving of the Spirit of God in various biblical passages (e.g. Ex
>28:3; Dt 34:9; Isa 11:2); and that the import of 3:16 is that all parts of
>Scripture can be a profitable authoritative source for finding God's
wisdom.
>(I expound this more fully in chapter nine of my book.)
But how can we trust the wisdom of a source which concedes divorce and
other things because of our sin? What else has he conceded that we don't
know about???? Why believe something that is that uncertain and unsure?
>
>As to the nature of inspiration per se, I think it varies with the task. I
>believe it is legitimate to say that all of the spiritual gifts in I Cor 12
>are inspired by God; but not all of them are the gift of prophecy, that is,
>not all of them involve divine revelation. Similarly in the OT, although
>prophesying is the result of being filled with God's Spirit (God breathing
>out and into the person), there are other gifts as a result of being filled
>with God's Spirit.
>
>With reference to the work of the biblical historians, that is, the writers
>of the history books like I Sam, the Gospels, etc. I think the out-breathing
>of God gave the writers wisdom to find data, select, organize, etc. their
>works in a way that would serve God's purposes.
So does this mean that they were given wisdom which enabled them to pick
the wrong things, like fables and legends of Genesis 1-11? That doesn't
seem very wise to me.
This would be similar to the
>inspired wisdom that was given to the craftsman Bezalel to be skillful in
his
>works of gold, silver and brass and in the cutting of stones and the carving
>of wood (Ex 31:2-5) in order to build the Tabernacle. Like the tabernacle
>made from the sources and techniques available at that time (not from
>aluminum, steel, welding, etc.), the history we find in Scripture does not
>rise above the sources available to the workmen. Yet both are the result of
>craftsmen who are God-breathed.
How do you tell the difference between the work of a craftsman who is god
breathed and one who is good at what he does but otherwise irreligious?
This is a meaningless definition in my book.
>
><<So are we to have a committment to irrationalism? THis is an either or
>proposition. One is either rational or not. Ones views are either rational
>or not. I prefer rationality. And so do you because you try to use logic.
>If you really believed what you are complaining about(rationality) you
>would cease using logic to defend your viewpoint. But since you are
>rational and believe in rationality, you use logic but then use rational
>logic to denigrate rationality.>>
>
>
>I distinguish rationalism from rationality. I am thinking particularly of
>the building of philosophical systems which must dovetail logically at every
>point-even at the expense of ignoring or contradicting empirical data. You
>are right: I do not accept irrationalism; but, supra-rationalism; and that
>may result in having to say at times, I do not know; but, I trust the Lord.
Some progress. :-)
I would disagree with what you said lastnight about atheists being
committed to rationalism. They are committed to materialism. I am not. I am
committed to rationalism and rationalism doesn't contradict empirical data
either of scripture or of science. RAtionalism DEMANDS that things fit
together. Irrationalism allows things not to fit well. Contradictions are
possible in irrationalism but are to be avoided in rationalism.
An example. You remember when I reviewed your paper for the PSCF. I gave it
a whole hearted endorsement. I did that because the paper fit together and
was RATIONAL. If you had had serious internal contradictions in that paper
I would have had an opposite recommendation. So even though I disagreed
strongly with your paper, I gave it a positive nod because it was a good
defense of your position. An irrationalist would allow the publication of
anything because contradictions don't bother him. Why do contradictions
between data and religion and internal contradictions in our theology not
bother us enough? I find Christians willing to accept any ole concept so
long as they don't have to question the Bible (or its 'message') itself
><<Then evidence and logic means nothing. We can believe what we want. YECs
>can believe what they want and thus the YECs are correct. That is what
>simply believe means. They trust Jesus. They trust his Word. They are very
>devout. They have an ultimate commitment to Jesus. (and if you say they
>don't, then you really don't know them at all). They are very Christian.
>They are not moved by any rationalistic concerns. But they are very, very
>very wrong.>>
>
>I do not deny that by faith they have an ultimate commitment to Jesus and
are
>very devout. But, when it comes to defining inspiration and the nature of
>the Bible they are moved by rationalistic concerns.
And they should be. There problem is not rationalism but idealism. They
don't give a flip about observation.
Indeed, as I said, they
>put rationalistic concerns above even some of the teachings of Jesus.
No, they put some of their ideals above observation.
One of
>the propostions laid down by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy
>says that "later revelation cannot contradict earlier revelation." That
is a
>very rationalistically motivated proposition. If they held it with
>consistency, they would have to uphold the laws of the OT in toto. And it is
>the rationalistic definition of biblical inerrancy which has been most fully
>explicated by the International Council that is the foundation of creation
>science.
That position is wrong because it assumes that people in the past
INTERPRETED the revelation correctly. If they didn't then past 'revelation'
can be changed.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution