Hi Glenn;
I would like to rephrase the following questions which you put to George M. and address
it to you.
glenn morton wrote:
> At 10:18 PM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > The fact remains that I do not "reject" Genesis 3. "Don't believe to be an
> >accurate account of historical events" is not equivalent to "reject".
>
> So how inaccurate can Truth be? Especially Truth which is inspired by God?
> How inaccurate can God's Truth be? And if God's truth is inaccurate here,
> is He inaccurate when it comes to telling us the way of Salvation? How
> inaccurate is that message? And if it is inaccurate, is it still possible
> for us to be saved?
>
I'll assume that in the above paragraph you equate "Truth" and "God's truth" to the
Bible.
My rephrasement: How much inaccuracy will you accept in the Bible so as to not consider
it "Truth" (with a capital letter) in the naive and absolute sense that you do?
For example, can the Bible remain "Truth" and contain inconsistencies in historical
settings? An instance of this - which is not poetry - is found where Mark (5th chap.)
says Jesus was at the lakeside when approached by the ruler requesting Jesus to come
and raise his daughter from the dead - but according to Matthew's recollection (9th
chap.), Jesus was dining in Matthew's house. Was he at the beach or at dinner? (A
lakeside picnic is not acceptable :-) ) Should we throw out the rest of Matthew and
Mark (not to mention salvation/redemption!) because of this inconsistency? Or should
we take a less naive approach and discern the truths (no caps) inherent in these
gospels by dismissing this - and other - minor inconsistency (inconsistencies) as a
lapse in one or both of the disciples memories when, decades later, they set about to
record the prevailing oral traditions?
For other historical inaccuracies found in scripture I refer you to the experts on this
list-serve (or see "Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture, Beegle, "The Inspiration
of Scripture", Phila.. : Westminster Press, 1963. )
George M. rightfully reminds us of the centrality of the person of Christ as opposed to
creation; I would like to add the further reminder that Christ is a living person and,
to the Christian, is the only Truth worthy of capitalizaion - not simply the sacred
record found in the Bible. "For it is written" :-) , Jesus said to the pharisaical and
conservative minds of his day: "You search the scriptures for in them you think you
have life; but it is they that speak of me".
My desire and intent is not to undermine the authority of scripture, but to see it for
what it is. Is this not a search for truth andTruth?
Sincerely
George A.
P.S. I would be interested in more recent work on this subject of Biblical Innerrancy;
any recommendations?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 11:10:34 EST