At 11:21 AM 3/13/00 -0500, George Andrews wrote:
> Hi Glenn; I would like to rephrase the following questions which you put
>to George M. and address it to you.
<snip>
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?
First off, I would object to the term 'naive'. That is a term that is
reserved for those to whom we are condescending. I don't think it naive to
demand that facts from one area of knowledge should be consistent with
facts from another area. We demand that our theories of science in biology
conform to the theories of science in physics and chemistry. do you teach
your students that it is naive for physics and biology to be consistent?
Unless you think that that type of conformance is 'naive', I object to your
use of the term.
The question, however, is a good one (lacking the 'naive'). I want as
little inconsistency as I can get. I don't think it inappropriate to demand
as much consistency as we can get. If we don't, then we can believe
anything at all in religion. In fact, we can even believe young-earth
creationism because who cares about consistency. As one wag put it,
"Consistency is the sign of a small mind." Or something like that.
>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?
Once again I object to the term naive. Unless we are willing to allow
inconsistencies in other areas of our scientific lives, I am unwilling to
allow it when it comes to religion. Of the types of conflicts you cite, I
have worried about these often. It is exactly why Farrell Till whom I
mentioned the other day, left Christianity. While that might be, in your
eyes, a naive thing, it was a very honest thing. It is, IMO, a bit
dishonest to tell the emporer that his clothes are pretty.
>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. )
I am aware of many of these. I have chosen to work on one of them. Others
will have to work on the others.
>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".
One of the real contradictions I find in this entire issue is that those
who won't believe that there was a talking snake, because it is so absurd
to believe in such things, see no problem believing that a man dead three
days got up and walked around. Everyone knows it is as absurd to believe a
man rises from the dead 3 days later as it is for a snake to talk. Do you
believe in miracles at all?
>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?
P.S. I would be interested in more recent work on this subject of Biblical
Innerrancy; any recommendations?
Paul Seely has a book on the topic, Innerrant Wisdom.
I would also suggest you get on the inerrancy list and speak with a few of
the atheists there, as I have done. Try your arguments there and tell me
how successful you are with your supposedly sophisticated approach. Tell
them that the Bible can be true while it is innaccurate. Let me know when
you are going to do it so I can watch the fun.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 20:33:44 EST