--- Glenn Morton <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Even if this were true, this does not mean the
> >entirety of the Bible is false, nor does it mean
> >most important parts are. First, the Bible is NOT
> >unitary document.
> Well, as was pointed out by Terry I believe, Jesus
> and the early disciples
> seemed to believe early Genesis was true in the
> sense I use that term. If
> it isn't, then at the very least, Jesus had either
> poor knowledge of what
> happened, didn't tell the truth or he isn't who he
> claims to be. If Jesus
> had poor knowledge because of his humanity, then one
> can justly ask if he
> knew correctly that he was God.
I would be interested in pointing out where Jesus
refers to Genesis 1 as either a "scientific" or an
historical document and uses it for that purpose for a
Messianic claim. It seems to me that the Hebrew
scripture was scripture for Jesus. It does not seem
to me that his interpretation is always literal.
> The reason this
> comes up is due to an
> experience a friend of mine had during an episode in
> college. This guy
> thought he was, well, a messiah. He thought God
> sent him to save the world.
> Through counseling he was brought to his senses and
> now lives a normal life
> with wife, kids etc. He was wrong in his messianic
> beliefs but didn't know
> it. If Jesus didn't know what the truth was about
> Genesis, it raises the
> memory in my mind of my poor friend.
This depends in part on what you mean by truth.
First, I do not think there is evidence that he had a
literal historical or scientific understanding of
Genesis, but even if he did, so what? If he didn't
you could still make the claim he was deluded. There
is no way out of that except his actions. Did your
deluded friend have profound healing effects on other
people who came into relationsip with him? Did your
friend show tremendous compassion for those that
society rejected? Has your friend died and been
resurrected by God? The argument can be framed in all
sorts of ways as to what is "validation" of Jesus'
messiahship. Albert Schweitzer thought Jesus was
deluded and I don't think that was based on his view
that Genesis 1 was wrong, but on the view that the
Kingdom of God did not occur as Albert thought Jesus
> >> > There are two problems with this whole
> >> concordist
> >> >approach. First, it
> >> >assumes that texts can be true & authoritative
> >> if they are accurate
> >> >historical &/or scientific accounts. Secondly,
> >> they start in the
> >> >wrong place -
> >> >the OT, & Genesis in particular, rather than the
> >> & Christ. The OT is
> >> >important - nay, indispensable. But it's to be
> >> read in the light
> >> >of the NT, not
> >> >vice versa. If you start either systematic
> >> theology or
> >> >apologetics with Genesis
> >> >then your theological framework has already been
> >> solidified before
> >> >you get to
> >> >any explicit mention of Christ.
> >These are very good points, which your subsequent
> >comment does not address.
> At this point, I won't comment further because I
> gave George the last word
> and I will stick with that decision. Beleive, me,
> you don't want to see
> George and I going after it and neither do we. I
> like George and don't wish
> to do that to our friendship.
> >> If you remember Ugaboogah, the god of the
> >> of whom I spoke years
> >> ago
> >> if Jehovah didn't
> >> create the universe, and Ugabooga did, then we
> >> should worship Ugaboogah and
> >> forget the Bible.
> >This is logically incorrect. You assume that
> >Ugaboogah is not the same God that the Jews called
> >Jehovah and that it was not Ugaboogah who worked in
> >the history of the Jews (whom they perceived as
> >Jehovah). It seems to me that you could never have
> >this kind of proof.
> Ugabooga loves plump young virgins. He is not the
> same as the God the Jews
> called Jehovah.
Why, because you say so? Again, there is no
verification principle here. How do we know if
Ugaboogah is someone else incorrectly perceiving
> >This is true, only to the extent that the
> >experience of the disciples was false. But, the
> >resurrection experience is attested to not only by
> >documents contained in the NT, but by the lives of
> >apostles. There is no disputing that the
> >was real to them. While you may debate about how
> >occurred, the NT is very clear that it DOES NOT
> >describe the mechanism. Only the result and the
> >meaning to the disciples. In one vein which goes
> >far (I think) it is the kerygma that matters, not
> >act itself. However, the two are heavily
> >and you CAN NOT say that the experience was not
> >to the disciples.
> Didn't say that the experience wasn't real. The
> experience of Messiahship
> was real to my friend. It just so happens it wasn't
> at the same time
Yes, but was the experience TRUE to others whose lives
he touched, or did they just think him a crackpot.
You cannot separate the life of Jesus from the kerygma
and the resurrection experiences. What you have to
argue is that everyone in the early church was deluded
with essentially the same delusion that Jesus had. As
far as I am aware, Jim Jones' followers and David
Koresh's followers and countless other charismatic
leaders claiming messiahship who have lived did not
have much success in spreading their claims or came to
realize that the claims of those people might not be
> >Read above. The Bible IS NOT A UNITARY DOCUMENT.
> >can not be said any simpler. Your conclusions are
> >logically and factually wrong and have NO support
> >the history of the compiling of "the" Bible through
> >ecumenical councils.
> The issue isn't how the Bible was compiled, the
> issue is God's inspiration
> of it.
The two are intertwined. The OT was accepted, in
large part, because that was the Jewish body of
canonical scripture at the time.
> If God didn't have anything to do with what
> got in the Bible and it
> was merely compiled by 5 cigar smoking guys in their
> garage, it means it
> isn't true.
No, it doesn't. It just means it is not God inspired.
I know lots of history and scientific textbooks
compiled by guys who smoke cigars whose contents are
reasonably verifiably true.
> I don't care if one guy per generation
> got to pick a book. If it
> doesn't have God's inspriration then it isnt' true.
> What does it mean to
> say that the Bible is inspired?
To say the Bible is inspired means nothing. To say
that the books that comprise the Bible represent the
experience of the authors in each particular instance
with God does mean something. I won't go into
hermeneutics, but inspiration does not mean dictation
and there is the imperfect lens of the author and the
imperfect lens of interpretation, I could go on. But,
it is not the case you can treat the Bible as one
thing or that you can say it is true or false. It
depends what criterion you use to measure truth or
falsity. All the books are true recordings of
people's perceived experience of God. They differ
significantly among themselves in their intent and in
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 11:07:53 EDT