Who wrote the Bible? (was other stuff)

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 13:47:22 EDT

  • Next message: J Burgeson: "Re: Randomness"

    Hi Blake. Thanks for your response. I appreciate the
    opportunity to dialogue.

    >Jim, you cannot be serious (nor could any conservative
    >theologian) in writing that "God wrote the Bible" as
    >if He physically put pen to paper. That is really a
    >huge definitional leap from the Bible consists of
    >God-inspired writings, written by human beings.

    Somewhere in the NT (Jesus himself?) it says that the OT was
    "written" by the Holy Spirit. This is how prophecy was fulfilled.

    >I generally sympathize with your desire to have a
    >clear cut, bright line, but your view is really overly
    >simplistic in this regard.

    Blake, I think that you make an accurate statement about many
    "conservative theologians." I try to be self-aware. YECs,
    without question, fall into the "conservative" category.
    I am guilty by association.

    >Bear in mind, I am not saying that any book of the
    >Bible is not literally true nor that it is not
    >inspired by God (I think I am still staying away from
    >heresy so far).


    >You seem insistent that your version has to be the
    >true version

    No, actually I'm not. Everyone is responsible for his or her
    own life. I'm just doing what seems right to me.

    >and if someone does not see that, then
    >they are somehow defective.

    I'm not sure what your definition of "defective" is. Obviously,
    the universe is ca 12-15B years old, or it isn't. Some will be right,
    and some will be wrong. I guess that wrong would meet your definition
    of "defective."

    >Likewise, you seem quite
    >untroubled that a person would either lose faith or
    >not come to Christ because they do not accept your
    >interpretation of any particular portion of the Bible.
    >This may not be the case, but it appears to be the
    >case and this is what I find sad.

    The Bible can speak for itself.

    >Bear in mind, I am not saying that your conclusions
    >are wrong. Nor am I saying that all things in the
    >Bible are negotiable. Christianity does clearly make
    >some truth claims with a capital T.

    It sounds like we're on the same page here.

    >I am saying that to expand those truth claims
    >unnecessarily and to assert or imply that those
    >additional truth claims are the central part of
    >Christianity or necessary for Christian faith is a

    I'll "tailor" this comment to Gen 1. I continue to
    see three options for a Christian.

    YEC, day-age, or theology-only (yes, I confess to
    a bit of "name-calling" when I call this theologism).
    I call it theologism because, to me, it is abundantly
    clear that Gen 1 is presenting itself as a creation
    account. Ideas that it's not (ICBW) creep in when
    people start to realize that it is a "backward prophecy."
    Some people (ICBW) want no part of this.

    Thanks again for your post,


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 30 2002 - 18:24:13 EDT