From: allenroy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 12:09:05 EDT
Jim Eisele wrote:
>>Problems in other
>>translations can always be "solved" by appealing to the original
>>manuscripts. Since those are not available, such a solution seems to me to
>>be without any usefulness.
>If the original manuscripts/tablets are inerrant, the Bible is more
>reliable. It becomes a divine document, not a human document. I imagine
>that most of us at least consider the Bible to be 99% accurate.
>Any chance that we simply don't fully understand the rest? Does it
>really matter if Mark only mentions one blind man? This shows that
>Mark's & Matthew's accounts are not merely copies of each other.
I don't believe that the original's were any more inerrant than any
thing else we have today.
The very fact that an infinite God had to communicate to finite humans
using flawed human beings to write in flawed human language there is no
way that the originals could precisly describe God to us. God inspired
men to write, but he did not write for them. They wrote as moved by the
Holy Spriit, not as dictated to by the Holy Spirit. Although it is a
human document, the Holy Spirit has insured that what we need to know is
in it. And, Jesus has promised that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the
book in the first place, will teach each of us what we need to know from
the Bible that He made sure is in the Bible.
Whether there is discrepencies between the number of blind men, or
demonicas is of little consequence. If there appear to be minor
differences of theology, the Holy Spirit is here and now to give us the
wisdom to know truth. The only problem is, do we really allow the Holy
Spirit to lead us in to all truth, or do we depend upon our own wisdom
and knowledge or that of other flawed human beings?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:55:41 EDT