From: Dick Fischer (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 14:31:17 EDT
Ian Hassell wrote:
>My first-ever post to this group asked the question - "if the Bible isn't
>true, then what is your faith based upon?" I never received an answer,
>rather I got a lot of long-winded explanations about the changing nature of
>language, the difficulty of translation, the inability of us to know
>author's intent, etc.
Can we agree that we can have faith in those things we can
substantiate with data and evidence - the stuff of science. Those
things we believe can fall within or outside the realm of religious
beliefs. If our religious beliefs are not based upon evidence, and
personal testimony falls within that realm, we can have good cause to
question them. That's how we filter out cults, for example. Cults
and false religions have beliefs that require blind obedience
without anything to back them up.
Personally, I believe the overall credibility of the Scriptures has
been substantiated due to internal and external evidence. The
historical corroboration is impressive. With substantiation of major
parts of the Bible, I assume that even the stuff I can't substantiate
is also true because the sources are proven trustworthy.
But people who talk like you talk will go on to say (not putting you
on the spot) the Bible describes a worldwide flood, for example, so
just believe it. I take issue with that. 1. The flood was local.
2. The Bible, taken in its entirety, describes a flood which need
not be universal in scope.
> If God intended us to have His word (as He references
>several times within the Bible), if Christ re-affirmed the inspiration of
>the OT (and taught from it) then wouldn't He have taken care to maintain it
>throughout a couple thousand years so that our understanding of Him in 2002
>could be as real as it was in 0002?
What God could have done is not the question. The fact is that the
original texts are not preserved, and since all the extant copies
differ, we can assume that there are differences between the
surviving copies and the originals. Then, the texts had to be
translated and interpreted. This was not done without error. Don't
ask us to point out all the errors.
So if the question is, "wouldn't He have taken care to maintain it,"
the answer is that the Scriptures and His good creation have been
placed in human hands. We have treated the Scriptures with great
care, but being human, we (scribes, translators, interpreters,
expositors) have made strictly human mistakes down through the ages.
Deal with it.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 22:17:09 EDT