Re: What is your faith based on?

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 14:31:17 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: What is your faith based on?"

    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