From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 13:45:56 EST
In response to Peter Ruest's reply to Bob Schneider.
1) Biblical criticism is not necessarily contrary to holding to inspiration.
Basically every book on biblical studies in the IVP catalogue accept both
criticism and inspiration. It is impoosible to read the bible with holding
to some kind of criticsim, whether source-, historical- redaction- or
To write as you do you aresaying Luther, Calvin, Blocher and every other
scholar who holds to full inspiration is lying or misguided.
2) Consider Calvin who lived for a time in Geneva. He stressed that God
"accommodated" himself to the thought forms of the day and thought questions
on astronomy were theological irrelvant and Moses wrtoe for the "rude and
unlearned" Remeber Galileo - the bilbe teachs how to go to heaven and not
how the heavens go.
3) > The historical-critical method has rewritten virtually all of Israel's
> OT history and made suspect or irrelevant much of the theology conveyed,
> in God's plan, by this history. A historical-critical analysis ignoring
> divine influence and inspiration of the entire canonical Bible as a
> whole is sure to go off on a tangent.
This is a gross half-truth as it depends on what presup[ositions one has
behind one's use of critical methods.
4> "The Bible claims to be inspired by God. He designed it for all
> cultures, but letting it be contaminated with gross errors would
> compromise it in some of them.
The Bible has to use the thought forms of the day.
I think Peter you overstate your case. It is most likely that the OT
writers were flat-earthers but Luke and Paul were not. Also one cannot
expect biblical writers to write in a compatible way with modern science -
there aim was to expalin the ways of God to the common man.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 01:48:42 EST