Re: Schaefer's Book.

From: <>
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 03:32:51 EDT

Glenn wrote,

> And if the account [in Genesis one] is only the work of the human writer, I
> would agree with you and then decide that Genesis isn't worthy of being
> considered
> for any serious use at all. The fact is, the Bible is supposed to be
> divinely inspired, what ever that means in practice. If God inspired it,
> but he inspired stupidity, then how do we have any confidence in
> anything he wrote.
> I have grave concerns about your view that there is no concord. In my
> book, it makes the Bible false. Simply false and our atheist critics
> are correct.
I do not believe Genesis 1 (or 1--11) is "only the work of the human writer."
 I do believe that it is 100% divinely inspired. But, was it the INTENTION of
God to teach us HOW the universe was created, the order, the length of time,
the nature of the physical world, etc.? Did any prophet, apostle, or Jesus
ever cite Scripture in order to teach physical science? 2 Tim 3:16, 17 tells us
why the Bible was inspired: so that "the man of God may be adequate (or
proficient), equipped for every good work." The purpose of the inspiration is to
give us information that educates us spiritually, not scientifically.

When missionary translators went to New Guinea, they found a primitive people
who knew nothing of sheep, but had an economy and culture based upon pigs,
and they very highly valued pigs. Now the absolute truth is that in the OT pigs
are UNCLEAN, and were not used for sacrifice. Further, the absolute truth is
that John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world."
But, in the interests of good communication the missionaries made concessions
to the deeply pre-ingrained cultural ideas, and they translated the text,
"Behold the Pig of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Looked at from one angle, the missionaries made that Bible verse False,
simply false; but would you say it is no longer inspired?

Or can genuine inspiration employ concession to deeply pre-ingrained cultural
ideas while at the same time communicating absolutely true spiritual truth?

In fact, by mistranslating the verse, by making it say something that was
absolutely not true to what the text actually said, did they not enhance the
communication of the spiritual truth?

Received on Sun Aug 15 03:46:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 03:46:50 EDT