Here is some further dialogue
VJ: One thing that worries me about textual criticism is this: even
though God has indicated at the very outset that his capabilities are
boundless, the critics are able to convince themselves (and others) that
their pronouncements are conclusive.
PHS I have never read a single textual critic who said or implied that his
pronouncements were conclusive. I think you are working from a straw man.
I think it is reasonable to believe the OT has come down to us substantially
as it was written, and even that the following editors maintained the major
thrusts; but, the OT text, as is clearly seen in the many biblical
manuscripts at Qumran, has had numerous changes and corruptions; and the
further back you go, the more the divergencies. It is not even a question of
probabilities: it is a clear fact that the OT text has been corrupted.
Further, since the earliest OT manuscripts we have are hundreds (and in the
case of Moses over a thousand) years later, there is no way of knowing
empirically what the original texts looked like. (Happily, the NT text can be
reconstructed with a very high probability of representing the original
texts).
VJ: Wouldn't you agree that in every generation God has provided 'his men' -
a 'seed', or 'remnant' of believers - people divorced from the general body
of idolaters? This is surely implied by the 'her seed' and 'thy seed' of
Gn.3:15. I believe the genealogy of Luke 3 defines such a line, and suggest
that this is the 'channel' through which his word has ever been faithfully
transmitted.
PHS I do agree that every generation has a remnant; but, this does not mean
they are all from the same family. In one generation, the remnant may be in
the family of Ham, in another the family of Shem, in another the family of
Japheth, in another the family of Ham again but four generations later. The
idea of a remnant does not imply an unbroken line of genealogical descent.
Luke 3 does not make any claims to be a spiritually pure genealogical line;
and in v. 34 it names Terah. As I pointed out before, Terah and his family
were idolaters, serving false gods (Josh 24:14; Gen 31:19); so, we know the
genealogical line in Luke 3 does not represent the remnant in every
generation listed.
VJ Agreeing that it is in man's unregenerate nature to downgrade or
deny his creator, isn't it reasonable to believe that his whole approach
to the word of God must be one of skepticism or downright opposition?
Until his eyes are opened by a miracle of grace will he not, therefore,
seek to destroy the foundations of the Gospel? Will he not tend to
accept evolution as fact - the reason for his being here?!
PHS: Certainly unregenerate man has a bias against the Word of God and has
read philosophical naturalism into the data that supports evolution. But, I
could write a book on all of ways fundamentalists have misrepresented the
Word of God and opposed the Truth.
Since we spoke above of OT textual criticism, let me give you just one
example of fundamentalist deceit. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were first
found, a copy of Isaiah (IQIsaa) was found that had a text quite similar to
the previously available copies of Isaiah from a thousand years later. That
is indeed striking and testifies to the carefulness of the copying within the
massoretic tradition AFTER the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fundamentalists
jumped on the band wagon proclaiming far and wide that the IQIsaa showed that
the original OT text had been accurately preserved in the Massoretic text
(the text that underlies our Bibles). This half-truth is found on pp. 261,
263 of Norman Geisler and William Nix's General Introduction to the Bible and
was also mentioned in a recent (Oct 6, 1998) article in Christianity Today.
But, the manuscripts from Qumran show clearly that the preservation of the
original OT text was not nearly as accurate before 100 AD as afterwards. What
these fundamentalists do not tell you is that the text of Jeremiah in the
Septuagint, which is one seventh shorter, has a different order and other
changes, is closer to the original than the text of Jeremiah in everyone's
Bibles. Similarly, the text of Samuel which is longer in the Septuagint is
closer to the original than the text in our Bibles. Those are the outstanding
differences; and the differences vary from book to book; but, my point is
simply that although this is just one example out of many I could cite,
ultra-conservative evangelicals are just as likely to distort the truth as
unbelievers.
When I asked you if you preferred the biblical description of the sky as a
rock-solid dome to the current scientific description, you answered
VJ No. But, rather than be pedantic, I think we have to allow for some
evolution in the semantics of Hebrew words like 'raqia' as our understanding
of the world and universe increases. Why should you suppose God would fix the
meaning of this word in stone?
PHS: I accept that the revelation of God creating the sky should be applied
to our own understanding of the sky. Similarly that the revelation of God as
the Creator of the animal world and man should be applied to our
understanding of that process. I am only asking that you be consistent. If
you reject the Bible's literal description of the sky, (as well, I presume,
of its flat earth floating on an ocean), because you know these concepts are
not scientifically sound, it is only fair and consistent that you allow
geologists the right to reject a young earth since that concept is not
scientifically sound, and allow paleontologists the right to reject the
creation of all genera within a few days of the creation of man since that
concept is not scientifically sound.
It is completely irrelevant to the meaning of Genesis that the semantics of
the Hebrew words in Genesis 1, such as raqia', evolve with time. The words
in Genesis mean what they meant to the author and the first readers. Even
fundamentalist scholars stress this point. The later changes in the meanings
of words have nothing to do with the meaning in Genesis. In Shakespeare and
in the KJV you have words that have evolved new meanings; but, it is the
meanings they had in 1611 that determine the meanings of those texts. If you
put modern definitions on the words in Shakespeare and in the KJV which have
changed since they were written, you will distort the text to the point of
virtually rewriting it. Words have meanings within historical contexts; and
you cannot take later meanings and read them into earlier texts without
distorting them.
Paul S.