<< And as to God making the concessions to the sinful desires for divorce, I
don't see Matthew 19:8 saying that God made that concession. Jesus clearly
says it was Moses. Since when is Moses God? And in Mark 10:5, Jesus clearly
says it was Moses who wrote the law. Maybe it wasn't God who made the
concessions you say He made after all! Maybe it was Moses--which is what
the Scripture says. >>
The preamble to the divorce laws in Deut 24:1-4 is in Deut 11:1 "You shall
therefore love the Lord your God and always keep His charge, His statues, His
ordinances, and His commandments." And 11:13, 14 "And it shall come about
that if you listen obediently to my commandments which I am commanding you
today…that _I will give the rain for your land in its season_…" The
implication is that God is speaking through Moses.
The laws which Moses gives are from God. This fact is repeated in
11:27" if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am
commanding you today…"
13:18 "If you will listen to the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all His
commandments which I am commanding you today…" and
15:5 "if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to
observe carefully all his commandment which I am commanding you today"
Then after the laws on divorce in 24;1-4, it is repeated again in
27:10 "You shall therefore obey the Lord your God, and do his commandments
and statues which I command you today." And in
28:1 "Now it shall be, if you will diligently obey the Lord your God, being
careful to do all His commandments which I command you today.."
Nowhere in Deuteronomy are the laws of Moses distinguished from God's laws;
and I doubt you can find many if any NT scholars who would say that Jesus is
speaking of Moses as opposed to God.
<<So we believe the humans of the 1st century, but we don't beleive the
humans, Noah, Shem, Ham and Japeth of an earlier century. This is
inconsistent. And I do believe that Noah and sons were eye-witnesses to the
events they or their descendants described. I think you are merely
accepting the eye-witness testimony of those you want to believe, but
rejecting those you don't.
<<And if we must only accept eye-witness testimony but not traditions passed
down from others, then throw out Mark and Luke, and Paul must go also.
These 3 crucial figures never saw any of the events which are so crucial to
christianity. You treat the OT different from the NT epistemalogically
speaking.>>
Assuming that Gen 1-11 comes from Moses, dated c. say 1300 BC, even if these
accounts are from eye-witnesses (which is a good question in itself) they
would have to come down essentially intact for at least 1000 years
(traditional date for the flood), which raises a lot of questions as to how
accurate the report would still be. And on your view, to come down
essentially intact for 5.5 million years, well... I don't think any
historian would expect to have any reliable information that much later.
Whereas in the NT, the historical events are not more than one generation
removed from the eye-witnesses. That is a very significant difference.
<<Once again, you avoid the question. You have never answered it. All you
say is that God made a concession. You don't tell us what inspiration IS.>>
I could have sworn I sent a one-sentence definition of inspiration in one of
my posts; but, I can't find it; so, apparently you're right. If anyone knows
of my one-sentence definition, let me know; or, I am going to have to
increase my dosage of gingko biloba. (-:
So here is my definition: Because of the singularity of the word
"God-breathed" there is little to go on from II Tim 3:16 except its
grammatical form and the fact that God's out-breathing elsewhere in Scripture
results in effects willed by God. Combining these facts, the most that can
be claimed for II Tim 3:16 is that all Scripture is a product of God's
out-breathing. The nature of the product is left for definition from other
data. I think the context of II Tim 3 is related to the wisdom literature as
is the moving of the Spirit of God in various biblical passages (e.g. Ex
28:3; Dt 34:9; Isa 11:2); and that the import of 3:16 is that all parts of
Scripture can be a profitable authoritative source for finding God's wisdom.
(I expound this more fully in chapter nine of my book.)
As to the nature of inspiration per se, I think it varies with the task. I
believe it is legitimate to say that all of the spiritual gifts in I Cor 12
are inspired by God; but not all of them are the gift of prophecy, that is,
not all of them involve divine revelation. Similarly in the OT, although
prophesying is the result of being filled with God's Spirit (God breathing
out and into the person), there are other gifts as a result of being filled
with God's Spirit.
With reference to the work of the biblical historians, that is, the writers
of the history books like I Sam, the Gospels, etc. I think the out-breathing
of God gave the writers wisdom to find data, select, organize, etc. their
works in a way that would serve God's purposes. This would be similar to the
inspired wisdom that was given to the craftsman Bezalel to be skillful in his
works of gold, silver and brass and in the cutting of stones and the carving
of wood (Ex 31:2-5) in order to build the Tabernacle. Like the tabernacle
made from the sources and techniques available at that time (not from
aluminum, steel, welding, etc.), the history we find in Scripture does not
rise above the sources available to the workmen. Yet both are the result of
craftsmen who are God-breathed.
<<So are we to have a committment to irrationalism? THis is an either or
proposition. One is either rational or not. Ones views are either rational
or not. I prefer rationality. And so do you because you try to use logic.
If you really believed what you are complaining about(rationality) you
would cease using logic to defend your viewpoint. But since you are
rational and believe in rationality, you use logic but then use rational
logic to denigrate rationality.>>
I distinguish rationalism from rationality. I am thinking particularly of
the building of philosophical systems which must dovetail logically at every
point-even at the expense of ignoring or contradicting empirical data. You
are right: I do not accept irrationalism; but, supra-rationalism; and that
may result in having to say at times, I do not know; but, I trust the Lord.
I like the phrase that George Murphy often cites, "faith in search of
understanding."
<<Then evidence and logic means nothing. We can believe what we want. YECs
can believe what they want and thus the YECs are correct. That is what
simply believe means. They trust Jesus. They trust his Word. They are very
devout. They have an ultimate commitment to Jesus. (and if you say they
don't, then you really don't know them at all). They are very Christian.
They are not moved by any rationalistic concerns. But they are very, very
very wrong.>>
I do not deny that by faith they have an ultimate commitment to Jesus and are
very devout. But, when it comes to defining inspiration and the nature of
the Bible they are moved by rationalistic concerns. Indeed, as I said, they
put rationalistic concerns above even some of the teachings of Jesus. One of
the propostions laid down by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy
says that "later revelation cannot contradict earlier revelation." That is a
very rationalistically motivated proposition. If they held it with
consistency, they would have to uphold the laws of the OT in toto. And it is
the rationalistic definition of biblical inerrancy which has been most fully
explicated by the International Council that is the foundation of creation
science.
Paul S.