Wayne,
Thanks for a great post, characterized by the kind of candor and humility
that is fitting in reference both to what can be said about the Bible and to
what cannot be claimed about the certainty and finality of our human
understanding of God, ourselves, and the world of which we are a part.
Howard
----------
>From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Howard Van Till wrote:
>
> << I do respect the integrity of the people whose writings were included in
> the
> canon. Their writings were evaluated and selected by communities usually in
> a position to separate wheat from chaff. I'm not fearful that the writers
> were deluded, or raving mad, or frauds, or self-serving opportunists, or
> bamboozling schlockmeisters. My option (2) was in no way intended to suggest
> that.
>>>
>
> Yes, I realize that you don't think that way. In fact, it is exactly
> these extreme views (which I wrote down) that make me very doubtful
> of the accusations that I hear in regards to the writers of the bible.
> I'm sorry if you though I was accusing you of thinking that way.
>
> <<
> The intended distinction was between (1) direct divine revelation, disguised
> to look like human writing and (2) human writing that benefits from an
> awareness of God. Option (1) often leads to Book worship insulated from
> critical evaluation, while (2) invites continuing evaluation in the light of
> the totality of human experience. (1) invites the "say as they said"
> syndrome; (2) invites the "do as they did" strategy that I favor.
> >>
>
> I basically agree with you here. The bible should not be viewed as some
> sort of "almanac" from "The Almighty & Co". This is where people who read
> Revelations like a weather forecast get derailed (for example).
> If the Bible is the result of mere "dictation" from on high, then the
> bible should be a book of facts. This is often how apologists depict
> the Bible. It is exactly this "book of facts" view that gets me into
> quibbles with athiests about why pi = 3 in the Bible. If the Bible is
> a "book of facts", then it gets it wrong they say.
>
> On the other hand, we can loosen the requirements to "authentic experiences"
> described by the writers, but then there is one requirement on our part
> as readers: we have to decide for ourselves if we think the writers were
> genuine. Of course, with ASA, I don't think I have to ask if anyone doubts
> the writers, but this is one thing that must be kept in mind. It does
> free me up from having to explain why "pi = 3" is only an "apparent
> contradiction" or some such. On the other hand, it weakens my position
> on insisting that a person should believe in Christ instead of karma etc.
> It also leaves the scripture somewhat open for the "pick and chose" mode,
> which clearly has problems. Lastly, it also calls into question whether
> we can firmly trust in our own salvation if there is a even mere taint
> of "fallibility" in the writings.
>
> Realistically speaking, I suspect that we have little choice on this
> matter, and we have to read the Bible responsibly and critically like
> anything else. It is not an infallible book of facts and I can't expect
> to find the fine structure constant written in its pages.
>
> What I find difficult is apologetics in this case. I am personally
> committed to finding truth, and it *matters* to me to that what
> I say is true to the best extent that I can discern it as so.
> Yet the best I can do here is hand someone the book, hope that they
> read it, and hope that they come to agree with the message.
> That is an honest position, but it has none of the flare of the
> "revelation from God" pronouncements. On the one side are people
> too easily charmed by bravado, and on the other side are people
> who have already made up their mind that the bible is wrong. I
> find it difficult to reach either of them.
>
> by Grace alone do we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 10:57:34 EST