Hi Glenn,
On a conciliatory note, let me say that I understand where, you, Gordon, and
David are coming from. You want the Bible to be absolutely true on all
matters, even matters incidental to the purpose of the writing.Thats good. I
felt that way myself. I used to hero worship folks like Josh McDowell [ I
hear tell you know him:)] who could explain away every error and
contradiction in the text. But I now think that the better approach is not
to explain away errors in the text, but to explain why there might be error
in the text.
the reason, of course, is that God chose to proclaim his message through
human beings. He did so in a manner that did not overwhelm the freedom of
the human being who he inspired, but worked within the cultural and
historical limitations of the human author and their audience. The writer of
Leviticus was trying to identify to a Bronze Age, tribal audience which
animals were clean and unclean. He shared the Ancient Near East view of
animal life. He and presumably God had no interest in teaching modern
zoology to his audience.
Now God could have done things differently. He could have explained modern
zoology to our tribal forebears in great detail. But then he would have
given them a zoology textbook. WE would have been happy. It would have made
OUR faith journey easier. But God in his sovereign wisdom chose not to do it
that way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton [mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:58 AM
To: Shuan Rose
Subject: RE: sciDocument.rtf
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:45 PM
> Well, Glenn, I don't know the Greek or Hebrew, but all
>translations that I
>have read translate the word used to refer to bats as bird.Check out this
>all in one bible research site
>
>http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/multibib.htm
>
>
>every translation uses the word bird or fowl to apply to bats, even
>evangelical ones like NIV and NASB.
> Clearly, the writer meant to list bats as a type of bird.But this is De
>minimis (How's your Latin?)
Have a minor in Latin but after 30 years of not studying it, it is now
missing in action. :-)
Rabbits do not chew their cud; insects do not
>have four legs.There are scientific errors in the Bible. Deal with it.
I am but frankly, I don't really think you are. You believe, as God's
inspired word, that which is false--does the word gullible mean anything to
you?
I know you won't like the above statement, but I do get a bit tired of those
on the more liberal end looking down their noses at those of us who deal
with these issues in a different way, as if we were loony. It is loony to
believe falsehood is God's word. If it is false, then say so and reject it.
We simply don't treat falsehood in this fashion in any other area of life
except in our religions. When we come to our religion, it isn't false and
worthy of rejection no matter what foolishness it says. Thus, I don't think
you are really dealing with the issue or you would do to it what you do to a
perjorer in a trial.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 16:02:14 EDT