Re: Hyers' Article - Cods Wallop!

Dave wrote:

>Your second point covertly assumes that our interpretation of our
>observations are correct. Unless you want to specify that our current
>theories are the only correct ones, disposing of past and future
>differences, you have to allow for the accuracy of earlier claims.
>Therefore hyrax and hare chew their cud (Leviticus 11:5f). Or will you
>claim that scripture has to be revised to exclude this claim? Is this
>something that Satan slipped in, or a corrupted text?

I haven't studied rabbits personally. I did read that they have been known
to munch on their own feces. Whether rabbit pellets would qualify as "cud"
to a Hebrew writer, I have no idea.

But let us say we could isolate a genuine biblical statement that was
undeniably false and couldn't be attributable to a scribal gloss, or a
miscopied letter, or anything other than the writer made a bona fide
misstatement of fact. Would that not constitute solid evidence that
Scripture was uninspired? Or should we conclude that the Holy Spirit, who
inspired the writer, is just mistaken from time to time?

Either of those conclusions would force us to pick and choose what was
correct and inspired, or incorrect and uninspired. How could we possibly
defend any aspect of our Christian faith, which is based upon the
Bible? We have no way to corroborate the text.

What could we use to judge the integrity of Scripture? Pray? Call on the
Holy Spirit? That hasn't worked for YECs, why would it work for any of
us? And even if it did work for me, I don't have any way to prove it to
someone else.

So, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord - and work to
corroborate the Genesis narrative.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Thu Feb 26 20:05:44 2004