Re: agnostisism

From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 04:26:34 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Genesis in cuneiform on tablets"

    Sondra wrote,

    << I think you guys are being too hard on Jim. Although he sounds like he's
      going more toward the atheist side than the agnostic. I think he has a right
      to come to a conclusion based on his observations. You guys have a lot to do
      with that, you know.>>

    On Jim per se, see my comment in reply to him in Re: Genesis and cuneiform
    tablets.

    <<You prove everything about the Bible wrong and then
      claim to believe in the God that it touts. If the book is wrong on one
      account, who's to say it's not wrong about them all?>>

    Not "everything" by a long shot. I don't think you meant that literally. As
    to the Bible being wrong about one thing or even some things and the problem
    which that makes for the rest of what it says, I think one should start with
    the fact that nowhere in the Bible does God claim to be revealing scientific
    or historical truth. 2Tim 3:16 says that every passage of Scripture is
    divinely inspired, but the context limits the authority of Scripture to that
    which makes the man of God competent and the wisdom which leads to salvation.
    There is nothing in the text (or any other biblical text) which says or
    logically implies that the Bible is a divine revelation of science or
    history. So, if all of the science in the Bible is the science of the times
    it is no reflection on God's revelation. The history in the Bible is almost
    always attributed by the human author to human sources; so again, if there
    are some mistakes, they do not reflect on God's revelation.

    If all of the science in the Bible is the science of the times, I don't think
    that bears on anything theologically anyway. It is just God adapting his
    revelation to the scientific understanding of the people to whom he was
    speaking. As to the history, one must decide on the basis of both internal
    and external sources whether it is probably good history or bad. In this
    regard, Gen 1-11 does not fare very well; but, most of the history in the
    Bible does not have enough external data to either falsify or confirm it.

    The real problem is that God did not accommodate his revelation just to the
    science of the times, but sometimes to the morals of the times. Jesus, for
    example, did not accept the implication of God's law in Deut 24:1-4 that
    God's only concern about men divorcing their wives is that they made it legal
    and did not remarry them again. Calvin was more distressed with the law in Ex
    21:2-4 which said a male slave could go free at the end of 6 years, but if
    his master had given him a wife, his wife and children would have to be left
    behind. I have always thought that if slaying a person guilty of manslaughter
    is unjust, as Deut 19:6, 10 admits, then allowing Israelites to kill such a
    person if they caught him outside of a city of refuge as Num 35:26, 27
    allows, is less than morally perfect. But, as Jesus implied, these laws were
    concessions to man's hardness of heart (Matt 19:8/Mark 10:5.)

    Nevertheless, If we can't trust the Bible at every point for morals, how can
    we trust it for history and science or the rest of its moral teachings?
    People addicted to black or white thinking have to go nuts or give up the
    Bible altogether. The more sane answer is that black or white thinking is
    neither biblical thinking nor intellectually mature. I spent a year studying
    Jesus' approach to Scripture and it seems clear to me that he did not believe
    every verse was in accord with God's perfect will (he saw God meeting the
    people half-way), but he looked for and found overarching revelations, like
    God as Creator, which is found all through the Bible. That is where he rested
    his faith---so far as Scripture is concerned. But, not to be ignored was his
    walk with God.

    As you very nicely said in the latter part of your post, "There have been
    times when it isn't a struggle though and I have seen, heard or felt God in a
    tangible way. It's those times that give me the strength to get through these
    times. It's the memories, it's their 'testimony' that I live by. I know it
    all seems like hocus pocus, but I have
    seen things happen with my own eyes or in my own life that have no scientific
    or logical explanation. If those things can happen and science cannot explain
    them, then it's feasible for me to believe that the rest is beyond
    scientific, historic and logical explanation also."

    It is this walk with God along with the overarching teachings of Scripture
    which form the basis for true Christian faith. And, it is also important to
    run the previous revelation in the OT through the grid of God's highest and
    ultimate revelation, Jesus Christ and his teachings.

    Paul



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 21 2002 - 23:52:51 EST