Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

George Murphy wrote:

> Jack Haas wrote:
>
> > Greetings to the group.
> >
> > I offer the following quote as all too typical of the way a large
> > segment of the church regards scripture and nature:
> > _______________________________
> >
> > "...trust the Bible, as Jesus did (‘it is written’; ‘Scripture cannot
> > be broken’ John 10:35). And Jesus never separated biblical morality
> > from biblical history. Indeed, Jesus told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘I
> > have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then
> > will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ If Jesus was wrong
> > about earthly things (like a recent creation and a global Flood—Luke
> > 17:26–27), why should we believe what He says about heavenly things?
> > And in the passage above, Jesus taught about the moral issue of
> > marriage by connecting it with the fact of the creation of man and
> > woman as Genesis says! The Sabbath commandment, another moral issue,
> > was given explicitly because God created the heavens and earth in six
> > normal-length days and ‘rested’ on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8–11).
> > If you compromise the Bible, then what is to stop you from
> > compromising Christ? We all need to learn to not take our views to the
> > Bible but let the Bible dictate what our views should be. God is never
> > wrong, so we should trust Him. If we elevate our words to be equal to
> > God’s then we are trying to equate ourselves with God. If we regard
> > ‘nature’ as the ‘67th book of the Bible’, as Dr **** teaches this
> > means that man’s fallible science, which tells us of ‘nature’, has
> > been elevated to the status of Scripture. That’s the problem. Remember
> > John 1:1-3."
>
> Jack -
> I agree that the kind of biblical interpretation espoused here is quite
> inadequate. But I agree with the comments at the end about the notion of nature as "the
> 67th book of the Bible" (& wish "Dr ****" had been identified). The idea that our
> experience of the natural world is on the same level with historical revelation for
> telling us about God & God's relationship with the world has to be rejected. Scientific
> investigation of nature can help us to understand God's presence & activity in the world
> but only when it is placed in the context of God's self-revelation in the history of
> Israel which culminates in Christ. OTOH, that historical revelation is not simply to be
> identified with the Bible, which should be seen rather as witness to revelation.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

A google search on "67th book of the Bible" indicates that "Dr **** " is almost certainly Dr
Hugh Ross.
If that is the case, and in the light of what I have read in Ross's books, then I think
that there is some truth in Ross's statement, but he has grossly exaggerated. I am inclined
to agree with George.
Don Nield
Received on Thu Dec 18 16:06:55 2003