Re: Scriptural errors (was Hyers' Article - Cods Wallop!)

Burgy wrote:

>I start with the premise that at least one "genuine biblical statement"
>has been identified as "undeniably false and cannot be attributed to
>anything than a factual misstatement."
>
>That premise, of course, can be and often is debated, but that is another
>subject.
>
>My claim is that the truth of that premise does not constitute "solid
>evidence" that Scripture was (is) uninspired.
>
>The book by Davis I have referenced before fleshes that claim out as well
>as any I have seen. My notes on that book are at the site below.

I'm probably not the person to try and defend every verse of Scripture. My
interest in the OT drops off very quickly when Abraham departs
Mesopotamia. Canaanite country to me is far less interesting and far more
confusing.

Nevertheless, I do see some danger in judging Scripture to be in error at a
few points where there may be logical explanations we don't know about, and
as a result, adopting a policy of denigrating passages that are entirely
credible.

In your references to Davis' book, where some possible errors are
enumerated, you say this:

"Davis believes (and I agree – jwb) that killing innocent people is a moral
wrong. He does not believe it was God’s will that every Canaanite, man,
woman and child, be slaughtered. Since scripture claims this, he concludes
that the Biblical writers in this case were mistaken."

Here you and he have taken the next step. You are applying human reason to
God's pronouncement, and since God is advocating something you disagree
with, God couldn't have done that - the Bible is wrong.

We can't know all the circumstances. But smiting the warriors of an enemy
tribe and taking the children, and of course, the young ladies into
captivity was common practice. After all, the spoils of war add incentive
to wage war in the first place.

But let's say in this instance there exists in another tribe, Canaanite or
Amalekite, a particular genetic defect that God doesn't want spread to the
children of Israel. By obliterating every person, and saving no one, it is
assured that the defect is removed from the general population. Now of
course, I am speculating. I don't know this was the reason. But God
judges us, we don't judge God.

Another thing I noticed in your summary of Davis' book was the practice of
pitting one book of the Bible against another and ascribing the differences
to error. But combining the Scriptures, and letting one book clarify
another is perfectly valid is it not?

One example is where Peter is told by Christ that he (Peter) would deny him
three times before the cock crowed twice in Matthew and thrice in
Mark. Yet placing both accounts together we see that Peter denied Christ
three times before the cock crowed twice and another three times before the
cock crowed thrice. Luke and John left out the "twice" and "thrice" part.

By pitting the gospel writers against one another, we may encounter seeming
error, but placing them all together as we would expect to have different
versions from different perspectives, we have a more complete picture of
the entire event.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Mon Mar 1 00:32:21 2004