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

You took off on the secondary theme, so I'll address that one:

" 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."

I agree. So does Davis. The question remains.

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

"Davis believes (and I agree l jwb) that killing innocent people is a
moral wrong. He does not believe it was Godls 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."

The Bible is not wrong in saying it happened. But to attribute such
behavior to an entity is to either agree that killing children is not
wrong or the entity is evil. Therefore -- an error, since our definition
of "God" does not include evil. Inscrutability? Of course.

Alternative: Killing children is sometimes justified. Therefore, we
cannot condemn the 9/11 terrorists. I can't go there.

"We can't know all the circumstances. 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."

Of course we can't judge God. But we can leave our brains turned on when
we enter the church door. I accept your speculation for what it is. Ken
Ham says that the light before day 4 was a "temporary light" that was
taken away after the sun was made. Both are ad hocs made to support a
problematic text, without any confirmatory evidences. As such, without
value.

"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?"

Of course, But when Kings says X and Chronicles says "not X," then one
(at least) is flat wrong.

"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."

That's Lindsell's argument. Peter denied the Lord SIX times. Yeah.
Another ad hoc.

"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."

OK, Try Matthew's genealogy. 14 + 14 + 14 = 41. Of course, we may assume
that arithmetic was different in the 1st century. But that, too, is an ad
hoc, isn't it?

Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com/h4h.htm (A Habitat for Humanity story)

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Mon Mar 1 12:05:14 2004