Burgy wrote:
>Dick Wrote:
> >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.
You didn't change anything. You just said it differently. Without knowing
the circumstances or what may have been God's reason, you decided the Bible
is wrong. Okay, He let His Son die on a cross. Wait a minute! Who would
do that? We wouldn't let that happen if we were God. Must be some kind of
error.
> >"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.
Jesus changed water to wine, and you just changed apples to oranges. Ham
couldn't exegete his way out of a paper bag. This has nothing to do with
his ilk. You and I don't have an interpretational problem. We both know
exactly what Scripture says. I'm saying we don't know all the surrounding
details, and it may be that God had a reason we don't know about. So I
withhold judgment.
On the other hand, you decided the text can't be right. Without knowing the
circumstances or what may have been God's reason, you decided the Bible is
wrong. And that is exactly what happens when we start down the path that
leads to apostasy. We don't know where to stop!
And I'm not saying this to you alone, I am saying this to me too. I'm just
as fallible as the next guy. Exegesis is not easy stuff. Sheer brilliance
doesn't help. That's why God didn't give me any!
> >"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.
Burgy, read the accounts. You can count six different instances where
Peter denied Christ. We didn't make it up.
> >"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?
Let's say I did this: 2 + 2 = 5. Would you assume I was so stupid I didn't
know the correct answer, or is it more likely I hit a wrong key? In
Matthew's case, I would assume a deletion by a careless scribe. Cainan is
missing in Genesis 11, yet included in Luke 3:36. The Septuagint lists
Cainan exactly where the gospel writer puts him and includes the entire
narrative giving his age at the birth of his son and how old he was when he
died, just like all the other patriarchs.. We might think the Bible is
wrong unless we consider the likelihood that Cainan is simply a deletion in
the Masoretic text.
Probably a scribe took a lunch break, and when he came back deleted a
line. Scribes did things like that. They made deletions, they dropped
letters, they changed letters, they wrote comments that the next scribe
wrote into the text, and so on. It happened. It's only you and I who
don't make misteaks :>).
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Tue Mar 2 02:00:28 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 02 2004 - 02:00:28 EST