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

>>Since we don't have autograph manuscripts, I suppose you can call the
theory irrefutable. But are you willing to take the consequences? Most of
Genesis 1 has to go (provided the reading is honest). Raqia^ (firmament),
for example, cannot be allowed. The difference in timing between chapters
1 and 2 mean that at least one of the stories has to go. Indeed, if one
is totally honest, there will be nothing left as dependable. On the other
hand, if one adopts the notion that scripture gives us the sure rule for
faith and practice, then II Timothy 3:16 stands without a problem.>>

I understand where you are coming from (at least I think I understand).

Yes, I am willing to take the consequences, for truth, not adherence to a
creed, is the more important to me.

There are possibilities beyond what you have cited above, of course.

Since it is pretty clear that II Tim 3:16 was written before the gospels,
to take it as applying to the 66 books as we now know them as a whole is
a leap of faith I cannot make. Note that I do not deny that possibility
either, but simply hold it as not likely.

What does it mean (I wrestle with this) to say, as you do above, that
"scripture gives us the sure rule for faith and practice?" In view of the
undeniable fact that slavery was justified for years (and Jim Crow laws
after that) by appeals to scripture, the word "sure" in the above seems
problematical. Yet, with that word removed, I can assent to the phrase.

I suppose an argument could be made for genocide by appealing to II Kings
15 and/or the conquests of Joshua. But we don't do that. What is our
rationale? Surely scripture indicates that -- sometimes at least -- the
practice is "good."

Fred Phelps -- the Baptist minister -- takes this idea to a logical
conclusion in his website www.godhatesfags.com, but with the exception of
only a few extreme rightists, most Christians -- even Falwell and
Robertson, distance themselves from his beliefs. What is our rationale?
Surely scripture indicates -- sometimes at least -- the practice is
"evil."

Similar arguments can be made for the denigration of women. Why is it,
when the OT is perfectly clear that it was Moses' MOTHER who placed him
in the basket to save him, that the anonymous writer of Hebrews says it
was "his parents?" Is this an error, or a deliberate subjugation of
females, or did the writer have access to some other account of the
story?. Or maybe he just remembered it slightly wrong. I don't know. But
there are many other passages in scripture that say -- explicitly -- that
females are to be regarded as 2nd class people to males. Most of us
(rightly) reject that idea today. But the argument can still be made
(from scripture) that it ought to apply.

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 Thu Mar 4 10:54:47 2004