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

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:45:19 -0700 John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
writes:
> >>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
>
I know there are specious arguments by damned fools and by other classes
of fools. Why do their conclusions vitiate the authority of scripture?
Were there not woman who were leaders in the apostolic church? Does not
Philemon have a relevant message about slavery?

As for the relevance of Paul's statement, there is evidence that Mark's
gospel was circulating early. At least a fragment found at Qumran, which
must antedate A.D. 68, apparently came from that gospel. Further, what
are you going to do with the words of God incarnate? Were they not
already written down, though perhaps not it the exact form they have come
to us?
Dave
Received on Thu Mar 4 16:26:31 2004