Re: Historical honesty if not accuracy

I agree that historical honesty is important. But let us not forget that there
is a spiritual dimension to our acceptance of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures
that tell us about Him. Remember Jn 6:44: No one can come to me unless the
Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. If the
Scriptures were historically honest and accurate, but had no ability to convict
the reader that they were telling us how to be saved, who would follow Christ?

Glenn is right to look for Scriptural interpretations that are historically
accurate. So are Dick Fischer, and others. But there's more to becoming a
Christian than reading a historically accurate book.

--- "Austerberry, Charles" <cfauster@creighton.edu> wrote:

> Glenn has asked list participants to explain why Christians can trust
> the theology of the Bible more than (for example) the theology of the
> Book of Mormon. Wouldn't part of our answer be that the Bible is more
> historically and scientifically accurate than is the Book of Mormon?
> And if that were not part of our answer, on what basis could one
> consider the Bible to be theologically superior to other writings deemed
> sacred within other religious traditions?
>
> Nancy Pearcey asks a similar question: if Christianity were shown to be
> false, would you still believe it anyway? In her view, if one's faith
> is not grounded in reality enough to be vulnerable to disproof, then
> it's not worth having. She wants to break down the faith-fact divide.
>
> I agree in principle - it's in the details that I disagree.
>
> If I were convinced that Jesus' bones had been found, that discovery
> would produce a crisis of faith in me, because I believe the tomb was
> empty on Easter morning (and not because someone stole the body!).
>
> For some people, just the mere evolution of one species into another
> (particularly if it's Homo sapiens) produces as much of a crisis of
> faith in them as Jesus' bodily remains being discovered would produce in
> me. And I'm sitting here looking at the overwhelming evidence for such
> evolutionary connections, and saying "that's ok - that need not produce
> a crisis of faith - the first chapters of Genesis were not meant to be
> read the same way that the last chapters of the Gospels were meant to be
> read."
>
> But people complain: "If you start taking parts of the Bible
> metaphorically, how do you know when to stop?" I think sometimes the
> text gives clues. In any case, to me, an important feature of the Bible
> is its historical honesty. This is related to historical accuracy, but
> is not exactly the same thing. I am not convinced that the Book of
> Mormon is an historically honest document, let alone an historically
> accurate document. The Bible, however, is consistently honest, or maybe
> I should say that the community of believers responsible for assembling
> and preserving the Bible have been trustworthy.
>
> For example, the differences between the two creation stories in Genesis
> 1 and 2 were retained, not glossed over or altered to be factually
> consistent. I think the ancient Israelites, and Jesus, knew about the
> differences as well or better than we do. Those "contradictions" might
> not have bothered them at all, because the differences are
> contradictions only if the first two chapters of Genesis are read in a
> hyperliteral (modern) way. Did God make humans after the animals, to
> rule over them, or did God make the animals after Adam, to see if some
> might be suitable helpers for Adam? Were the plants made before animals
> and humans, to prepare a home for them, or was Adam made first and then
> plants once Adam was available to tend them? You get different answers
> depending on which chapter (1 or 2) of Genesis is consulted. Such
> questions probably would have seemed (and I think still do seem) rather
> beside the point to Jesus. What matters is: 1) we do have
> responsibility as stewards of animal and plant life, but also that 2)
> animals and plants are gifts from God to us to support human life. I
> think both Genesis creation accounts are needed to ensure that we have a
> balanced understanding.
>
> Differences in details, sometimes contradictory, between the four
> gospels are another example. Who reached the empty tomb first on Easter
> morning? Just Mary Magdalene? One other woman with her? Two other
> women? Were there one or two angels, and were they inside the tomb or
> sitting on the stone that was rolled away?
>
> These differences say two things to me. First, just like in Genesis,
> they confirm the care taken to preserve the original texts and not
> succumb to the temptation to reconcile differences, in this case between
> the accounts of Jesus' life.
>
> Secondly -- but *completely different* from the relatively major
> contradictions between the two Genesis creation stories not witnessed by
> humans -- the relatively minor contradictions between the four Gospel
> accounts of the Resurrection reflect the expected confusion attending
> *human witnesses accounts* of a remarkable, unexpected, world-changing
> event.
>
> Unlike Genesis 1 and 2, I think the Gospels were written to be as
> historically accurate as possible, again given the limitation that God
> used human persons to witness and tell of these events.
>
> For example, when Luke tells us exactly who was emperor when Jesus was
> born, it's clear that he is striving for historical accuracy. And to my
> knowledge, he did amazingly well.
>
> Matthew seems a bit less interested in that, but more interested than
> Luke in relating Jesus to Old Testament prophecy.
>
> John seems most interested in conveying the cosmic scale of Jesus' love,
> saving grace, etc.
>
> They complement each other. Thank God for them all (Mark too)! Compare
> any of those four gospels to the crazy stuff in the non-canonical
> gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.). With the Da Vinci
> Code book and movie, the extra-biblical manuscripts are all the rage
> now, but what a distasteful picture of Jesus they paint, and how
> unbelievable they are! Jesus doing miraculous cheap tricks or (worse)
> spitefully killing his playmates when they offend him as a child! Jesus
> telling Judas to "set him up" so that he would be crucified! No, I
> think various cults sprang up and jostled over the nature of Jesus -
> God, man, both, neither. It took a while for the truth to be
> established, but given how totally unique Jesus was and is, that's not
> surprising.
>
> I think God inspired not only the biblical writers, but also the early
> church fathers who worked out the creeds and decided which books would
> be included in the canon of scripture and which would not. I'm not
> saying God took over their minds and used them as robots. I'm just
> saying He gave them wisdom to make the best choices possible given their
> human limitations that God could not overcome without negating their
> free will.
>
> Had God tried to implant the theory of evolution in their minds before
> scientific understanding prepared the way, I think God would have had to
> really take over the minds of the biblical writers in a manner that God
> (in my opinion) respects us too much to do.
>
> Chuck Austerberry
> http://nrcse.creighton.edu
>
> P.S. - Kudos to both Glenn Morton and George Murphy for their excellent
> pieces in the June 2006 issue of the ASA journal Perspectives on Science
> and Christian Faith. I do have one question for Glenn, though. Glenn
> cites a 1965 report of an "honors math student at Sheffield University
> ... who had only a millimeter of brain encrusting the inside of his
> skull. The rest of his skull was full of water." Hmm... I'm skeptical.
> I'd want to see more data on the smallest sizes of human brains that
> appear to function normally.
>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Jun 9 08:25:32 2006