Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Human ==> imperfection? Message-ID: Date: 22 Jul 89 21:39:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 75 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This continues a discussion on the perfection or otherwise of the Bible. Hal initially presented the view that "although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors." A response from Joey Paul b8!paulj@uunet.uu.net said that although he did not advocate "Bible worship", it is necessary for the Bible to be thought of as reliable in order (1) for it to have the authority that it needs for us to base our lives on it and (2) in order to avoid having us have to make judgements on what is reliable and what isn't. He proposed 4 passages, of which this response deals with two. (The others talked about God's name being exalted, and were background to these two.) --clh] >Psa 138:2 - "...for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME. > (God himself has placed his word above his name) [RSV: for thou hast exalted above everything thy name and thy word --clh] But this does not say exactly what His word is. Also it does not say He prevents imperfection in his word any more than he makes it impossible to take his name in vain. Clearly it is possible to take the name of the Lord in vain. I submit that it is also possible to be careless with his word. >2 Pet. 1:16-19 - "...We have also a more sure word of prophecy..." > (In context, the word is more sure than the very voice > of God) [after describing how God spoke to them at the transfiguration: "we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure." RSV --clh] I don't think that the context gives that any more than any other scripture is the very voice of God. It surely does not say that it would be impossible for men to make mistakes with this prophecy. More sure than what? Is Peter saying his word of prophecy is more sure than the Old Testament? I think so and if so that places one scripture as more reliable than another in some sense. > >>This would be less of a temptation if they understood that it >>although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors. > >Please specify. Although many people have made this statement none have >yet given me any (not even one) examples. Well, I don't want to spend a lot of time looking up errors but a few come to mind immediately. First, how did Judas die? Did he hang himself (Mat 27:5) or did he fall and all his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Second, when Saul of Tarsus was on the way to Damascus and had his vision, what about those who were with him, did they hear the voice but not see the vision (Acts 9:7) or did they see the light but not hear the voice (Acts 22:9)? Admitedly these are not of great consequence but they are contradictory, so one of each pair of passages must be in error. Perhaps of more consequence, John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." However, several OT passages describe theophanies: Gen 32:30 Jacob saw God face to fact. Ex 33:11 Moses likewise Ex 33:23 Moses would see His back parts Ex 24:9-10 Moses & 70 elders of Israel saw God From the NT, Acts 7:56 Stephen sees Jesus on the right hand of God This list is certainly not exhaustive but only provides examples. I have also only given contradictions. There are many other Bible passages believed to be in error for various reasons. I do not want to get into an argument here over their veracity. This is intended only to illustrate that there are imperfections. Also please do not take this as an indication that I do not study and learn from the Bible, I do. I simply realize that the object of my worship is God, not the book his servants wrote.