Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Bible the word of God? Message-ID: Date: 10 Nov 90 13:35:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 81 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) writes: >[Stanley Silver comments that "it can be showed the the Bible was not >literally written on dictated by the Almighty", and says that >controversy over this belief is destroying the Southern Baptist >Convention. crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: > >I am more than a bit uncomforable with the above paragraph. It has been >attempted to "show conclusively" that the Bible is not inerrant, with >little success. The criticism of Biblical inspiration is much like That's not true. One only has to point to one error to get a proof by contradiction to the statement "The Bible is perfect." The Bible claims in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. We know that there are other smaller seeds (the orchid for one). Therefore, a contradiction is made and the statement "The Bible is perfect" is false. There are at least a couple of hundred similar (and equally unimportant) examples. BTW, I never doubted Biblical inspiration. In fact, I acknowleged it in my original posting. > >The principle in Biblical inerrancy is the inerrancy of the autograph, >which we do not have. Corruption of the text is possible, but the Since we don't have the autograph, the whole point of inerrancy is lost. If we did have the autograph it might do us some good, but since we don't the whole inerrancy argument from this angle is moot. >translation are derived. The idea of dictation of the Bible is a theory >held only by a small sect of churches, and then usually only pertaining >to certain books. This is also not true. I come across fundamentalists all the time who cling to this silly idea. > >When examining the criticism of any Biblical scholar investigate his >theology. If his axe to grind is liberal or social theology, onn of the >linchpin of that theology is the Bible cannot be correct. The truth >cannot be compromised, so the truth must be questioned. Please define "liberal". It has taken on a very different meaning in the past few years. I'm not really sure what you meant in his paragraph. If you don't feel that theological scholorship is important then I must protest. > >There is a tendency to assume that any "new discovery" or theory is >somehow more correct that older information. In the case of Biblical >criticism this is dangerous, because much of the new criticism follows >the money -> liberal theology. Realize also, that much of this >scholarship is based on different interpretation of the same material. Why is liberal theology dangerous? In this paragraph "liberal" seems to mean "new" or "modern". All theology was new at some time. > >Before anyone decide that Biblical inerrancy is for backwoods buffoons, >read a thorough study from the inerrancy viewpoint. A good testbook >quality volume is by Geisler and Nix. There are others. > I will try to find the text you cited. As was mentioned in an earlier posting, different people mean different things when they talk about inerrancy. In my original posting I was only trying to dispel one of the myths concerning the issue. Ignorance combined with labels such as "inerrancy" have caused major problems in the Southern Baptist Convention. I hope that through understanding on both sides of the Southern Baptist controversey we can come to some agreement. I did not want to air SBC dirty laundry here which is why I was reluctant to start a new thread. I have found that those who read this newsgroup are much more enlightened than the average churchgoer so I really didn't expect anyone to argue from the backwoods buffoon viewpoint. So far, nobody has. -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu