Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!ism780c!marty
From: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Fig tree -researched-
Message-ID: <3696@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 14:34:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.3696
Posted: Tue Sep 30 14:34:34 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:32:08 EDT
References: <2589@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 55
Xref: linus net.religion.christian:4800 talk.religion.misc:344

Organization:

In article <2589@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes:
>
[Researched Fig tree explanation deleted]

I thought it a good and plausible explanation.  What troubles me is the
following.

>	Thinking about the Bible from a context 'outside' the Bible can
>be likened to thinking of Modern atomic theory from theory 100 years
>out of date.

Thinking about the Bible using the Bible as the foundation of thought is
what, I would say, Christians do when they are being followers of Christ.
It is like cleasning one's body in the Christian sauna, and it is a good
thing for a Christian to do in order to live a good human life.

But in this context, nothing can be said about the truth or falsity of the
Bible.  All such truths are self-proving.  To study the truth or falsity of
the Bible requires examination from a greater context, a context in which
the Christian comes out of his safe haven and doubts everything.  I claim
that a Christian who cannot do this, or who is unwilling to accept what he
finds by this process, has no faith and is probably not a Christian at all.

>We just keep on asking the wrong questions because of the
>context of our understanding. I contend that if you *look* for the
>internal consistency of the Bible you will find it.

If we look for internal consistency under the assumption that what we are
examining is internally consistent, we will almost certainly explain away
incorrectly any inconsistency we find.

>Just as we today
>through knowledge put patterns together from what we see with the
>tool of science. For science to work we have to ask *good* questions.
>Many theories may explain an outcome but only time will tell. So
>please give the Bible some time- Many Christians have with God's
>help.

The Bible has had thousands of years and is no more internally consistent
now than it was when it was written.  It has undergone many translations;
the meanings of words have changed; much of its meaning has been lost.  When
in science we ask a question that our theories cannot answer, we can look
further, develop new theories, and discard old ones.  If Christianity has
faults, one of them must be that it has not allowed inconsistencies in the
Bible to be eliminated in this way.

>If you seek with all your heart God will testify to what you
>learn. And *verify* what countless Christians have come to believe....

Then why can't I use what I learn to correct the Bible's inconsistencies?

>I have left out much here but I hope this is a start....

You have left out much indeed.
					Marty Smith