Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!topaz!christian
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Calvin on the accuracy of Scripture
Message-ID: <10273@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Fri, 20-Mar-87 02:49:44 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.10273
Posted: Fri Mar 20 02:49:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 09:49:27 EST
References: <10191@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 42
Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP

In article <10191@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> hedrick@topaz.UUCP writes:
> It is my view that until the 19th or 20th Cent., what most people
> meant by accurate was "substantially accurate".  I claim that in the
> last few centuries, our concept of historical accuracy has become more
> literal than it used to be.  I suspect that some of this is due to the
> ideal of objectivity.  But I also think we have been influenced the
> invention of the camera and tape recorder.  These establish a very
> literal concept of what accuracy means.

We have also been heavily influenced by the study of semantics.

Reorderings, rephrasings, retellings, translations and other modifications of
texts (common before text was written down, and still common during
transcription) are well known possible sources of semantic change.  We know
that these have occurred extensively in the Bible.

Context is also important to semantics.  A single passage may well be intended
to be interpreted differently under different contexts.  Even a recording
(audio or video) cannot reproduce the context of an original listener's
culture.

Thus to believe that the original meanings of Jesus' preaching has come to
us today requires a miraculous preservation of semantics.  The assumption of
"substantially accurate" is merely wishful thinking without evidentiary
basis.  One can point to the profusion of interpretations of scripture as
evidence that there is no understanding, or one can claim that they are
all valid because there were multiple meanings intended.

There's no proof either way: once again, believers must resort to blind
faith, that most worthless justification for belief.  How many places need
we point out the arbitrary choice of faith as sole support, before
Christians start to ask why they chose to put their faith in it?
--

"Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters?  Then search yourself for why
you believe the things you do.  Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion
gives you the high it does.  Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important
enough for me to give up my religion if that is required?  Until you answer
yes to this you are not being honest with yourself."  Dave Trissel
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0-tro