Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian
From: christian@topaz.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian
Subject: What we know. . .
Message-ID: <10514@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sun, 29-Mar-87 04:45:36 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.10514
Posted: Sun Mar 29 04:45:36 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Mar-87 18:25:58 EST
Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Tektronix Television Systems, Beaverton, Oregon
Lines: 138
Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP
Summary: Our understanding of history comes from the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Many years ago a man stood upon a grassy slope, speaking to thousands
of people.  He summarized eternal principles in a brief, eloquent speech
that has survived to this day.  Of course, no tape recorders were
available, but his words were written down and distributed widely.
There are, however, variations in the written accounts.  How do we
determine if the speech is genuine?  How do we know this man really
lived?

The scene was Gettysburg, the year 1863, the man Abraham Lincoln.  And
yes, there are differences between contemporary published versions of
what has come to be known as "The Gettysburg Address."  There are
differences between Lincoln's original (which we have) and the shorthand
copy made by a reporter.  In the light of these differences, must we reject
the validity of the Gettysburg Address?  Must we reject the historicity of
Abraham Lincoln?  Of course not!

What we know of the Gettysburg Address comes to us in the same way as
our knowledge of Jesus -- as the testimony of eyewitnesses, preserved in
writing.  If we are to know anything at all about history, we must depend
on the testimony of those who were contemporary with the people and
events in question.

Of course, there is archaeological evidence, but if you exclude the
testimony of written records found in the tells, there is precious
little additional knowledge of people and events to be gained.  The
existence of a given mound may confirm something found in a written
record; the arrangement of a city may reveal whether its inhabitants
were farmers or traders; but the written word is needed to tell us
what they said and what they thought.

Both Vasu Murty (ln63wmp@sdcc7.uucp) and Mike Huybensz (mrh@cybvax0.UUCP)
seem to have grievous misunderstandings of what we know about Scripture
and how we know it.  In article <10188@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Vasu gives one
of his reasons for not believing in the Resurrection:

> This is not to say the Resurrection never happened...it very well might
> have.  I don't know; I wasn't there.

Both Vasu and I can say the same of the Gettysburg Address (unless he's
a lot older than I think. . .)!  What do you think the reaction would
be if you said:

   This is not to say the Gettysburg Address never happened . . . it
   very well might have.  I don't know; I wasn't there.

Do you think you would get a very sympathetic hearing?  Or would people
just conclude you were a few bricks short of a full load?  Clearly, this
isn't the way to analyze the validity of our knowledge of history!  We
have no choice but to depend upon the testimony of eyewitnesses.

In article <10273@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Mike perpetuates some common
misunderstandings about Scripture:

| 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.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Will Rogers said, "It ain't the things we don't know that hurt us, so
much as the things we do know that ain't so."  Dr. Harry Rimmer wrote in
the preface to his book, _Voices from the Silent Centuries_:

   . . .  Much of the teaching, in most institutes of higher learning
   in this land, deliberately seeks to lead the student away from God
   and all that is connected with the Christian faith.

   The tragedy of the case lies largely in the fact that these assaults
   on the credulity of the youth of the land are all based on false
   premises.  Erroneous opinions which Science has discredited for two
   and three generations are today solemnly paraded as fresh evidence
   and recent discovery, to the bewilderment of the student.  For one
   hundred years the science of archeology has been busy, quietly
   digging into the rubbish heaps of antiquity and piling fact upon
   fact, until today such a mass of evidence has been accumulated that
   no person who is in touch with this demonstration would dare question
   the credibility of the Bible.

The copyright date of Rimmer's book is 1935!  Fifty-two years ago, people
were peddling this same kind of misinformation (in many cases, exactly
the *same* misinformation!).  The credulous bought it then, and they are
buying it now.

Mike goes on to assert that, "to believe that the original meanings of
Jesus' preaching has come to us today requires a miraculous preservation
of semantics."  If this is so, presumably it would also require a
"miraculous preservation of semantics" for us to understand any other
ancient work, or even the Gettysburg Address.  Hogwash!

While in high school, our Latin class read parts of _Caesar's Gaullic
Wars_.  (This is a description by Julius Caesar of his campaigns in
what is now Spain).  There was no "semantic miracle" required to
understand his writings.  He spoke in ordinary language of ordinary
events, with which the reader could empathize.

Nor is it necessary to invoke "miraculous preservation of semantics" to
allow understanding of the Bible -- Old Testament or New.  Unlike most
other so-called "holy books," the Bible is written in common, everyday
language.  It speaks of humanity in terms that are universal, crossing
all languages and all cultures (e.g., ". . . all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God. . ." Romans 3:23 [NIV]).  It encourages
verification of its claims:

   For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:
   that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that
   he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to
   the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the
   Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of
   the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living,
   though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James,
   then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me
   also, as to one abnormally born.

                                      I Corinthians 15:3-8 [NIV]

Paul was saying to his readers, "If you don't believe me, go talk to
Peter.  Go talk to the other Apostles.  Go talk to those among the
five hundred that are still alive."  This is what we must do today if
we wish to know anything at all about history -- we must go to the
testimony of eyewitnesses.

Mike ends with a quote from Dave Trissel that contains much food for
thought.  However, if what Dave says is true, the obverse is true as
well:

   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 antagonism toward religion gives you the high it does.  Ask
   yourself this question:  "Is TRUTH important enough for me to give
   up my pride and prostrate myself in worship at the feet of Jesus
   Christ, if that is required?"  Until you answer "yes" to this, you
   are not being honest with yourself.

					Steve Rice

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: stever@videovax.TV.TEK.COM
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever