jeff@slovax.wa.com (jeff) (08/06/90)
[Josh Smith indicated problems accepting the idea that the Bible is 100% true on an a priori basis. I responded by noting that Most of the "mainline" denominations accept Biblical criticism, which means they reject Biblical inerrancy. --clh] Biblical criticism, which has always been our priveledge, must be given the fullness of time. By this I mean that one cannot always approach a passage in the Bible expecting what it says to be immediately verifiable. One must understand that the knowledge with which we 'test' the Bible is incomplete and often fallible. A good example: The Bible has often been criticised as a historical text, because some cities, poeples and events mentioned had not yet been found, or their existance had seemingly been contradicted by contemporary evidence. It is interesting to note however, that excavations have turned up cities that were previously unknown, except to the Bible, and in fact were previously thought to have indicated Biblical error. (I am eating lunch at work right now, with all my references at home. If you'd like specific examples, I'd be glad to research them for you.) My point: The acceptance of Biblical criticism does not necessarily imply the rejection of Biblical inerrancy. It is presumptious of us to believe we have enough information to refute what God's word says. As I have stated, it has always been our right to 'test' the Bible. It is in this study and 'challenging' of God's word that we learn and grow. Be careful however, in your conclusions. Be certain that your information is sufficiently reliable and complete before claiming Biblical error. jeff -- [ jeff@SLOVAX.WA.COM -- Jeffry H. Loucks, RDA, Inc. (206)967-8018 ] [ -or- 1304 34th St Ct NW, Gig Harbor, WA, USA 98335 (206)851-8908 ] [ Buried with Christ in baptism, raised with Christ in a newness of life! ] [ Oh yes... almost forgot! These are my opinions, not RDA, Inc. Got that? ]