Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

"Biblical inerrancy -- the infallibility of the Bible -- which most
fundamentalists profess, is often taught in a way that gives its
adherents the impression that the Bible is an easy-to-use guide to
moral conduct, religious belief, and even everyday life.  Unfortunately,
with such a conception, people are liable to avoid studying the Bible
carefully, for they may assume its interpretation is simple and requires
little more than reading particular passages, and then applying them
wherever needed.  In short, they may come to equate the infallibility
of the Bible with the infallibility of their interpretation of the
Bible."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 13,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

"People rarely want to admit to others that there are many different ways
of looking at and evaluating their most treasured beliefs.  It is far
easier for people to believe that their way of thinking is *the* way, and
that all other understandings are misunderstandings."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 27,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

"The problem of the fundamentalist worldview is its acute inability to
tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty in life, its inclination to paint
everything in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil.  Their
worldview allows no uncertainties, no unanswered questions and no loose
ends."

(There Is A Way Out, by Richard Yao, pg. 3, Luce Publications, 1983)

"The intellectual difficulties associated withe the doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy lie not in its adherents generalizations *per se* but rather
in the unwillingness of its adherents to abandon certain generalizations
in the face of contrary evidence.  While reasonable generalizations can
often make confusing things easier to understand, some generalizations
oversimplify the world to make it mesh with oversimple expectations.  Many
components of racial prejudice, for example, arise from uncritical
acceptance of stereotypical oversimplifications.  Indeed, by overgeneralizing
and not questioning assumptions and definitions, entire systems of thought
can inadequately describe the world and fail to do justice to its complexity."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 28,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

"The Biblical view of the universe,...which pictured the universe as consisting
of three tiers: the heavens, the Earth, and Sheol (the underworld), was a
common understanding in Biblical times.  Most people perceived the world as
it appeared to the senses, supplemented by some seemingly logical, but for
the most part inaccurate, speculation.
....

Not surprisingly, Biblical authors shared those views.  The Earth, which is
flat [as opposed to spherical], lies atop a sea (Genesis 7.11, Psalm 136.6).
Above the Earth, which is stationary (Psalm 93.1, 104.5), are the heavens,
resembling a canopy or inverted bowl (Genesis 1.6-8, Job 37.18, Isaiah 40.22).
Pillars support the circumference of that vault (Job 26.11, Psalm 104.3).
The sun, moon, and stars were designed to illuminate the earth for man
(Genesis 7.11, Psalm 78.23).  Inside the Earth is Sheol, populated by the
shadowy dead (Isaiah 14.9-11).  The Biblical cosmology differs considerably
from modern cosmology and is scientifically inaccurate."


(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 35-36,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

Also see The Cosmology of the Old Testament, topic 802.

    The problem with those that view the Bible errant is their inability to
    stop worshipping their intellect and receiving God's word which
    is outside of self and can lead them into all knowledge.
    
    The Bible speaks of sin, condemnation, restoration and salvation.  Too
    many times the errantist view the Bible's definitions of sin as
    cumbersome to their personal lifestyle.  Instead of allowing God's word
    to transform their lives, they reject the authority of the Bible or
    transform the Bible into a historical paper.
    
    The Bible's emphasis is on the sinful nature of man, the crucifixion of
    the Messiah or salvation, and the proper way to live a fulfilling life. 
    It defines the familiy, the church and our personal relationship with
    God.  By denying the inerrancy of the Bible, they shut themselves off
    from revelations of Truth versus the teaching of itching ears to
    appease the moment.  The Bible addresses eternal security and a proper
    value system by which to live.
    
    
    

	Re: .6 Nancy

	>The problem with those that view the Bible errant is their inability
	>to stop worshiping their intellect and receiving God's word which
	>is outside of self and can lead them to all knowledge.

	I consider the bible to be errant. I do not worship my intellect.
	I do, however, respect both.

	Further: I am not unable to receive God's word. That God's word is
	outside of self is possible -- my mind is open.

	>Too many times the errantist view of the Bible's definition of
	>sin  as cumbersome to their personal lifestyle. Instead of allowing
	>God's word to transform their lives, they reject the authority of
	>the Bible or transform the Bible into a historical paper.

	Interesting. I have observed, over many years, that those who accept
	the Bible's definition of sin -- or their theological masters'
	interpretation of that definition -- are those most likely to suffer
	under its burden. It is from their mouths that one most often hears
	such phrases as "we all have our cross to bear."  Those who reject
	these definitions are, by observation and reason, least likely to
	find them burdensome.

	You frequently -- as here -- refer to "the authority of the Bible".
	I would be interested to know what you mean by this?

	It would surprise me to learn that you view it as historically 
	authoritative.
	It would not surprise me too greatly to learn that you view it as
	scientifically (natural, physical or cosmological) authoritative.
	I would not be at all surprised to learn that you find its moral
	authority to be beyond question. 
	And I would most certainly expect you to defend its theological
	authority against all-comers.	
	
	I cannot, without questions, accept any of these. On history and
	science, the Bible is clearly wide of the mark,IMO.

	In a recent sermon (RC church) the priest having opened with:
	"Instead of talking about life after death, today I will address
	the question of life *before* death..." He went on to express
	(his opinion) that those who attend Mass or accept church doctrine
	or biblical texts without questioning them are intellectually dead
	and it is his purpose to resurrect them. He welcomes the questioning
	because, only by asking and receiving the answers, can the truth
	(or Truth -- he was speaking!) embed itself firmly and lead to
    	knowledge.

	Greetings, Derek.
              

| <<< Note 908.6 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| The problem with those that view the Bible errant is their inability to stop 
| worshipping their intellect and receiving God's word which is outside of self 
| and can lead them into all knowledge.

	Nancy, I think where one inability lies is with those who think that
all people who view the Bible as errant have done so without looking into
things. Another is those same people say that God is capable of doing anything,
yet put a limit on where we can get His true Word. If these people really
believe that God is capable of doing anything, then why is it that they can
only trust what a book says (without questions) but can't do the same for all
the other ways God gets His message to us? I mean, if God really does not want
Satan's message to get to us, why doesn't He stop it from reaching us? While I
believe that God is capable of anything, I also believe that free will plays
into everything. We need to keep our faith in Him, and ONLY Him, and He will
guide us to what He wants us to do, be, etc. If we start putting our trust, and
sometimes even more faith into a book than in with Him, then we as a people
have stopped the ability to worship Him, which is far more important than
worshipping a book. Stick with Him and things will be ok. Put your faith into
Him and things will turn out ok. Maybe not the way you would like, but if He is
having His way, it will be ok. But to put faith into a book written by men who
had free will enough to put their own opinions into the thing? It does not make
sense to me to do such a thing. I'll stick with the real McCoy, God, and not a
book.

| The Bible speaks of sin, condemnation, restoration and salvation.  Too
| many times the errantist view the Bible's definitions of sin as cumbersome 
| to their personal lifestyle.  

	Nancy, the book is a great guide. Really. But anything more? To me, no.

| Instead of allowing God's word to transform their lives, they reject the 
| authority of the Bible or transform the Bible into a historical paper.

	Nancy, how about letting God Himself transorm people's lives. A book is
not going to do that. He can, a book can not. A book can tell you about various
things that may have happened in the past, but a book will NOT transform your
life. Not even the Bible in the way you view it. To hold a book above Him is
wrong (imho). Hold Him up and let Him do the transforming. He may use many
tools, including the Bible, to achieve this. But let's let Him do it and not
put restrictions on Him.

| The Bible's emphasis is on the sinful nature of man, the crucifixion of
| the Messiah or salvation, and the proper way to live a fulfilling life.
| It defines the familiy, the church and our personal relationship with God.  

	Would everyone agree with your interpretation of family, the church and
your definition of the personal relationship people will have with God? This is
one are where there is problems. If you don't let Him show you the way, and you
allow a book to do it for you, then your relationship with God is only as good
as your interpretation of the Bible. Not very accurate to me. Also kind of
restricting.

| By denying the inerrancy of the Bible, they shut themselves off from 
| revelations of Truth versus the teaching of itching ears to appease the 
| moment.  

	For you to assume this is the case for everyone shows your lack of
knowledge about the reasons people may not view the Bible as inerrant. While I
do agree that some will fit into this catagory, I truly believe that most do
not.

| The Bible addresses eternal security and a proper value system by which to 
| live.

	And is only as good as your interpretation. Do ya think there would be
so much of a problem if there were no grey areas? If there were real absolutes?
But you will never get everyone you would ever view as being a Christian to
agree on what each passage means, what is or isn't a sin, etc. This is one
reason the book should not be viewed as God's Word. 



Glen

"Many fundamentalists risk picturing God as a tyrant when they require certain
verses to be literally free of error.  Although the Biblical picture of God
generally is progressively humane, many Biblical verses, particularly those
of early origin, insultingly depict Him as cruel and unjust.  That fact need
not alarm even the most devout non-fundamentalists, who can easily accept
the notion that Biblical theology and morality show a fairly steady (though
of course, not absolute) progress."


(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 45,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

I certainly agree that some of the issues raised by the
preceeding quotes apply to some inerrantists.  I would
also like to point out that they certainly do not apply
to other inerrantists.  In fact, most of them don't apply
to most of the innerrantists I know.

Once again, what we have is someone wishing to use a broad
brush to paint all as a particularly kind.  This very much
feeds into the "us vs. them" mentality as well as allowing
those who are not inerrantists to easily brush off (pun
intended) those who are inerrantists because - after all -
they think the Bible is "an easy to use guide without
contradictions" and without "unanswered questions".  Tell me,
you who enter such quotes, what inerrantists in this notesfile
believe that the Bible is an easy to use guide?  After a 2
year Seminary degree, I hardly think that the Bible is always
easy to use or understand.  In fact, the discussions in here
prove (to me anyway) that even the most BASIC of doctrines
(e.g. process of salvation, the meaning of the cross) that are 
(IMO) clearly explained in numerous places in the Bible are grossly
misinterpreted and misunderstood.  Inerrantists also have a
poor track record of always understanding the Bible (i.e. some
inerrantists - like some moderates and some liberals - misinterpret
the Bible and go off in the wrong direction).  This has nothing to
do with being an inerrantist (despite the perception of the
author), it has everything to do with being a human being.

In other words, this piece lacks both balance and wisdom.  Balance
would seperate out what inerrantists do and believe because they
are inerrantists from what they do because they are humans.  Wisdom
would recognize that many inerrantists just don't fall into the
categories defined and acknowledge the very reasonable reasons why
logical people can (and sometimes do) choose to believe the Bible
is inerrant.  However, I must admit that such a book would not
find much of a market.

I find it particularly amuinsg that the author says (in .4)

  The intellectual difficulties associated with the the 
  doctrine of Biblical inerrancy lie not in its adherents 
  generalizations *per se* but rather in the unwillingness of 
  its adherents to abandon certain generalizations in the face 
  of contrary evidence.

when the statements entered are all generalization that, evidently,
he believes despite the vast amount of evidence that suggests
that they are often wrong.

Collis

    Although generalizations are wrong (spelled wrong too), I do think that
    fundamentalism tends to attract a class of people that find security
    and simplicity in a faith that believes that what is written is
    true, period....no discussion.
    I find that a length analysis by folks such as Collis , are useful
    and good...but...I haven't heard of that level of analysis by the
    fundamentalists I've known.
    
    Marc H.

In many occasions Jesus Christ settled disputes by the word. He 
constantly stressed; "It is written...".  He also indicated the
importance of the word in our everyday life.

Just as we need food to sustain our physical being, we need the
word of God to sustain our spiritual being. The apostles also 
quoted scriptures constantly.

A few scripture passages...

MAT 4:4   - Jesus answered, "It is written:'Man does not live
	    on bread alone, but on every word that comes from
	    the mouth of God.'"
            (check out how Jesus uses the word against Satan)

2TIM 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for 
	    teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
	    righteousness.

1TIM 4:13 - Until I come, devote yourselves to the public
	    reading of Scripture, to preaching and to
 	    teaching.

2PET 1:20 - Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of
	    Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpre-
	    tation.

TIT 1:1   - Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ
	    for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of
	    the truth that leads to godliness --
    1:2   - a faith of knowledge resting on the hope of eternal
	    life, which God, who does not lie, promised before
	    the beginning of time, 
    1:3   - and at his appointed season he brought his word to
            light through the preaching entrusted to me by the
	    command of god our savior,...

HEB 4:12  - For the word of God is living and active. Sharper
 	    than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to
   	    dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it 
	    judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

JAM 1:22  - Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive
	    yourselves. Do what it says.    

ACT 17:11 - Now the Bereans were of more noble character than
	    Thessalonians, for they received the message with
	    great eagerness and examined the Scripures every
	    day to see if what Paul said was true.

Oleg,
    

                -< About the scriptures, from the scriptures. >-
	These passages from Oleg's entry do in my mind show the intention of the
    mid second century anonomous writer to institutionalize the teachings
    of the early church.
    
    	The radical revolutionary quality of Paul's writings are gone.  The
    definition of Faith has been transformed from the all encompassing
    mystic reality that appeared as a flash of light to Paul and totally
    changed his life, to an institutionalized acceptance of doctrine.
    
    The charismatic period of the early church has ended and
    institutionalization has set in.
    
    
    

2TIM 3:16 - ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for 
	    teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
	    righteousness.

1TIM 4:13 - Until I come, devote yourselves to the public
	    reading of Scripture, to preaching and to
 	    teaching.


TIT 1:1   - Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ
	    for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of
	    the truth that leads to godliness --
    
    1:2   - a faith of knowledge resting on the hope of eternal
	    life, which God, who does not lie, promised before
	    the beginning of time, 
    
    1:3   - and at his appointed season he brought his word to
            light through the preaching entrusted to me by the
	    command of god our savior,...

    
    
    Patricia

The book, "Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks," devotes a chapter
to the teachings of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, acknowledging both
as fundamentalist preachers.  Robertson, some may argue, is an Evangelical,
while Falwell is Independent Baptist.  The book argues that one can be
a fundamentalist and be a member of nearly any Christian church or
collectivity.

The book takes all its biblical quotes, unless otherwise specified, from
*The Book*, which is The Living Bible; not a translation, but a paraphrase.
The authors indicate this was a deliberate choice because it was widely
promoted by CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), which was headed by M.G.
'Pat' Robertson.

Shalom,
Richard

The book, "Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks," is saturated with
qualifiers saying, in effect, 'This does not apply to all fundamentalists,'
even to the point where it says not even all fundamentalists are biblical
inerrantists; in spite of inerrancy being the hallmark of fundamentalism.

So many qualifiers are used so often that, at times, it became difficult
for me to sift out the substance.

It was written for a different audience.  It was written for fundamentalists.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .15
    
    Zing.........
    
    Written for Fundamentalist....talk about dropping the other shoe.
    
    
    Marc H.

    
    There are fundamentalists and mystics in all religions, not just
    Christianity.
    
    Cindy

    .17  Indeed.  And which the book acknowledges, but confines itself
    to Christian fundamentalism.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .18
    
    Shall we hear about the others for balance as well Richard.  Or shall
    this be all one-sided as well.

    .19  You are welcome to get a copy of the book and peruse it at will.
    

    .20
    
    I figured that would be your answer.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    The term 'fundamentalist' originated in Protestant Christianity
    but has spread to other religions and cultures.
    
    From Indonesia and Bangladesh has come some inquiry concerning
    a possible counterpart to Fundamentalists Anonymous for Muslims.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .19
    
    I really think you are over-reacting , Nancy. Really.
    
    Marc H.

I'll be entering information on how to contact Fundamentalists Anonymous
in the U.S. in topic 86, "Out of Fundamentalism - SRO."

Shalom,
Richard

    
    		
    		I find it odd, to say the least, that any could believe in
    an all knowing, all powerful God *NOT* being able to write a book,
    through men, that is inerrent.  In my humble experience, 18 years of
    study, I have not found any passages in the Bible that could not be
    explained by delving into the ancient text for the historic usages
    and definitions.  In every case, and lets face it I am a "doubting
    Thomas", through diligent study, I have found the Bible to be very
    consistent and inerrent.  I will agree that there are questions that I
    cannot explain but thats very different than being wrong.  
    
    
    Dave 

"Two central moral principles of justice are that only the guilty should
be punished and that the punishment should fit the crime.  Indeed,
according to the Bible, God said: 'Fathers shall not be put to death for
the sins of their sons nor the sons for the sins of their fathers,...'
(Deuteronomy 24.16).  Yet the Old Testament has God often assigning the
death penalty for fairly harmless actions and causing the innocent to
suffer for the sins of the guilty.

When God issued His Ten Commandments, He reportedly proclaimed that 'when
I punish people for their sins, the punishment continues upon the children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who hate me' (Exodus 20.5)."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 46-47,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

    .26  It is not my habit to capitalize pronouns or the refer to
    humankind as 'man.'  I am quoting the text of "Fundamentalism:
    Hazards and Heartbreaks" using the authors' words.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Marc you forgot to add IMHO to your note.
    
    I'm not over-reacting.. 

re Note 908.25 by DPDMAI::DAWSON:

>     		I find it odd, to say the least, that any could believe in
>     an all knowing, all powerful God *NOT* being able to write a book,
>     through men, that is inerrent.  

        Well I certainly don't believe that God *couldn't* have
        written an inerrant book.  However, I see no reason to
        believe that God has done so.

        (A little human reasoning here:  the entire text of the Bible
        is not written as God speaking, it appears to be a series of
        different human writers over many years relating what they
        believe God was saying and, in many cases, doing, in the
        world.  Just as God *could* have written an inerrant book,
        God *could* have inserted clear evidence for it being God's
        word *alone*.  Of course, perhaps God really wanted to set it
        up so that one needs to guess right.)


>     In my humble experience, 18 years of
>     study, I have not found any passages in the Bible that could not be
>     explained by delving into the ancient text for the historic usages
>     and definitions.  In every case, and lets face it I am a "doubting
>     Thomas", through diligent study, I have found the Bible to be very
>     consistent and inerrent.  

        I have found the Bible to be valuable in all cases in which I
        have used it, but never finding an "error" is never a proof
        that error does not exist.  (Besides, "valuable" and
        "inerrant" are two very different things:  I find Aesop's
        fables to be valuable, for example.)

        Also, the quality "inerrant" by itself is almost useless for
        settling an argument *if* it is confined to the text.  For
        example, when Paul says "Let your women keep silence in the
        churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," it is
        probably true that Paul wrote that, so it's inerrant.  Is the
        interpretation that that applies today also inerrant?  Does
        inerrancy really mean that any "reasonable" interpretation
        is also inerrant?  I really think that many insist on
        "inerrancy" because of the power it gives *them* when *they*
        use the passage in a dispute with another.

        Bob

    .29
    
    The sword cuts two ways.  You say that it gives power, or empowers the
    person with a pov that cannot be reasonably argued away.
    
    I say that the same sword also creates a value/moral system by which
    that same individual must be submissive to.  Humility [not humiliation]
    is a key to Biblical authority.

Another consideration:  Why would God choose a fallible human
to take dictation?  Or did God choose to make the human infallible
and error-free only during the dictation of the Bible and then
return the human back into an error-capable being?

8-}

Richard

The principal author of the sacred books is God himself, who inspired the
human authors, or hagiographers, in their literary work and

	"by supernatural power so moved and impelled them to
	 write -- he so assisted them when writing -- that the
	 things which he ordered, and those only, they first
	 rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write
	 down, and finally expressed in apt words and with
	 infallible truth."

			-- Leo XIII, Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus"
				     ("The Most Provident God"), 1893

RE: .29 Bob,
    
    
>        Well I certainly don't believe that God *couldn't* have
>        written an inerrant book.  However, I see no reason to
>        believe that God has done so.

		Ok...Lets try some "human reasoning" here. :-)  God
	is all powerful...all knowing.  Why would God allow a book
	which portends to say his words for so long to so many people?
	Seems to me that it makes much more sense that God would want
	to get it straight.


>        (A little human reasoning here:  the entire text of the Bible
>        is not written as God speaking, it appears to be a series of
>        different human writers over many years relating what they
>        believe God was saying and, in many cases, doing, in the
>        world.  Just as God *could* have written an inerrant book,
>        God *could* have inserted clear evidence for it being God's
>        word *alone*.  Of course, perhaps God really wanted to set it
>        up so that one needs to guess right.

		God is playing a joke?  A test maybe?  Somehow I don't
	think so...but thats me.  Lets ask him when we meet up..ok? :-)


>        I have found the Bible to be valuable in all cases in which I
>        have used it, but never finding an "error" is never a proof
>        that error does not exist.  (Besides, "valuable" and
>        "inerrant" are two very different things:  I find Aesop's
>        fables to be valuable, for example.)

		Oh Bob...of course its proof.  If over a couple of thousand
	years, millions and millions or people reading the Bible and they 
	find no errors....well it seems to me....   Personally I have 
	never found Aesop's fables very valuable. :-)

>        Also, the quality "inerrant" by itself is almost useless for
>        settling an argument *if* it is confined to the text.  For
>        example, when Paul says "Let your women keep silence in the
>        churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," it is
>        probably true that Paul wrote that, so it's inerrant.  Is the
>        interpretation that that applies today also inerrant?  Does
>        inerrancy really mean that any "reasonable" interpretation
>        is also inerrant?  I really think that many insist on
>        "inerrancy" because of the power it gives *them* when *they*
>        use the passage in a dispute with another.

		What if Bob, and this is an interesting "what if", Paul
	was talking to a very troubled Church.  One that was having 
	problems keeping their eyes on the Gospel and Jesus and it was
	the kind of problems that could even split the Church.  Is it
	worth it to split a Church over a matter like that or is it 
	better to set the issue asside and focus on Jesus Christ?
	I do not believe that many of Pauls pronouncements were to
	be taken as doctrine but was something said to a specific
	Church for a specific problem.  Doesn't Salvation seem so much
	more important?  Enough about that.  Interpretation, either way,
	cannot be judged as inerrent.  IMHO anyway.


Dave

RE: .31 Richard,
    
    
>Another consideration:  Why would God choose a fallible human
>to take dictation?  Or did God choose to make the human infallible
>and error-free only during the dictation of the Bible and then
>return the human back into an error-capable being?

	There is a good question...why would God?  Could it be, and
I'm only guessing here, that God wanted to prove his own infallible
nature through fallible humans?  The beauty and consistancy of the
Bible tends, in my mind, to prove that though many humans wrote it,
it had only one author.  God.  'Course this issue can go around and
around for time immemorial. :-)  It really is what you believe 
personally.  I just have trouble with *SO* many people arriving at
basically the same conclusion from reading it and it was not written
by God.  Now if your saying that only part of it was written by God
then I think you've been in the sun too long. ;-)  Then again, if it
wasn't written by God then why have anything to do with it?  Ah...but
if it was written by God, and God being who he is, then it has to be 
infallable.

Dave

    .34  I like your answer, Dave.  You speak with such humility
    and genuine kindness.
    
    The Bible to me is the holiest book of books.  However, since I
    see the Bible as like a journal of others' encounters with
    the living God, it loses nothing for me by not being inerrant.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Re: Last several.
    
    If God works in mysterious ways, ..." why not also through error?
    :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

 How was it that Samson killed 1000 men with one jawbone?
 
 Where did Samson get his strength to push against the pillars
 and destroy the temple killing a few thousand?

 Where did Solomon get his wisdom?

 Who appointed God's prophets to do God's work?

 Who appointed the appostles to do God's work?
    
 All of the above (and many more) were appointed by God.
 They got their strength, wisdom and knowledge from God!
 In the same way, they received the direction and guidance 
 from God to write the scriptures.

 GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES!

 I'd rather rely on the writings of the prophets and appostles
 chosen by God before I'd rely on self-appointed prophets, apostles
 and writers, who claim that they have God's truth!

 Oleg
    

re: in general...

If God essentially used humans as scribes, as I understand some people imply,
why is it that some books are written with good grammar and language use,
while others seem to indicate a lack of good language use?  (I have heard here
and elsewhere that some of the books use very poor grammar, I don't read
Aramaic or Greek, myself.) 

Personally, my pov is that a variety of people were inspired to share thair 
relationship with God.  Sort of like what happens in this (and other) 
notesfiles.  (I can see it now, hundreds of years later, scholars picking 
through our notes, tossing some out, canonizing others.  Instead of chapter 
and verse they'll have note number and reply number .-)

Peace,

Jim

re Note 908.37 by 7466::KLIMOWICZ:

>  In the same way, they received the direction and guidance 
>  from God to write the scriptures.
> 
>  GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES!
> 
>  I'd rather rely on the writings of the prophets and appostles
>  chosen by God before I'd rely on self-appointed prophets, apostles
>  and writers, who claim that they have God's truth!
  
        I certainly agree that "God does not make mistakes".  But the
        issue here is whether God fully controlled every word of what
        we know as Scripture, not whether God made mistakes in
        exercising such supposed control.

        I too would "rather rely on the writings of the prophets and
        apostles chosen by God" instead of relying on the
        self-appointed -- that is also not the issue here.  One issue
        is whether "chosen by God" means that your literary actions
        were entirely controlled by God.  I see no reason to believe
        this other than the opinion held by some that that would have
        been the right thing for God to have done.

        There are many examples in the Scriptures where people
        "chosen by God" have made mistakes.  Inerrantists would have
        us yet believe that when those "chosen by God" took pen to
        paper they never made even the slightest error.

        Bob

    It has been my personal experience, as well as my reading of
    the Bible, that God frequently chooses to act with and through
    some very unlikely persons.
    
    God rarely works through perfect people.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    RE: .40
    
    King David is a good example. So is Schinler...
    
    Marc H.

    I have noticed that God takes great delight in targetting the imperfect
    to do His work. 

  Bob, we both agree that God does not make mistakes...
 
  There is only one who is perfect and never made mistakes, and 
  that is Jesus Christ.  The rest of us are imperfect...

  I hope that you don't miss the point. 

  GOD'S PERFECT PLAN is accomplished through IMPERFECT PEOPLE
    chosen by him.

  When I read a passage such as:  (words of Jesus)

  John 12:48	There is a judge for the one who rejects me and
		does not accept my words; That very word which
		I spoke will condemn him at the last day
	 :49 	For I did not speak of my own accord, but the
		Father who sent me commanded me what to say and
		how to say it.
    
  (An imperfect man wrote this. Should I belive it or not?)
    
And another imperfect man wrote this...
 
2 TIM 3:16   	All scripture is god breathed...

Should I believe it or not?   
	-----------------------------------------------------------

 No, I don't believe that God created robots. He created us with 
 a free will, and he knows exactly how we will exercise our free
 will.

 Samson, Solomon, David and hundreds of other, exercised their
    free will, and yet all were all used to accomplish God's 
    perfect plan. 

 Oleg
    

    FACTS on the Bible's Unity
    --------------------------
    - The Bible was written over a period of ~1500 years
    - The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors without a
      single contradiction.  That is a miracle in itself!
    - Those authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds:
            Joshua - military general
            Daniel - prime minister
            Peter  - a fisherman
            Nehemiah - cup bearer
    - Those authors wrote from different settings
            Moses - from the wilderness
            Paul  - from prison
            John  - exiled on the island of Patmos
    - The Bible was written on 3 different continents
            Africa, Asia, Europe
    - The Bible was written in 3 different languages
            Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek
    - Archaeological evidence: So far, the findings of arcaeology have
      verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the Bible
      record.  No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible,
      while many have supported it.
    - Historical Evidence: there are historical records, other than the
      Bible which support the Bible record.
    - Fulfilled Bible prophecy: 
            there have been over 400 fulfilled Bible prophecies so far
            Isaiah 46:9-10, Isaiah 48:3,5
    - Changed lives: this is perhaps the strongest evidence for the
      reliability of the Scripture.  No one can deny all of the changed lives
      throughout history, including yours!

    RE .29
    
    AMEN Bob,
    
    I wish I could have written that as eloquently as you.
    
    Patricia

    re: 908.44

    "Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to 
      be wrong in his facts"...Bernard Baruch

  although it may be true that _some_ of the Bible is supported by
  historical evidence it is not true that it is in its entirety.

  for example (based on my readings prompted by the discussion of the
  Book of Daniel), in the Book of Daniel the Persian rulers are listed
  as Xerxes, Darius and Cyrus (one following another in succession)
  where we know from other historical sources that the reverse order
  is correct.

  the reference elsewhere in this conference to a letter by Pontius
  Pilate is also inaccurate. that letter is widely known to be a fake.

  peter

>  Book of Daniel), in the Book of Daniel the Persian rulers are listed
>  as Xerxes, Darius and Cyrus (one following another in succession)
>  where we know from other historical sources that the reverse order
>  is correct.
    
    There is no Xerxes in Daniel.  I'm assuming you mean Artaxerxes.  There
    were 3 different rulers with that name.  I'm not sure, but I think there 
    may have been more than one Darius too.

>  the reference elsewhere in this conference to a letter by Pontius
>  Pilate is also inaccurate. that letter is widely known to be a fake.

That letter also has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible.

/john

Thanks, Richard, for sharing that there were many
qualifiers (none of which, unfortunately, you chose
to enter) on many of the statements that the author
made.  Naturally, I agree that many qualifiers are
needed.

As he defines fundamentalism (as equavilent to
inerrantist), the movement is *so* big and *so*
diverse as to defy many generalizations (although
not all).  You really need to study the various
sects within inerrancy in order to define it well,
IMO.

Collis

    > As he defines fundamentalism (as equavilent to
    > inerrantist), the movement is *so* big and *so*
    > diverse as to defy many generalizations (although
    > not all).
    
    Sort of like trying to define "Christian"... :^)
    
    	Eric

    Yes, I wouldn't have diluted fundamentalism nearly so well
    as the authors of "Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks."
    
    My copy, for those interested in reading the book, was obtained
    from the public library.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

"Much of the wisdom in the Bible can be unlocked, but only through
genuine questioning, through the honest pursuit of truth.  It is
hoped that, as a result of having read this book, the reader can
acknowledge that viewing the Bible as 'perfect' or 'inerrant' is a
misguided approach to unlocking that wisdom.  That acknowledgement
need not limit one's respect for the Bible or one's ability to profit
from its teachings.  Intelligent questioning enables people to make
the wisest possible use of the Bible.  For, indeed, questioning of
any book, institution, or person need not be irreverent.  It can be,
in fact, an effective tool for improving one's understanding, and
perhaps it is part of the antidote for the anguish that many current
and former fundamentalists are now experiencing."

(Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks, by Evans and Berent, pg. 152,
Open Court Publishing, 1988)

	Re: 908.44 Heiser

	>FACTS on the Bible's unity

	What are facts (in relation to the bible) have occupied some of
	the greatest minds down the centuries.  They are not yet in
	agreement.

	> The Bible was written over a period of ~1500 years.

	Or: (maybe) ~1200 BCE to ~200 CE (including editors). But what
	this "fact" has to do with unity evades me.

	>The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors without a
	>single contradiction. That is a miracle in itself!

	It would indeed be a miracle, were it true. However, contradictions
	do exist (although the bible does not -- as Collis pointed out --
	*explicitly* contradict itself [my emphasis]). Inconsistencies are
	rather more frequent than contradictions. Would you exclude these
	from your prerequisite for a miracle?

	>Those authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds:
	>Those authors wrote from differnt settings:

	This would, in principle, be fact. However, you include fictional
	characters and non-authors in your list. EG: Daniel or Moses.
	While I agree that tradition supports your "fact" it is by no means
	a point of unity.

	>The Bible was written on 3 different continents...
	>The Bible was written in 3 different languages...

	Ok! But the contribution of these facts to Bible's unity is only
	vague to me.

	>Archaeological evidence: So far the findings of arcaeology have
	>verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the Bible
	>record. No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the
	>Bible, while many have supported it.

	It is true (Ie: a fact) that many discoveries have supported
	*parts* of the Bible record. However, it is also true that there is
	a wealth of discovery which *at the very least* raises questions on
	*other* points. Some contradict it.

	>Historical evidence: there are historical records, other than the
	>Bible which support the Bible record.

	Agreed (if you did not imply "all of"! There are also historical
    	records which contradict *parts* of the bible record.

	>Fulfilled Bible prophecy: there have been over 400 fulfilled Bible
	>prophecies so far

	I, and a great many well-meaning and better informed scholars have
	yet to find a single fulfilled *prophecy*: Ie: a statement, recorded
	with absolute certainty before an event which can be unambiguosly
	identified, and which could not have been deduced by any reasonably
	well-informed person.

	>Changed lives: this is perhaps the strongest evidence for the
	>reliability of the Scripture. No one can deny all of the changed
	>lives throughout history, including yours!

	(Are we talking reliability or unity? Did I miss something?)

	All of the changed lives, within the Christian world, of those
	tortured, incarcerated or, of course, saved.
	All of the changed lives, outside of the Christian world, of those
	tortured, incarcerated or, of course, saved.
    
        (I could, if I chose, deny all of these; I choose not to).
    
	This is evidence for the unity/reliability of the scriptures?

	If this is "perhaps the strongest evidence," it is not difficult
	for me to put all of your other "evidence" in perspective...

	... and, having done so, cry!

	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  .53

Note that I did not say that the Bible implicitly contradicts
itself either.  In fact, I do not believe that it does.
However, I find that this just opens up another area of
discussion at times when I don't desire to pursue this if
I make such a broad-based assertion.

	>I, and a great many well-meaning and better informed scholars have
	>yet to find a single fulfilled *prophecy*: Ie: a statement, recorded
	>with absolute certainty before an event which can be unambiguosly
	>identified, and which could not have been deduced by any reasonably
	>well-informed person.

This speaks volumes to me - not, of course, about the 1500 fulfilled
Biblical prophecies and the 500 more to come - but rather about
where you are coming from.  It boggles my mind that you would make
such a claim as above.

Collis

Well, I'm coming to the end of all I'm going to say about "Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks" (which will probably be to the great relief of
some 8-}).

There's a chapter on creationism versus evolution which I skipped over
entirely.  The subject is not among my interests.

There are quite a few citations of biblical blemishes which the reader is
invited to decide about.

There is a thorough list of books for further reading.

There is an appendix entry regarding Fundamentalists Anonymous, which
the authors felt might be helpful for some, but which the authors did not
necessarily share the views of and vice versa.

Shalom,
Richard

    
     Just to clear some of the air on fundamentalism. I think some
    people may see fundamentalism as "legalism". Legalism is another
    issue, which, I believe most fundamentalists do not go along with.
    
    Fundamentalists, (as well as others), understand the value of the
    Word of God, and adhere to his word.
    
    Oleg

Note 908.56

>   Legalism is another
>   issue, which, I believe most fundamentalists do not go along with.
    
Would expand upon this, Oleg?  It is my experience that most fundamentalists
don't see themselves as legalists, but that in practice they really are.

Richard

    
    
 Hi Richard, (busy day...)

 What I mean by legalism is that some religious organizations, preachers,
 leaders etc, may put themselves in a position of authority, and impose
 unreasonable, twisted rules upon those who join their church.

 Some examples of legalism:

 - "You must give 10% of your income to the church".
 - "Women are to wear dresses to church (no pants)"
 - "Before you move, or change jobs, or buy a car, or plan or expanding
    your family, or make any major plans in your life, make sure to discuss 
    it with us first..."
 - "You are to study the scriptures only under our direction, and you must 
    use only the materials provided by us... (or else...)"
 - "You can only be saved if you are baptized by our church (organization)"
 - "We are the only true church, and you have to abide by the rules of
    our church!".
 - "You are not to associate with non-believers..."
 - "You should not visit a doctor or take medication..."

 I could go on, but you get the picture...

 I just wanted to make sure that when one hears the word "FUNDAMENTALISM",
 that that person does not automatically think "LEGALISM". 

 Oleg

Note 908.58

>Some examples of legalism:

> - "You must give 10% of your income to the church".

I've been to churches where this is expected.  I belong to a church which
encourages it, but doesn't call anybody to task for it.

> - "Women are to wear dresses to church (no pants)"

How about prohibiting women from preaching?  How about prohibiting women
from serving as a teacher to men?  Are these not legalistic?

> - "Before you move, or change jobs, or buy a car, or plan or expanding
>    your family, or make any major plans in your life, make sure to discuss 
>    it with us first..."

This is the popular notion of what a cult is.

> - "You are to study the scriptures only under our direction, and you must 
>    use only the materials provided by us... (or else...)"

How about you must accept the Scriptures as the inerrant, unchanging Word
of God?  How about the "King James" only?

Oleg, what you seem to be describing is an extreme form of fundamentalism,
rather than an authentic difference.

Shalom,
Richard

Well, there's also a totally different definition of legalism, used by
some fundamentalists.

For example, some would consider observing a liturgical year with standard
scriptural readings progressing through the entire bible on a regular basis
and the use of standardized liturgical prayers to be "legalistic."

I would only consider that "legalistic" if private prayer and study outside
of the liturgical cycle were discouraged.

/john

    .60  I tend to see that sort of thing as simply a more formal or
    systematic approach.
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    

Note 732.118
    
>    Wow, Talk about the horse calling the kettle whoopie! :-)
    
>    Wasn't there recently a note set forth by yourself with exactly the
>    same agenda against fundamentalism not too long ago..????
    
>    Incredible ... 
    
Note 732.119

> re .118

> Amazing indeed..

I'm not at all amazed by who is amazed here.

I've never asked for clarification from anyone holding a biblical inerrantist/
fundamentalist point of view.  I've always been up front about my disagreement
with certain aspects of fundamentalism, as well as certain fundamentalists
(Robertson, Falwell, Kennedy) and certain fundamentalist institutions.

You're certainly free, however, to think of me as a hypocrite if you want.

Richard

    .62
    
    We all "know better", but do it anyway at some juncture.
    
    

  I'll risk a note here.

  I'm an inerrantist and of a type which even other inerrantists find
  to be a naive view, that the Greek and Hebrew texts behind the 1611 
  KJV are texts which have been divinely restored to the heavenly model... 
  perfectly.

  I'm reluctant to accept the categorization of "fundamentalist" without
  qualification. If one means that I adhere to the tenants of the 1895 
  Niagra Bible Conference, then generally, yes I'de be a "fundamentalist".
  
  Personally, I dont care what view a person holds, if they want to discuss
  the scriptures, I would do so with an open mind (as much as possible) and
  have done so and have enjoyed discussions with others who hold divergent
  views from my own. Our heavenly Father loves each of us as if no other
  person existed. Yes He is angry with those who hurt others (physically
  or psychologically) and will punish them if, after He warns them, they
  persist. That punishment might wait until they return to Him.

  I have a couple of a views which have gotten me in trouble with some :
  As in note .33 (Dave), I believe the Father speaks to us from a current
  situation point of view, for instance "women should shut up in church"
  (interpretive translation) was given because of the current situation
  in Asia Minor relative to the practices of the Hellenistic Mystery Rite
  and the converts from these religions entering the local churches and
  usurping the authority of the God-ordained leadership. Women were pre-
  dominant in the temple worship (for instance - dianna) and were coming 
  into the church dressed in their temple prostitute robes with shaven heads
  etc, etc. These rules were for *these* churches. Once the churches were
  sanctified, then these rules were no longer necessary. My view is that
  women should be allowed to exercise their gifts in the church as long as
  they dont overthrow the natural order of things (which is all that the world
  knows). This is just an example of how I feel the Scripture should be viewed.
  Our Father dosnt expect us to check our brain in at the door when we go
  to church.

   Hank

    RE: .64
    
    Very interesting view Hank, could you expand some?
    
    Why do you feel that the 1611 version was inspired? Your own view or 
    from teaching?
    
    I like the way you interpret the scriptures...makes sense.
    
    
    Marc H. 

   Re .65  Marc

   Hi Marc,

   There is as one noter (in another conference) commented a "leap of faith"
   involved. After a long search of historical facts, I came to my conclusion
   which can only be made as an act of faith.

   Note that my feeling is toward the *Greek and Hebrew collations* 
   behind the 1611 KJV.

   Additionally, I feel that plenary inspiration in the original texts
   is not enough, but needs to be extended to the transmission of these
   texts.

   I've used the following analogy :  Do we sterilize out drinking water 
   at the source and then send in to the users through the sewer system?
   Do we pasteurize milk and then deliver it in dirty garbage cans?

   Wouldn't and/or couldn't Our Heavenly Father do similarly with His Word.
    (our spiritual food and drink).

   I don't disfellowship with those who dont hold this view (actually, I dont
   know anyone else who does and I havn't been very successful is persuading
   folks of this postion). I dont think its of great importance that we know
   it (if its a scientific reality), I feel His Word has its effect regardless.


   Hank

    Welcome, Hank.  Hope you'll tell us a little more about yourself
    in Topic 3.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Hi Hank,

   >Additionally, I feel that plenary inspiration in the original texts
   >is not enough, but needs to be extended to the transmission of these
   >texts.

You've heard the arguments before and were not persuaded, I'm sure,
but I'll repeat them again anyway.  :-)

  1)  The Bible claims to be true and God-breathed.  There is no
      explicit claim in the Bible that it would be totally
      preserved without any errors.  (There are certainly some
      implicit claims, but exactly what these claims are and whether
      or not they include transmission without errors is very
      debatable.)

  2)  5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments.  Out of all these,
      there are not 2 that exactly match letter for letter (where
      the texts overlap, that is).  It would appear that transmission
      errors occurred about 100% of the time.

  3)  Saying that you accept a certain line of manuscripts as the
      true word of God is very insufficient - when these manuscripts
      all have inconsistencies with each other.  In addition, when
      older (inconsistent) manuscripts of the same line were (or will
      be) found, do you accept the older as more authoritative (as most
      do) or do you believe that God guided a restoration in the later
      manuscripts (implying that God did not keep His Word pure for a
      time and that we are more important than our predecessors).

  4)  How do you resolve differences within this line of manuscripts?
      If such a method is reasonable within a line of manuscripts,
      what makes it unreasonable outside of that line of manuscripts
      (i.e. why shouldn't one line of manuscripts be compared with
      another line).

      Certainly you admit that there are numerous essentially
      inconsequential errors (don't you)?  How does this fit in with
      your beliefs?

  5)  Finally, faith as defined by the Bible is the belief that God

        1) has made a promise
        2) is able to keep the promise
        3) has the integrity to keep the promise

      therefore

        4) we can trust God to fulfill His promise

      It is specific, not fuzzy.  Without a promise from God, our faith
      is faith in itself, not God.  Are there  promises from God that you
      hang your hat on with regard to this belief of pure transmission
      of the Scriptures?

God's Word will not return to Him void - but His Word has not
required pure transmission in order to accomplish His purpose.  This
can be seen by the commitment to faith in God and increasing faith
in God by those who have used whatever versions of the Bible you
believe are "impure".

I applaud and appreciate your trust in the truth of God's Word.
Personally, I find no promise from God (nor evidence of such a
promise in being kept) that the transmission of His Word would
be totally pure.

Collis

 Re 980.68

 Hi Collis,

 My view is that the original texts were perserved by the early church
 and carried off by a folk who became know as the Waldensians. As early
 as the year 197 (for certain) the Piedmonts (another name they were known
 by) translated these texts into Old Italian, French and possibly German.
 A former view that I held was that the Byzantine family of texts were 
 superior to all others (Alexandrian, etc) however, after researching the
 matter, I've migrated to the Waldensians source as the "pure" texts, 
 protected by God in exclusion to all others. There is undeniable evidence
 that the Waldensian sources were used in the reconstruction and collation 
 of the greek text used to produce the 1611 KJV. These source texts were
 burned in a fire at the Oxford Library in January 1617. The master 
 collation still exists. 

 I believe Our Father guides history and circumstance to keep a "pure" Word.

 whether I would have come to my conclusion concerning this master collation
 without the investigative historical research, I don't know.

 It really dosnt matter now, even if new (supposed) historical evidence to 
 the contrary should appear, I doubt if I would investigate it. Apparently 
 the "pure" text torch was passed from the Waldensians to the Church of 
 England in the 17th century.

    Hank

    RE: .69
    
    Then, would future versions by the Church of England be better than the
    KJV?
    
    Marc H.

  I'de say its within the realm of possibilty

  Hank

Hi Hank,

Thanks for sharing more of what you believe.

However, you did little in way of addressing the
questions I posed.

Collis

   Re .72 Collis
   

>  3)  Saying that you accept a certain line of manuscripts as the
>      true word of God is very insufficient - when these manuscripts
>      all have inconsistencies with each other.  In addition, when
>      older (inconsistent) manuscripts of the same line were (or will
>      be) found, do you accept the older as more authoritative (as most
>      do) or do you believe that God guided a restoration in the later
>      manuscripts (implying that God did not keep His Word pure for a
>      time and that we are more important than our predecessors).


 God guided the Waldensians in the maintenance of their NT mms. The end product
 being the Master collation behind the 1611 KJV. The source texts are destroyed
 but it dosnt matter, the Master Text still exists. Similarly with the OT 
 Masoretic texts (which the Valdi recognized as pure). If "older texts" are 
 found it still dosnt matter. God kept His word pure through the Waldensians. 
 These people were very aggressive in spreading the Gospel and were persecuted 
 and martyred in very cruel ways. Their intrepid and colorful past is sadly 
 missing or glossed over in most church histories. from the years 200-1600 AD 
 they carried the torch of textual purity.

>  4)  How do you resolve differences within this line of manuscripts?
>      If such a method is reasonable within a line of manuscripts,
>      what makes it unreasonable outside of that line of manuscripts
>      (i.e. why shouldn't one line of manuscripts be compared with
>      another line).
>
>      Certainly you admit that there are numerous essentially
>      inconsequential errors (don't you)?  How does this fit in with
>      your beliefs?

 I dont need to resolve differences, I hold to the 1611 master Hebrew and
 greek text as pure *always*. I dont care how much the other families of texts 
 disagree amongst themselves, I dont use them as a source.
 Even one jot or one tittle missing is "consequential", but I dont have
 this problem, the master collation is "perfect".

>  5)  Finally, faith as defined by the Bible is the belief that God
>
>        1) has made a promise
>        2) is able to keep the promise
>        3) has the integrity to keep the promise
>
>      therefore
>
>        4) we can trust God to fulfill His promise

    we agree :
   
   "Establish Your Word to Your servant, who is devoted to fearing you".

   "Forever oh Lord your Word is settled in heaven".

   "Your Word is very pure, therefore Your servant loves it".

   "The entirety of Your Word is truth and every one of your righteous
    judgments endures forever".

    Psalm 119:38;89;140;160  NKJV

    Hank

Thank you, Hank, for your response.

However, you either assumed facts that are simply not true
in your response or you were not detailed enough in your
response.

Are you trying to tell me that the Waldesians do not have and
never have had any manuscripts that differed from each other?
If you are, it would be nice to hear this explicit claim.
If you are not, you haven't indicated how they resolve the
differences between one manuscript and another.

Let me repeat something I said in a previous mail message.  I
was taught while in seminary that all 5,000+ manuscript and
manuscript fragments differ from each other.  (The vast majority
of these differences being of the inconsequential type.)  If 
you know differently, please enlighten me.

We are in complete agreement that God has given His Word to
His servants, that His Word is settled in heaven, that His
Word is pure and reliable and true and that God's righteous
judgments endure forever.  None of this makes any claim about
the Waldensians (or anyone else) perfectly recopying every
jot and title which is the issue under discussion.

I believe God, I believe his promises and I believe the Bible
to be true and inerrant as originally given to the prophets.
What promise of God can I hang my hat onto to believe that
the Waldensians (or someone else) has infallibly preserved God's
original Word?  I've presented the overwhelming evidence (at
least overwhelming in my view) that this has not happened (and,
believe me, I wish it had).  Belief in something not promised
by God is not faith; it is misjudged trust.

  "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because
  anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that
  he rewards those who earnestly seek him [because He has
  *revealed* who He is and *promised* rewards]."  Heb 11:6

You'll notice that all of Hebrews 11, the great chapter on faith
in the Bible, continually talks about people believing what was
*promised* them and continuing to believe despite the fact that
the promises were not fulfilled right away or even necessarily
during their lives.

I'm looking for a promise of God that we would always have access
to his Word without any corruption whatsoever.  God will preserve
His Word (His Word will last forever whether or not any Bibles
exist or the world/universe exists).  His Word will accomplish His
purpose whether or not it is perfectly transcribed (as it obviously
has according to your own beliefs since large parts of the world
came to Christ based on corrupted manuscripts).  Where is the
promise?

Thanks,

Collis

  Hi Collis,

  I'll respond to your latest requests, please allow me the weekend
  to supply documentation from my library.

  thanks
   Hank

   Re .74 Hi Collis

   This will not be exhaustive, if it really matters to you, you can
   follow up with an historical investigation of the following claims.
   Not sure where you are but The Andover Newton Theological Library
   at Harvard is an excellent source. This is where I found most of my
   information.

   > Are you trying to tell me...

   Sort of :-)  : I brought thw Waldensians into this discussion to try to 
   show that they have a direct connection to the apostolic church.

   The Waldensians as a people pre-dated Peter Waldo (1175) who organised
   them to resist the slaughter perpetrated against them by their enemies.

   "...the history of the Waldenses, or Vaudois, begins centuries before
   the days of Waldo" Gilly, Excursions to the Piedmont; pg. 10.

   "The reformers held that the Waldensian Churchwas formed (in Rome) about
   120 AD, from which date they passed down from father to son the teachings
   they received from the apostles. The Latin Bible, the Italic was translated
   from the Greek not later than 157 AD" From Our Authorized Bible Vindicated;
   Benjamin G. Wilkerson (PhD) citing from Scrivener (Biblical research), 
   Introduction, Vol II, Pg.43.

   Some believe that they (Waldenses) may have had access to the original
   New Covenant documents via Paul. In what is probably his last epistle
   written from a Roman prison about 65 AD :

   The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus , whenthou comest, bring with
   thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. II Tim 4:13.

   The Italic do differ from one another and were corrected by reffering back
   to the Greek mss. As to their Greek mss, we can't know , the last of them
   were burned in the 1617 Oxford fire. But as to the quality of these mss
   which were brought forth by Beza to answer the I John 5:7 challenge :
   "He (Beza) astonished and confounded the world by restoring manuscripts
    of that Greek New Testament from which the King James is translated"
   Waldenses, McClintock and Stong Encyclopedia.

   It is my belief that the Waldenses had a Hebrew and Greek master copy of
   the Bible, providentially kept pure by Our Heavenly Father. I believe that
   master copy (or Waldenses collation if you will) to be the Master behind 
   the 1611 KJV, Our Father acting directly upon the circumstances of history 
   to perfectly perserve its purity.

   This is obviously a faith statement.

   > Let me repeat... 5000+ copies... 

   Yes, this is what I was taught also. I had problems with this then, but
   not now. I have what I consider the perfect mss, so I dont need the 5000+.

   > I believe God... belief in something not promised by God is not faith
   but misjudged trust... then you quote Hebrews 11:6 etc...

   Hebrews 11:6 is one of the modus operandi of the faithful, not its
   definition
    
   Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things
   not seen.  Hebrews 11:1.

   Promise : The 176 verses of Psalm 119.

   "Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it" Ps 119:140.

   I dont think David had a Critical Aparatus in his hand when he said this.

   "that he might make thee to know that man doth not live by bread alone
    but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth
    man live"  Deuteronomy 8:3.

   "... man doth not live by bread alone but by *every word* that proceedeth
    out of God"  Matthew 4:4.

   Large parts of the worldcame to Christ based upon corrupt mss...

   True, He is able to select the words or supply them without a "written copy"
   or even regenerate a spirit without the "written word", for example
   John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb.
   
   However, we are discussing God's norm and His standard operating porcedures.

   The words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a *furnace of earth*
   purified seven times" (the seven ages). Ps 12:6.
 
   A metaphorical statement, teaching that the Word of God on earth is as 
   pure as the heavenly model.

   Forever O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven Ps 119:89.

   Let me repeat that in the final analysis my belief is an exercise of faith
   and as Patricia has said "it is glorious" (to me) as I'm sure you faith
   is, and the "things not seen" but believed are precious to you.

     Hank

Thanks for your reply, Hank.

I'll summarize what I have heard you say in the last couple
of replies and then close with my reaction.

  God purposed to keep the Bible pure through one particular
  line of manuscripts and this was accomplished (particularly
  in the New Testament) by a relatively obscure line of people
  who later became the Waldensians.  You believe this by faith.
  You have supplied promises by God throughout the Scripture
  that God's word is true, pure and essential for us.

As I said before, I agree with you totally that what God has
said is inviolate, true and completely dependable.  The
Scriptures that you quote agree with this.  What the Scriptures
you quote do not say is that every word *copied/translated by man*
is pure and true.  And this is the point of contention.

I have asked you to supply a promise from God that there would
exist a perfect copy of God's Word.  You have not done so.  Moreso,
you have failed to address the issue outside of a few quotes which
say nothing about copies of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever from the New Testament
that claims the Old Testament as existed in the 1st century was
totally pure.  Certainly this would have been strong evidence if
the prophets of God or Jesus himself made explicit claims about
the existing copies of the Old Testament.

In terms of the 5,000 manuscripts, I don't think you quite grasped
what I was trying to say.  What I'm saying is that YOUR Bible is
BASED on SOME of these manuscripts - and YOUR Bible is BASED on
manuscripts that we KNOW differ from one another.  You haven't
acknowledged this.  How was it determined which manuscripts that
you based your Bible on were the accurate ones?

Another question:  How there ever been any copying errors in all
the years that these manuscripts have existed?  If so, how can you
claim that the copying will always be perfect (and always has been
perfect).

Finally and most importantly, what promise of God do you hang your
hat on for all to see that the Scriptures would always be copied/
translated correctly and that this was the line of manuscripts as
opposed to all others?  Biblical faith requires belief in a promise
from God.  Belief for other reasons may be called faith (although
I tend not to call it that), but it is not Biblical faith.

Thank you for listening to my objections.

Collis

  Re : .77
  Hi Collis 

> I have asked you to supply a promise from God that there would
> exist a perfect copy of God's Word.  You have not done so. 

 Apart from the ones that I have already supplied (which you apparently
 don't accept...

 "with God all things are possible..."

> You have provided no evidence whatsoever from the New Testament...

  "*Faith is...the evidence* of things not seen"

> How was it determined which manuscripts that you based your Bible on were 
  the accurate ones?
 
  Through the Providence (behind the scenes) of God.

>Another question:  How there ever been any copying errors in all
>the years that these manuscripts have existed? 
 
 In the 5000+ yes, but not in the master copy.

If so, how can you claim that the copying will always be perfect 
(and always has been perfect)  

   By Faith (Re : copying of the master).

> Biblical faith requires belief in a promise from God.  
 
  I've supplied it.

>Belief for other reasons may be called faith (although I tend not to call it 
>that), but it is not Biblical faith.

  You have the right to your opinion...   :-) .


  Hank
  

  Ok, Collis , now I have a question  :-).

  How do you know that the books in between the covers of your Bible are the 
  inspired books, seeing that there was a 300-400 year dispute as to those
  which comprise the Canon of NT Scripture? 

  "People often err by thinking of the canon as a list of authoritative
   books coming down directly from heaven or by thinking the canon was set 
   by church councils. Such was not the case..."

  "The development of the canon was a slow process, substantially completed 
   by 175 AD except for a few books whose authorship was disputed"
   (James, II Peter II and III John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation).

  "Athanasius in his easter letter of 367 AD to the churches under his 
   jurisdiction as the Bishop of Alexandria, listed the same twenty-seven
   books that we now have in the New Testament as canonical. Later councils
   such as Chalcedon in 451, merely approved and gave unifrom expression to
   what was already an accomplished fact."

   Christianity through the Centuries, Pgs. 127; 128.
   Earle E. Cairns, ThB, PhD.

   Do you accept the canon of Scripture as only the works of men or perhaps
   God was working behind the scenes guiding their decisions in selecting 
   only the 27 inspired books?
                                                                  
   If the later, do you hold this view as an act of faith and if so
   where is the promise in Scripture?

   All that I have done is extended that promise to the words as well as
   the books.   

   Collis, Our Heavenly Father has never left the world without a perfect
   written witness of His Word, look for the blood of martydom and you will 
   find it (Rev 20:4).
   
    Hank

Your point is well-taken, Hank.

I do accept that God was involved in the process when the
various Council's met in the fourth and fifth centuries
and that the Holy Spirit guided their decisions.

  >All that I have done is extended that promise to the words as well as
  >the books.   

This is a huge step and is not completely analagous.  It is one
thing to say that a book was breathed by God and is Scripture;
it is entirely another to say that it has been perfectly copied/
translated every time which is your claim.

You keep differentiating your "master copy" from all other
manuscripts.  I can't make my point much clearer than this:  your
"master copy" is a compendium of some of the 5,000+ manuscripts
that exist.  Your "master copy" has been copied creating other
manuscripts and the copies have errors.

Re: the verses you quote

Let's take another tact.  I have found that interpreting verses is
one of probability.  What is the probability that the verse is saying
"a" as opposed to "b"?

So, I ask you, what is the probability that the verses you cite are
referring to the perfect copying/translating of Scripture as opposed
to God's Word (which will be around long after all manuscripts are
dust and the dust has been destroyed)?

Collis

 Hi Collis,

>  You keep differentiating your "master copy" from all other
>manuscripts.  I can't make my point much clearer than this:  your
>"master copy" is a compendium of some of the 5,000+ manuscripts
>that exist.  Your "master copy" has been copied creating other
>manuscripts and the copies have errors.

 OK, I see where we've disconnected.

 If you go to England, Oxford University (of all places) you will find
 the Master Copy (Hebrew and Greek texts). It is the end product of several 
 years of collation and compilation by the 70 men who met to "reconstruct
 the original text" and translate it into the King's (James) english.
 It is called the Authorized Version original text or AV or sometimes the 
 Textus Receptus _TR_ (there are three TRs - it is the AV TR) (It is Hebrew 
 and Greek, not english) It is the Hebrew and Greek text that every King James 
 Bible  (or New King James Bible) is translated from (as opposed to the Wescott 
 and Hort text).

 This is the master copy that I believe is a duplicate of the heavenly
 model. It is the Masoretic (OT) and Vaudois (NT) collation.

 The Masorete Text has marginal notes, but no corrections to the body of text.
 These men believed the OT Masoretic text to be a duplicate of the Old Covenant
 original; they also believed that they had reconstructed the New Covenant 
 documents through the Vaudois (waldenses) mss and the guidance of "Almighty 
 God". 

 It is a "real" entity. You can look at it, touch it (if the librarian would 
 let you) etc... The source documents have perished, but it itself exists.
 Hundreds of thousands of pefect duplicates have been made from it. 
 I have one in the form of an interlinear with comparisons to the Stephanus TR.
 Every KJV Bible is an english equivalent of it.

 The 1611 NT TR differs from all others, even from the Stephanus 1550AD Textus 
 Receptus (in 3 or 4 places). The AV men corrected the Stephanus Tr with
 the (unnamed) Vaudois TR; for instance : I Timothy 3:16 went from 

 "Who was manifest in the flesh (Stephanus)" to
 "God was manifest in the flesh (Vaudois)".

  who = hos   "os" with a breathing mark.
  God = Theos. 

 Also, the infamous 666 of Revelation in the Stephanus is spelled out long hand;
 the Vaudois had three greek letters, one of which is "stigma", this letter
 only existed in NT times and even then had dropped out of general use.

>Re: the verses you quote

>Let's take another tact.  I have found that interpreting verses is
>one of probability.  What is the probability that the verse is saying
>"a" as opposed to "b"?

>So, I ask you, what is the probability that the verses you cite are
>referring to the perfect copying/translating of Scripture as opposed
>to God's Word (which will be around long after all manuscripts are
>dust and the dust has been destroyed)?

 " If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God..."

 And, He has said...

 "man doth not live by bread alone but by *every word* which proceedeth out
  of the mouth of God".

 How can we know "every word" without a faithful written witness and a guide
 to protect it?

 That guide is The Comforter.

 "Thy Word is truth".
 "He will guide you into *all truth*"  
 "He will teach you all things" 

  
  This is His work and we should be careful what we say about it.


 > When the dust has been destroyed?   then

   We shall see Him as He is...

   Hank

    	"If the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would
    believe it!"
    
    					-- William Jennings Bryan
    

	"The fundamentalists confuse the treasure chest with the treasure.
What they are really saying is: 'I have chosen to believe that this
particular translation into English by scholars whom I do not know, that
was debated and voted on several centuries ago by people I never met, is
the inerrant, infallible interpretations of Greek, Hebrew, and possibly
Latin manuscripts that claim to contain God's word to all humankind.'  And
truly, that takes a lot of faith!"

					-- Samuel Dean Behrens

        Seen on a bumper sticker:


        	"Fundamentalism stops a thinking brain."

    Richard (or Bob):
    
    Suppose we as individuals could choose individually to pay taxes or not
    to pay taxes...to follow civil laws or not follow without
    retribution...to determine for ourselves what speed to travel on the
    highway if we felt the speed limit was not just.  What kind of society
    do you think we would live in?
    
    -Jack

re Note 908.85 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Suppose we as individuals could choose individually to pay taxes or not
>     to pay taxes...to follow civil laws or not follow without
>     retribution...to determine for ourselves what speed to travel on the
>     highway if we felt the speed limit was not just.  What kind of society
>     do you think we would live in?
  
        Could you please explain the relevance of your question to
        this topic or our recent postings?

        You don't have to be a fundamentalist to obey laws.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Your question depends on the definition of "Fundementalists"
    
    
    Perhaps a fundementalist is a person who has fundemental ideas about the
    ordering of society and the structure of authority and then uses Sacred
    literature and tradition to support those fundemental ideas of the ordering 
    of society and the structure of society?
    
                                   Patricia

    Bob:
    
    The relevence is this.  I have seen on many occasions people affirming
    portions of scripture and denying other portions of scripture.  This is
    a very convenient tool in making the Word of God fit our mold of how
    Gods nature should be.  I was making a parellel between our civil laws
    and the Word of God.  By denying one part of scripture we are in
    essence saying, "Well, that part of scripture is a forgery...not
    inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore I forego what is taught here."
    
    This is the parellel with civil laws.  We can easily carry this over to
    the way we follow laws, "Well, I always thought the speed limit was
    stupid, therefore, I choose not to follow it."  If we don't follow the
    law, we are accountable to the state.  If we don't follow the Word of
    God, we are accountable to God, ultimately.
    
    -Jack
         

    re: Note 908.88 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN

    > "Well, that part of scripture is a forgery...not inspired by the Holy
    > Spirit, therefore I forego what is taught here."

    I don't think this represents the sentiments of the non-fundamentalist
    participants in this conference, of which I am one. A more accurate
    view would be, "Well, the Bible isn't the inerrant, literal word of
    God, but humanity's inspired attempt to express the will of God. I am
    not bound by one groups interpretation of God's will." 

    Civil and criminal laws are subject to review. Sometimes new laws are
    added on old laws are remove. Furthermore, each state and locality has
    different laws, so to different groups of Christians interpret slightly
    different instructions for the Bible. The Fundamentalist view is that
    their group possesses the exclusive and perfect understanding of the
    will of God, morality, and social order. Other groups feel their
    understanding of God's will is always incomplete and therefore they
    must work to continually refine their understanding of His will.

    I hope this helps.

    	Eric

 >>   The Fundamentalist view is that
 >>   their group possesses the exclusive and perfect understanding of
 >>   the will of God, morality, and social order. 
    
    Ahhh, not always the case.  I believe abortion for example should be
    done under certain circumstances while alot of my bretheren do not.  I
    am a pretribulation millinealist while others who are either more
    versed or less are midtrib or posttrib.  My Pastor is a staunch
    believer in predestination while my previous pastor from the very same
    church is not.  (One believes in pure design while the other believes
    in free will).  I went to a church 5 years ago that strongly supported
    closed communion at the church.  You could only partake if you were a
    member and they believe this is scripturally supported.
    
    Look at it this way Eric, there will ALWAYS be questions...throughout
    everybody's life.  It is the grey areas that spur us on to greater
    learning.  In light of homosexuality, it has been said that the verses
    refer to lust and only lust.  I submit that the verses in Leviticus and
    other places refer to the act itself.  This is supported in going to
    the Hebrew text of the verse and is subsequently rejected...why?  Not
    because of any kind of acedemic foundation but simply because it
    doesn't fit into our mold of what we think God should be.  This is
    dangerous!
    
    -Jack

    fundementalists pick scriptures that support the status quo and then
    make a theological claim for the status quo based on those scriptures.
    
    I don't believe that there is one fundementalist that I know of that
    would sacrifice a bull, lamb, goat, or even a pigeon on the altar. 
    That is the primary message in the book of Leviticus.
    
    But fundementalists will take an obscure passage from that same
    outdated manual and build a theology of condemnation around it.
    
    Yes, I understand that they will say the Jesus changed the previous
    need to sacrifice animals at the altar, previously demanded by God.
    
    It is considerate that fundementalists have given God, one and only one
    chance to change HIS mind.
    
                                 Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    God never changed his mind nor his plan for redemption.  The prophecies
    of Christ go as far back as the fall of mankind in Genesis.  Throughout
    scripture, it is prophecied of the great messiah that would come to
    redeem all humanity.  The sacrificial system was what is called, a type
    of Christ, or a foreshadowing of what was to come.  Right after Jesus
    drew His last breath the purple curtain that separated the people from
    the tabernacle and the Holy of Holies tore...from the top down.  This
    was God's affirmation as He told us throughout the Old Testament that 
    we all now have access to God the Father through the cross.  
    
    So Patricia, a doctrine cannot be built upon one verse...at least by
    any competent theologian.  
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack

    Would any competent theologian build a theology of condemnation around
    eight verses?
    
                                    Patricia

    re:  Note 908.90 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN

    I appreciate your expounding on the differences in your church. I think
    it just goes to show how foolish it is to claim that our knowledge of
    God's will is infallible. A liberal theologian is no more guilty of
    "picking and choosing" than are the two pastors who have different view
    on free will.
    
    	Eric

re Note 908.94 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     A liberal theologian is no more guilty of
>     "picking and choosing" than are the two pastors who have different view
>     on free will.
  
        And I would think that the two who deny that they are
        "picking and choosing", but instead insist that they are
        merely following God's perfect text, are *far* more
        dangerous to the Church and to humanity.

        Bob

 >>   A liberal theologian is no more guilty of
 >>   "picking and choosing" than are the two pastors who have different
 >>   view on free will.
    
    Absolutely.  If however you went to a seminary and your professor made
    an astounding claim of doctrine based on scripture, wouldn't you expect
    him as an authority to back up his claim with some reasonable exegesis
    or evidence to validate his teaching?  Or would you accept him/her
    saying..."Well, it just is..that's all!!!"
    
    And this would tie in with Patricia's last entry.  I personally don't
    condemn anybody (in regards to hell) because as I have stated many many
    many many many times in CP, my own sin condemns me.  But I at least
    recognize this and see my need for a savior...I at least have that
    going for me.  Patricia, it doesn't matter if it is mentioned 8 times
    1 time, or 800 times.  The act of homosexuality is an abomination to
    God.  Besides, if you want to justify homosexuality through scripture,
    then the score is 8 - 0...unless you can show even 1 verse showing it
    is a Holy act.
    
    -Jack

    Right jack.
    
    The act is an abomination.  as is eating shell fish or touching a
    football!.
    
    Now you can pick and choose and say two of those acts are no longer
    prohibited but I am going to make a big deal about the third.
    
    And to boot, you chastise others for picking and choosing.
    
    Patricia

    Also see topic 122 "The Great Portionalizing Myth."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    > Absolutely.  If however you went to a seminary and your professor made
    > an astounding claim of doctrine based on scripture, wouldn't you expect
    > him as an authority to back up his claim with some reasonable exegesis
    > or evidence to validate his teaching?  Or would you accept him/her
    > saying..."Well, it just is..that's all!!!"

    Huh!? I don't know how we got to the point of seminary and exegesis.
    I'm honestly having a hard time keeping up with you.

    I am confused. You seem to be saying that a liberal theologian isn't
    picking and choosing as long as he provides a "reasonable" (to you, I
    presume) exegesis. BUT you go on to imply all the liberals are saying
    is, "Well, it just is..that's all!!!" so their assumptions are invalid.
    By and large, I don't recognize the participants of this conference as
    matching the example you provide.

    Eric

    
    re: Note 908.97 by POWDML::FLANAGAN 

    > Now you can pick and choose and say two of those acts are no longer
    > prohibited but I am going to make a big deal about the third.

    I agree with you Patricia; there is NOTHING wrong with touching a
    football! :^)

    	Eric

    I'm going to get clobbered her but here it goes.  It is no secret that
    Glen debates the issue of homosexuality vs. lust on a regular basis. 
    The eight passages Patricia cites to me condemn the homosexual act.  
    This is the sequence.
    
    Jack:  Glen, homosexual acts are immoral.
    
    Glen:  Jack what do you base this on?
    
    Jack:  I base this on passages from Romans 1, Proverbs, and passages
           from the Levitical law in Leviticus.
    
    Glen:  Jack, those verses are referencing lust, that's all.
    
    Jack:  Well Glen, the original Hebrew text infers an act, not a
    condition; therefore, I base my belief that it is speaking of engaging
    in a homosexual act.
    
    Glen:  Jack, the Bible is only a book.  A guide to better leaving.  It
    doesn't always reflect what God wants from us.
    
    Well, this is a convenient ending to an argument; but the bottom line
    is that the argument ended with, "Well...it just is that's all".  So
    here you have two individuals with different foundations of doctrine
    arguing.  Kind of reminds me of the North going Zax and the South going
    Zax.  
    
    So no, not all liberals end their discussions with this, but it happens
    frequently here in CP!
    
    -Jack

    Re: Note 908.101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN

    So your beef is more with views on homosexuality in particular than
    with liberal, non-fundamentalist theologies in general. I must admit
    that I am not as liberal as Glen on this matter... but I am also not as
    conservative as you. I guess that makes me one of those cursed
    fence-sitters! :^)

    Eric

    I have no beef with any issue...religion, sex, whatever that is based
    on scripture and or logic/reason.  I don't do well with issues that are
    driven purely by emotion.
    
    -Jack 

Note 908.103

>  I don't do well with issues that are
>  driven purely by emotion.
    
Who among us does?

Richard

| <<< Note 908.96 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| I personally don't condemn anybody (in regards to hell) because as I have 
| stated many many many many many times in CP, my own sin condemns me. But I at 
| least recognize this and see my need for a savior...I at least have that going
| for me.  

	Jack, I can fully understand that you may or may not agree with
someone's religious beliefs, as it seems there are many different ones for many
individuals. I can agree that your own sin condemns you as you so eloquently
stated, (and FULLY AGREE WITH..... heh heh) but I guess I find it puzzling that
you would then say you recognize this and see your need for a savior. Does that
mean anyone who disagrees with your beliefs on God and the Bible do not
regognize this or sees a need for a savior? Cause if that were true, it would
be the word according to Jack Martin, wouldn't it? If you would, could you
clarify what you meant above? Thanks.

| Patricia, it doesn't matter if it is mentioned 8 times 1 time, or 800 times.  
| The act of homosexuality is an abomination to God.  

	According to one, your belief system, and two, your interpretation of
the words written.



Glen

    Glen:
    
    It is a paradox.  By my belief system based on how I see scripture,
    Jesus stated He was the Only way to the Father.  Therefore, this
    dictates me to believe one must come to grips with their own
    sinfulness!  This is important because it proves for sure that I AM
    NOT self righteous!!   To you, my position may seem self righteous as
    in...I have the corner on knowledge.  I don't make that claim but I do
    ask people to prove me wrong.  
    
    Patricia's comments on Psalm 22 is a perfect example.  She taught me
    something last week that never occurred to me!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

It is, of course, quite possible to utilize identical external sources
and processes of logic, yet arrive at very different conclusions.

Religion cannot be examined solely by the same criteria as hard sciences
such as mathematics, physics or chemistry.  Why not?  Because of a unique
variable: the human factor.

This is not to say that I think logic and reason should be thrown out,
however.  I consider logic and reason every bit as important as Scripture,
experience and tradition.

Shalom,
Richard

| <<< Note 908.107 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| It is a paradox.  By my belief system based on how I see scripture,

	Jack, for you this is how it is. For others, they may interpret the 
words differently. And for other people they could not believe the Bible to
even be the inerrant Word of God, but a book written about what happened by
man, which kills the inerrancy thing. Others may view religion in different
ways altogether. But with all that, I sincerely hope that you see their beliefs
as being important as well, as otherwise I would think that you have cornered
the market for beliefs.

| Jesus stated He was the Only way to the Father.  

	Then go through Him using the best possible means at your hands. For
you it may be through the Bible. For others it may be dialogue with Him. But if
the goal is met, what is the problem as to how? 



Glen

    THe whole issue of innerrancy is driven purely by emotion!

    	I guess that Fundamentalism is one Christian perspective that
    	is not welcome in this conference.

    Joe,
    
    The only problem that I have with fundementalism, is the fundementalist
    insistence on acting on their belief that everyone else is misguided
    and wrong.  My expererience is that is their starting point.  When
    pushed then others will be branded as satanic and demonic.  I have been
    so branded by fundementalist in this conference and in Yukon.  What
    fundementalists believe for themselves is certainly welcome.  I don't
    welcome the labelling of others including myself as satanic and
    demonic.  There is a boundary even to tolerance and acceptance of
    others. I personally will not tolerate fundementalist oppression
    against Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals, Pagans, Pro Choice
    advocates, Jews,  or any other group that is a target of fundementalists.
    
    
    Patricia

	Patricia, what a WONDERFUL not. You said so much with so few words. You
also hit the nail on the head. 




Glen

>>    The only problem that I have with fundementalism, is the fundementalist
>>    insistence on acting on their belief that everyone else is misguided
>>    and wrong.  My expererience is that is their starting point.  

Patricia, have I ever insisted this?

>>    I have been
>>    so branded by fundementalist in this conference and in Yukon.  What
>>    fundementalists believe for themselves is certainly welcome.  I don't
>>    welcome the labelling of others including myself as satanic and
>>    demonic.  

Patricia, I was a read only, but from what I saw, you went into Yukon and 
presented what was branded an alternative gospel.  I distintly remember a few 
individuals challenging your belief.  They apologized for their zeal later but 
still maintained their position and asked you to justify yours...which you 
didn't.  Calling you demonic or satanic simply did not happen Patricia and I
encourage you to go in there and start up the conversation the same way you
did a few weeks ago!!!!!  Remember, it is a biblical perspective that iron 
sharpens iron. 

>>    There is a boundary even to tolerance and acceptance of
>>    others. 

Agreed.  Can't attract flies with vinegar can we.  But Patricia, just because 
one doesn't agree with anothers view doesn't mean they don't tolerate.

>>    I personally will not tolerate fundementalist oppression
>>    against Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals, Pagans, Pro Choice
>>    advocates, Jews,  or any other group that is a target of fundementalists.
  
You mean "of some fundamentalists.  Since when have I targeted anybody?  
    
-Jack

	Jack, Patricia has always said that it was ok to disagree. But it's
when one goes to the next level that there is a problem. 


Glen

    Okay, then have I ever, or even recently gone to this next tier.  You
    stated (Patricia) that all your exposure to fundamentalism has come
    from this conference.
    
    -Jack