Bible Study (Vanhoose)
vanhoose vanhoose@BRIGHT.NET
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:18:59 -0500 (00886285139, 34D34EF3.6E1A@bright.net)
vanhoose wrote:
>
> Ian & Pam Dorion wrote:
> >
> > > > IAN
> > > > Dear Pat,
> > > > James Thompson's post below is the type of post that causes
> > > > me to have a very short fuse with most Christians. I know there
> > > > are good Christians, my neighbor across the road is one as are
> > > > the people who run the computer shop in town, Unfortunately,
> > > > those are the only ones I know of for sure.
> > > >
> > > > It took an effort not to cuss him out and I was sorely tempted but
> > > > since I already goofed up with you once, I controlled my gunfighters
> > > > instinct.
> > > >
> > > > You do come highly recommended.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ian,
> > > The reason I asked you about the main message of the Bible, is
> > > because I believe that it is not a book written by human beings, but a
> > > revelation from God. I am aware that many other religious writings
> > > claim the same thing. At this point, I think that the only thing to
> > > consider is that the Bible itself is claiming that it is revelation.
> > > That is the entire viewpoint of the book. Not only that, but it is an
> > > ongoing revelation from Gensis to Revelation, culminating in the coming
> > > of Jesus.
> > > So in Genesis we have the beginning of that revelation, but we don't
> > > have the full picture. I think that it helps to have a broad overview
> > > of the entire scope of it. Then you can zero in on specifics. That was
> > > my suggestion. But if you object to that, then where do you want to
> > > start?
> > >
> > > Pat
> > >
> > Dear Pat,
> > This is why I asked you to tell me a little about yourself and why I asked
> > you to tell me something about yourself. You believe it is a book written
> > by human beings, but a revelation from God. Others believe it is the
> > inerrant word of God. This is an errancy list. If the Bible is open to
> > interpretation, whose interpretation do we accept? Which Bible do you use?
> > Do you believe the creation story or evolution or something else? Maybe you
> > don't care.
>
> Dear Ian,
> I've got a lot of errands to run this morning, so I'll have to finish
> this later. Have you looked at the Chicago Statement on Bible
> Inerrancy? That would give you a good idea of where Evangelicals stand
> on the idea of the Bible being inerrant.
> Basically, I believe that the Bible was written by men ( I don't
> think that God moved the pen Himself) through the inspiration of God.
> The term used in the New Testament is "God-breathed". It is only used
> one time to describe the scriptures.
> I agree that people have interpreted the Bible in different ways.
> That is why I gave the example about Mormons baptizing for the dead.
> But I think that a lot of that is caused by taking things out of context
> and not using correct methods for interpreting. In other words, you
> have to play by the rules, or make them up to suit your own purposes.
> Is God responsible if people misuse His word?
> What Bible do I use? Well, I have a number of different
> translations. I have been told that the American Standard Version is
> probably the closest translation to a word for word, or exact wording
> translation. Some of my Bibles are NIV, which is easy for a modern
> English understanding. Unlike some of my friends, I don't really enjoy
> reading the King James and I know that it is not the most accurate
> translation anyway.
> What do I think about the creation story vs. evolution? I don't
> think that the creation story was written to be a science manual. The
> overall theme of the creation story is that God was the creator "ex
> nihilo" - out of nothing, and I do agree with that. Lately, I have been
> looking at Hugh Ross's website on scientific support for the Bible. I
> have several of his books, but just haven't had time to wade through
> them.. Maybe next summer when I'm not teaching.
>
> Pat