*Alward: The Consequences of Verbal Inspiration
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:46:53 EST (00910838813, 503b5a1d.3649f7bd@aol.com)
In a message dated 98-11-11 13:57:00 EST, you write:
<< Subj: Re: *Alward: The Consequences of Verbal Inspiration
Date: 98-11-11 13:57:00 EST
From: WBERNE@aol.com
Sender: owner-errancy@infidels.org
To: errancy@infidels.org
--- SNIP ---- another post - not a response to mine
Joe Alward:
Hogwash. Till has defined a god which could not have inspired the writing of
the bible. He makes his own rules, and the rules are: He can't lose. Since
when is god omnibenevolent? Who decided that? Even if he were
omnibenevolent, who decided that an omnibenevolent god is incapable of
deliberately confusing bible readers? Till seems to be defining a god which
cannot perform certain acts by its very nature. That sounds like a very
limited god, indeed.
Now, read the views of Roger Hutchinson expressed early this year in several
emails to me: I've paraphrased and edited extensively, and added thoughts of
my own. (Readers should underderstand that I don't believe any of this; I'm
just playing devil's advocate.)
The Lord deliberately caused his inspired writers to write some verses in a
manner which would confuse its readers. The Lord did this for two reasons:
1. Separate the Wheat from the Chaff
The Lord wished his Bible to be confusing to all but the most faithful.
The key justification for this belief is represented by passages in
Luke, Mark, and Matthew which deal with the reason Jesus speaks to his
disciples in parables. We show here the passage in Luke.
"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and
hearing they might not understand." (Luke 8:10)
Thus, those who will be welcomed into the kingdom of God will have no
trouble understanding Jesus' parables, but the unbelievers will remain
in the dark. In the mind of the believer, the psychology seems to be:
The more difficult the harmonization of certain verses, the more
tortured the logic, and farfetched the interpretation, then the more
certain is the sign that the Lord put those verses in his Bible as a
test--a means of separating the wheat from the chaff, to determine who
will gain the favored seats in heaven, and who--perhaps--will be cast
into hell. Thus, the believers feel that the greater the effort they
expend in attempting to harmonize the Bible, the greater will be their
display of faith, and, therefore, the more certain and secure will be
their seat in the heavenly kingdom of God.
2. Force His Flock to Study Harder
Roger says the Lord made the Bible difficult to understand in places in order
to make
people study the Scriptures. If there were no unclear verses, he claims,
then he would not be pondering the meaning of those Scriptures. He
believes he would become lazy and probably ignore even the clear
Scriptures. But because unbelievers bring up the issues, he is forced to
study and understand the Scriptures better, and to pass the wisdom to
other believers. This is what God wants.
BERNE
My mistake, I meant to comment to you Joe, not Ron, I must have been
confused.
If you're going to play devil's advocate, please be consistant, you say in
response to my post that you agree with me that Jesus was trying to be
understood, then take the opposing viewpoint in response to Farrell Till.
It's hard to hit a moving target.
==============
Joe Alward:
I presented the inerrantists' viewpoint, as I understood it, not mine. I'm
sorry if I didn't make that clear. I agree with you that the bible writers
wanted their bible to be understood. But, I don't agree with Farrell that he
has the right to claim that the god of the inerrantists cannot do certain
things, such as not write confusing things deliberately. Errantists may
wonder why in the world god would wish to do such a thing, so I included
Hutchinson's opinion.