Accuracy of the Biblical text??
parousia_occ at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 24 17:17:54 EST 2000
First let me say that if religion offends you, don't read this! I feel I
should post it, but I would hope you who take offense at my opinions should
pass this post by. It is for those with some kind of faith in God.
If it is stated that the language developed later or such, is not this
argument based on silence and on the assumption that what happened in one
Semitic language must, of necesity, have happened at the same time in
Could not Hebrew and the Hebraic tradition have developed orally rather
than in a written tradition, and, hence, leave little remains of what is to
be inscribed? Either side is a discussion on silent evidence and,
therefore, not science. Science would investigate what we DO have. That
is, the writings that are extant.
I know that I have missed out on a lot of the discussion, but in patience
bear with me and show me why you think otherwise. I am a logical person
and willing to hear any argument. However, I believe that true, pure
knowledge has its basis in God. As the Proverbs (1:7) have well said: "The
fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." I will base everything on
one assumption: God is truth and therefore what He has done is real,
whatever that might be.
As Thomas À Kempis wisely said: "If thou desirest to reap profit, read with
humility, simplicity, and faithfulness." (Imitation of Christ, V.2)
Thanks for your patience and time.
Ozark Christian College
On 02/24/00, "Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 at mclink.it>" wrote:
> At 06.13 24/02/00 +0000, Jason Hare wrote:
> >I have been shocked by how many non-literalists I have seen here. How many
> >here truly believe that the narrative of the HB represents true history and
> >is the Word of the Lord?
> This is not a question for this list, as I understand the methodology of
> this list. "True" history and the "word" of God are issues of faith. On
> this list there are people who hold to differing religions and stances.
> What is "true" history and the "word" of God to one might not be the case
> for another. We talk about what can be known and shown about the texts we
> are studying. If it is not based on data that can be "dealt with
> objectively", it's probably out of place here.
> >I don't want to be disrespectful toward my "opponents," but I think it
> >interesting that there are so many skeptics in the area of Hebrew studies.
> I don't know anything about skeptics here. All I know is that there are a
> lot of people working hard in various directions trying to come to grips
> with the material at hand -- the text of the OT/HB and its context.
> >Toward the opposite extreme (if I can be bad for a moment) it seems that
> >the more I study Greek the more I am convinced of the authenticity of the
> >NT. Will the study of the HB lead, inevitably, to a doubt of its content?
> >I would hope not.
> An important thing to understand with regard to "scholars" is that they are
> like rats. Ships get built and there are always rats on a ship (at least
> when they are wooden). As long as the ship is sturdy, the rat happily
> nibbles away for what can be got. But when it no longer proves sea-worthy,
> the rat is gone. (It's only the captain who goes down with his ship.)
> The scholar's job is to attempt to describe what is past, or passing, or to
> come, (that is why I'm sailing to Byzantium). S/he is constrained by the
> evidence, as to what can be said. If there is no evidence for something,
> then the scholar cannot justify its being said. If there is evidence
> against, the scholar is constrained to consider that evidence and perhaps
> conclude that the phenomenon did not happen or exist.
> >Wilbur Fields, a wonderful professor from my college, has studied Hebrew
> >for MANY years and he is the one of whom I spoke earlier saying that he
> >goes to Israel regularly. He is brilliant and totally involved in
> >archaeology over in Palestine, yet the more he studies, the more is faith
> >confirmed. What is up?
> Faith and scholarship are two different realms.
> >How can Hebrew, the language that God delivered
> >His message through, become a stumbling block for so many?
> The basic assumption is unproven. If Hebrew as a West Semitic language
> emerged say not much earlier than the first confirmed epigraphic evidence,
> then it is improbable that a Moses got the law in Hebrew. If the evidence
> points that way, can you conclude otherwise?
> >I would encourage you to not become so wrapped up in opinions about
> >insignificance that you forget overall pictures.
> I would encourage you to find out about the necessities of scholarship.
> Scholarship involves the attempt to get beyond opinions.
> How can you get an overall picture, if you are not looking?
> >I don't intend anything
> >offensive toward anyone, but it seems the study of Hebrew leads most toward
> >a skeptic attitude toward God. Be careful.
> One could hardly be offended.
> The study of Hebrew is like any other ancient language, one of trying to
> understand what people, who can't be asked what they intended, intended. It
> leads to a better understanding of the texts. Skeptical attitudes are not a
> necessary result of learning Hebrew, as can be seen in the case you provide
> with your wonderful professor.
More information about the b-hebrew