From: wiggins@hurricane.cs.odu.edu (Samuel E Wiggins)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:45:10 GMT
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

In article <1992Nov13.014358.14927@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

   ===========================================================================
   /  You said (in not quite so many words) that I can't use the Bible to prove
   /the Bible.  I could use that same reasoning to say don't use science to
   /prove science, but I'll just say this - in a trial, a man is allowed to
   /testify on his own behalf.  

   Yes, but his own testimony is never considered conclusive unless it can
   be corroborated by other witnesses or by physical evidence.  Giving someone
   a chance to speak is not the same thing as admitting his testimony into
   evidence.
-------
But the Bible is not just one guy.  It's A LOT of guys agreeing that
something did happen.
-------

   /  Comparison to other documents:
   [omitted for brevity]

   This is nothing more than a reprint from Josh McDowell's book Evidence
   That Demands a Verdict.  It is quite flawed.  Check out the FAQ for a
   description of the errors.
-------
Never read it, so I can't comment.
-------

   /  You asserted God is inconsistent because he had an old law and a new one. 
   /In actuality, there were three periods of time (dispensations), each with
   /its own law: the patriarchical dispensation (from Creation to the giving of
   /the law on Mt. Sinai), the Mosaic dispensation (from Mt. Sinai to the
   /crucifixion of Christ), and the Christian dispensation (from the cross to
   /the end of time).  The laws of each led into the other.  

   Actually, no.  The laws contradict each other.  Example:  ther are multiple
   places in Deuteronomy where God says that he will visit the iniquities of 
   the sinner on his children and his children's children, even to the seventh 
   generation.  The fathers commit the sins, and the children, grandchildren,
   etc. will continue to pay the price.

   Then in Ezekiel, God says "It has been said in the land of Israel, 'The
   fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
   As I live, saith the LORD, this proverb shall no more be heard in the
   mouths of the children of Israel.  A man shall die for his sins, and a
   son for his sins.  The children shall no more die for the sins of the
   fathers."  Contradiction.
-------
     Only in a simplistic, superficial way.  People are always living out the
consequences of other people's actions.  For example, a baby born addicted
to drugs because the mother used them while pregnant.  The baby hasn't even
had time to do wrong yet.
     I think God was merely correcting a MISUNDERSTANDING or MISINTERPRETATION
on the part of Israel.  They thought they would be guilty of their ancestors'
sins.  God was saying that, although they might have to live with the
consequences of their mistakes, in the end one is judged for his own mistakes.
     BTW, you can always catch someone in the exact wording of what he
says over time and find contradictions.  But, really the person can be quite
consistent as to his meaning.  True understanding is derived from the
semantics, not the exact words used.  "I ain't got none" does not mean
"I do have some."  Language is "slippery" and does not follow logical
or mathematical precision.