From: nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:39:46 GMT

In article <HHa4RB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:
>nordenga@tc.fluke.COM (Arnold E. Nordeng) writes:
>
>> In the case of the tomb, there are 3 observations made by 3 *different*
>> authors.  Just as 3 witnesses can report an auto accident 3 different ways,
>> and all testimonies can be true and reconciled, so too with the bible.
>
>Wrong. You can't reconcile "Peter was there first" with "Mary was there
>first". One is right, one is wrong, if one takes a literalist view.
>

From the accounts I read, they all agree that Mary Magdelane was there
first.  Peter is not mentioned as first.

>> An omission or addition is *not* a contradiction.  
>
>No - I'll grant you that. But a contradiction is a contradiction.
>
>> If you want to claim the bible is untrustworthy in its facts or details, 
>> then how can you as a "christian" support the resurrection as a fact or 
>> detail, the cornerstone of our faith?  
>
>The Bible is a witness - or a collection of witnesses. Some of the
>accounts are more believable than others, some are more consistent with
>each other than others. One doesn't have to start with "everything is
>completely true" to derive "truth" from a witness.
>
Hmmm.  I thought Jesus said, 'the Scripture cannot be broken'.
also, 'When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all TRUTH'
Are you implying Jesus was lying or misquoted?

Also Jesus said 'All authority on heaven and on earth has been given
to me'.  Are you implying that maybe Jesus did not have all the authority, 
to get his goals accomplished.

Also Jesus said, 'Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in
the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms.'
Also Jesus said, 'These Scriptures testify about me, ....' with regards
to the OT scriptures.  Maybe Jesus was misquoted again?  Maybe Jesus
is not the way, the truth the life, eh?

Finally, Peter says that NO PROPHESY of SCRIPTURE came about by the
prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in 
the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
the Holy Spirit.  Maybe it is the will of man, eh?
Maybe Jesus was not so sure as the disciples being lead in truth, and
maybe Peter was in error here, too?

>I worship God, with faith. I don't worship the Bible or the Church,
>though both can be helpful if they are understood as what they are.
>
I'm glad you don't worship the bible or church; neither do I.  The
bible as you have it portrayed is untrustworthy witness, and would not 
hold up with any veracity in a court of law if it didn't have the power
of God.  It's obvious it differentiates itself from any other book
in the world.  Compare it with the book of Mormon for a case study.
Its definitely special.

>
>You see? The Bible can never be more than a pointer, a guide, a witness,
>a source of information and insight. It cannot be an arbiter of truth
>because it's meaning is dependent on the reader's understanding.
>

Jesus said that is why the Counselor would come, and that he would
never leave us and be with us to the end.  The Counselor is obviously
the arbiter of truth.

Analogously, what do trial lawyers try to do to a witness to discredit a
witness.  Show contradictions in his/her testimonies.  Obviously the 
bible loses punch if it is full of contradictions.  What can you trust?

>Think about the Criminal Code. There is no dispute as to its contents.
>There is no dispute as to its 'legal authority'. It is the law. But we
>have all these courts and judges and lawyers who spend their time
>arguing about variant interpretations of a text whose authority,
>authenticity, and 'truth' (it is what it claims to be) is beyond
>question.
>
>No truth is "true" until interpreted by living people by the Spirit. The
>Bible is not Spirit. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life!"
>That's the Bible's own assessment of itself.

No it is Not.   That is a ridiculous interpretation.  It in effect states
that this document that testifies of Jesus Christ who came to save mankind
is really a document that kills.  This document will kill you if you
do as it says, and put your faith in Jesus Christ.  

The letter killeth is man's relationship to the Law, 
"the letter written on tablets of stone".    Your belief about the 
bible shoots yourself in the foot; it says the bible is not trustworthy, 
but trust it anyway and put faith in God.  Mormons claim the bible is 
trustworthy up to a point that it doesn't contradict their book of Mormon, 
Doctrine and Covenants, etc.
Joseph Smith was told by a spirit, that all the Christian churches 
doctrines are an abomination to God.
Yet the Bible claims, that, 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light
unto my path.'  I suggest you should read Psalm 119 very seriously, and
pray about it.
 'Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through 
the word of Christ.'
>
>So . . . no document is any better than your understanding or
>interpretation of it. Ergo, saying the "Bible is all true all the time"
>is at best a meaningless bit of fluff, and at worst a highly misleading
>falsehood. 

I pity your belief.  God gave us the book so we can know who God is, what
He wants, and as a blueprint to life and happiness.  It's God's letter 
to mankind.

I challenge you Doug.  Here it is:  You get together all of the verses in
the bible that state that the bible is a document that kills, and I'll
put together all the verses that says that it is a document that speaks
truthfully.   I'll be happy to do this by email.
>
>=Doug

-Arnold
nordenga@tc.fluke.COM