Interesting comments from Farrell Till that "if [the Bible] is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical corroboration?", from Alt. Bible. Errancy, May 31, 1998:
TILLany book is useless if it contains one error.
>No, you have misunderstood me. I would never say that the Bible is
>"useless" if it contains even one error, any more than I would say that
>BILL S.
>Then why did you say: "An errant Bible isn't worth the paper it is printed on"?
TILL
Admittedly, that was poorly stated. I should have made it clear that I
meant that an errant Bible used as a basis of religious authority isn't
worth the paper it is printed on.
>TILLthe Bible. If it is found to be erroneous in some of the things that can
>>...However, I do agree with Archer's view on the trustworthiness of
be verified by extrabiblical corroboration, then how can one be sure
that it is right about those things that cannot be verified by extrabiblical
corroboration?
>BILL S.
>As we've agreed, it would be impossible to prove such things to you -
>that is why they call it "faith". If I read a newspaper, I can't be
>sure all of the facts have been perfectly reported, however I can have
>reasonable confidence that there is at least some truth in what is
>being reported. I don't stop reading the newspaper because one day it
>got it's facts wrong. Similarly, I can trust in certain "truths" in
>the bible even if the bible is shown to contain errors.
TILL
Well, I learned a long time ago that blind acceptance of what is
printed in newspapers is a foolish course to follow. However, you
are comparing apples to oranges, because newspapers report
that which is commonplace and ordinary. They make no effort to
indicate that readers who don't believe what is printed in them run
the risk of incurring dire consequences. If I believe an error that
was published in a newspaper, then all I have done is believe an
error published in a newspaper. The process usually ends there.
I don't take this error from door to door in my neighborhood in
efforts to make others believe it, and I certainly don't continue to
believe the error once that its falsity has been demonstrated.
Needless to say, this is not the case with biblicists. No matter
how much evidence may be presented to show that there are
errors in the Bible, they will continue to believe that they are
truth and will work feverishly to try to make others believe them
too. Surely, you can see the difference.
BILL S
>I don't expect to convinve you to beleive as I do - but I do object to
>your implications that the Bible cannot be trusted on anything if it
>can be shown to contain even one error.
TILL
As a source of authority, it cannot be trusted if it can be
demonstrated that it contains error. If, for example, it can be
demonstrated--as it has been--that the Bible is wrong in saying
that Joshua destroyed a city named Ai in his conquest of Canaan
(Josh. 7-8), then how can I be sure that the Bible is correct when
it claims that Moses received God's law on Mt. Sinai? If the Bible
is wrong about an ordinary, commonplace claim that an army
once destroyed a city, by what logic does one conclude that
even though the Bible has been shown to be wrong in
commonplace matters, we can still trust that it is right about
extraordinary claims that it makes. What we're really talking
about here is the widely accepted rule of evidence that says
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," which means, "False in one
thing, false in everything." This rule of evidence doesn't actually
mean that if a witness is shown to be wrong in one point of
testimony, that means that he/she is wrong in every point
of testimony. It merely means that if a witness has been caught
in one falsehood, the jury will be justified to doubt him/her in
anything testified to that cannot be confirmed by independent
corroboration.
Farrell Till
No comments:
Post a Comment