[geocentrism] Only originals inerrant?
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:26:35 -0600
[Philip wrote:]
"...as I agree with Neville, only the original is the inerrant word of
God,..."
You know, this is very problematic. How can we say that the original
manuscripts, scribed by men, are infallible while translations by other
godly men are automatically fallible?
Take, Jesus. He was known to say "It is written..." a few times. Doesn't
this lend a little credibility to translations? After all, some of the
canonized books were over 1500 years old when He was on our globe.
Languages and dialects would have dramatically changed in that amount of
time. Therefore, wasn't Jesus using, and referring to, some kind of
"translation"? Yet, wasn't He able to ascribe truth, and more, even
authority, to the words that were commonly known in His day on the earth?
That would mighty peculiar if all translations suffer from credibility.
Jesus said, "It is written...", and I think there's some truth to be found
in those three words.
If we are to place on the God of the universe the ability to handle the
details (refer to recent conversations concerning Joshua 10:12-13), would He
have let the word we claim to be inspired by Him have been lost in the
ravages of time? Or would He have preserved it for us? Do we really think
that "truth" is limited to "originals" which probably do not exist and
certainly have not been seen by the majority of humans today? Or do we
understand that the God of all would have planned for this detail and
provided findable truth for those will but seek it?
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05
Other related posts:
