Re: An inadequate response(reply to Rogland #2)

From: J Burgeson (
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 12:23:49 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "acronyms"

    This is a second response to Bob Rogland's post of July 12.

    It is meant for clarification of his questions.

    Bob wrote (in part):

    "It is a gratuitous assumption by Burgy that it involved child rape."

    I said nothing about CHILD rape in my post. I specifically picked an earlier
    (Deu) account of the problem so as to tighten the arguments


    "I see no problem here for the notion of inerrancy."

    Neither do I. When I began studying this, I though that would play a part. I
    no longer think this.


    "Burgy also brings up a number of other verses from Deuteronomy 22. I (and
    many others) could answer them, but I suspect he would simply bring up more

    I cited these as, to some extent, examples of other verses which were
    problemmatical. You have a good point though, I should not have wandared off
    the point. Sorry.


    "I again challenge you to respond to this point, quoted again from previous

         Burgy's view (if I understand it correctly) is that the biblical writers
    were moved (inspired) to write down an account of God's dealings with them,
    but that some of them just got God's will wrong: some of the words
    attributed to God just don't jibe with the character of God as presented in
    the New Testament and/or as intuited by a believer today who is indwelt by
    the Spirit of God.

    In this specific case, it is, indeed, my claim that Moses spoke but what
    came out was not God's commands and position but his. Just as in Ps 137
    where the words of the song are those of the singers, mourning, and not
    "God's commands."


    "Tell us truly what you think: Were the NT writers just as prone to error as
    the OT writers? Did they get Jesus wrong? Or was Jesus himself in error,
    emptied full ethical wisdom by his kenosis? Have the courage of your
    convictions and tell us what you really belive here!"

    As I have said several times, being a physicist, I am also a reductionist,
    and, so, will concentrate on the selected verses.


    "And, tell us where you get the knowledge of good and evil to sit in
    judgment over Moses, the psalmist, the gospel writers, and even (if the
    gospel writers got it down accurately) Jesus himself. As I asked you
    privately, are you conducting your one-man Jesus Seminar in Colorado? These
    questions are straight and to the point. I trust your answers will be too."

    My knowledge of "good and evil" is such that I know that regarding women as
    property and condoning acts of rape for the armed forces is wrong, evil,
    nasty and not in the character of the God Jesus portrayed. Do you have a
    different view? I suspect not. Where did I get it? 71 years of living, and
    40 years of being a Christian. Now you have expanded the issues from "Ps
    137" (#1) and "Deu 21:11) to the NT, and asked me if I will conduct a "Jesus
    Seminar" in Colorado. Yes, those questions are "straight and to the point."
    But addressing them would simply take us away from the issue.

    Let me leave you with this. Answer "straight and to the point" at least 3 of
    the 6 questions I asked you in my earlier post today and then I'll address
    your questions.



    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 20 2002 - 15:00:57 EDT