To: Delbert Kroupa (23418 )
From: Emile Vidrine
Friday, Jul 10 1998 1:48AM ET
Reply # of 25954
"Aren't all of the words within sacred to you?"
Yes, but you do not understand the biblical concept of Word.
Word in the Scriptures is a precept or an idea. It is not he mechanical thes, ands, buts
and therefores.
Sometimes it is necessary to communicate a precept through a lengthey anecdote. The
Book of Job is an excellent example. The book has thousands of words but ONE
CENTRAL PRECEPT and a multitude of minor precepts.
God sometimes uses long bloody battles and stories of incredible cruelty to transmit one
precept.
Sometimes through a prarable. The parable of the Good Samaritan is an example. One
central precept locked into many words.
Sometimes precepts are communicated in a short phrase or paragraph. Proverbs and
Psalms are good examples.
God uses all three literary styles to communicate His pure and holy words or precepts.
Languages and culture help us transmit our inner precepts and feelings. A good analogy
is the transmission of valuable crystals from Calif. to NY. We may use wrapping paper
and styrofoam to pack the crystals and Federal Express to transport them in their
vehicles. From the Calf. to NY the wrapping may be damaged and the vehicles may
even get into a minor accident, but the crystals are delivered in perfecte shape.
Do not be too concerned with the wrinkles and dents in the wrapping paper and the
transmission vehicles of language and culture, but rather be concerned with the integrity
of the precepts being transmitted.
When you unrap the Word or precepts of God contained in the imperfect wrapping
paper and vechicle of Greek and Hebrew culture, you will find that the precepts are
holy and perfect.
We cannot fully understand the purity of the Word of God without the Holy Spirit of
god enlightening our hearts. The examples I have given you can al least give you a
glimpse of what we mean by the Holy and Pure Word of God. Finally, I would like to discuss the technical errors found in the WWord of God. Without boring you with technical details, I refer to the many technical contradictions found when comparing the four Gospels. Many critics of the Bible have jumped on these technical errors as proof that the Gospel accounts in the New Testament are flawed.
It is my contention that these technical errors confirm the historical accuracy of the eyewitness accounts rather than diminish them.
It's a well known principle in court testimonies as well as in historical research that testimonies that are flawless in technical details show collusion and coaching. Testimonies that clearly establish a central event but that a flawed in technical details helps establish the authenticity of an event.
All eyewitness testimonies relating to automobile accidents have this characteristic in common. The testimonies are colored by the cultural, social, and general background of the eyewitnesses. This is always expected.
We should expect nothing less from the inspired Word of God. If the testimonies of the Gospels were one hundred percent accurate in every detail, any hones researcher would be justify in questioning their authenticity.
When ancient pagan kings and emperors hired chroniclers, they expected their accounts to doctor the flaws in their personal histories. This is exactly what is found.
In the Word of God, we find just the opposite to be true. All of the major characters of the Bible, with the exception of Jesus, are shown will all their rinkles and pimples. King David is an adulterer and a murdered. King Solomon is an idolater. St. Paul is a murdered. St. Peter denouces Christ, etc. etc. This very characteristic that would, at first sight, diminish the Word of God, in the end helps establish it.
God is not interesested in communicating a spotless document as far as technical details are concerned, but rather a spotless document as far as the salvation of man and the conveyance of essential truth is concerned.
Emile
w
|
