elephants, ancestors and points

So what's the point?

I've prattled on about elephants in rooms (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/01/elephant-in-room.html),
Joseph's grandfather (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/02/genealogies-part-2.html) and other things.

We've all been to churches where the pastor pounds the pulpit and chastises us for thinking too much (well, they don't *say* that... we're encouraged to think for ourselves, but then criticized if we decide we disagree). And in every church I've ever been to, sooner or later someone said "in the original Greek, this word means...". Stop. Red sign. First, we don't have the "original Greek". We don't even know that it was written in Greek. Doesn't it make sense that Hebrews was written in ... well.. Hebrew? Or maybe Matthew was written in Aramaic? Or maybe the reason the words in John are so simple is that they were written in Aramaic and translated to Greek by a translator who wasn't very good.

We don't have the original text. And we don't really know what's in it. We think we know. We are pretty sure about parts of it. But to tear apart origins of some Greek word and ascribe meaning to it is misleading. We simply can't read the Bible that way.

It presents a huge problem theologically. We end up binding ourself to a group of guys who met in Nicaea. The Catholics have it easy. They say these guys were "infallible" since the Pope was there, and that they were part of "Divine tradition". But the Protestants have it tougher. We either have to cling to the Catholic teachings about this, or admit we don't know.

It's not about truth. It's not really about "right-ness". Is it possible that the story of the woman taken in adultery was in the first ever version of John? Of course.
Could there be a reasonable explanation as to why Joseph had two different fathers? Absolutely.
Is it possible that the story of the virgin birth is authentic and original? Totally.

The problem is that we are guessing. Oh you don't have to call it that. You can call it "hypothesis" or "inspiration" or "reasonable faith based on historical fact". (I love that one by they way. You have to have faith to believe the fact, then use the fact to support your faith).

But whatever word you use, it's a guess. It is speculation. There are many reasons to believe it. There are many very bright scholars who will agree with it. There are many reasons to doubt it. There are many very bright scholars who will disagree.

It doesn't make our faith any less real, or less valuable, or less powerful. But it makes it different. It means that first of all, we have to take Kierkegaard's "blind leap".

You could argue, that any way you choose would be speculation. It is speculation that the Great Commission is NOT in the original manuscript of Mathew. And that is true.

And that's the point. It is not a pastor pounding the pulpit. It is not a great thinker who has all the answers if you just listen. It is not Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel addressing the "modern myths" of the doubters.
It is faith.
It is something you believe because you want to, because you need to, because it seems to make sense, because someone told you to or because of whatever drives you. But it is faith.

I think it must say a lot about a God who does this. It is so easy to take the easy way out -- to find Joseph Smith's golden tablets or the soothsayers "do this" pronouncements. But we don't have that. We have copies of copies of translations of copies. As Metzger points out astigmatism is very old. And there's no doubt that some of the scribes had it.

What does it say about God to allow this?
How you answer that is your faith.

It is faith.