I wrote about this recently here… but a newer, simpler “argument” hit me today and I wanted to catalog it here.
————
Think of biblical revelation like this:
Scientists study dinosaurs…
- We have some physically verifiable, historical proof-based facts
- We have current scientific biological info to glean other facts
- We have other logical reasons to fill in other gaps.
The net effect is that of “understanding” dinosaurs. Right?
But, the reality is that with each “revelation” of a new fact, artifact, piece of data… that knowledge grows and evolves. It is considered true in its time, and gets more clear as time goes on.
Said another way… what we know now is better than 100 years ago, and will be better in a hundred more.
- Will there be mistaken judgments in each era of original revelations? Sure.
- Does that mean ALL previous revelations are now rendered obsolete and irrelevant? No.
- Does it mean much of what was known remains important and additive to the whole of the knowledge about that subject? Si.
- Does it mean that the process of gaining knowledge (without tangible presence) is just that, a process? Without a doubt.
Now, imagine that God has been in the process of being revealed for 6+ thousand years… (throwing a bone to my Young Earth friends, there.)
It stands to reason then… that maybe not every detail has always been right… But they were consistent with the understanding of the day. They were useful and relevant to the people, circumstances, and situations of the time. AND, they have been beneficial to the long-term development of understanding of Him.
Now, if we accept this paradigm of truth being revealed slowly (vs. instantaneously) it would make sense that (and even be necessary that) details would need to be updated, reviewed, and rewritten as contextual understanding shifted… or as deeper cultural, scientific, logical, or pattern variations were discovered.
So…
Is the Bible tainted simply because men wrote it?
Or is the Bible tainted because men wrote things that didn’t align with future explanations of similar things?
An emphatic NO to both.
In fact, I’d argue that it’s exactly this unveiling of truth by men, at different parts of time, slowly opening up and gaining clarity is even more proof still that this truth being identified is THE truth.
Said another way:
Men can’t find what isn’t there.
Men can’t create truth.
All men can do is find the patterns that truth reveals, over time, and then continually prove and re-prove those patterns generation over generation.
So, the fact that men (humans) were able to “find” these truths, to test these truths against experience, to then validate and hone these truths over generations is actually proof itself that it is indeed the truth they have found and have now written about.