Bob Thune 2004-04-23
From Summa Bergania
From : Bob Thune, Jr
Sent : Friday, April 23, 2004 9:51 PM
To : David Bergan
Subject : Re: Inspiration and the resurrection
Hey David,
Sorry for my tardiness in getting back to you.
As far as I can tell, you are depending on the relative historical accuracy of the gospels (i.e. the fact that the resurrection did indeed occur) as the basis for establishing that the prophesies related to Christ were divinely inspired (because they came true). The historical truth of the gospels leads (in your mind) to the conclusion that certain prophecies related to Christ were indeed divinely inspired. I hope you see that this too is "circular."
Biblical prophecies are inspired if they came true; they came true (according to the Bible itself); therefore, they are inspired. In the end, you're using the Bible to prove the Bible, just as I am when I quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 to prove inspiration. So why is that OK for you but not for me?
I'd also like to know your answer to your own question: how big of an umbrella does this open up for inspiration? If SOME of the Bible is inspired, how much of the rest of it might be inspired? And what are your criteria for making that judgment? That answer would prove interesting to me. Give me your thoughts.
These are the main things we need to address at this point. But in the broader scope, I'm still hoping to convince you of the weakness of your epistemological framework. You wrote, "We cannot choose the beliefs that we want and declare them true." Yet that is exactly what each of us does, all the time, in order to think at all. Epistemology starts not with facts, but with presuppositions.
With humility,
Bob
