Hey it has been awhile since we had a round of questions from the liberal right.

While recently listening to k-love I heard them promoting Jack Hams new book concerning discrepancies in the Bible. On the first day he talked about Moses calling a bird a bat. He rightly points out that in many texts the phrase used is winged creature and since a bat is a winged creature there is no discrepancy. On day 2 he mentions the different genealogies used by Matthew and Luke. Luke uses Joseph lineage, while Matthew uses Marys, which is his explanation. Now I really dont think of Jack as much of a researcher or biblical scholar, though he has found a way to make a living (sorry I added this in the re-write, the little kid in me couldnt resist). Trust me when I say I am not claiming the latter and only loosely think of myself as a researcher. I have been told I have a natural ability to distill issues down to their most basic parts, which makes it easier and a more direct way to discuss whatever the issues are. In listening thus far to k-love two questions come to mind over the issue of why have the book and why the simplistic response about the differing genealogies. So lets deal with what might be the least controversial issue. When I say simplistic, I mean that it is really not an answer at all that gives either meaning or insight. In a male dominated society where lineage is traditionally followed through the father, why did Matthew give Marys lineage, while Luke the physician chose Josephs. Luke as a physician certainly had what we might consider a rudimentary understanding of mother/father traits, and knew that the father was heavenly, not earthly yet he chose Josephs line. Why? And why did Matthew choose Mary? My Archaeological Study Bible confirms that two types of genealogies are used throughout the Old and New Testament and both uses the male side of the tree, with this one exception. This discussion about the importance of genealogies can be found on page 1559 (should you have access) and sheds no more light then to say this has been a subject of discussion for a long while. To me the later answer seems a more valuable explanation because it creates the mood (for lack of a better term) to discuss further. Now I did not bring this up as a prelude to what I think about Jack, though when I re-read this I see that one could conclude this is all I am doing. Actually, I thought this a good way to bring up a larger issue with multiple players, feelings, and thinking. Remember, as an Anthropologist I have had to study a wide variety of fields of interests that includes, biology, sociology, logic, math (yuk), physics, physical anthropology, etc. My understanding of things like radio-carbon dating (Bobby ;-)) goes beyond the superficial, yet I am tempered by my understanding and faith as a Christian. In spite of the tempering or maybe because of it I do not believe in the same things that you all, or some may (just ask Lydia ha and yet she is still my friend). In either case I dont think of this as an advantage or disadvantage, but merely a means to ask question no one seems to be discussing. So on to the larger question(s). Why do people point out what they consider discrepancies? I used to think it was because they were curious and if only I could give them the correct answer they would BELIEVE. Well many, many hours of discussion and explanation later I am not sure that proof changed their minds. Yes it could be seed planting, but no sprouts yet. So when I heard the Jack Ham piece it came to me that maybe they ask because we (Church) make such a huge deal out of the Bible being the literal WORD of God. It follows that if it is the literal WORD of God then it should be perfect in every way, that humans could not have

tainted or corrupted what was contained within the Bible. So I am now looking within the Bible for the biblical authority that says the Bible, as it stands today is the literal word of God. Can anyone help me with the correct biblical reference(s)? I had thought the reference by John in Revelations could be construed that way, but as I read (I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this boodk: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. Revelations 22:18-19), but this seems pretty clear that John is talking about Revelations and not the Bible. So my next question was what if the Bible was not the Literal WORD of God, would it change the central message? If so, then how would it change? If not, then why not? My idea of the central message the singular thread that is woven throughout Old and New Testaments: Gods introduction of himself to man as a special creation/being that He made to commune with Him. That God wanting us to come to him on our own, gave us free will (maybe the singular most important difference between us and the rest of creation). That because of sin a sacrifice was necessary. That earthly sacrifice would never be enough and only a heavenly sacrifice would cover the damage from sin. That Christ was that perfect sacrifice and that He laid down His life freely for all humankind. Finally, that we are to love God with all our hearts, minds and souls, and do likewise with our neighbors. In light of this, if correct, what changes if the Bible is not the Literal WORD of God? So I will leave this here as to not show too much of my thinking, thereby removing any chance for discussion. As always, these kinds of questions sit in my mind and prayers before they come to light for days. I figure, that with my memory, if I remember it in 3-4 days it is important enough to discuss. I look forward to hearing from all of you and will share your insights with the group. We are an interesting group: Billi the steady and more recently the scourge of the SoCal coots, geese and ducks; Lydia the Montana Mountain woman; Rick the Pastor formerly known as the EMT guy, our new member Bobby the Christ Didnt Quit voice in my past; and of course your liberal evangelical recovering sex addict.

I cherish all of you for what you have done for my walk with our Savior and look forward to hearing from each.

Billy