Why Believe the Bible?

[HSetterfield]

I've read a lot of the threads and posts here by all sorts of people who say they are Christians. And I am puzzled by some of them. If they are Christians, what is it they are risking all of eternity believing?

The Bible is where we learn about Christ. If they are believing in this Man who claimed so clearly to be God Himself, why are they believing it?

If the Bible is only part history but is part myth; if it must be interpreted by humans in order to make any sense of it, then we have nothing to depend on but ourselves. If God could not communicate clearly, simply, honestly and straightforwardly in the book which is said to be His Word, then how can we trust anything written there?

If we cannot trust Him to leave us the truth in an objective manner, who or what can we trust?

If it takes a church, or an intellectual, or a scientist, or a historian, or tradition, or anything else man-made to help us 'understand' what the Bible 'really' means, then the Bible is really of no use at all, for we are still left depending on men and not on God.

 

[Melethiel]

The Bible speaks very clearly in regards to issues of faith. The overarching theme of the Bible is to point to Christ. Therefore, even if a certain section can be classified as myth, it is still true and still points to Christ. I think that to insist that if the Bible is not speaking to scientific matters then it is not clear and not true is missing the entire point.

 

[HSetterfield]

I did not specify scientific matters. My point is that if it takes a human mind to decide what is actually and really true and what is simply a 'spiritual message' then we cannot really trust the Bible at all; we are, rather, trusting ourselves.

 

[Mallon]

When did God ever promise his truths would be straightforward or easy to understand? When did He say that a literal reading of His word was what He intended? I don't think Jesus would agree.
Intelligence isn't a curse; it's a blessing. God blessed us with a brain, and I suppose He wants us to use it. The verses quoted in my signature will attest to that. Human 'wisdom' only becomes a hinderance when we trust it to deliver us from sin over Christ. But reading some parts of the Bible as non-literal can hardly be construed as not trusting God, when it is quite clear that some of the most Christ-like Christians here do just that. To suggest otherwise conjurs up images of Luke 18: 9-14.

 

[Servant222]

The Bible was inspired by God- the same God who created the infinitely complex Universe that we have hardly even begun to understand. If we admit to having only the most rudimentary knowledge of the Universe, then why are we being so presumptuous about understanding the Bible?

Every sermon and every Bible study for thousands of years has provided insights- interpretations- of what the scriptures mean. Have those interpretations always been consistent? Hardly- if they were, there would be no need for more than one church with one minister, and no need for Bible studies (or forums!), because we would all be in agreement and have all the answers.

The reality is that the Bible is an infinitely complex document that us mortals will never understand until we are face to face with God and can ask Him to explain it to us (we will, after all, have an eternity to try and take it all in!). I do believe that science can help us understand the Bible. I am also very confident that when all the answers are in, no conflict will be found to exist between science and our faith- that is, science will have finally figured it out and be in agreement with faith!

I leave you with a verse from Psalm 139:

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

 

[[serious]]

If the Bible is only part history but is part myth; if it must be interpreted by humans in order to make any sense of it, then we have nothing to depend on but ourselves. If God could not communicate clearly, simply, honestly and straightforwardly in the book which is said to be His Word, then how can we trust anything written there?

If we cannot trust Him to leave us the truth in an objective manner, who or what can we trust?

Any fault would rest in our ability to hear, not God's ability to communicate. There is significant precident for allegory in the Bible. I've yet to meet a Christian who is purely literal. I don't believe this is the place to dive into my views on specific parts being allegory or history, but allegory doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. I do not believe it is any sin to misunderstand parts of the bible that are history as allegory or vice versa. Let's face it, if God put complete understanding of the Word as a salvation issue we'd ALL be hosed.

 

[Dannager]

If the Bible is only part history but is part myth; if it must be interpreted by humans in order to make any sense of it, then we have nothing to depend on but ourselves. If God could not communicate clearly, simply, honestly and straightforwardly in the book which is said to be His Word, then how can we trust anything written there?

He did communicate clearly, simply, honestly and straightforwardly. That doesn't mean that understanding it is effortless, though. We don't understand the original languages the Bible was written in, for instance, so we translate it. We aren't a part of the culture in which the Bible was written, so we apply contextual interpretation to it to properly understand its intent.

 

[artybloke]

My point is that if it takes a human mind to decide what is actually and really true and what is simply a 'spiritual message' then we cannot really trust the Bible at all

"What is actually and really true" is the spiritual message, is it not?

Seems to me that like so many fundamentalists you've been seduced by a 19th/20th century materialist understanding of truth. Like so many others, you seem to think that truth = fact. It doesn't.

If we define fact as "that which can be empirically observed using scientific method", even the existence of God cannot be called "factual." We can't look in a test-tube or through a powerful telescope and find God; we percieve God through faith.

The Bible teaches us the way to salvation. It doesn't teach us science, history, geography or the poetics of ancient near-eastern literature. That is not its purpose.

To judge the Bible by the standards of 19th/20th century science is to do the Bible the gravest disservice. It is to ignore the context that the writers were writing out of: a society that was full of story, full of myth, full of mystery; but one totally empty of anything we in the 21st century would regard as science. They told stories to convey truths; myths explained the world to them in ways they could understand. It's like the stained-glass windows in medieval churches: illustrations of truths that a mostly illiterate population wouldn't have understood otherwise.

I find it interesting that the most literalist of all are Protestant evangelicals. I don't find nearly so many Catholics, who understand much more clearly the meaning of metaphor because their liturgy is steeped in it, clinging to this rationalist raft of truth=fact. Catholic churches are full of pictures; as is the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Bible is where we learn about Christ. If they are believing in this Man who claimed so clearly to be God Himself, why are they believing it?

It took the church roughly 4 centuries to come up with acceptable definitions of what it means for Jesus to be the Christ. I don't think that means "clearly" by any stretch of the imagination, especially when i sit down and list a few of the major different ways people can answer the question, even today, 20 centuries after the events. (just from the wiki i can list- Nestorianism Monophysitism Monothelitism Monoenergism Chalcedonian and then Trinitarianism vs. Arianism) The lesson of history is that it really isn't all that clear, unless you assume that you and yours alone are right and everyone else is a damnable/ed heretic.

If the Bible is only part history but is part myth; if it must be interpreted by humans in order to make any sense of it, then we have nothing to depend on but ourselves.

again the modern alignment of Truth=literal historical scientific fact and myth=false

everytime you read anything you by necessity interpret it. The representation of those words in your mind is not the same thing as the words on the page. Additionally, you have no reason to believe and lots of good reasons (like the depth of the historical controversy, the ongoing presence of sin etc) to believe that your interpretation is identical with the meaning of the text as God Himself sees it. The fact that your interpretation does and really ought to change during your lifetime would add a bit of modesty to anyone's claims that they understand the Word as God does. Which year and which day was it that you had the exact same interpretation of the Scriptures as does God?

The act of making sense of a written document is in it's essence a human and partly cultural and historical act. You read and those words interact with everything you know and understand, this produces your current interpretation of this text. If you propose that God Himself simply puts the right interpretation into your head without need for any human intervention then you must be one of the current infallible prophets, and then your problem is simply to convince the world that you are being directly spoken to by God. The rest of us will have to be content with our interpretations of what God saids.

If God could not communicate clearly, simply, honestly and straightforwardly in the book which is said to be His Word, then how can we trust anything written there?

you appear to be asserting that our trust can only be predictated on the perspicuity of Scripture. In addition the characteristics of "straightforwardness" and "simplicity" are required of Scripture in order to trust it. And a moment with church history and the wide variety of doctrines taught as the only straightforward and simple meaning of Scripture ought to give anyone pause to claim that the Scriptures have these characteristics. If the entire body of people claiming to read the Bible in a straightforward and simple manner agreed as to even the basics of what it said, then there would be some room to require these characteristics as a matter of essential faith, but the truth is that there are thousands of competing voices all claiming to read the Scriptures in the exact same way and all claiming it means different things. So again either all of them are wrong but you and those exactly like you, or the Scriptures are not all that simple and straightforward.

if the issue is trust, isn't it better to place your faith in the person of God rather than in an infallible interpretation of the Word which on this side of heaven appears to be impossible? Perhaps it is God who saves us and not our particular interpretations "closeness" to the truth?

If we cannot trust Him to leave us the truth in an objective manner, who or what can we trust?
the problem is not on God's end of the communication but on ours. This requirement of objective, what does it really mean, especially in the light of the divisiveness of doctrine? Perhaps the answer is again, our trust is in God and His saving grace, not in the specific interpretation of sCripture that resides in each of our heads.

If it takes a church, or an intellectual, or a scientist, or a historian, or tradition, or anything else man-made to help us 'understand' what the Bible 'really' means, then the Bible is really of no use at all, for we are still left depending on men and not on God.
The Bible leads us to trust in the work and person of Christ, that dependence is partial and full of error on our part. However it is not the strength nor particularly the rightness of the understanding that saves us, but rather God Himself. The faith is the instrumentality used to grab ahold of the grace, the strength of our grip or it's metaphorical position etc is not what saves us, God does. That doesn't make faith useless or dependent upon men, it lays ahold of salvation but it is not itself salvation, that is the work of God.

You seem to elevate correct interpretation and proper Biblical understanding to the level of saving grace, where this understanding is what saves and therefore has to be exactly and perfectly right. This is making Biblical interpretation a saving work of yours, not the salvation of Christ, but properly understanding the salvation.

good luck. i suspect in the long run you will end up with one person properly saved, and with everyone else who disagrees a heretic and unsaved, for it appears obvious that completely the same interpretation between 2 people doesn't exist.

 

[shernren]

I've read a lot of the threads and posts here by all sorts of people who say they are Christians. And I am puzzled by some of them. If they are Christians, what is it they are risking all of eternity believing?

Everything I'd want to say has already been said but I'm really curious: just why would you think we are "risking all of eternity believing?" After all, TEs are still Christians ... right?

 

[busterdog]

Everything I'd want to say has already been said but I'm really curious: just why would you think we are "risking all of eternity believing?" After all, TEs are still Christians ... right?

I agree with your curiousity and that TEs are Christians. But I disagree greatly with much of what was said in response above your post.

Perhaps you can argue that the OP implies the view that TEs are not Christians. That would pushing the OP language pretty hard. Helen can speak for herself on that. "Risk" is not the same as "lose".

IF one where to simply take the Word as fungible with other "wisdom", then, yes, there is a problem. If one is to be guided by one's own good sense, which the WOrd only happens to fit as a fortunate coincidence. Yes, there is a problem.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

To that extent, Helen's OP clearly extends to us in one way or another. Not taking the Word seriously has consequences. Some of those mistakes, I still make. THinking for yourself, without God, is indeed like any other venture done in your own strength. It is hazardous.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Some folks here (TE and otherwise) come to the matters in Genesis with a devotion to the Word, desiring to be grounded in it. Yet, elsewhere in this forum, there is a cavalier attitude to whether the Word is true or not. Paul also says work out your salvation in fear and trembling. If you just give yourself a pass on sorting out a conflict with the Word simply because you are a modern person and the prophets were not, that is pretty unscriptural. You can call that a difference of philosophy, but I don't think that means those of us who believe inerrancy should ignore what we see as a problem. That we may get in someone's kitchen on this issue from time to time doesn't make us wrong.

If the Word doesn't fit what we observe, there is a remedy. But, it is not confidence in our observation. Devotion actively seeks an answer:

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

As for how the Word was designed, I wholeheartedly agree that the Word was designed to be understood in its affirmative statements. That is probably a good study for us that should not be so simply dismissed as above.

I also believe the WOrd was designed to make salvation as simple as possible from a empistemological standpoint and that it had do it this way:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I am not sure that confession is all that important to some folks here. I know for a number of TEs it is vitally important. I would say that as Christians they have security.

But, as James teaches, doing right shows that your heart is with God. Dismissing the Word as a mere part of the buffet of ideas is not the heart God wants and is hazardous.

As for words such as "preposterous", I am not sure where that is coming from. But if the following is also preposterous, then I will have a better idea of how we differ:

Rev 22:18 ¶ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

This would seem to apply to that particular book, I guess. However, if some there think this language might be hyperbole or paranoia, I think that is what Helen is talking about in part, though it is not TE "origins theology."

 

[HSetterfield]

Thank you, Busterdog. That is amazing how many people would rather depend on themselves rather than on the Bible, and that is what a good deal of it amounts to. Am I against using one's intelligence? I rather hope not, since both my husband and I are actively involved in scientific and historical research. He also teaches astronomy and is the astronomer for the New Hope Observatory here in Oregon!

It is how intelligence is used, just the way how anything else the Lord has given us is used which is the main thing. God has given us historical and scientific parameters in the Bible. We can either believe Him or call them allegory and depend on ourselves. The more research we have done, the more we have found that the historic and scientific references are absolutely accurate, often past what we have understood before and therefore, even when we don't understand completely what is being said, we can still count on it as being accurate.

Nowhere did I use the word "literal". That would require a knowledge of paleo Hebrew and classical Greek. I did use the word 'straightforward' and that is what I meant. Genesis is a straightforward account of what happened. It is honest and true and simple to grasp, whether or not we can make it fit with our 'science' (which is actually interpretations rather than data most of the time). Poetry has a distinctive grammatical form in Hebrew which makes it very clear to the translators, and thus most of the versions put the poetic sections in that form.

Are TE's Christians? It is not one's intellectual understanding which makes one a Christian. It is Christ Himself. I do think that theistic evolution, however, is an attempt to 'blend' man's understanding with the truth of the Bible and, guess what? The Bible always is the part that has to 'give.' It is always, in the TE version of things, the part that is 'allegorical', or 'myth', or 'ancient memories', or 'men from an earlier time just trying to understand.'

No, it's none of those things. It's what happened.

Those who belong to Christ may start out as theistic evolutionists. I know I did. But I also know that God took me from there, via the science that I knew and read, to creationism and then to young age creationism. I have since deeply apologized to Him for not believing Him in the first place. But it took my own look at the data (and not just believing someone else or a text or a journal) to see where evolutionists were fudging way past the candy factory and presuming things which had no foundation except in their imagination. I found that the data pointed toward the actual truth of the Biblical record.

And so I ask, again, when some of you say you believe the Bible, aren't you saying, really, that you believe your own ability to 'interpret' it according to what you already believe to be true, apart from the Bible? Aren't you really saying that God's Word is subject to man's ideas? And isn't that, actually, the very temptation Satan gave Eve? "Think for yourself...." -- that's not a bad thing except when it is asked to go against the clear Word of God.

He really does know what He's talking about. And it is not that difficult, folks. You can believe Him. He's God.

 

[Melethiel]

But the question is knowing which parts of the Bible are to be read as "historically and scientifically accurate," and which are to be read as allegory. YECs do this the same as TEs.

 

[Servant222]

Just as an aside, thank you all for keeping these discussions so polite- I really enjoy reading thoughtful posts as are being made here that always respect the sometimes different opinions of others.

 

[HSetterfield]

But the question is knowing which parts of the Bible are to be read as "historically and scientifically accurate," and which are to be read as allegory. YECs do this the same as TEs.

The Bible identifies allegory. The parts that it presents as history are either history or they are not. The times it makes scientific references, it is either correct or it is not.

 

[Melethiel]

But the question is knowing which parts of the Bible are to be read as "historically and scientifically accurate," and which are to be read as allegory. YECs do this the same as TEs.

The Bible identifies allegory. The parts that it presents as history are either history or they are not. The times it makes scientific references, it is either correct or it is not.

If it was so clear, we wouldn't have all the differing doctrines about interpretation. Is Revelation allegory or not? Are the Sacraments symbolic or not? Those are just a couple of the issues which have been greatly argued over through the years.

ETA: Does the Bible ever really make "scientific references"? I don't think it does. There might be statements which could be interpreted in a scientific fashion, but I highly doubt they were intended that way. It simply wasn't a priority to writers of the time.

 

[artybloke]

Genesis is a straightforward account of what happened.

No it is not. It is a combination of two accounts by two different hands: Gen 1 is a poem, complete with refrain, poetic form, metaphorical (not allegorical) use of imagery. It is, in short, a highly sophisticated, imaginative work of art, written by an expert in near-eastern poetry. Trying to pretend it's some kind of straightforward historical account just shows the usual Protestant disregard for the beauty and depth of scripture, and truely treating the Bible with the same cavelier attitude to beauty that led to the burning of icons. It's YEC's who try to make the Bible conform to the world by making it into something it most manifestly is not.


There is nothing about YECism that has any scientific or theological virtue in it.

The times it makes scientific references, it is either correct or it is not.

It's a lie that the Bible makes any scientific references whatsoever.

 

[Servant222]

Does the Bible ever really make "scientific references"? I don't think it does. There might be statements which could be interpreted in a scientific fashion, but I highly doubt they were intended that way. It simply wasn't a priority to writers of the time.

I am always amazed at how many "scientific" observations are found in the Bible- for example, the many references to occurrences of earthquakes. It is even better if they weren't intended that way- science likes unbiased observers.

 

[Rayzdprayz]

Because "I AM"

 

[HSetterfield]

Um, OK, let's look at a few of those scientific references:

"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?"
Job 38:31

It was not until our generation (or at least mine..LOL) that we knew that the Pleiades were bound together gravitationally or that Orion was disrupting at a rather rapid rate. But it is in the Bible. And that part is even in the poetry section!

"He has prepared the light and the sun"
Psalm 74:16
Light is different from the 'light holder' which is what the sun and stars actually are. This is known in physics now. It was not understood 150 years ago. But it is in the Bible.

Psalm 8:8 mentions the 'paths of the seas' -- but the ocean currents were not known to be more than seasonal phenomena until the 20th century. The Bible has it, though.

I am staying away from Genesis for obvious reasons. But the Bible does validate itself scientifically, as well as historically. We can believe it or not. That part is our choice.

And, folks, if fishermen understood it, and understood Jesus, we really don't need a bunch of 'authorities' who try to tell us what it 'really means' to help us understand. We can surely understand what fishermen understood.