A Pondering of the Peculiar

[bhsmte]

Indeed, what I find...amusing...is that creationists assume that many of the complaints we have about the Bible are derived from anti-Christian commentary. On the contrary, most of my Biblical studies are taken from Christian and Jewish scholars. Creationists don't realize how liberal most of them are in their Biblical interpretations.

It is important to keep one thing in mind when it comes to biblical scholarship and historians. The vast majority of these folks are devout christians and they went into the work they chose, because of their strong beliefs in christianity. Not exactly the most "objective crowd", but the group is what they are. Also, many scholars are employed in some way by theological institutions, who may have a mission statement that says something like; we believe the bible to be the divine word of God, etc. etc. and the evangelical institutions, will throw in they believe the bible to be 100% accurate. Sort of like having scientists that work for the tobacco companies determining if cigarette smoking is addictive.

There is an aura about the bible that it is "off limits" and to criticize it's credibility or historicity is blaspheme. That has slowly changed and is why I stay away from the conservative evangelical scholars (I know what they are going to say) and I also stay away from the one's that claim Jesus never existed, though they are fewer and farther between than the historians/scholars that will defend the book at all costs.

I really get a kick out of some christians that will either ignore the mountains of evidence discovered by science and or try to discredit the same, while accepting a book written thousands of years ago by many unknown authors, with numerous contradictions, errors, discrepancies and additions and changes over the centuries and screaming bloody murder if someone questions it.

 

[Sayre]

So...you seem to contemplate the reliability of the Bible in general, and especially the Old Testament, based, in part, on how it stands up to the reality that we see in God's creation. i.e. no literal flood, no 6000 years, no mega long lifespans, etc.

But at some point there is a disconnect, where you believe things that don't jive with what we know about reality...walking on water, rising from the dead, etc.

How do you justify, for yourself, what claims you are willing to suspend your dependence on reality for?

I mean, there is not any more physical evidence for the resurrection, or walking on water, than there is for a flood.

Would you say that it boils down to the fact that the claims of Jesus haven't been DISPROVEN, like the flood and young earth?

I don't think the bible read correctly claims a worldwide flood or a young earth. I do think it claims that Jesus was a miracle worker and there is no avoiding that. There is no physical, scientific evidence that miracles are possible or that they have happened. I believe that by faith because I sense a resonance - that people in the bible are describing the same kind of interactions with God that I claim to have had with God.

 

[Sayre]

It is important to keep one thing in mind when it comes to biblical scholarship and historians. The vast majority of these folks are devout christians and they went into the work they chose, because of their strong beliefs in christianity. Not exactly the most "objective crowd", but the group is what they are. Also, many scholars are employed in some way by theological institutions, who may have a mission statement that says something like; we believe the bible to be the divine word of God, etc. etc. and the evangelical institutions, will throw in they believe the bible to be 100% accurate. Sort of like having scientists that work for the tobacco companies determining if cigarette smoking is addictive.

There is an aura about the bible that it is "off limits" and to criticize it's credibility or historicity is blaspheme. That has slowly changed and is why I stay away from the conservative evangelical scholars (I know what they are going to say) and I also stay away from the one's that claim Jesus never existed, though they are fewer and farther between than the historians/scholars that will defend the book at all costs.

I really get a kick out of some christians that will either ignore the mountains of evidence discovered by science and or try to discredit the same, while accepting a book written thousands of years ago by many unknown authors, with numerous contradictions, errors, discrepancies and additions and changes over the centuries and screaming bloody murder if someone questions it.

I think the average fundie layperson is entirely ignorant of modern criticism of the bible. They are also entirely ignorant of what is being taught as fact in seminaries... and that the private beliefs of their pastors and priests are likely far far more "lliberal" than what they would expect.

 

[46AND2]

I don't think the bible read correctly claims a worldwide flood or a young earth. I do think it claims that Jesus was a miracle worker and there is no avoiding that. There is no physical, scientific evidence that miracles are possible or that they have happened. I believe that by faith because I sense a resonance - that people in the bible are describing the same kind of interactions with God that I claim to have had with God.

But would you have believed what you do about the Old Testament if we didn't have the knowledge that we do about the age of the earth, the geological record, etc?

 

[46AND2]

I think the average fundie layperson is entirely ignorant of modern criticism of the bible. They are also entirely ignorant of what is being taught as fact in seminaries... and that the private beliefs of their pastors and priests are likely far far more "lliberal" than what they would expect.

Even if their pastors don't hold these liberal beliefs, they certainly don't let on that most of their instruction at seminary was liberal in nature.

 

[Sayre]

Even if their pastors don't hold these liberal beliefs, they certainly don't let on that most of their instruction at seminary was liberal in nature.

Correct. It is really dishonest. Deceptive.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the average fundie layperson is entirely ignorant of modern criticism of the bible. They are also entirely ignorant of what is being taught as fact in seminaries... and that the private beliefs of their pastors and priests are likely far far more "lliberal" than what they would expect.

I don't think there is any question, that the layperson is quite clueless to the criticism. I know I was quite shocked by what I had learned and I had been a church going christian for most of my life. I am not so sure though whether most seminaries are going much into the issues with the NT, that your moderate and more liberal historians/scholars have identified, that would cause some serious pause as to the credibility of major portions of the NT. They may skim over it and give talking points as to how to address, but I doubt too many seminaries provide what I would call an "objective" teaching of the bible.

 

[46AND2]

I don't think there is any question, that the layperson is quite clueless to the criticism. I know I was quite shocked by what I had learned and I had been a church going christian for most of my life. I am not so sure though whether most seminaries are going much into the issues with the NT, that your moderate and more liberal historians/scholars have identified, that would cause some serious pause as to the credibility of major portions of the NT. They may skim over it and give talking points as to how to address, but I doubt too many seminaries provide what I would call an "objective" teaching of the bible.

Oh, I don't mean objective when I say that seminary professors teach liberal ideas. They are still very much biased in their views. But they are at least honest enough, for the most part, to at least admit the undeniable problems.

 

[Sayre]

But would you have believed what you do about the Old Testament if we didn't have the knowledge that we do about the age of the earth, the geological record, etc?

Interesting question. I don't know much science to be honest - I just know that there isn't a global conspiracy of scientists wanting to deceive us about physical matters.

I think we do know about the ancient near east, the role that stories played in the transmission of theology pre enlightenment, etc. We also know about the history of the bible and how it was based on oral tradition and has been redacted. That it was written by men, and not by God. That gives us some context to read it properly.

Does that help?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I don't mean objective when I say that seminary professors teach liberal ideas. They are still very much biased in their views. But they are at least honest enough, for the most part, to at least admit the undeniable problems.

I guess it depends. Some may be forthright, but I would imagine they have a creative explanation to diffuse the issues as well.

I remember watching a debate between Bart Ehrman who is a well credentialed NT historian and another more conservative NT historian. Ehrman, systematically listed the issues with portions of the NT that showed why a legit historian (following the historical method) could not say with any confidence, that large portions of the NT where considered reliable from a historical standpoint. He also pointed out, why the delayed timing of the NT's authorship and several other reasons, as to why eye witness accounts in the NT did not exist. The other scholar did not refute any of the issues that Erhman brought up, likely because they were so well layed out and explained, he just chose to disagree with him and stated most of the NT is historical and there were eye witness accounts, without giving any justification as Ehrman did for his differing opinion.

 

[46AND2]

Interesting question. I don't know much science to be honest - I just know that there isn't a global conspiracy of scientists wanting to deceive us about physical matters.

I think we do know about the ancient near east, the role that stories played in the transmission of theology pre enlightenment, etc. We also know about the history of the bible and how it was based on oral tradition and has been redacted. That it was written by men, and not by God. That gives us some context to read it properly.

Does that help?

I just wonder how much of OEC and "theistic evolutionists" interpretion the Old Testament is because that is really what they feel was meant by authors of the time, or because they are forced into that interpretation because reality contradicts a more literal exegesis.

 

[Sayre]

I just wonder how much of OEC and "theistic evolutionists" interpretion the Old Testament is because that is really what they feel was meant by authors of the time, or because they are forced into that interpretation because reality contradicts a more literal exegesis.

That might be a fair comment. Some TE's take it too far when they claim that evolution is in the bible, for example. But should it really be "either/or"? Can't we refine our understanding over time using both scientific and biblical scholarship?

 

[46AND2]

That might be a fair comment. Some TE's take it too far when they claim that evolution is in the bible, for example. But should it really be "either/or"? Can't we refine our understanding over time using both scientific and biblical scholarship?

Well, I haven't lost sight of the point of this discussion being about defining a logical God. I do appreciate you humoring me with your responses to my questions.

I don't really have a problem with your interpretation of the Old Testament. Although, I do also have a bit of an issue with the apparent blood lust and general savagery toward women and non-jews in Old Testament, which you are free to weigh in on, if you choose. However, I will focus mainly on the New Testament in light of your responses, thus far.

So my next questions will deal with the New Testament, once I have a chance to read your link about bioi. I'll attempt to tackle that in the next day or so.

 

[Sayre]

Well, I haven't lost sight of the point of this discussion being about defining a logical God. I do appreciate you humoring me with your responses to my questions.

I don't really have a problem with your interpretation of the Old Testament. Although, I do also have a bit of a problem with the apparent blood lust and general savagery toward women and non-jews in Old Testament, which you are free to weigh in on, if you choose. However, I will focus mainly on the New Testament in light of your responses, thus far.

So my next questions will deal with the New Testament, once I have a chance to read your link about bioi. I'll attempt to tackle that in the next day or so.

OK - although that link was more about inerrancy of the NT than it was about bioi.

As for the treatment of women and non Jews in the OT - I have no doubt that a lot of murder, sexism, racism and outright bigotry happened back then.

 

[46AND2]

As for the treatment of women and non Jews in the OT - I have no doubt that a lot of murder, sexism, racism and outright bigotry happened back then.

So you believe, then, that they are not things that God commanded, but more like descriptions of the culture of that time, and the authors' attempts to justify it with what they felt was divine support of the practices?

 

[Sayre]

So you believe, then, that they are not things that God commanded, but more like descriptions of the culture of that time, and the authors' attempts to justify it with what they felt was divine support of the practices?

Yes.

 

[46AND2]

Yes.

What do you see as the reason for the apparent difference between God's interaction in the OT vs. the NT?

I mean, you mentioned that you see the NT as more historical, and indeed, God seems to be much more peripheral, even almost absent, in the OT.

I gather that part of it would be the physical appearance of Christ making God more tangible and more easily interpreted. However, that would only account for the gospels. Do you view the rest of the NT more accurate with respect to the description of God's nature than the OT as well? But less so than the gospels?

 

[anyathesword]

Well, I haven't lost sight of the point of this discussion being about defining a logical God. I do appreciate you humoring me with your responses to my questions.

I don't really have a problem with your interpretation of the Old Testament. Although, I do also have a bit of an issue with the apparent blood lust and general savagery toward women and non-jews in Old Testament, which you are free to weigh in on, if you choose. However, I will focus mainly on the New Testament in light of your responses, thus far.

So my next questions will deal with the New Testament, once I have a chance to read your link about bioi. I'll attempt to tackle that in the next day or so.

Are you aware of the gravity of sin and the way it has/is affecting mankind and the world?

Do you know what sin is?

 

[anyathesword]

What do you see as the reason for the apparent difference between God's interaction in the OT vs. the NT?

I mean, you mentioned that you see the NT as more historical, and indeed, God seems to be much more peripheral, even almost absent, in the OT.

I gather that part of it would be the physical appearance of Christ making God more tangible and more easily interpreted. However, that would only account for the gospels. Do you view the rest of the NT more accurate with respect to the description of God's nature than the OT as well? But less so than the gospels?

The OT has way more history then the New. Both are accurate and describe God well.

 

[anyathesword]

So you believe, then, that they are not things that God commanded, but more like descriptions of the culture of that time, and the authors' attempts to justify it with what they felt was divine support of the practices?

Of course it was God's commands!!! It was description of the culture back then. The author's were not justifying anything, they were writing down what God said and what happened.