Historical Critical == Bible is a Lie?

liars_paradox · Mar 2, 2014

KitKatMatt said:
People accuse me of not being a "real" believer all the time, because I don't believe what they believe exactly how they believe it. All I can do is shrug at them. Can't do anything to change their mind, really.

I do have to say, though, that your text formatting is strangely hard to read So it's difficult for me to focus on everything you're saying here.

Yeah, you're right.

.

What it is is that I changed the font to Courier New, because I program for a living and at the time I thought that using it was cool. But, it is actually pretty hard to read, and I don't remember how to change it back.

liars_paradox · Mar 8, 2014

But, I am starting to hate churches in general - liberal or conservative, mainline protestant or evangelical. They all suck.

But, the problem with churches is that they're filled with people, whom I also hate as well. I hate my life right now. I wished that I was dead right now, but too cowardly to do anything about it.

reverend B · Mar 9, 2014

Sayre said:
I don't think we should be looking for truth statements where the literature doesn't intend on making any. Reading poetry as science does not respect the poet.

What we have these days is something like this...

A book is written today containing just three equations:
1+1=2
1+2=3
5+8=1

The book is buried and dug up a few thousand years in the future. People read the book, declare that the last equation is wrong, therefore the book is wrong, and there is no Author. Authors don't get stuff quite so obviously wrong!

But context is key. The author was teaching the telling of time, and the equations were done on a clockface. 5 am plus 8 hours gets you to 1 pm. Since, in the future, people have done away with clocks and use only digital watches, no one knew what a clockface was or how to read it. This context changes everything. No longer is the book teaching falsehood, it was simply teaching in the context of the time it was written.

These days, the fundamentalists are still trying to prove that 5+8=1 on the numberline, and calling anyone who dares to question the context of the literature a heretic. And some atheists are proudly beating their chests, suggesting that anyone who believes 5+8=1 is a moron, believing in the ancient fables of goatherders, and that there is no author.

They are both wrong.

Context, and literary genre, is key.

But then you realize that 5+8=1 still works with a digital clock and the analogy falls apart, and you realize that the incredible mind bending apologetics to reconcile some of scripture with rational thought are far too convoluted to accept. Then you can read scripture as a historical document of an ancient people trying to wrestle with the concept of a god, just like everyone on here is trying to do. You don't have to dismissively judge it as lies, or blindly embrace it as truth. You can read it knowing some of it will connect with your heart and some will seem absurdly dated to you, and you can stop beating yourself up over that.

Sayre · Mar 9, 2014

reverend B said:
But then you realize that 5+8=1 still works with a digital clock and the analogy falls apart, and you realize that the incredible mind bending apologetics to reconcile some of scripture with rational thought are far too convoluted to accept. Then you can read scripture as a historical document of an ancient people trying to wrestle with the concept of a god, just like everyone on here is trying to do. You don't have to dismissively judge it as lies, or blindly embrace it as truth. You can read it knowing some of it will connect with your heart and some will seem absurdly dated to you, and you can stop beating yourself up over that.

I've read this post a few times and I still like it. It is pretty much what I am doing now with scripture.

God bless you, Rev B.

Sayre · Mar 9, 2014

liars_paradox said:
But, I am starting to hate churches in general - liberal or conservative, mainline protestant or evangelical. They all suck.

But, the problem with churches is that they're filled with people, whom I also hate as well. I hate my life right now. I wished that I was dead right now, but too cowardly to do anything about it.

This is not a great post. Are you ok?

People are flawed - sinful - and yet entirely lovable, according to God. Our christian faith is not supposed to be lived out in a bubble, isolated on our own - but rather in a community, and as part of a wider body.

Do you need to get some counselling, or some medical help? You sound suicidal and depressed.

God bless

XtianAgain · Mar 9, 2014

liars_paradox said:
Just a quick question. Do liberal Christians call any part of the bible a lie? I have throughout my adult years as a Christian with liberal views, ie. I kind of looked at some things in the bible as being possibly symbolic in nature and not all of it is literal. I would be willing to accept that the Gospels might not have been authored by the people whom they're named after.

According to some online test, I fit best with Anglican Communion's ideals, but Episcopal churches don't seem to have much motivation for me to go.

And, part of the reason for going to church is so that I can meet people and make friends. So, there's that. And, living in the South and close to one of the major cities, you'll find conservative mega-churches as great places to meet other young adults.

But, I have gotten into trouble with my views in a conservative mega-church with a young adults group. And, I have made an older friend at a smaller Baptist church whom I complained to about my treatment by the big megachurch. He has been trying to help me to come to understand the bible, and has made me rethink my liberal views.

The same applies to a friend whom I met at the megachurch with a sizeable young adults population who has been challenging me on my views on gay marriage. And, from this one group at a different church, a conservative has remarked how he grew up in the Presbyterian church and hates it and thinks that most liberals "are going over a cliff".

And, from all the churches that I have been frequenting (since they are all conservative) they usually tell me that liberals call parts of the bible a lie with their historical critical method instead of using the historical grammatical method that the conservative churches employ.

I could go into further arguments about that, and, honestly, I hardly understand exactly how the two schools of thoughts work in interpreting the bible except for the kinds of conclusions that they come up with.

I just know that I have been hearing what conservatives have told me, and I have started to become exhausted of how conservatives criticize liberals.

For instance, if God didn't literally make the world in six days like Genesis says, does that make it a lie?

I just want to hear from liberals about what you guys think in regards to your interpretations of the bible. If any of the bible was a lie, then we're practicing the wrong religion, right?

People thousands of years ago saw things very differently. I think lie is probably the wrong word to use. We've just evolved.

We know psychiatric disease isn't a demon for instance. Science. Pretty much all it is is science.

elman · Mar 11, 2014

liars_paradox said:
Well, talk like that would offend conservatives. And, honestly, I disagree with the words that you chose, but I can't say for your intent since I don't know you.

But, the Bible can't really be incorrect, right? If it was then why believe at all? And, what do you mean by false?

Before modernism, the church took a mixed approach to symbolic and literal interpretations, and yet the church said that the bible was 100% true.

I think many of the problems with the bible are traceable to the insistence on taking it literal even when it was not meant to be taken literally. The bible can really be incorrect. It was written by men and men decided what books to include and which to not include after fighting over it for many centuries. The Bible was not written by God and not interpreted by God. You suggest that if the bible has errors we should not believe anything in it. People believed in Jesus and the teachings of Jesus before they were written down. Why did writing them down make them untrue if some other things written down were false? Churches--all churches and all men individually and in groups make mistakes in theology. I think James was correct when he wrote in James 3:2 that we all make many mistakes. Which bible did which church say was 100% true? It is shifting sand.

Aaron_Walker · Mar 31, 2014

liars_paradox said:
...the problem with churches is that they're filled with people, whom I also hate as well. I hate my life right now. I wished that I was dead right now, but too cowardly to do anything about it.

I'm sorry you're in a such a bad place right now. For what it's worth, there are really good people out there, and also some really good church communities. It may take a while to find a group of people you connect with, but try not to be so negative.

I don't know your particular circumstances, but I know your life is precious.

All Souls · Mar 31, 2014

liars_paradox said:
Before modernism, the church took a mixed approach to symbolic and literal interpretations, and yet the church said that the bible was 100% true.

Not strictly true, the ECFs allegorised because the literal meaning was impossible. Kenton Sparks works through this better than I in his God's Word in Human Words.

Lujack Skylark · Mar 31, 2014

dayhiker said:
That's the way I read the Bible, sayre.
Its actually amazing to me that so many of the strange ideas of the ancient world that I have read as I've studied the ancient cultures didn't get into the Bible.

You haven't read in the Apologetic section in Rapture Forums about the Ancient nations which confirm our Bible's historical accuracy.

Izdaari Eristikon · Mar 31, 2014

liars_paradox said:
Nice! That's exactly what I meant, too. .

My trying to be more "open-minded" to the point of willing to accept the conservative viewpoint has been causing internal strife in me.

Maybe God wanted me to have the liberal viewpoint, because I would have an easier time with it than the conservative one?

I really hope so. I'd hate to find out after I'm dead (assuming that that's how things work) that my "liberal" views were really from the devil and I have to endure Hell flames for eternity.

Maybe a lot of your issues with theological conservatism have to do with your being an American? What I mean is that it sounds like you've had a lot of contact with American conservative evangelicalism and/or fundamentalism, which is something "special".

I consider myself a theological conservative, at least mostly, in the English style, like my heroes, C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright. A key difference is that American conservatives are totally stuck on inerrancy and Brits aren't. Wright, for example, practices historical criticism but in service of a mainly conservative theology. (I'm American too, but it was Lewis' apologetics that deserve most of the (human) credit for bringing me back into the Christian fold after years of confused seeker-dom during which I had drifted almost into atheism.)

Now, I say "mostly conservative" about myself because there is also an extent to which I have been influenced by liberals and emergents such as Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren, and also some very special WWMC people. But still, I can say the Nicene Creed and mean all of it, without skipping any or having to cross my fingers behind my back.

abacabb3 · Mar 31, 2014

My view, as a former liberal Christian, is that any other approach to Scripture other than what is coined here as "inerrancy" ultimately turns some part of Scripture into outright lies and other parts into truth. I am not sure what is scarier. The fact the whole source of religious truth can be thrown into doubt in any point, because it is impossible to determine which sections and teachings are actually inerrant and which are not; or that someone flawed like me or anyone else is entrusted to figure that out for himself.

Arcangl86 · Mar 31, 2014

abacabb3 said:
My view, as a former liberal Christian, is that any other approach to Scripture other than what is coined here as "inerrancy" ultimately turns some part of Scripture into outright lies and other parts into truth. I am not sure what is scarier. The fact the whole source of religious truth can be thrown into doubt in any point, because it is impossible to determine which sections and teachings are actually inerrant and which are not; or that someone flawed like me or anyone else is entrusted to figure that out for himself.

The historical-critical approach doesn't necessarily say parts of Scripture are incorrect. The huermatic is more about recognizing that each part of Scripture was written for human beings in a particular context and using that context to try to determine what truth is being highlighted. As I've heard said before, and think I even read in this thread, I believe everything in the Bible is true. I also believe some of it actually happened.

abacabb3 · Apr 1, 2014

Arcangl86 said:
The historical-critical approach doesn't necessarily say parts of Scripture are incorrect. The huermatic is more about recognizing that each part of Scripture was written for human beings in a particular context and using that context to try to determine what truth is being highlighted. As I've heard said before, and think I even read in this thread, I believe everything in the Bible is true. I also believe some of it actually happened.

Well, all readers of Scripture make interpretative judgments, so that is besides the point. However, at what point do we "interpret" things that are made plain (i.e. Christ resurrected in the flesh on the third day, lying is a damnable sin, hatred is murder, lust is adultery, breaking one law makes one guilty of breaking all of it, husbands should be as Christ to their wives no matter how bad their wives are, etc.)

What I see oftentimes is a wish-washy approach to Scripture to elevate some things on that previous list below other things, when in fact an inerrant view requires the interpreter to make sense of all of them as important.

hedrick · Apr 1, 2014

Speaking for myself only, some of what abacabb3 says is true of me. I don't consider much of the Bible to be lies, since lies imply that someone knows they are false, when understood as the author expected. (I.e. metaphor isn't lie.) But I believe some Biblical authors got some things wrong, and others made applications that were reasonable for their situation but not for ours. I absolutely do elevate some parts above others, taking Jesus teachings as more central than the letters, and the prophets as more central than the historical narratives.

As has appeared in other discussions with him, I think taking the Bible as all at one level leads to bad exegesis and then bad theology. As abacabb3 doesn't actually belong in this forum, and we've been through this recently, I don't propose to argue it again.

While I don't think very much of the Bible is lies, if most scholars I trust are right, then some books are misleading about who their authors are. Some people are prepared to accept that as common practice, and not regard it as immoral. I'm not so sure, at least for the NT. I have no problem with anonymous books or books whose authors we aren't sure of (e.g. which John in some of the Johannine literature), but I would not use the Pastorals for anything other than documentation of the opinions of a certain group of early Christians. I note that Luther also effectively rejected parts of the NT, so I'm hardly the first to do this.

Sayre · Apr 1, 2014

hedrick said:
... but I would not use the Pastorals for anything other than documentation of the opinions of a certain group of early Christians...

I view the whole OT this way. I'm struggling to give it any more relevance. I understand that it has more value than just that, but I'm being honest about where I'm at rather than perhaps where I ought to be.

All Souls · Apr 1, 2014

abacabb3 said:
at what point do we "interpret" things that are made plain (i.e. Christ resurrected in the flesh on the third day, lying is a damnable sin, hatred is murder, lust is adultery, breaking one law makes one guilty of breaking all of it, husbands should be as Christ to their wives no matter how bad their wives are, etc.)

We all interpret things, we are constantly interpreting...hence postmodernism. The fact is that within the Bible there are polyvocal. Take your example of Christ resurrected in the flesh on the third day; well for a start what you meant was the bodily resurrection of Jesus, flesh is used negatively in Pauline theology. But what is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body? It isn't physical in Paul (it is in Luke who writes some 20-30 years later) but a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15). We need biblical criticism to help us have a nuanced reading of the biblical text.

abacabb3 · Apr 1, 2014

All Souls said:
We all interpret things, we are constantly interpreting...hence postmodernism. The fact is that within the Bible there are polyvocal. Take your example of Christ resurrected in the flesh on the third day; well for a start what you meant was the bodily resurrection of Jesus, flesh is used negatively in Pauline theology. But what is the nature of Jesus' resurrection body? It isn't physical in Paul (it is in Luke who writes some 20-30 years later) but a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15). We need biblical criticism to help us have a nuanced reading of the biblical text.

We have a different thread on this issue, though Christ's "spiritual body" is a perfect physical/material body.

All Souls · Apr 1, 2014

abacabb3 said:
We have a different thread on this issue, though Christ's "spiritual body" is a perfect physical/material body.

Where in Paul does he say Jesus' body was a perfect physical/material body?

elman · Apr 1, 2014

hedrick said:
Speaking for myself only, some of what abacabb3 says is true of me. I don't consider much of the Bible to be lies, since lies imply that someone knows they are false, when understood as the author expected. (I.e. metaphor isn't lie.) But I believe some Biblical authors got some things wrong, and others made applications that were reasonable for their situation but not for ours. I absolutely do elevate some parts above others, taking Jesus teachings as more central than the letters, and the prophets as more central than the historical narratives.

As has appeared in other discussions with him, I think taking the Bible as all at one level leads to bad exegesis and then bad theology. As abacabb3 doesn't actually belong in this forum, and we've been through this recently, I don't propose to argue it again.

While I don't think very much of the Bible is lies, if most scholars I trust are right, then some books are misleading about who their authors are. Some people are prepared to accept that as common practice, and not regard it as immoral. I'm not so sure, at least for the NT. I have no problem with anonymous books or books whose authors we aren't sure of (e.g. which John in some of the Johannine literature), but I would not use the Pastorals for anything other than documentation of the opinions of a certain group of early Christians. I note that Luther also effectively rejected parts of the NT, so I'm hardly the first to do this.

Great post.

Historical Critical == Bible is a Lie?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Jesus Junkie

elman

Newbie

All Souls

Guest

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Veteran

All Souls

Guest

Newbie

All Souls

Guest

elman

Similar threads