Do you dare?

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't say "in all cases". The bible includes all sorts of picture-language. When Jesus said, "I am the door," He didn't mean He has hinges, a handle and a frame. When Solomon wrote "Go to the ant, you sluggard" he wasn't telling the reader to visit an ants' nest. However, that is quite different from a passage such as Genesis 1, where the creative activity of God is listed as happening on certain days. There's nothing to indicate that it's picture-language.

You say that there are many examples of errors in the bible. Really? Once we start saying that, we're left with a bible that is totally untrustworthy, for who is to say what is "error" and what isn't? We find in the New Testament Jesus quoting from most of the Old, and never with a single hint that it contained errors. I know that there are people who don't believe the inerrancy of God's Word, but I can only write on these forums as what I am, some who does believe it's inerrancy.

Actually, to know that there are some "errors" of various kinds in the Bible doesn't mean we're left with a Bible that is totally untrustworthy. It simply means that we need more accurate words with better referential denotative quality to describe the ancient, foreign collection of mainly Jewish writings that we all hold to be sacred and dear.

One thing that those of you who are more literal in your reading of the Bible might try to understand is that those of us who are more open to engaging the Critical Studies of the Bible often do so not only to better understand the times and cultural worlds of the Biblical people we're reading about, but also to be able to better defend the faith against the onslaught of Skeptics.

Peace.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I'm very serious.

Right. All Scripture from God, through His prophets, apostles and disciples, is God-breathed. I didn't say it wasn't.

However, you do have to jump the hurdle of what the critical scholars say about the authenticity of 2 Timothy

How convenient. . .

...... it's not a slam-dunk. I wish it was.
That's you're definition of inspired, but as I've already laid out in a couple of other threads over a year ago, there are almost a dozen Christian definitions on what "inspired" means.

That is the Biblical text definition. . ."All Scripture is theopnuestos God-breathed."

 

[David Lamb]

Just ask yourself, Why do you believe that a literal interpretation is needed in all cases? And why must you believe it to be "inerrant"?
There are many examples of errors. You don't need to answer here. We don't need to argue a point that has been argued for centuries.

I started this thread as a safe place for those who have a broader view.

I didn't say "in all cases". The bible includes all sorts of picture-language. When Jesus said, "I am the door," He didn't mean He has hinges, a handle and a frame. When Solomon wrote "Go to the ant, you sluggard" he wasn't telling the reader to visit an ants' nest. However, that is quite different from a passage such as Genesis 1, where the creative activity of God is listed as happening on certain days. There's nothing to indicate that it's picture-language.

You say that there are many examples of errors in the bible. Really? Once we start saying that, we're left with a bible that is totally untrustworthy, for who is to say what is "error" and what isn't? We find in the New Testament Jesus quoting from most of the Old, and never with a single hint that it contained errors. I know that there are people who don't believe the inerrancy of God's Word, but I can only write on these forums as what I am, some who does believe it's inerrancy

Actually, to know that there are some "errors" of various kinds in the Bible doesn't mean we're left with a Bible that is totally untrustworthy. It simply means that we need more accurate words with better referential denotative quality to describe the ancient, foreign collection of mainly Jewish writings that we all hold to be sacred and dear.

One thing that those of you who are more literal in your reading of the Bible might try to understand is that those of us who are more open to engaging the Critical Studies of the Bible often do so not only to better understand the times and cultural worlds of the Biblical people we're reading about, but also to be able to better defend the faith against the onslaught of Skeptics.

Peace.

Reading your post made me think of the Bereans in Acts:

“10 ¶ Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.” (Ac 17:10-12 NKJV)

They were commended for believing the bible as it existed then, not for saying there were errors in it.

 

[Clare73]

Just ask yourself, Why do you believe that a literal interpretation is needed in all cases? And why must you believe it to be "inerrant"?
There are many examples of errors. You don't need to answer here. We don't need to argue a point that has been argued for centuries.

I started this thread as a safe place for those who have a broader view.

The old "Has God really said. . ." of the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Ge 3:1).

Evidently you aren't aware of Jesus' view of the Scriptures.
Jesus believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, Lk 11:28, Jn 10:35),
that it was the truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:5, Mt 4:7, Mt 4:10, Jn 10:35). God's word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?". . ."Have you not read. . .?". . ."Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, Mt 12:5, Mt 19:4, Mt 21:16, Mt 21:42, Mt 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God:
he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, Mt 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, Mk 9:31, Mk 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-56),
when he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, Lk 24:27),
he presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, Jn 5:46-47).

Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How convenient. . .

No, it's really NOT convenient because the fact that there are some reasonable, bright people out there who are skeptics makes my effort to read, value, apply, and even DEFEND the Bible that much more difficult.

That is the Biblical text definition. . ."All Scripture is theopnuestos God-breathed."

While doing intensive word studies of the Bible is always a necessary thing, we should all know [by now] that understanding the Bible goes beyond mere word studies. And if you've studied D.A. Carson, you'd realize this, Clare.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Reading your post made me think of the Bereans in Acts:

“10 ¶ Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.” (Ac 17:10-12 NKJV)

They were commended for believing the bible as it existed then, not for saying there were errors in it.

If reading my post made you think of the Bereans, then you're not reading it without an invalid bias, which means you're not being very charitable.

Keep this one thing in mind: When I say that I approach the Bible in a critical fashion, I'm not telling anyone else here that they MUST DO SO AS WELL. All I'm saying is that I DO, and that in my own personal history with the Bible, that is what I've had to do in order to believe its contents and to find faith in Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So do you think God inspired other creation myths? I think so. of course that seems to elevate other writings to the level of the Bible. Naturally some here would have a problem with that. I don't. While most mythology the same way I do the Bible, I also appreciate things like the Bhagavad Gita, writings of Buddha, etc. But , for me, the Gospels have a unique and unreplaceable importance. And yet there also, the tools of modern scholarship are extremely helpful.

Akita, since I think your question posed to @okay is a good one, I'm going to briefly give my two cents here on it: in short, no I don't think God inspired the creation myths we find throughout the world. However, this doesn't mean that the creation [and deluvian] myths don't reflect some obscured historical remnants that remained in the memory of the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Asia. I know you and even someone like C.S. Lewis would have a different view on this than I do, but this is my historical view.

I've also read and studied The Bhagavad Gita, along with some other Eastern works, when I was studying Eastern Philosophies and Religions, and like you, I can appreciate them for their literary and cultural value. But I think the Bible stands head and shoulders above the rest, for obvious historical reasons.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Genesis 1, where the creative activity of God is listed as happening on certain days. There's nothing to indicate that it's picture-language.

The entire narrative indicates non-literal. And Jesus can refer to it just as you and I might refer to a fable of Aesop.

 

[okay]

I have no quarrel with folks who are only comfortable with a face-value interpretation. But I thought this thread is about considering other non-face-value interpretations of the story of Adam and perhaps other parts of scripture. Can we just do that?

Anyway, in addition to being inspired, I think the bible is great literature. And like a lot of great literature it can have more than one interpretation. Thinking about more than one interpretation or meaning in scripture is something faithful Jews and Christians have been doing for a long time. Second-temple Jews and early church fathers did this all the time, and it has continued until today. Considering a different interpretation does not take away or invalidate other interpretations.

 

[okay]

Jesus can refer to it just as you and I might refer to a fable of Aesop.

And of course Jesus was all about using parables to teach. This would be in character.

 

[Rose_bud]

I can't see why both views cannot be held in tandem. The historical view is not compromised when the literary view is held. Infact it supports it, because as we both know. History is not summed up in a few pages of the Bible... however, the significant aspects of history is presented in the Scriptures to convey a certain message. For example not much of Dan or Naphtali is provided. Did these two individuals not have a history? Of course they did, it is not mentioned as their stories are not the focus. I would have loved to hear more about Orpah, did she have a history? Of course, but Ruth is the focus. More is said about certain characters than the others, as their histories directly impact who the Scriptures is about - Jesus, the true Israelite. Hence Luke tells us that Jesus could explain to the two on the road to Emmaus, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself"

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

of course, this topic relates to another that I have taken interest in: Hermeneutics

There are many branches of Christianity and many different approached to the Bible, many different hermeneutics. I think most of them are uncritical. That is most people to not ask why they believe what they believe or if their hermeneutic correlates to reality. And yet we all seem eager to argue and even try to bend political movement to align with our personal understanding of the Bible.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have no quarrel with folks who are only comfortable with a face-value interpretation. But I thought this thread is about considering other non-face-value interpretations of the story of Adam and perhaps other parts of scripture. Can we just do that?

Anyway, in addition to being inspired, I think the bible is great literature. And like a lot of great literature it can have more than one interpretation. Thinking about more than one interpretation or meaning in scripture is something faithful Jews and Christians have been doing for a long time. Second-temple Jews and early church fathers did this all the time, and it has continued until today. Considering a different interpretation does not take away or invalidate other interpretations.

Yes, that was my intention. Digging deeper below the surface. We got derailed into a debate about hermeneutic preference. There is another thread for that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Akita, since I think your question posed to @okay is a good one, I'm going to briefly give my two cents here on it: in short, no I don't think God inspired the creation myths we find throughout the world. However, this doesn't mean that the creation [and deluvian] myths don't reflect some obscured historical remnants that remained in the memory of the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Asia. I know you and even someone like C.S. Lewis would have a different view on this than I do, but this is my historical view.

I've also read and studied The Bhagavad Gita, along with some other Eastern works, when I was studying Eastern Philosophies and Religions, and like you, I can appreciate them for their literary and cultural value. But I think the Bible stands head and shoulders above the rest, for obvious historical reasons.

I guess we need to draw a line somewhere. Were Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus inspired by God? I think so. But that does not put their work on a par with what we have come to claim as holy scripture, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. A Buddhist or Hindu will have a different opinion regarding their own scripture.

Anyone who claims to be Christian would most likely view Jesus of Nazareth a unique incarnation of God and thus the Gospels as primary revelation.

 

[Rose_bud]

And of course Jesus was all about using parables to teach. This would be in character.

So to Paul who drew from the poets of his day, "in Him we live and move and have our being"

 

[okay]

I guess we need to draw a line somewhere. Were Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus inspired by God? I think so. But that does not put their work on a par with what we have come to claim as holy scripture, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. A Buddhist or Hindu will have a different opinion regarding their own scripture.

Anyone who claims to be Christian would most likely view Jesus of Nazareth a unique incarnation of God and thus the Gospels as primary revelation.

I basically agree with this. While God has a special covenant with the Hebrew people, I believe that he loves all of us and works to reveal himself to people across the planet. Inspiration from God does not seem to be limited to Jews and Christians. I think the bible itself supports this - for example the magi who follow the star to find Jesus.

So I think there can be kernels of truth in other religions, and that we don’t need to be ‘scared’ when it comes to learning about other faiths and engaging with friends and neighbors of other faiths. We could gain insights from them, but as always the insights would need to be tested against scripture and tradition, using reason and being lead by the Holy Spirit. (Edit: I bet you would be shocked to learn I am in the process of moving to the Episcopal Church!)

Ultimately my theology is orthodox. i think the incarnation of Christ is unique, and am happy to accept the scripture we have, warts and all. Do I ever have doubts about that? Yes! But that is part of the story as well. The end of Matthew makes that pretty clear.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So to Paul who drew from the poets of his day, "in Him we live and move and have our being"

I essentially agree with your point, Rose_bud, but as a philosopher and an amateur hermeneuticist, I'm going to take a "Yes, but..." approach to analyzing the nuances of exactly how Paul is depicted by the author of Acts (~Luke) as asserting the universalized idea that, "... in Him we live and move and have our being."

Paul did draw from the Greek poets, but I'm cautious about discerning the form and the tactic of rhetoric/argumentation Paul may have been using to gain the attention and consideration of his audience atop Mars Hill. Surely, Paul wasn't under the impression there in Athens that the Greeks naturally recognized in an accurate way this point he was making to them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would anyone here dare to see the Genesis Adam and Eve "fall" more as a post exilic warning to the surviving Jewish community to obey the religious elders and their teachings (God)? This would mean seeing it less as a literal historical eating forbidden fruit. I know that is impossible for some here. But scholars speculate an a post exilic data. What motives would the authors have and what points trying to make? There is a cause of our suffering? But also, "Listen to us"?

I'm of the view that the original author(s) of the Torah intended to present a theological redressment or correction of the surrounding cultures of those eras. So, for me, the account of Adam & Eve is a part of the narrative to reset the order of understanding about the relationship between God and humanity. The motive was to show, I think, that suffering comes about in the world mainly from humanities' unwillingness to abide by God's Will, not from the capriciousness of "monstrous gods" such as is evident within the reigning ancient pagan myths (e.g. Tiamat).

 

[Rose_bud]

I essentially agree with your point, Rose_bud, but as a philosopher and an amateur hermeneuticist, I'm going to take a "Yes, but..." approach to analyzing the nuances of exactly how Paul is depicted by the author of Acts (~Luke) as asserting the universalized idea that, "... in Him we live and move and have our being."

Paul did draw from the Greek poets, but I'm cautious about discerning the form and the tactic of rhetoric/argumentation Paul may have been using to gain the attention and consideration of his audience atop Mars Hill. Surely, Paul wasn't under the impression there in Athens that the Greeks naturally recognized in an accurate way this point he was making to them.

Thanks Philo, my post was in response to God can use various forms of communication which Akita highlighted as fables... adding to what okay mentioned including parables... the emphasis was on "God can use ... to make a point". (I may have missed the original point of discussion)

I agree with this, what Paul was doing is what we in evangelistic circles would term creating a "point of contact" or "finding the common ground" drawing on the familiar to introduce the unfamiliar. He was sensitive to his audience, adapting and communicating the gospel in a way that his audience could appreciate. But in a similar vein challenging and expanding their thinking.

I appreciate you pointing that out, so I could clarify.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm of the view that the original author(s) of the Torah intended to present a theological redressment or correction of the surrounding cultures of those eras. So, for me, the account of Adam & Eve is a part of the narrative to reset the order of understanding about the relationship between God and humanity. The motive was to show, I think, that suffering comes about in the world mainly from humanities' unwillingness to abide by God's Will, not from the capriciousness of "monstrous gods" such as is evident within the reigning ancient pagan myths (e.g. Tiamat).

And yet still, inspired by God to do so.