If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[LittleLambofJesus]

In a forum of this nature, the position of the heart is immaterial. The head is something else.

The nature of this forum is JESUS, and He is the one that searches the Hearts is He not?

Jeremiah 17:10 I YHWH, searching heart, examining the affections/kidneys/ 03629 kilyah and giving to man Ways of him, as fruit of his doings. [Reve 22:23]

Reve 2:23 And the offspring of her I shall be killing in death, and shall be knowing all the Out-Calleds that I Am the One searching kidneys/nefrouV <3510> and hearts and I shall be giving to Ye each according to the works of Ye. [Jeremiah 17:10]

 

[artybloke]

In order to know what Christ says, one must be able to trust the Bible.

I trust most history books I read, but I don't expect them to be 100% accurate. I trust most novelists I read, and don't expect them to be historical. I trust most poets I read and don't expect them to be 100% historically accurate. The Bible is a combination of all three, plus a lot of other genres (wisdom literature, theology, etc etc) often all mixed up in the same piece of writing.

 

[artybloke]

No virgin birth would mean he could not be God.

Why? Does God somehow need to do it according to the laws of science? Can't he make Jesus God some other way?

 

[beamishboy]

Why? Does God somehow need to do it according to the laws of science? Can't he make Jesus God some other way?

Precisely. Our Archbishop of Canterbury has ruled that virgin birth need not be a doctrine to encumber new believers. You don't have to believe in it in order to be a Christian. That's absolutely correct.

But like the Bishop of Oxford, I have no problem with the tradition of the virgin birth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why? Does God somehow need to do it according to the laws of science? Can't he make Jesus God some other way?

Would you settle for "Image" of YHWH Elohiym?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 1:26 And Elohiym is saying "We shall make 'adam in our image, after our likeness" Genesis 1:27 And 'Elohiym is creating the-'adam in image of Him, in image of 'Elohiym He creates/bara' him, male and female He creates/bara' them

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the God of the Age, this, hath-blinded/etuflwsen <5186> (5656) the minds of the faithless into the no to shine forth to-them the enlightening of the Good-News of the glory of the Christ, who is an image of the God/YHWH

 

[CShephard53]

I trust most history books I read, but I don't expect them to be 100% accurate. I trust most novelists I read, and don't expect them to be historical. I trust most poets I read and don't expect them to be 100% historically accurate. The Bible is a combination of all three, plus a lot of other genres (wisdom literature, theology, etc etc) often all mixed up in the same piece of writing.

Then show us how the Gospels do not contain history.

 

[CShephard53]

Why? Does God somehow need to do it according to the laws of science? Can't he make Jesus God some other way?

He could, but God limits himself so that more may believe.

 

[artybloke]

Then show us how the Gospels do not contain history.

I never said they didn't contain history. But they also contain hearsay, parable, "sayings" passed down in the tradition, all mixed up.

He could, but God limits himself so that more may believe.

That sounds uncannily like special pleading to me. Not that I've got anything against the virgin birth; but as many other people in the ancient world (the Emperor Augustine, for one; several Greek heroes, Egyptian Pharoahs etc.) were also said to have virgin births, and this didn't equate to the incarnation (at best, a kind of divine-human hybrid; a demi-god) I don't see it as being a particularly essential belief if someone finds it too difficult to swallow.

To put it up as an essential would make less people believe these days.

 

[beamishboy]

I never said they didn't contain history. But they also contain hearsay, parable, "sayings" passed down in the tradition, all mixed up.



That sounds uncannily like special pleading to me. Not that I've got anything against the virgin birth; but as many other people in the ancient world (the Emperor Augustine, for one; several Greek heroes, Egyptian Pharoahs etc.) were also said to have virgin births, and this didn't equate to the incarnation (at best, a kind of divine-human hybrid; a demi-god) I don't see it as being a particularly essential belief if someone finds it too difficult to swallow.

To put it up as an essential would make less people believe these days.

That's the stand taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury. See the last four paragraphs of this article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7151325.stm

 

[CShephard53]

I never said they didn't contain history. But they also contain hearsay, parable, "sayings" passed down in the tradition, all mixed up.

And your point? That it's unreliable? You're arguing something fruitless if you're going to go there.

That sounds uncannily like special pleading to me. Not that I've got anything against the virgin birth; but as many other people in the ancient world (the Emperor Augustine, for one; several Greek heroes, Egyptian Pharoahs etc.) were also said to have virgin births, and this didn't equate to the incarnation (at best, a kind of divine-human hybrid; a demi-god) I don't see it as being a particularly essential belief if someone finds it too difficult to swallow.

To put it up as an essential would make less people believe these days.

Out of the lovely characters you've mentioned, which of them actually claimed they were God throughout their lives and annoyed the religious leaders of their day to the point where they wanted him beaten and crucified?

Which is more believable to you all:
Jesus was a man, but became God.
Jesus was born a man and was also fully God because he was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was born just like everyone else, but was God.

There are more options of course...

 

[artybloke]

And your point? That it's unreliable? You're arguing something fruitless if you're going to go there.

My Point? That whether it's historically accurate in every single detail doesn't make it unreliable.

Out of the lovely characters you've mentioned, which of them actually claimed they were God

None of them. But then neither did Jesus. So your point is moot.

 

[jwp]

I've stopped reading the Bible for a long time now because I can't be sure which parts are really from God. I should be more industrious because there are ways to decide which parts are the correct ones and which the corrupt ones. Some very good and honest commentaries can be of use here. But it makes reading the Bible too tiring and complicated.

Well here's what I'd say about this situation. Because the bible itself says things like "Without faith it's impossible to please him" and "Faith is the substance hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" one can see that in order to subscribe to its tennants one has to do some believing that it's true. You don't do that, rather you believe the books of Metzger et. al. So that's where you've decided you want to believe, in Metzger. Any of the confusion or lack of faith that comes with it is directly attributed to what you have decided to believe.

Good Luck in you search...

I don't have the problem that you do, because I have believed in what is written and I've also found that it confirms itself. Keep reading just the bible and you'll see that it will come alive.

 

[TimRout]

Dear Beamish,

It's hard to know how to respond to you sometimes. I've just finished scanning through the last ten pages of dialog in this string and, quite frankly, I'm discouraged. Men like F.F. Bruce and B.M. Metzger are certainly worthy of attention, and from the sounds of things they present many ideas with which you strongly agree. But you need to extend your reading list.

When we are young -- and forgive my mentioning it, but you ARE quite young -- our studies often demand a certain degree of certitude. It is understandable, and sometimes necessary, to focus our attention on scholars who present a particular perspective on an issue. As we develop in our studies, however, it becomes necessary to read a broader scope of material. Within your posts I have found a number of problematic presuppositions that do not bear up under the weight of conservative scholarship. Your insistence, for example, that the Bible is riddled with errors, suggests you have already ceased striving for knowledge. It is my dearest hope that in time, you will re-engage the issues with an open mind and search out scholars who are fully convinced of the Bible's authenticity, authority, and autographic perfection. As it stands, you seem determined to move in the opposite direction. If I can help in this regard, do let me know.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamish,

It's hard to know how to respond to you sometimes. I've just finished scanning through the last ten pages of dialog in this string and, quite frankly, I'm discouraged. Men like F.F. Bruce and B.M. Metzger are certainly worthy of attention, and from the sounds of things they present many ideas with which you strongly agree. But you need to extend your reading list.

When we are young -- and forgive my mentioning it, but you ARE quite young -- our studies often demand a certain degree of certitude. It is understandable, and sometimes necessary, to focus our attention on scholars who present a particular perspective on an issue. As we develop in our studies, however, it becomes necessary to read a broader scope of material. Within your posts I have found a number of problematic presuppositions that do not bear up under the weight of conservative scholarship. Your insistence, for example, that the Bible is riddled with errors, suggests you have already ceased striving for knowledge. It is my dearest hope that in time, you will re-engage the issues with an open mind and search out scholars who are fully convinced of the Bible's authenticity, authority, and autographic perfection. As it stands, you seem determined to move in the opposite direction. If I can help in this regard, do let me know.

Dear TimRout,

Thanks for your post. You are a very learned man and I'm impressed by what you've written in your defence of the Bible.

First, I don't just confine my reading to Metzger and FF Bruce. I quoted (in this thread alone) Young and Leon Morris. I have read a lot of Leon Morris who usually writes commentaries.

You say I am determined to move in the opposite direction. That is not how it is at all. I was quite terrified when I first discovered the truth about the Bible. Nobody wants to move in the opposite direction. I started out discounting what I read and people tell me to stop reading or to read only conservative writers. Then I figured I had to get to the bottom of things. I had two choices. To read only conservative writers who usually stay clear of topics that might open up cans of worms and I remain in blissful ignorance or to find out more about a book as important as the Bible.

I picked the latter alternative but I was careful. I did not touch Bart Ehrman. I had FF Bruce to cure whatever illness I might contract. But they all - all these scholars point me to the same direction. I didn't want to go that way but what choice do I have?

I sometimes wonder if things might have been better if I had been like the other boys at school. They take no interest in the Bible at all or God and they know little about either. But they know little about troubles within the Bible. They just know very little. Might that have made me happier?

A determination to go the opposite way is something I haven't got. I wanted very badly to go the same way with the rest of you.

 

[artybloke]

I picked the latter alternative but I was careful. I did not touch Bart Ehrman.

No, I wouldn't either. It causes nasty skin rashes...

A determination to go the opposite way is something I haven't got. I wanted very badly to go the same way with the rest of you.

I used to be like you. Now I just embrace my oppositeness.

 

[beamishboy]

No, I wouldn't either. It causes nasty skin rashes...



I used to be like you. Now I just embrace my oppositeness.

I'm not contrary by nature. I'd rather just flow along with everyone else. Besides, oppositeness does cause some confusion. It's more uncertain.

 

[artybloke]

It's more uncertain.

Welcome to the exciting world of real life faith.

Question everything.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamish,

I have read your comments with great sympathy; your good heart and intentions shine through everything you write.

For me the answer to your question is to be found away from the Protestant separation of the Church and the Bible. Christ founded a Church, and to the leaders of that Church He gave the power to preach His gospel; long before the NT there was the teaching that came from Christ Himself. The Apostles and their followers wrote what became the Gospels, St. Paul his epistles, etc. We know this how? Because the Church, by the fourth century, decided it was so. It was guided not by the temporary fads of modern NT scholarship (read Charles Hill's masterly The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church if you want a demolition of much of the 'modern' scholarship on that corpus) but by the Holy Spirit which we were promised by Christ would protect His Church against the gates of hell.

That Church which decided on the canon also decided that other works, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Clement were edifying, and could be read with profit.

Now, we are free to reject what the Church has taught from the beginning, but we ought to remember that Christ founded it; He did not drop off a book which we could all understand by our unaided intellect; He founded a Church which decided on the canon and which has continued to comment on it ever since.

We can decide that we, alone, or with a good commentary, can know the fullness of the Faith; but when we do, we find, as you have, that there are problems with this line. If we read the Holy Scriptures in the illumination of Christ's Church which produced them, we find a greater light than that of our intellect.

Remember the words of the blessed St. John, recorded first by his disciple St. Polycarp, who, in old age, used to be carried into Church, and would be surrounded by people eager to hear from the beholder-of-God some of his wisdom, and would say: 'Little children, love one another'; it is recorded that some went away sorrowful, not knowing that the Saint had given them the kernel of Christ's message; if we have love we are in Him; if we do not, then whatever else we have, we do not have Him.

He loves you, me, and the rest of us, sinners though we are and will be, even though His Grace saves us. What can we do? Repent, accept Him as our Saviour, amend our way of life, and live in Him, as He does in us.

Which Church, you might ask? Let us not dispute these things here - we do not know the boundaries of His Church, only where it is not. We shall not attain the kingdom of Heaven by storming it, but by accepting as a child. As He calls, you will follow.

In peace and with affection,

Anglian

 

[artybloke]

That's the solution - replace one human set of theological interpretations with another put out by blokes in funny clothes who spout in Latin who, like all power-mad [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], like to claim they got it all from God.

Like, yeah, that'll work. Just leave your brain at the church door.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamish,

I have read your comments with great sympathy; your good heart and intentions shine through everything you write.

For me the answer to your question is to be found away from the Protestant separation of the Church and the Bible. Christ founded a Church, and to the leaders of that Church He gave the power to preach His gospel; long before the NT there was the teaching that came from Christ Himself. The Apostles and their followers wrote what became the Gospels, St. Paul his epistles, etc. We know this how? Because the Church, by the fourth century, decided it was so. It was guided not by the temporary fads of modern NT scholarship (read Charles Hill's masterly The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church if you want a demolition of much of the 'modern' scholarship on that corpus) but by the Holy Spirit which we were promised by Christ would protect His Church against the gates of hell.

That Church which decided on the canon also decided that other works, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Clement were edifying, and could be read with profit.

Now, we are free to reject what the Church has taught from the beginning, but we ought to remember that Christ founded it; He did not drop off a book which we could all understand by our unaided intellect; He founded a Church which decided on the canon and which has continued to comment on it ever since.

We can decide that we, alone, or with a good commentary, can know the fullness of the Faith; but when we do, we find, as you have, that there are problems with this line. If we read the Holy Scriptures in the illumination of Christ's Church which produced them, we find a greater light than that of our intellect.

Remember the words of the blessed St. John, recorded first by his disciple St. Polycarp, who, in old age, used to be carried into Church, and would be surrounded by people eager to hear from the beholder-of-God some of his wisdom, and would say: 'Little children, love one another'; it is recorded that some went away sorrowful, not knowing that the Saint had given them the kernel of Christ's message; if we have love we are in Him; if we do not, then whatever else we have, we do not have Him.

He loves you, me, and the rest of us, sinners though we are and will be, even though His Grace saves us. What can we do? Repent, accept Him as our Saviour, amend our way of life, and live in Him, as He does in us.

Which Church, you might ask? Let us not dispute these things here - we do not know the boundaries of His Church, only where it is not. We shall not attain the kingdom of Heaven by storming it, but by accepting as a child. As He calls, you will follow.

In peace and with affection,

Anglian

Hi Anglian,

It's lovely to hear from you again. You are one of the very few people in CF who have been consistently nice. If there is anyone who exhibits love as Christ teaches us, you've got to be the one.

I understand what you are saying but I have a few problems there. Actually the Church did not come up with a definitive list of canonical books. If my memory is correct, Metzger wrote that there was no decree from the church of a closed canon. Again, if my memory serves me, it was only at the Council of Trent that any party actually mentioned a definitive closed canon.

I think it may be easier if I could accept the RC church which presumably you belong to. I could then accept that since the Council of Trent had already made the Canon very clear, there is no further dispute. But alas, I really find it impossible to accept the RC church. I don't want to say anything that might offend or hurt you and I won't go into details but I have very compelling reasons why I cannot accept RC teachings.

What my priest tells me is that the Anglican church is in fact the original Catholic Church that has purged itself of all the errors. So, it is the original Catholic Church without the centuries of departure from apostolic teachings. And since the Anglican church accepts the Bible, that should be good enough for me.

Accepting that doesn't help. Even if I were an RC, it won't solve all the problems. How should I deal with the contradictions in the Bible? How can I accept most of the OT? How can I accept the passages that say that God commanded a man to be stoned to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath when I know our Lord says that the Sabbath was made for men and not men for the Sabbath. Naturally, my position now is that Jesus was trying to show us that the OT is full of fables and cultural matters belonging to the ancient Israelites but these were not from God. So, even when the Bible clearly tells me that God ordered so and so to be killed, I refuse to believe it's from God but it's just an execution by the ancient Israeli state and they attributed all they did to God. I really cannot believe God ordered the extermination of the whole of Jericho and everyone including infants be killed.