(decent stuff here - better than the hardline stances, at least)
Is the Bible error-free?
Q. Do you believe that there really was a Noah's ark, a Garden of Eden, or that Elijah rode a chariot into heaven in the last book of the OT -- or are these just metaphors or parables? Obviously we believe that Jesus really lived and died and was resurrected but I am struggling with how to determine which "Sunday school Bible stories" actually happened. In a related question, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God but not the infallible or dictated word, which is why there are many (mostly minor) discrepancies. Were some stories "slanted" based on the writer's views, his audience and purpose for which they were being told? What are your thoughts on this and do you think we got it right as to which books "made it" into the bible?
A. Excellent questions -- and I wish I had absolute answers for you! There was a time when I would have not even paused before giving you a dogmatic answer for your questions, but that doesn't mean my answer would have been correct. Dogmatism does not establish truth.
If God wanted a book to be absolutely perfect in every way he would have parachuted it down from heavenly printing presses, or delivered it by angelic Fedex. He would not not subjected it to human hands, thought and creativity.
The issue here is, in my mind, not truth, but the manner in which God chose to convey it. We humans often get bogged down with trivialities, and at times enthrone trivia, while the miss the really important stuff. Much of the answer lies in an appropriate way to study the Bible. The Bible is literature, and in using literature to convey his revelation to humanity, God used the essential "rules" of literature. He used the genre of literature -- poetry, wise sayings and proverbs, stories and narratives, laws and legal statements. For example, the first two chapters of Genesis are often seen by some fundamentalists as a battle ground, where, if someone even hints that the creation might not have been encapsulated in what we experience as 24 hour days, they are labeled as a crazed evolutionist who is trying to deny God. But if one studies the genre of the "creation hymn" one discovers that God inspired this account using Hebraisms -- sweeping poetic language that no literal statement could ever match. The literalist often believes, falsely, that is something cannot be boiled down to precise literal components, then it is not true and that the one who denies such a thing is trying to deny the Bible. The fact is that God tells us in the first chapters of Genesis that he alone is sovereign, he alone is the God above all gods (the real purpose to the original audience) and is not attempting to provide blueprint like specifications. He is telling us that he alone created, but not, in detail, exactly how he did it. When we attempt to find that out, when we attempt to grind down poetic imagery which is true, deeper and more profound than any wooden literalism, we twist and pervert the purpose of the author -- in the case of the Bible, the divine Author.
As to your second question about the nature of the Bible -- there have been major denominational battles and Christian wars fought over this issue. When I was in graduate school the book causing everyone to take sides was called The Battle for the Bible. Once again, the characterization that anything less than an absolute, almost mindless devotion to an idea that does not hold water, was seen as heretical, liberal and permissive. I was on the right wing, the fundamentalist side of the debate at that time (about 30 years ago). I wouldn't say that I am on the opposite extreme now, though some may characterize me as being there, I would say that my life in Christ has given me a deeper appreciation of the issue. I do not, on the one hand, believe that the Bible's authors were inspired like Shakespeare was, and no more. Neither do I believe that they sat down to write and their hands began to move (the so-called verbal dictation theory).
There are errors in the Bible. Some would say, "well, those are textual errors, human errors, and there were no errors in the original autographs (the original documents written by the authors)." That's a convenient argument, for no original autographs exist, therefore we can say anything we please about them, and there will be no documented challenge to our assertions. But the fact is that there are, while minor, different comments regarding history, statistics, numbers, etc. There are explanations that harmonize apparently conflicting reports and data, and I believe and espouse many of them. But, that being said, I do not believe the Bible is an idol of paper and ink that is infallible. The word infallible should only be used, in my opinion, of divinity -- not of human beings (including religious leaders by the way!) nor about humanly produced documents.
If God wanted a book to be absolutely perfect in every way he would have parachuted it down from heavenly printing presses, or delivered it by angelic Fedex. He would not have subjected it to human hands, thought and creativity. Any time humanity touches something, that something is corrupted, for we are fallible. But God wanted humanity involved in the writing, editing, translation and preservation of the Bible.
So, how can we speak of absolute infallibility and worship a "thing" that has the fingerprints of humanity marring it?
I believe our faith should be based on the Bible. I believe the Bible is our guide, the final court of arbitration. But I do not believe it is eternal life. I believe it becomes life, as we yield to Jesus Christ, as the Holy Spirit within us guides us, and then the words of the Bible take on life within us. The paper and ink part is just that -- paper and ink. The message, the inspiration of the Bible in our lives today is a miraculous act of God, involving our union with Christ, our acceptance of our Lord, and then the words of the book become the Word of Life (see the first chapter of John).
I uphold the Bible. I believe the Bible. We should study the Bible. But the Bible is not a "paper pope." It has little meaning to the person who does not accept the risen Lord, who alone can transform us -- and transform us he does, using the Bible -- but the Bible itself does not transform. It imparts no eternal life. It's a book -- inspired by God in a unique way, an incredible book that has been attacked but never disproven, but at the end of the day, it's a book, not divinity that we should worship.
In Christ,
Greg Albrecht
Is the Bible error-free?
Q. Do you believe that there really was a Noah's ark, a Garden of Eden, or that Elijah rode a chariot into heaven in the last book of the OT -- or are these just metaphors or parables? Obviously we believe that Jesus really lived and died and was resurrected but I am struggling with how to determine which "Sunday school Bible stories" actually happened. In a related question, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God but not the infallible or dictated word, which is why there are many (mostly minor) discrepancies. Were some stories "slanted" based on the writer's views, his audience and purpose for which they were being told? What are your thoughts on this and do you think we got it right as to which books "made it" into the bible?
A. Excellent questions -- and I wish I had absolute answers for you! There was a time when I would have not even paused before giving you a dogmatic answer for your questions, but that doesn't mean my answer would have been correct. Dogmatism does not establish truth.
If God wanted a book to be absolutely perfect in every way he would have parachuted it down from heavenly printing presses, or delivered it by angelic Fedex. He would not not subjected it to human hands, thought and creativity.
The issue here is, in my mind, not truth, but the manner in which God chose to convey it. We humans often get bogged down with trivialities, and at times enthrone trivia, while the miss the really important stuff. Much of the answer lies in an appropriate way to study the Bible. The Bible is literature, and in using literature to convey his revelation to humanity, God used the essential "rules" of literature. He used the genre of literature -- poetry, wise sayings and proverbs, stories and narratives, laws and legal statements. For example, the first two chapters of Genesis are often seen by some fundamentalists as a battle ground, where, if someone even hints that the creation might not have been encapsulated in what we experience as 24 hour days, they are labeled as a crazed evolutionist who is trying to deny God. But if one studies the genre of the "creation hymn" one discovers that God inspired this account using Hebraisms -- sweeping poetic language that no literal statement could ever match. The literalist often believes, falsely, that is something cannot be boiled down to precise literal components, then it is not true and that the one who denies such a thing is trying to deny the Bible. The fact is that God tells us in the first chapters of Genesis that he alone is sovereign, he alone is the God above all gods (the real purpose to the original audience) and is not attempting to provide blueprint like specifications. He is telling us that he alone created, but not, in detail, exactly how he did it. When we attempt to find that out, when we attempt to grind down poetic imagery which is true, deeper and more profound than any wooden literalism, we twist and pervert the purpose of the author -- in the case of the Bible, the divine Author.
As to your second question about the nature of the Bible -- there have been major denominational battles and Christian wars fought over this issue. When I was in graduate school the book causing everyone to take sides was called The Battle for the Bible. Once again, the characterization that anything less than an absolute, almost mindless devotion to an idea that does not hold water, was seen as heretical, liberal and permissive. I was on the right wing, the fundamentalist side of the debate at that time (about 30 years ago). I wouldn't say that I am on the opposite extreme now, though some may characterize me as being there, I would say that my life in Christ has given me a deeper appreciation of the issue. I do not, on the one hand, believe that the Bible's authors were inspired like Shakespeare was, and no more. Neither do I believe that they sat down to write and their hands began to move (the so-called verbal dictation theory).
There are errors in the Bible. Some would say, "well, those are textual errors, human errors, and there were no errors in the original autographs (the original documents written by the authors)." That's a convenient argument, for no original autographs exist, therefore we can say anything we please about them, and there will be no documented challenge to our assertions. But the fact is that there are, while minor, different comments regarding history, statistics, numbers, etc. There are explanations that harmonize apparently conflicting reports and data, and I believe and espouse many of them. But, that being said, I do not believe the Bible is an idol of paper and ink that is infallible. The word infallible should only be used, in my opinion, of divinity -- not of human beings (including religious leaders by the way!) nor about humanly produced documents.
If God wanted a book to be absolutely perfect in every way he would have parachuted it down from heavenly printing presses, or delivered it by angelic Fedex. He would not have subjected it to human hands, thought and creativity. Any time humanity touches something, that something is corrupted, for we are fallible. But God wanted humanity involved in the writing, editing, translation and preservation of the Bible.
So, how can we speak of absolute infallibility and worship a "thing" that has the fingerprints of humanity marring it?
I believe our faith should be based on the Bible. I believe the Bible is our guide, the final court of arbitration. But I do not believe it is eternal life. I believe it becomes life, as we yield to Jesus Christ, as the Holy Spirit within us guides us, and then the words of the Bible take on life within us. The paper and ink part is just that -- paper and ink. The message, the inspiration of the Bible in our lives today is a miraculous act of God, involving our union with Christ, our acceptance of our Lord, and then the words of the book become the Word of Life (see the first chapter of John).
I uphold the Bible. I believe the Bible. We should study the Bible. But the Bible is not a "paper pope." It has little meaning to the person who does not accept the risen Lord, who alone can transform us -- and transform us he does, using the Bible -- but the Bible itself does not transform. It imparts no eternal life. It's a book -- inspired by God in a unique way, an incredible book that has been attacked but never disproven, but at the end of the day, it's a book, not divinity that we should worship.
In Christ,
Greg Albrecht
#
posted by Brandon at 1:02 PM
0 comments Home
