The Fred Principle: Fundamental Evangelicals Rejecting Reason

The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.  Mark Noll
 

The Anointed

amazon.com

 

TWW has often quoted from Mark Noll’s landmark book called: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. His premise is this. “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Noll contends that evangelicals need to “repent for their neglect of the mind.” He expresses deep concern that such Christians have abandoned the intellectual heritage of the Protestant Reformation.

On 10/17/11, The New York Times printed an op ed piece, link, written by two self-described evangelicals, Karl Giberson and Randall Stephens titled The Evangelical Rejection of Reason. They are authors of The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age. They use Mark Noll’s premise as a basis for their assertions. All quotes from this piece are labeled (NYT).

Karl Giberson also appeared on NPR on 10/20/11 discussing “Evangelical Christians Form Parallel Structure.” Link.  Quotes from this piece will be labeled (NPR). In the NPR piece, Neil Conan, the host used the term fundamental evangelicals. One TWW reader calls them fundagelicals.This term appears to be used more and more frequently to describe a certain subset of evangelicals who adhere to a particular group of beliefs such as 6-day creationism. However, in my opinion, no one definition easily fits this group and one should always ask for clarification of this term when used

They contend that certain evangelicals, who they classify as fundamentalists, are turning their backs on society. They claim that these fundamentalists are “scarred by the elimination of prayer in schools; the removal of nativity scenes from public places; the increasing legitimacy of abortion and homosexuality; the persistence of pornography and drug abuse; and acceptance of other religions and of atheism.” (NYT)

The authors point out that, at the base of this movement is a “rejection of science” (NYT), something that has been a concern at TWW since our inception. It seems that we are not the only ones. Giberson reiterates that there is nothing in evangelical theology that requires a belief in a young earth. He conjectures that it has become a politically useful message that is being put forth by the supposedly “anointed” leaders who convince the unquestioning faithful that they need to go in this direction. (NPR)

The authors contend that these evangelicals have formed a parallel subculture in which they can live out their values with little input from those on the outside. What constitutes this separate culture? This would include “church, Sunday school, summer camps and colleges, as well as publishing houses, broadcasting networks, music festivals and counseling groups.” Your glamorous blog queen would also like to add Christian schools and homeschooling to this list. (Do not forget that we both sent our kids to Christian schools, Deb home schooled for a short while and two of Dee’s kids attended Samford University.This group is not monolithic.) The articles also point out that political candidates such as Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry have targeted this new demographic.

Although I do not agree with the authors on all of their contentions, I believe, that they hit some very important points.

The authors then go on to point out a few influential leaders within this movement including Ken Ham and David Barton. I think our readers would be amused by one of their statements which claims these gentlemen are also “beneficiaries of this subculture.” (Read-make bank).

Here are their views on these men.

Ken Ham:

They quote Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who contrasts “God’s Word,” timeless and eternal, with the fleeting notions of “human reason.” This is how he knows that the earth is 10,000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs lived together, and that women are subordinate to men.”

The authors point out how Ham’s website denigrates any Christian who might disagree with his “perspective.” In fact, the authors of this piece were called “wolves in sheep’s clothing who masquerade as Christians while secretly trying to destroy faith in the Bible!” (NYT)

Ham has also focused his disgruntlement on Dr Francis Collins who, as the head of the NIH, is also a theistic evolutionist (or “evolutionary creationist") and a Southern Baptist. Giberson goes on to look at the language that is used by these fundamentalists, calling Collins a “professing” Christian, meaning that they are not so sure that he is. Apparently a Christian, such as Collins (NPR) who is comfortable with science is looked at with deep suspicions. Some kindly Christian souls have walked out on Collins' lectures in churches. (So, why did they go in the first place? Maybe they wanted to make a big, showy point)?

David Barton:

Mr. Barton heads an organization called WallBuilders, dedicated to the proposition that the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation. His education consists of a B.A. in religious education from Oral Roberts University. Unfortunately he has become known for some of his historical gaffes. For example: “Rosa Parks sat at a lunch counter" for her protest instead of refusing to give up her seat on the bus for a white man). John Fea, a professor at Messiah College and an evangelical, has written extensively about his concerns of David Barton's historical facts here.

Giberson goes on to explain how the anointed leaders, folks like Ken Ham and Al Mohler, have managed to undermine the scientific community. They repeat mantras that are not questioned by the fundagelcials. These would include (NPR):

  • Scientists are biased
  • All science is based on assumptions that you bring to the data rather than objective examination of the data.
  • Science is not trustworthy because certain theories have been disproven in the past.
  • Today’s science will be overturned by tomorrow’s science.

 

However, there seems to be some small changes occurring, especially within evangelical academia.“Within the evangelical world, tensions have emerged between those who deny secular knowledge, and those who have kept up with it and integrated it with their faith. Almost all evangelical colleges employ faculty members with degrees from major research universities — a conduit for knowledge from the larger world." (NYT)

So where does it leave this evangelical?

I, too, become concerned about the direction of this culture. One only has to look at the decline in Christianity in Europe to see that the faith is under fire. At the same time I am also concerned that the faith is being attacked from within by those who want to go beyond the Gospel to define what constitutes the real faith. No matter what the anointed would have us believe, the age of the earth, complementarianism, the size of our church, and the governing structure of the church are not primary issues. Folks, we have been given a brain. We need to use it.

I am fighting the Fred Principle

Years ago, I knew a man who I will call Fred. He told me that he had never looked at any evidence that Young Earth Creationism might be wrong. So, I gave him some material to read and suggested he look at websites such as Reason to Believe and Answers in Creation.

A few weeks later I asked him about his reading. He told me that he had read a few things and the information made him very nervous since it seemed to disprove everything that he had been led to believe.

So what was his solution? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because “he couldn’t take it.”

You see, his faith was based on a secondary issue. If that issue was challenged, his very faith was called into question. Yet this man insisted that his daughter go to college and “stand up” against those “secular” professors who said science has proven the earth is old. 

Here is where I stand. All Christians should question anything that is fed to them by supposed “leaders.” We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that goes for Ken Ham, David Barton, and Al Mohler. Never forget Galileo and the church. This means, as hard as it for some Christians to accept, these guys could very well be wrong.

And, if these guys are wrong, what happens to your faith? Is it based on a secondary issue or is it founded on the solid rock of the person of Jesus Christ? 

Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 17:1-18:34 Romans 9:25-10:13 Psalm 20:1-9 Proverbs 20:2-3

Comments

The Fred Principle: Fundamental Evangelicals Rejecting Reason — 167 Comments

  1. A man we’ll call “Fred” firmly believed himself to be dead, and went to the doctor for help. Doc gave him medical literature proving that dead people do not bleed. “I’m convinced, Doc” Fred exclaimed on his next visit. Doc then pricked Fred’s finger. Seeing the blood, the dismayed Fred shouted, “Oh No! I was wrong! …..
    Dead people do bleed, after all!”
    On a more serious note, I have a thought on the contrast between secondary issues and the rock solid Person of Jesus Christ as the foundations of faith. If Ham, Barton, and Mohler had nothing to go by but the inspired scripture (no modern science or anti-science) WHAT PARTS of Genesis would they assume to of primary importance? May I suggest those of PRIMRY focus in the New Testament? Such as the specific beginnings of Man, and much about God’s work and His rest and our work and rest. This is 7th day stuff, applied spiritually. Now do these gentlemen believe the 7th day to have been a literal 24 hour period, after which God went back to work until the 14th and 21st etc? Or something much much greater and continuing today?

  2. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness! God confounds me. The more I learn about evolution, the more amazed I am at how completely “other” He is. Can’t wait to see Him face to face!

  3. Is anyone here a historian? (Besides me, that is, though my focus is not American history.)

    I feel that Barton is a very deliberate revisionist and that his “work” is both distorted and harmful. (In much the same was as Holocaust “revisionism” has the potential for great, great harm.)

  4. Also (somewhat tangential, but not entirely)… I studied the arts (primarily visual arts and their history) in undergrad and grad school, and often felt like something of a curiosity in church.

    It seems as if there has been a falling-off in the emphasis on a liberal arts education in general (not just in the subculture we’re talking about) over the past 30+ years, paralleling – and probably intersecting with – the increasing distrust in science, public schools, etc.

    Put the two together and there’s a real problem – partly because kids aren’t being taught critical thinking skills. And they don’t know their own history (cultural, political, etc.).

    I never thought I’d have reason to say this, but some of the most so-so social studies and history teachers I had during my time in public school were probably *far* better informed – and far more competent in their areas of study – than many teachers are today.

  5. Still believe that some things appear to be a certain way because in the creation of matter, daylight and time could have been suspended. In certain order of creation, certain elements had to be created at the same time, thus because of oxygen and carbon dioxide, animals and plants had to be created together. I am not sure the arguments are really about long earth age vs. young earth age. The arguments appear to be about a slow progressive process where elements simply fall into place as sort of they just happened to do this.

  6. Eagle, 
    My last name’s not Barton, by the way. Previously here I looked up the definition of propagandist– being someone who devotes himself to any system of principles.  They may  be good principles, but I think devotion to ANY system falls short. We “little people” who are aware of our doubts and weaknesses can never measure up. Now a Person– I can be devoted to. I hope this rather strange group of strangers can help you find hope the Person of Jesus Christ.  I think, like faith, it takes just a little when the object is Him. As a believer, I also feel I need the same kind of place, to “Settle in and wrestle with faith and try to work out some of these problems.”   It’s not easy to find places like that, in my experience. 
    Numo,
    I hadn’t heard of Mr Barton before today, and am not a historian, but  can certainly agree about education– AND about feeling like something of a curiosity in church. 

  7. I think one of the really big problems in all this is that there is ‘science’ out there that purports to challenge nearly every aspect of what we believe as Christians to be true. Many ask where do we draw the line, and how do we differentiate between a legitimate challenge to some element of ‘orthodoxy’ (like OE vs YEC) from a challenge that is primarily based on the personal opinions of the scientist himself (like Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion’). Or how do we differentiate between legitimate issues with scripture (like certain well known facts like the ‘woman caught in adultery not being in the original manuscripts’), with the kinds of challenges issued by Bart Ehrman who try to paint the whole of scripture as untrustworthy and clearly not inspired by God.

    There ARE so many out there hostile to the faith who willingly flaunt their intellectual capacity and conclusions as sufficient reason to doubt the claims of the Bible. How do we know who to allow to influence our reading of scripture, and who to ignore.

    These are just some of the problems we face trying to find an ‘evangelical mind’.

    And in answering those questions, we all gravitate to those we trust to analyze what is their area of expertise and report to us what it makes sense to believe in an area we ourselves are not necessarily gifted or trained to evaluate.

    And unfortunately, as I see it, what happens with most evangelicals is they hear folks like Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner saying what they believe to be true about the Bible, and holding Ph.D’s in areas of science, and saying they think the evidence supports YEC. They trust them to be honest about the science side because they proclaim they believe the ‘right’ things about the Bible.

    And unfortunately, some of the ‘right’ things about the Bible are themselves wrong! And this makes crossing the ‘divide’ very difficult. Even though Francis Collins is a professing Christian, Evangelical, he rightly defines some of the early stories in Genesis as less literal than the PC version (from an typical evangelical perspective). This causes the majority of the church not to listen.

    The difficult thing then is how does one help a faithful follower of Christ realize that Genesis 1-11 being phenomenal in nature, and in some instances metaphorical in nature, does not in fact undermine the authority or inspiration of that same scripture?

    Because THAT is the issue. Why should we believe what the Bible tells us about Jesus. The typical YEC/Evangelical answer is that the Bible is perfect in every possible sense of the word. That the Bible is essentially provably miraculous on almost every page. And as a result, we can trust what it tells us about Christ.

    But the problem is, that is itself a lie. We know places where statements in the Bible are ‘incorrect’ from one perspective or another – or where elements of the text where added later. But most of the time in evangelical circles these truths are ‘kept quiet’. Even paradoxically so. For example, there are certain apparent inconsistencies in the telling of certain stories in the Gospels. On the one hand this is good – it tells us real people are reporting real events as they perceived them. That these stories haven’t been doctored to make everything line up which would be evidence of collusion and potential falsification. This goes to the issue of authenticity. And yet, this is also bad (at least it is if one requires multidimensional perfection to believe the Bible is God’s word), because human perception is itself imperfect.

    And so we return to Genesis. The authors record the creation of the world as they understood the world to be. Yet they don’t know what the world/ the cosmos really is. And here we are again, does the ‘imperfect’ description of the creation of the cosmos in terms of what they understood it to be now invalidate the authority and truth of God’s word – the truth that God created? And that all the thing created – like the sun, the moon, the stars, the sky, the sea are created things not separate deities – is this all now no longer authoritative because the creation is described in terms of day and not millions of years, or that the cosmos is described in terms of the ancient view of a flattish Earth surrounded by a sea and the sky as a dome with waters above it? Does the Bible need to be technically perfect in every possible area to be ‘inspired by God and profitable for teaching and reproof’? Is it impossible for it to carry the authority of being the very word of God if God chose to speak a truth (like He is the only true God) through a man who would record that truth in terms of an adaptation of the common view of the creation at the time of writing?

    For an Al Mohler or a Ken Ham, or even many of our friends that are YEC, these are issues that they can barely face. These are issues that challenge their faith to the very core.

    To make it possible for there to be an evangelical mind, we must find a way or ways to help them face these issues without them losing their faith. Right now their retreat from reality keeps them safe spiritually in the ultimate sense that in their retreat, they can continue to believe in Christ.

    But just Theodin’s retreat to the apparent safety of Helms Deep was in reality death trap, so is YEC for the church. We need to understand that folks like Al Mohler and others believe they are helping to save the church from the onslaught of the enemy by placing walls they believe are impenetrable around the people, not realizing they are in fact gathering the church into a position where they are ripe for the slaughter once those walls collapse.
    They do not understand the fragility of the walls that are creation science, nor the power to destroy the faith of many they have given the Enemy by proclaiming over and over again that if the world is billions of years old, then the Bible is not true.

    Zeta

  8. I have a feeling that many people who feel hostile would be far less so if we actually acted in a Christ-like way toward them, rather than feeling that we have to try and defend God from slander and libel.

  9. Eagle – thanks for the tip! Good discussion over there on Barton, history, etc. (Though I do think of “revisionism” as being bad and not the same thing as revising our opinions due to new research. The 1st I ever heard the term “revisionism” being widely used was in reference to apologists for Hitler/Holocaust deniers, so…)

  10. Well, I suppose I have to chime in (wouldn’t want to disappoint my fan club of 1).

    The reason and evidence used in science and by scientists and others who argue for its reliability does not carry the same weight or definition as when used by people of faith who try to make a credible case for belief in the supernatural.

    There is no evidence for the supernatural, therefore there is no reason (from the point of view of the evidence) for believing in it. Whether you are with those of the evangelical right or align yourself with those like Rob Bell or some place in between. Belief in the supernatural, in all its forms is a matter of faith…not science, logic or reason.

    Some people wonder why a non-believer like myself, “hangs out” on a Christian blog…what i wonder, in turn, is why people who maintain belief in the supernatural keep trying to flirt with science, reason and logic in order to bolster or defend the faith…even the Bible recognized the difference between Jerusalem and Athens.

  11. numo said: I have a feeling that many people who feel hostile would be far less so if we actually acted in a Christ-like way toward them, rather than feeling that we have to try and defend God from slander and libel.

    Interesting comment – but I honestly am having a hard time pinning down its target, its context. Could you elaborate a bit? Specifically: who are the people who feel hostile, who are the people who need to act in a more Christlike way, who is defending God from slander, and who is it that is perceived as slandering and libeling God.

    Thanks,

    Zeta

  12. My first thought when I saw the title of the post (Fred’s Principle) is that it loosely fits under the Flintstone Doctrine.

  13. Orion,

    While Numo’s comment was a nice sentiment, I doubt that “acting Christ-like”, would change anything for several reasons…not the least of which is that it didn’t seem to help Christ himself win much of a popularity contest…unless your goal is to end up nailed to a cross.

  14. Casey

    I have heard your arguments before. I would suggest that you go to the Christian sites that deal with these issues and read why those “theories” are suspect. I learned something a long time ago when I had a bit of a crisis of faith, which ended up being God’s gift to me. I decided that I am not the brightest bulb in the candelabra. However, I figured that there were people far smarter than I who had contemplated these questions and come up with answers. And they had, and did! And I found those answers.

    AIG has made a habit of “talking points.” For example, “How do you know something is old? My grandmother looks old and she is only 90.” That whole response is silly. Old rock looks far different than old grandma. But do you know how many times some YE person has said that to me?

    Each of your points has been discussed at length by scientists and have answers.I urge you to go beyond the simple and read on this subject by those who look at it differently. Do you think that every scientist out there has not considered your points? They have and have answers. And have also maintained their faith in a complex Creator God.

  15. Good day ladies! If I may make a few random comments from the peanut gallery ….

    (1) With regard to the NYT quote, They claim that these fundamentalists are “scarred by the elimination of prayer in schools; the removal of nativity scenes from public places; the increasing legitimacy of abortion and homosexuality; the persistence of pornography and drug abuse; and acceptance of other religions and of atheism.”

    I’m not scarred by these things, but rather concerned (with the exception of school prayer – see #2 below) that this is evidence not only of moral decline of our society but also the marginalization of Christianity.

    (2) I have never been a big fan of school prayer, as early on I realized that if we allowed Christian prayer in school what was stopping everyone from stopping five times a day to pray toward Mecca or leading the students in Buddhist meditation each morning. I don’t think you can make the argument that we have to allow Christian prayer in schools but not allow any other prayer in school.

    (3) With regard to your quote, All Christians should question anything that is fed to them by supposed “leaders.”, as Christians we need to emulate the Bereans when we listen to our pastors by “searching the scriptures” to see if what they are saying “is so.” As I’ve heard Alistair Begg say from time to time, don’t take my word for it you go home and do your home work and see if what I’m saying is true.

  16. Bounded Reality said in part: There is no evidence for the supernatural, therefore there is no reason (from the point of view of the evidence) for believing in it. Whether you are with those of the evangelical right or align yourself with those like Rob Bell or some place in between. Belief in the supernatural, in all its forms is a matter of faith…not science, logic or reason.

    You are overreaching. Yes, the existence of God is typically considered outside the reach of science, but science does not define all that there is in terms of logic, reason, or knowledge. History itself is a vast field of knowledge subject to both logic, reason, and indeed evidence, but it is not science.

    The evidence that leads us to believe in God is historical and experiential. It is not science, but it is subject to logic and reason.

    The points being made here is not to ‘rely’ on science to necessarily support believe in God, but rather not to build a belief system that is itself built on or dependent upon a denial of what can be reliably shown to be true through science.

    Zeta

  17. CitationSquirrel said: “(2) I have never been a big fan of school prayer, as early on I realized that if we allowed Christian prayer in school what was stopping everyone from stopping five times a day to pray toward Mecca or leading the students in Buddhist meditation each morning. I don’t think you can make the argument that we have to allow Christian prayer in schools but not allow any other prayer in school.”

    Thank you for verbalizing this. I have long wondered the same thing.

  18. Abby/Citation

    I grew up in Salem, Massachusetts. The Wiccan/witch crowd (yep- a bunch of them moved to Salem because of the “aura” not understanding that the women killed were not witches) has been advocating for their “prayers” to be allowed in the school. It always amused me that Christians believe that adding prayer back into the schools would result in nice Judeo-Christian prayers being said.

    Historically, I am not sure if one can claim that taking prayers out of the schools resulted in bad things. Firstly, the riots of the 60s were caused by kids growing up in the nice “praying” homes of the 50s. These kids saw hypocrisy at its finest-chruch on Sunday combined with racism, hypocrisy, and all sorts of stuff all hidden under the veneer of the Cleavers. Those prayers during the 50s were often lip service, not welling up from a grateful heart for God’s grace.

    Finally, as many have said, there is still prayer in schools. We just don’t see it. Moms in Touch, Young Life, Fellowship of Christian Athletes and even the kid who forgot to study for his Calculus test all all involved, providing fervent prayer.

  19. David
    Good question. In fact, think about it. God told Adam and Eve that, on the day they would eat from the tree, they would surely die. Well, die has many meanings and the YE contingent is willing to take a different look at how that is interpreted because, to this plain reader, they didn’t die (drop over dead). Well, death did enter the world, their was a spiritual death, etc., etc. So, why the emphasis on the word “day” as being literally 24 hours instead of around 57 other meanings?

    Other questions to ponder. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth (?could it have been DNA) and placed him in the Garden. So, why? What was going on outside the Garden? Obviously it has something to do with the tree of life . But stuff was going on outside. Could this be important t contemplate? I think so.

  20. Deb
    Hmmm could the name choice have a deeper meaning? There are many Freds to consider. Wilma’s husband is a good place to start.

  21. Bounded Reality : you also mentioned how acting Christ-like can get one nailed to a cross. True. Christians (in general) believe He later rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and poured out the Holy Spirit. These supernatural events are examples of the historical and experiential evidence mentioned by O B., which you might say we believers consider sufficient grounds for faith. We don’t just take a leap into the dark. So we don’t consider the cross a tragic end of the story.

  22. Dee,
    In mentioning Christ’s ascension into heaven, I think this is another example where “literalists” will take other passages “spiritually”. Do we hear them arguing that He is literally “up” in the heavens somewhere else inside the created universe, since the disciples did see him literally “lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight”? Do they argue the scientific processes which may have been involved, like a Saturn 5 vs a Star Trek transporter? Just wondering.

  23. One more thing about Fred– maybe he needs a Mr Slate to shout “You’re fired!” at him now and then, when he acts like he’s out of his evangelical mind.

  24. David

    Good questions. Here’s another one:the Bible talks about the sun rising.Also, the bible mentions that the mustard seek being the smallest seed. There is a lily seed in the Amazon that is smaller.

    Then there is the statement of the world being on pillars.

    Of course, the sun rising is now accepted as a metaphor-I got up when the sun came “up.”

    And the mustard seed was the smallest seed in that region of the world.

    The world being on pillars is a good description of the forces that keep the earth in place but it is by no means, literal.

    So, how do we look at literalism? I was once teaching about the pearl on the gate of heaven. The pearl reminds us of the pearl of great price and the gate functions as a metaphor for those who can come in and those who are kept out. I had a person come up to me and argue that it is an actual gate and an actual pearl. period.

    I then asked her to describe the gate which she described as a simple gate like we have today.I explained that her concept of gate was colored by our culture and that a gate usually referred to entry point to a city which was actually a large entry room/hall with guards standing above that gate, ready to spring into action.

    I believe we need a few Mr. Slate types to knock some sense into a few folks.I think we need more pastors who major on the majors as well.

  25. Zeta

    Awesome answers. For those who do not know, we at TWW call him Koatap (knower of all things astrophysical).

  26. David,

    But that’s exactly my point..not that I want to get into a long and painfully fruitless debate on it….but there is no evidence (historical or otherwise) for the supernatural. There are only stories which can be viewed through the lens of faith as a kind of support, but without first imposing a belief system on them, they point to nothing more then what we have in every other culture…stories and myths, used to provide moral guidelines, instill some form of punishment/reward system to maintain or gain control and some really cool bedtime stories.

    There is nothing for which the evidence is so overwhelming as to point to a supernatural source over much more common, everyday occurrences with which we are familiar.

  27. Zeta’s post made me wonder about their (YEC and those who think on the same lines) view of God and who he is. Is their view of God big, great, magnificant, etc. enough?!? It seems as though many Christians (me included at times) try to put God in a box or limit the way He can function and those limits would seem to be based on what “we” know or what “we” understand. We limit God to “our” experience and knowledge. I don’t think we know ALL there is to know of God and his ways. We know what he has revealed to us; however, is what he has revealed to us “all” of His knowledge and understanding? I, personally, think it’s not. But, yes, it is enough for life and Godliness.

    It seems that these groups, by limiting “how” God did something (like creating) limit God to “their” own beliefs about it, thus they have the “ultimate truth.” And if this “ultimate truth” comes into question for some reason, “their faith” crashes for the reason stated by Dee – it’s not founded on Jesus Christ.

    A side note –

    I have never been to one of their churches, but what do they preach and teach about; especially the family integrated churches?

    During my time of homeschooling, our family went to a weekend camp put on by a homeschool organization. When we gathered for Sunday worship and the Word, the person speaking shared about our government and culture and the ungodliness of it. This, of course, was the reason one should homeschool (basically it came down to “fear” the world). In my thinking, doing or not doing something because we are “afraid” is NOT the same as doing or not doing something because we are “trusting” God. I don’t remember Jesus being mentioned at all, except “In Jesus name” at the end of prayer and in a few songs. This gathering for worship sounded and felt like a political agenda rally with God and Jesus sorta-kinda sprinkled in. It didn’t make me want to be with these Christians (how sad). The fruit it was producing in “this” Christian was fear. We didn’t go to another homeschool camp weekend.

  28. Bridget
    What do you think these folks would do if they had to face true persecution like the early Christians? I try to imagine that before I get all bent out of shape about today’s culture. At least i won’t be dipped in tar and be used as a torch for one of Nero’s garden parties. I think we have all gotten a bit soft. Give me today’s United States more than any other period of time. We are blessed.

  29. Barton has been soundly debunked by Chris Rodda & others. For those interested, Brooke Allen’s “Moral Minority – Our Skeptical Founding Fathers” is an excellent book on the 18th cent. mindset of the nation’s founders and how they were influenced by the enlightenment thinkers far more than Judeo Christian theology.

  30. Dee,

    I think that far more persecution has been done in the name of the cross than in 300 some odd years of Roman emperors. From Constantine until the founding of the American experiment, the institutional church’s legacy was one of war, despotism, and inhuman cruelty.

    The founders were all too keenly aware of this and that’s why they built in safeguards to ensure that these excesses would not repeat themselves on these shores.

    Barton, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, & all their ilk would salivate like Pavlov’s dogs if they had even a remote chance of reversing these human gains and progress. They do not believe in human freedom the way most critical thinkers do.

  31. Muff: thanks for the book rec; I pretty much agree with you (especially on the amount of persecution done in the name of Jesus Christ).

    BR: Not sure this is the best place to get into the debate you’re proposing. Maybe it would be better if I’d said something along the lines of “Don’t see those with opposing/different viewpoints as enemies” – “Love your neighbor as yourself”; parable of the Good Samaritan, etc. etc.

    Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

  32. Numo,

    not sure what you are referring to…if you read my post you will see that I actually said “not that I want to get into a debate”.

    And I do treat others as I would want to be treated…I tell them the truth. To avoid confrontation in the name of “being nice” is a far greater disservice, in my opinion.

  33. Orion’s Belt / Zeta:

    RE: “…Or how do we differentiate between legitimate issues with scripture (like certain well known facts like the ‘woman caught in adultery not being in the original manuscripts’), with the kinds of challenges issued by Bart Ehrman who try to paint the whole of scripture as untrustworthy and clearly not inspired by God.

    … How do we know who to allow to influence our reading of scripture, and who to ignore.

    These are just some of the problems we face trying to find an ‘evangelical mind’.”

    –this makes me think of the times when Jesus said things like, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” On at least one occasion he is addressing pharisees. It was their job to know all there was to know of the sacred writings. All “information” that was available — taken as God’s revealed story to people about himself — they knew it all. Inside and out.

    Yet, Jesus says, you don’t know God.

    A whole life’s devotion to the study of all the “holy texts” (if that’s what they called them) didn’t enable them to really know God.

    So, I tend to think that “evangelicalism” puts the bible up on a pedastal as THE way, THE guidebook, THE answers, THE road to God, THE map to God. THE SOURCE, even.

    So, back to Jesus in John — I’ve always kind of wondered what Jesus’ expectations were, anyway. I mean, the pharisees were simply diligently reading everything that was available — what else were they supposed to do? It almost seemed unfair to me that Jesus would criticize them and blame them for not knowing what hadn’t even been written yet (NT writings).

    But I think the point is that while sacred writings are good, great and helpful, they are not the deep way, the direct route to knowing God.

    Like, think of Abraham. What writings existed for him to read? And yet he knew God more intimately than anyone.

    (gotta go — haven’t proofed this — maybe I’ll be embarrased when I read what I’ve written later)

  34. Eagle –

    Sounds like you’re veturing into who knows what . . . “Is it a place where an agnostic can settle in and wrestle with faith and try to work out some of these problems.” The church itself won’t have your answers but the work of the Holy Spirit in you will – ask God to help you even if you don’t know what you believe about Him.

  35. Having once been a charismatic/evangelical raised in Northern Ireland, I agree with the sentiment that often conservative believers are dishonest in their elevation of the scriptures whilst not believing what they say in certain places. Tradition and Reformation theology are the specs through which they are interpreted rather than reason.

    Personally I believe that theology will eventually take you down a cul -de sac. It’s great sport for those of us who love mind games but it doesn’t deliver the Divine Presence – only an open heart and life’s Journey will take us there.

  36. Thanks for addressing this issue.

    I have been, oh, the irony, doing a lot of work in the lab and haven’t been able to hang out on the blogs.

    I have no problems coexisting with both my science and my faith.

  37. Elastigirl,

    I had a pastor once with a penchant for getting the ear of his listeners with provocative statements. One Sunday he stood up and announced “The Bible is not the Word of God” – and went on to preach a sermon on Bibliodolotry – the elevation of the Bible to the status of an idol.

    One of his points is that the Bible, apart from the witness of the Holy Spirit, is just words on a page. It becomes the living word of God when God’s Spirit gives the words contained in it ‘life’.

    Technically the Word of God is Jesus himself. He is the logos. The message so to speak. And we can’t equate scripture with Jesus. Scripture leads us to Christ, but is not itself God. But to know God, to have a relation ship to God, we must do more than simply allow the Bible to lead us to Him, we must open the doors of our hearts to Him, invite Him in, and sup with Him.

    Many evangelical churches make the Bible itself the objective, and the object of their affections, rather that Christ. This is not I believe intentional, but I do believe it is ultimately harmful to faith. The Bible must, like everything else in the universe, play second fiddle to Christ Himself.

    All that said, the teachings of scripture are not to be treated as any less that God’s message to us. They are Holy in that they are given of God, and without them knowing God would be very difficult, but not impossible. God’s words are to be respected, and they are very powerful. But they are not Christ, they are not something to be idolized in and of themselves.

    Zeta

  38. I heard a great sermon at a breakfast yesterday while at a Baptist convention. It was basically about the “Lord’s prayer”. The preacher pointed out that the disciples knew how to pray, and so were not asking out of ignorance. Rather, they knew of three kinds of prayer, two of which were very widely practiced, but the third, the prayer of supplication, was considered a bit dangerous. Ask for something from the Almighty and you might just get it, but perhaps not in exactly the way you might have thought.

    The prayer asks for God to intervene in human affairs in particular ways. (1) That life on earth will be changed to be like life in heaven and that God’s Will will in fact be accomplished on earth. (interesting contrast to those who believe that everything on earth is and was God’s Will according to His “Plan”.) (2) That each of us will have sufficient for our day each day (kind of like manna — not enough for tomorrow, just enough each day for that day — a real social justice concept). (3) That as we are generous with those who owe us, we will be treated with the same generosity for our debts, this in a time when one’s child or spouse could be taken and put in prison for our debt.

  39. DB,

    But I really think that it should present a problem Deb. I think it doesn’t present a problem, simply because we, as humans, are so good at compartmentalizing our thinking and our thinking itself has become less disciplined.

    I think we tend to “focus” our thinking when it is absolutely required, like at work, and for relatively short periods of time, and then slack off when going about the rest of our daily lives, where it is not absolutely required.

    Thinking is an exhausting activity, a drain, it requires energy, concentration, focus. It is, for a simple example, why most software developers are tired at the end of the day, not because they sit and type but from the constant concentration, same for playing a game of chess (at the upper levels) or at the end of a long debate.

    We like time off, we like to be spoon fed for a while, we like to just accept something (faith) without the rigors of deep analysis and applied logic and it seems, in my opinion, that on some level we are aware that we are slacking off and don’t want to admit or deal with it because it gives us a moments rest, which is why we aggressively defend ourselves and jump through all kinds of hoops to make our slack time appear to be well though out (or we ignore the issue entirely), when its pointed out by a someone else.

    Just a thought

  40. a few additional thoughts…

    I think religion or faith has traditionally been our collective “down time”, it was when we could relax from the rigors of the world, get together with family and friends, sing some hymns, listen to beautiful music, have someone tell us how the world was supposed to be, in all of its splendor and glory and give us a a few hours where the universe made sense and we could feel like we had a connection with someone who had it all in control…it was relaxing, soothing, calming and renewing.

    Somewhere along the line, some folks took that and turned it from a time of renewal and relaxation, into their prime time focus. It became their work, where they expended energy, where entire lives would pass trying to explain with logical minds how the scriptures and the world of science could stay in harmony, trying to find answers for the internal conflicts within holy scripture itself…and most importantly, since this was now a prime time, publicly visible activity, trying to answer the many challenges presented by non believers, which in the past, pretty much just went unasked, because of the nature of faith, before it became an aggressive tool for social change and a bludgeon for those different than us.

    I suspect that both aspects have always been around, but in the last century or so, I think the balance has definitely shifted for the worse. Now it is not only the higher few within the church, those responsible for the crusades or the inquisition, but it is every pew member who allows themselves to be stirred into “action” without thinking, it is the pressure of an industrialized, high pressure, world.

    We have forgotten how to relax and enjoy simple pleasures.

  41. Orion’s belt,
    What you are saying is profound; and it puts into words what I have been, well…I guess, feeling, for so long. This sort of idolatry of the Bible, where people’s interpretations of it become absolutes. Now, in now way do I believe the Bible is fallible, from a certain point of view. It IS God’s word to us, and it IS the manner in which He primarily choses to reveale Himself and His will. But you are right it is not HIM, per se. It was written by man, under he direction of the Holy Spirit, so of course it is infallible in terms of the message and the essense, because of the Holy Spirit, but it will contain some incongruencies, some metaphorical meanings and descriptions and, in some cases [GASP] even a contradiction or two. This in no way implies that God or His Spirit is imperfect, but that man IS. So we do need to be so careful when we idolize the words/text/language as being inseperable from the meaning and the essense of the Spirit and Truth of God. That leads to, in my opinion, extreme legalism, the creating of literal interpretation of debatable scripture meaning as “proof of salvation”, and ultimately, spiritual abuse and oppression. For example, the YE crowd. Also, an example of my own: in Revelation, it seems that John is describing something of the war machines being used in the end times. Now, of course he’d have no concept of these manchines, presumably, and therefore he’d be inclined to use metaphorical language based on what he knows. For example: a fire breathing lion (as I loosely quote scripture), or something else like that that John descriptively refers to. A Bible literalist, like the YE crowd, might say that instead of John speaking metaphorically, he MUST be talking about a LITERAL fire breathing lion. And if you do not accept that it is a real fire breathing lion, then you are denying the inspiration of scripture, therefore you must not be a real Christian, and therefore, you must not be saved.

    Now, of course, John says “something like a…”, so it’s not like even he himself is saying that it actually IS what he’s describing, but you get my point. Man is not perfect, and because of John’s limited vision, he needed to use metaphorical language to describe what he was seeing. Of course, God could simply have told him exactly what he was looking at and told him to write it down verbatim, but that’s not typically how God inspired the writers of scripture. They are NOT God, they are his conduit. Therefore, though the message is perfect, the instrument is not; there will be the normal limitations associated with the writers of scripture just like with any human.

  42. I was reading Jonathan Leeman’s (?) bood about Church Discipline and Membership. I have never been more depressed. I can’t believe in these modern times, with so many wonderful godly men, how so many tertiary issues (Young Earth, Church Discipline, Church Polity, Membership to Church, Dating, Homeschooling, Vocation, Tattoos, style of dress, watching secular movies and TV, and on and on…)have become indisputable matters, upon which the salvation of one’s very soul depends. I loosely quote from Jonathon’s book, “If one isn’t a member, and more importantly submissive to a local church, it calls that person’s faith into question.” Oh…really. Well, it’s that easy is it? Nice to know that we’ve finally reached bonafide cult status in its fullness in our modern Reformed Conservative Church. Guess what, all you Christian’s who aren’t members of a church, or haven’t signed a church discipline agreement…guess what, you aren’t saved! Oh, and just yesterday, I was telling someone about a new website I wanted to start (NOT PORN!! :-)), and they immediately jumped in and said, well, I would think as a Christian, you’d do it this way. I said that that wasn’t the point of the venture, and they just said, well, if you’re a Christian, then…. And now that we’ll probably leave SGM because of the OBVIOUS, well, I guess my salvation’s back in question again because I’m not submitting to my local church.

    I tell you, I haven’t been called NOT a Christain by so many Christians since I became a Christian.

  43. I am so categorically and emphatically thankful for this site, and others like SGMSurvivors, Refuge, and a FEW others. Deb and Dee, Donald Veitch, Orion’s Belt, Jim, Kris, and the other wonderful folks (I don’t have time or space to name them all) out there on the blogosphere. Truly you guys are the remnant of our times.

  44. Arce on Wed, Oct 26 2011 at 09:24 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I heard a great sermon at a breakfast yesterday while at a Baptist convention. It was basically about the “Lord’s prayer”. The preacher pointed out that the disciples knew how to pray, and so were not asking out of ignorance. Rather, they knew of three kinds of prayer, two of which were very widely practiced, but the third, the prayer of supplication, was considered a bit dangerous. Ask for something from the Almighty and you might just get it, but perhaps not in exactly the way you might have thought.

    The prayer asks for God to intervene in human affairs in particular ways. (1) That life on earth will be changed to be like life in heaven and that God’s Will will in fact be accomplished on earth. (interesting contrast to those who believe that everything on earth is and was God’s Will according to His “Plan”.) (2) That each of us will have sufficient for our day each day (kind of like manna — not enough for tomorrow, just enough each day for that day — a real social justice concept). (3) That as we are generous with those who owe us, we will be treated with the same generosity for our debts, this in a time when one’s child or spouse could be taken and put in prison for our debt.

  45. BR,

    Thanks for the thought. I think I may experience the same thing differently from you in that science and faith are not compartmentalized as much as they are looking at the same phenomonon from a different angle and that they are describing the same thing using very different languages.

    Paradoxically, faith and hypothesis testing are mutually exclusive. Faith-based science is an oxymoron and evidence-based faith is a contradiction of terms.

    Bringing my faith into the realm of science is dangerous for faith in that it has the potential of undermining faith but if one assumes a more open-minded position, faith cannot be shaken because the focus of our faith is our relationship with our Lord and Savior and nothing can separate us from His love.

    With that freedom, we get to think outside the box and speculate wildly without worrying about preserving our faith.

  46. DB
    Christians who truly understand that all truth is God’s truth have nothing to fear from science, archaeology, etc. I am convinced that nothing will ever be discovered that will disprove the essence of the Scriptures. For example, I do not believe that bones from the body of Jesus will be discovered.

    The Bible is infallible and God, as Creator, is the essence of our belief. The fact that He created is NEVER in dispute. However, when He created the earth, how He did so, and how He “made” Adam is not clearly spelled out. And we have to ask why. Could it be that the Creator is so complex, far beyond our understand, that an explanation is not understandable to our limited, three dimensional minds? So, He told us very simply, and in part.

    Perhaps one day, in the new heaven and earth we will comprehend it more deeply. But, even then, we will still be the created and still be man while He will still be God. Maybe we will be able to praise HIm, even then, for mysteries still beyond on comprehension.

  47. Dee-

    The Bible can not be infallible if it has inaccurately described the creation of the earth….the Bible clearly teaches a six day creation. You can quibble about the meaning of the words in Genesis, but you’ll have a harder time with the Hebrew used in Leviticus and other places that describes the Earth as created in 6 days ( not time periods)…to say the Bible does not teach a six day Creation is smoke and mirrors.

    When I was a Christian I believed in a six day creation because it was what the bible taught, unambiguously. To say otherwise is to try and incorporate modern science to an ancient text that knows nothing of the sort.

    To say that one day we will truly understand this mystery is another way of saying that the Bible’s clear teaching does not match the evidence.

  48. Dee-

    Not to pick on you, but you said “Nothing will ever be discovered that will disprove the essence of scriptures”.

    How can you know this? Isn’t this just an a preemptive (a priori) attempt to shut out any evidence that challenges your faith? Why bother talking about science, evidence, archeology, ye vs oe if the big question is already settled in your mind?

  49. doubtful,

    The word YOM in the Hebrew can mean either a 24 hr day, or a time period. Also, many OE’s see a “gap” between verses 1 and 2. They claim that God would not make something that was “without form and void”. They say the Hebrew can read “And the Earth BECAME without form and void.” They believe that the Earth was re-created after a heavenly battle with Satan and his angels. Something happened to the Earth when Satan was cast down to it, so it needed to be recreated.

    So there are biblical alternatives to explain the OE position.

  50. Zeta of OB-

    Well said at 8:29! Jesus was the Word made flesh, when we see Him we have seen the Father. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to be our helper and without the Holy Spirit we would not comprehend any of it.

  51. doubtful

    You were taught by those who would say that the Bible is a wooden textbook, akin to a science book. If I were to say that it is raining cats and dogs, would you believe that such a thing is true? How about if I said my pug dog is a clown? The Bible, reflecting all forms of literary genre, utilizes such devices throughout. Last I checked, the Psalms were based on music and poetry. When was the last time you sang through a chapter of science?

    Did you know the word day, in Hebrew, has well over 50 meanings? Each of them a bit different. Words in our language can have many meanings as well.

    I said that one day we will understand better the mystery but I did stress that we are the created. Even in eternity we will not be God and we may never fully understand the depths of His character. But, it sure will be fascinating to understand more clearly.

    I disagree that the Bible is perfectly clear on this subject and so do many, many others. In fact, a friend and I were talking on Sunday. Both he and I, upon reading Genesis for the first time, thought that the word day was a literary device. Since I did not grow up in the church, I had not been indoctrinated by some of those unimaginative men who probably don’t read poetry very well either.

  52. doubtful

    My husband is a published author in various science publications. He did bench research on the adenosine receptor. We believe that the Bible is perfectly compatible with both science and archaeology. Because I believe in absolute truth, and believe the Bible is absolutely true, it therefore follows, in my paradigm, that nothing will ever be discovered that would disprove the Bible. In fact, nothing has to this point.

    I also talk about OE/YE because of some people who have deluded the non-scientific faithful that one cannot believe in OE and be a Christian.

    PS-I don’t think you are picking on me. Love your questions.

    If one believes that God is complex, an infinite Creator of an infinitely diverse universe, then science and archaeology is merely a means to discover the hidden mysteries of the creation. Since he created it, He will be found in it.

  53. RE: doubtful on Wed, Oct 26 2011 at 03:43 pm:

    The only fair question to ask then, is what is the essence of Scripture? For me the essence is the proclaiming of Messiah (Yeshua). I believe it largely on faith. I cannot “show that: yada, yada,…” like I can with a particularly thorny convergence problem in the Calculus, but that is where faith comes in for me.

    We “know” that parthenogenesis (virgin conception) simply does not occur in higher order mammals and if we do not agree up front (via faith) that Yeshua’s conception was sans human male DNA, we can proceed no further.

    I think this is what Dee meant by no new discovery overturning an already agreed upon axiom of the faith — Correct me if I’ve misrepresented you Dee! —

    Whether or not a Hebrew “day” is construed to mean 24 tick-tock hrs. or 600 million years has no bearing (for me anyway) on whether or not the Magnificat in the Gospel of Luke is true.

  54. Muff
    Well stated. I love your last sentence. I often picture you at the piano, playing the masterpieces!

  55. Dee,

    Even if there were no outright conflicts between science, archaeology and the Bible (which there are…in no short supply), it still would’t matter because the very heart of science, its methodology is at odds with the concept of faith. In science, nothing is considered “true for all time” or “true..in the absence of data and testing”

    The Bible doesn’t need science and archaeology to rain on its parade…it is not even internally consistent – the best that the faithful can come up with is to say “God’s ways are not our ways” or “We can’t understand the mystery of God” or the always ready “Well, we’ll just have to find out when we get there”

    People like to say that it doesn’t matter because science doesn’t deal with faith. While that might be superficially true, science DOES deal with the reality of the object of faith. The claims of miracles, virgin births, resurrections, flying chariots, talking donkeys (and serpents), the sun standing still in the sky, water into wine, walking on water, Jacob getting striped cattle by making them look at painted sticks while copulating, the origin of languages (babel), feeding of the 5000 with a few loaves and fishes (the soup kitchens would love to know how to do that!) global floods, all the issues with on the ark, interesting problems not mentioned but which would have existed anyway…given the bibles description of certain events and on and on and on…

    Science address each of those, it has a statement to make … to simply say that it’s miraculous…doesn’t magically turn those things into non conflicting issues.

  56. If parthenogenesis did happen, the result would be female and a female Jesus would put their boxers in a wad more than anything yet discussed on this thread.

    Also, people in the past argued a flat earth, slavery, and the earth as the center of the solar system among other things. It isn’t the Bible that is wrong, rather, it is the way we humans look at what is written. We should think outside the box but we have absolutely no right putting God in a box.

    Dee, your dh’s work sounds interesting to me, would you mind bragging about his publications so I can check them out?

  57. Hi DB
    Here are a few I remember: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Clinical Investigation, and American Journal of Physiology. I hope I wrote those correctly. He also won the Young Investigator of the Year for the American College of Cardiology in 1987. After our daughter became ill, he slowly moved out of basic research and became more clinically based. He did some extra training in nuclear cardiology and is now purely clinical. It’s funny how a devastating illness can change one’s career path.

  58. DB,

    Thinking outside the box, is a nice thing from time to time…thinking outside the box of sanity is another matter altogether.

    This is exactly what I was saying earlier…you can’t seriously say that science and the Bible are in harmony when your reason is basically either:

    1. We’re too stupid to understand what the Bible really means. Which, by the way, flies in the face of the reason why God supposedly gave it to us in the first place!

    2. We simply assume that the Bible “must” be correct and that science will catch up eventually.

    Neither viewpoint is rational or logical, it is not how we approach anything else of substance in our lives and while it might be acceptable in the realm of faith where anything goes, it is not a valid methodology anywhere else unless your goal is, like the evangelicals who are symbolically crucified here, to not let any evidence or reason stand in the way of what you want to be true.

  59. BR

    Glad to hear from you. How’s the weather up in your neck of the woods? I would kill for a clambake!
    Miracles are no less a part of nature than nature that you observe. If God exists, and part of His nature is to make exceptions to the rules, then it is natural-for God.
    I think the Bible is the most internally consistent book ever written, by a group of diverse individuals over long periods of time. It tells a cohesive story from beginning to end. In fact, I see the hand of God clearly in its consistency. So have people throughout history.
    I believe that science and archaeology have only begun to scratch the surface of this diverse, complex world and universe. Each discovery will weave a story that matches perfectly with the record of Scripture. Science is natural revelation about the work of the Creator and I look forward to all discoveries.
    You see, my old friend, I am incorrigible.

  60. Dee,

    Good Morning! It is low 50s, when it warms up, but if things go as hoped for, I may be relocating to the much warmer climate of California!

    Miracles are not a part of nature…the very word miracle is defined as something which occurs outside of, or in violation of natural law…I see you’re back to defining problems out of existence…any port in a storm eh?

    The word nature (just as your word for “day” in the creation story) has different meanings…the “nature” of God, does not have the same meaning as it does when we speak about “nature” (meaning the universe that we live in), or “natural” law.

    The Bible has as much consistency as possible for letters, and stories written over several thousand years…not because of divine authorship, but for a far more simple reason…the letters and stories that comprise holy scripture were hand chosen for just that reason!

    It would be like me going into the woods and selecting 66 leaves off the ground, making sure they are all maple leaves of roughly the same size and coloration, ignoring the pine needles, oak, birch and apple leaves. Then, years later someone looks at the collection of leaves, and comes to believe that the leaves fell from heaven, in part, because of the great consistency in shape and color!

    That’s exactly what it sounds like when you say things like “you see the hand of God clearly in its consistency”.

  61. BR
    California! Nice weather and lots of diversity of ideas. I bet you will love it. I am very happy for you. Keep me posted.

    As for your contention of picking and choosing consistence, you have proven at least one point. There is consistency. However, one can question any piece of history one wishes. That is why historians look for archaeological evidence . So far, there has been enough evidence to prove that some of the characters in the Bible existed and nothing has been discovered that disproves the Bible in terms of evidence. Argument from lack of evidence is not proof-merely speculation.

    I think we all look for consistency in our beliefs and atheists are no less guilty in this manner. Just a few short centuries ago, bacteria were not discovered. That does not mean they did not exist.

    I continue to argue that, if God exists, then He is part of nature. What he does is natural to His being. So, if He does ,what humans deem miracles, then miracles are part of the natural order of things. Just because they are unpredictable does not mean they are not “natural.”

  62. Scientists are now involved in early clinical testing the use of viruses to selectively transfer DNA to cancer cells that then make the cancer cells die. This would be a revolutionary cure for many cancers, including those that are inoperable. Given the impact of cancer on so many lives, this “natural” development appears to be to be miraculous!

  63. Arce,

    Now we are just using the word “miraculous” to mean amazing…again, not how the word is meant when describing Biblical miracles or evidence of supernatural intervention. The process you described, is not magical or unknown, it is very clearly documented, and reproducible.

    This is one of the many irritating things that occurs when discussing science and the supernatural with gifted and intelligent people, which covers just about everyone who contributes on this blog. You guys know that these words and the way you are using them is different from the topic at hand, but it’s like you don’t care. As long as it works in diverting the discussion down some trivial and irrelevant pathway…then, the truth be damned…full speed ahead.

    It is exactly the same way in which the evangelical right behaves when intentionally misusing words from the biological sciences in an attempt to mislead or deceive the general public.

    Shame on You (shaking finger)

  64. dee-

    I specifically alluded to other areas in the Bible (such as Leviticus) that refers to the Earth being created in 6 days. I understand the “various” meanings argument from the Genesis. It just is relevant to other books that describe creation in 6 days…

    You are correct, that if you said it was raining cats and dogs, I would assume you were speaking figuratively and not literally. But if I said to you that I was a human, would you assume I was speaking figuratively? Nowhere in scripture does it indicate creation in 6 days as a figurative term, to do so is to violate sound exegetical principals.

    gotta go to work-will check back tonight….
    peace

  65. Dee,

    Please read my post again…I did not say the Bible was consistent…I said that whatever consistency it has is the result of intentional selection for that purpose. Their intent aside, the books of the Bible are actually quite inconsistent.

    Again, making a statement over and over does not make it any more true. There is plenty of evidence from virtually all the sciences, physics, genetics, biology, archaeology and more which make statements that flat out contradict what is written in the Bible.

    And you are incorrectly using the “argument from lack of evidence”.

  66. doubtful @3:37 pm 10/26

    The Bible can not be infallible if it has inaccurately described the creation of the earth….the Bible clearly teaches a six day creation. You can quibble about the meaning of the words in Genesis, but you’ll have a harder time with the Hebrew used in Leviticus and other places that describes the Earth as created in 6 days ( not time periods)…to say the Bible does not teach a six day Creation is smoke and mirrors.

    When I was a Christian I believed in a six day creation because it was what the bible taught, unambiguously. To say otherwise is to try and incorporate modern science to an ancient text that knows nothing of the sort.

    To say that one day we will truly understand this mystery is another way of saying that the Bible’s clear teaching does not match the evidence.

    Doubtful, the tack you have taken in the post is part of the reason you are no longer a Christian.

    What the Bible ‘teaches’ is not necessarily the direct subject of the text. For example, when Jesus tells us the parable of the sower, the Bible is NOT teaching us about farming. And any technical inaccuracies concerning farming that are found in the parable of the sower do not make the Bible ‘flawed’. The reflect the cultural context in which the actual lesson of the parable is communicated.

    In general, God, an infinite all know being MUST bring His message to us through some media which is itself flawed. To compound that, God communicates to us in scripture through the will of the writer – this is part of what distinguishes Him from some pagan spirit or deity. For example, there ARE grammatical errors in the Bible. There are cultural references that reflect the understanding of the day. But again, these do not mean the Bible’s message is itself flawed.

    All it means is that God uses imperfect media to deliver His message to us.

    Back to Genesis. The message of Genesis 1, what the Bible ‘teaches’ there in that passage is NOT a science lesson on the physical history and mechanism of creation. What it teaches there is that all the pagan deities (sea, earth, sky, sun, moon, stars) are created things, made by the one true God, not to be worshiped, not to be served. Further what it teaches is that Man, far from being the accidental mistake of the pagan creation concepts, is Gods purposed and treasured creation. THIS is what Genesis 1 teaches. And in what it teaches it is absolutely correct. It teaches it through the media of a culturally relevant creation myth, which very closely parallels the Egyptian creation myth, to provide polemic easy to remember and identify with for the Israelites who had just spent 400 years in Egyptian slavery. It is trivial to see the correlations in the text with the Egyptian creation epic and polytheistic system and ridiculous to insist they were not intentional. That is, that Moses what not intentional in debasing every significant deity in that system.

    To, in light of what we have discovered about the creation and the histories of both Israel and Egypt, continue to insist this chapter of Genesis is supposed to be some kind of viable science text – or to reject the teaching of the Bible on the grounds this text is not a viable science text, is to act in ignorance.

    And If that is why you rejected Christian faith, the I would ask you to reconsider, for you did so based on an invalid understanding of that text – not your fault, that understanding is a disease in Evangelical Christendom.

    Zeta

  67. doubtful Oct 27 12:22pm

    I specifically alluded to other areas in the Bible (such as Leviticus) that refers to the Earth being created in 6 days. I understand the “various” meanings argument from the Genesis. It just is relevant to other books that describe creation in 6 days…

    The issue you refer to in Leviticus is using God’s chosen paradigm for ‘work’ in the creation as an example to us of how our work should itself be physically structured. That use of the ‘6 days of creation’ is clearly a metaphor to begin with, as there can be no true ‘equivalence’ of our work week to God’s work. Whether God chose to structure the ACCOUNT of creation in 6 ‘days’ or whether the creation itself took place in 6 literal ‘days’ as we perceive them is irrelevant as regards this passage, because we are not LITERALLY imitating God, but rather simply using the example He set in describing creation. We CAN’T literally imitate God in terms of ‘working’. This is simply another example where God is accommodating Himself to our needs. By describing His act of creation in terms of 6 days of work followed by rest, he sets the example as a type. To assume that is necessarily literal, or to require it be literal for the example to be valid, is absurd.

    As an aside, if the time frames ‘must’ match, then please be reminded that God being who and what He is can view his creative act from any relativistic frame He so chooses, and there is a frame in which the history of creation spans 6 ‘literal’ days.

    Zeta

    You are correct, that if you said it was raining cats and dogs, I would assume you were speaking figuratively and not literally. But if I said to you that I was a human, would you assume I was speaking figuratively? Nowhere in scripture does it indicate creation in 6 days as a figurative term, to do so is to violate sound exegetical principals.

  68. Zeta,

    Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

    If I tell you a story, the point of which is to teach you about, let’s say, being generous. In that story I make mention of a dinosaur, a great T-Rex, that ran out of food one winter while it was in hibernation…yada yada yada

    Now we all would agree that the T-Rex doesn’t hibernate…but it made a more interesting story than a bear and the point wasn’t to be scientific…just to make a point about generosity.

    What’s important to note here, is that the information was still wrong, the fact that it had little to do with the moral of the story didn’t change that fact, it simply meant that we could ignore the fact that the storyteller knows little about the behavior of the T-rex…it didn’t matter.

    But when we talk about a supposed perfect being in whom can be not even a hint of less than perfection…from who nothing imperfect can proceed. Then the far greater issue, isn’t the story-line, it’s that in telling the story, a personality trait has been demonstrated…either God’s lack omniscience or something coming forth from his being which is not perfect.

    You try to separate the “message” from the medium, which is understandable. Yes the style of the writers was preserved, they didn’t use identical language to describe something…but the problem becomes answering the question, what is stylistic and what part is the message.

    Ultimately, you must come into the discussion already believing God is perfect and then dismiss out of hand, or explain away, anything which appears to contradict that notion, instead of the more logical approach of determining God’s characteristics FROM the text. You have the cart before the horse.

  69. doubtful – continued

    You are correct, that if you said it was raining cats and dogs, I would assume you were speaking figuratively and not literally. But if I said to you that I was a human, would you assume I was speaking figuratively? Nowhere in scripture does it indicate creation in 6 days as a figurative term, to do so is to violate sound exegetical principals.

    Does the Bible say explicitly that the ‘four corners of the Earth’ is a metaphor? Do we assume that every reference to nature is necessarily not a metaphor, or do we apply our knowledge of the culture in which the text was written to determine what was likely metaphor and what was not?

    In general, how do we determine unspecified metaphor from ‘real’ reference in any event? We compare it to what is known. When clearly out of line with reality we assign it to metaphor unless the context explicitly tells us otherwise.

    THIS text, based on what we know of the time, is both. It’s primary purpose was not an attempt at divining technical details of the creative act, but rather to paint the creative act in terms already familier and to TEACH that the pagan gods of Egypt are simply created things. Further, it is clear from the designation of the physical structure described, specifically the ‘firmament’ that but physical and temporal elements are simply drawn from the knowledge of the day, and this is fine because they are simply the backdrop in which the LESSON of the text is TAUGHT.

    Zeta

  70. Bounded Reality:

    No, you have the cart before the horse. You have assumed that you will arbitrarily apply your own standards of what the text MUST be without doing any research into what the text was supposed to be in the first place. You have taken your culture, your way of looking at the world, and misapplied it to this text and declared it flawed.

    You can’t judge the truth of ANY text by purposefully or ignorantly misreading it. While it suits your conclusions to continue to insist Genesis 1 is supposed to be telling us technical information about the structure and timing of creation, your insistence flies in the face of what is known about this text.

    If I use a commonly told story to illustrate a point, if I modify that story so as to make another point, I am not commenting on the truth or falsity of the story itself. It is simply a common frame of reference which I am using to make my point.

    All the evidence we have indicates that is what Genesis 1 is. And for you to insist that doesn’t matter is to obstinately cling to your own misunderstanding of the truth in the light of contrary evidence.

    Zeta

  71. Bounded Reality.

    Consider this. According to your standard of how God must reveal Himself, He could never use any man, woman, or child to reveal Himself, nor could he use any form of human language, because all such mechanisms of communication are themselves imperfect and destined to introduce in one form or another ERROR into the message.

    God has, OTOH, CHOSEN to work through the frail, the imperfect, the broken, the needy to reveal Himself through those imperfections and weaknesses. This is, in fact, part of His plan so as to humble the pride of the arrogant, to make foolish the wisdom of the wise. God has chosen to enter the world in a cave made for animals and to exit it falsely proclaimed a criminal crucified at the hands of those He came to save.

    You would have Him remain aloof from us forever, never sullying His perfect garments so as to come down to us and live among us.

    But He is not such a God that He can’t get His ‘hands dirty’ so as to offer us the possibility of knowing Him.

    Zeta

  72. Zeta,

    Sorry, but that’s not what I said or implied.

    You maintain that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent a perfect being within whom there is no fault….THEN you read the Bible and when a verse or action or incongruity arises, instead of saying maybe my idea of God is wrong and He isn’t those things, you go through a dizzying array of hoops, to make the end result be the same as what you went in with….please!

    How do you know that God is perfect, by all means tell me…then we’ll see who has the cart first.

  73. Bounded Reality,

    I can’t ‘know’ God is perfect. I can believe it, but I can’t ‘know’ it.

    I begin with Jesus Christ. Who is He? Is He God in the flesh? Did He rise from the dead? It starts there. IF He is God in the flesh, then I follow Him. In following Him, I then begin the process of knowing God.

    Zeta

  74. I would take you back to Genesis, where God is cited as saying that what He had created as “good”, not “perfect”. The use of humanity to share the message means that the message is not perfect, but it is good. I would not use the term “error” in this context, except in the statistical sense; rather the use of humans adds variability around the core message.

    The bible sets out four “eras” of the world.
    1. God created; man sinned; God judged. (e.g., pre-Fall).
    2. The fallen world, with all of the effects of sin (e.g., patriarchy, etc.). The world awaits redemption. Jesus comes, dies and is raised from the dead.
    3. Redemption is available, but not complete, because not all are redeemed. Sin is still a powerful force. We await the final judgment.
    4. Christ comes again and establishes the perfection of God’s kingdom on earth; the redeemed are fully perfected.

    All of human existence, save for the Garden, has been in the second and third eras, where no person (except Jesus) has ever been perfect.

    The bible, as inspired, was perfect. However, since it was given to us through human beings, and, particularly for the OT, copied many, many times, then destroyed, and recreated during the Babylonian exile, then copied many more times, then translated by human beings again, etc., what we have is perfect as to its message, but may be imperfect as to its details.

    To put a lot of stock on the particular word used in one OT book versus the word used in another, is to put a lot of stock in the infallibility of a very fallible process.

  75. Hi, Zeta / Orion’s Belt. (what’s the significance of these names?)

    I’m enjoying your comments.

    Re: Bibliodolatry —

    it just plain bugs me. In so much of this christian culture [which I’m unwittingly a member of (actually, i don’t call myself a christian, because of all the silly baggage that silly people have attached to it)],…. In so much of this christian culture, if i didn’t know better I would think it was all about “Paul”. Or at least that Paul was a member of the trinity, people are so myopic about his writings to the exclusion of even Jesus and HIS statements and actions.

    Sure, some things Paul wrote are just outrageously rich (like, in Ephesians 1, “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ…give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”)

    [I tried to pare that down for the sake of space & “succintness”, but just couldn’t.]

    If anything in the bible is infused with something beyond gray cells that scores bigger than just about anything. But in my view, these verses (and a few others in their league) are quite the exception. Paul wasn’t THAT great. Jesus was, though.

  76. Arce,

    The belief in God’s perfection has never been questioned from a theological perspective…ever. By definition a perfect being cannot produce that which is less than perfect, wordplay notwithstanding.

    You finished with To put a lot of stock on the particular word used in one OT book versus the word used in another, is to put a lot of stock in the infallibility of a very fallible process.

    I would simply add that this line of reasoning must then also apply to the message, or it’s just more circular reasoning. (it’s true because it says it’s true!)

    Zeta,

    Once again, in your own words I can’t ‘know’ God is perfect. I can believe it, but I can’t ‘know’ it.

    In other words you begin with belief in a premise then weed out whatever doesn’t appear to support that belief. How is that not putting the cart before the horse of logical reasoning?

  77. Arce,

    The belief in God’s perfection has never been questioned from a theological perspective…ever. By definition a perfect being cannot produce that which is less than perfect, wordplay notwithstanding.

    You finished with To put a lot of stock on the particular word used in one OT book versus the word used in another, is to put a lot of stock in the infallibility of a very fallible process.

    I would simply add that this line of reasoning must then also apply to the message, or it’s just more circular reasoning. (it’s true because it says it’s true!)

    Zeta,

    Once again, in your own words I can’t ‘know’ God is perfect. I can believe it, but I can’t ‘know’ it.

    In other words you begin with belief in a premise then weed out whatever doesn’t appear to support that belief. How is that not putting the cart before the horse of logical reasoning?

  78. Hello, Bounded Reality.

    I appreciate your very frank comments.

    Regarding comment at 2:00 —

    “But when we talk about a supposed perfect being in whom can be not even a hint of less than perfection…from who nothing imperfect can proceed. Then the far greater issue, isn’t the story-line, it’s that in telling the story, a personality trait has been demonstrated…either God’s lack omniscience or something coming forth from his being which is not perfect.”

    My immediate thought was that Jesus Christ on earth was God in human form, who allowed himself to take on severe limitations (quite the understatement).

    “in whom can be not even a hint of less than perfection”…

    Does this mean he never even got a hangnail? Never got a canker sore in his mouth? Never told a joke without everyone getting the punch line? Never cooked without it turning out perfect every time?

    To be human is to learn through mistakes. To be God in human form is also to learn through mistakes — it’s just that those mistakes didn’t include sins. I think of when Jesus was 12 or so, and was careless in not telling his parents where he was (at the temple, talking with people). You could also say he was being irresponsible and thoughtless, and his parents were rightly frustrated & upset with him. If I remember right, his parents did give him a deserved talkin’ to — perhaps there was a “consequence”, too (alright, Jesus, you’re on restriction for 1 week). But of course Jesus’ motivations weren’t wrong. He was just learning, & learning through mistakes, like all human beings.

    And in his early 30s, doing his thing, which included communicating important things through parables, he as a human being hadn’t arrived — meaning, he hadn’t arrived at all knowledge about all topics, how to understand all personality types to the nth degree, how to handle all social situations with ultimate and perfect grace… (I bet he wouldn’t have been able to tie a bow tie, or french braid my daughter’s hair — maybe after a few tries, but I doubt on the 1st try).

    I’m sure I’m raising the religious hackles on some (who probably don’t frequent TWW) — so let me add that I think Jesus was aware of and understood and knew A LOT about a lot of things, more than any other 30 year-old — but he was still a human being in his early 30s. And a human being in their 30s simply has not lived long enough to know, understand, and be aware of a whole host of things.

    So, I really don’t see a problem with Jesus communicating a very important message through inaccurate data.

  79. If God created me, then I know that the Perfect can produce the not perfect! Unless by perfect you mean that I have choice.

  80. Arce

    If Jesus tarries, I often wonder about the wonderful advances we will see in health care and computers.

  81. doubtful

    I was going to answer but Zeta is saying it well and I agree with what he is saying. I am happy to continue the discussion but there is no sense in restating what Zeta says so much better than I.

  82. BR
    I know how much you like Zeta so I am going to let him continue this conversation with you. I am looking in and will chime in from time to time.

  83. BR.

    We are talking about a couple of different things. Let me try to separate them out for clarity.

    On the one hand, I can see without resorting to faith that the text if Genesis 1 is as I have described so far – a polemic adapted from the Egyptian creation myth to point Israel away from the Egyptian conception of God. Thus faith is not really involved in making that assessment. This is objective evaluation.

    I can also note that a person in the 21st century misunderstanding the intent of the author and presuming that the text is an attempt to outline the scientific history and structure of the cosmos has completely missed the point of the text. That also is objective.

    When it comes to deciding IF this text can be considered consistent with the idea the Bible is God’s revelation to us, I must evaluate the text according to its intent. When a person who doubts the idea this text is consistent with the idea the Bible is God’s revelation bases that doubt on a misunderstanding of the intent of the text (as is the case when you or anyone else says this can’t be Gods revelation ’cause it gets the science wrong) I can also point out that you or that other person(s) are applying the wrong standard by which to make that assessment. That too is objective.

    But, as to whether after establishing the text is consistent with the idea the Bible is God’s revelation based on a culturally correct assessment of its purpose a person chooses to believe the Bible is God’s revelation, then we move into the faith, or subjective realm.

    The character of Genesis, especially Genesis 1-11, is such that one must be very careful evaluating the true spiritual authority of scripture on the basis of its contents. Neither would Song of Soloman form a very good basis for making that assessment.

    For me, one thing in that regard that I look to in establishing a reason to accept the supernatural revelation present in scripture is the rather large set of prophecies concerning Messiah that are known to have existed in the text prior to Chirst’s Advent. These writings are so specific that in the 19th century it was common to declare these texts ‘inserted’ by later Christian authors (sound familiar). This was, of course, prior to the discoveries of radiometric dating (c14 specifically) and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Zeta

  84. The many prophetic utterances even in Genesis – speaking of the seed crushing the serpants head – had a profound effect on me. When you take the whole body of scripture and look at the prophetic utterances that came to pass hundreds of years later, and consider how the scripture tells the one story over thousands of years even though it was written at different times by numerous authors – it can’t be a fabrication. The fulfillment of the prophetic within it confirms the book itself.

    On top of that, when I went to view the Dead Sea Scrolls, the recording at the end stated that archeolagists were amazed when they compared the scrolls to current versions of the same text and found how true to the
    original our current Bibles are.

  85. The Dead Sea Scrolls are NOT ORIGINALS!!!! They were created about the time of Jesus, by copying from earlier manuscripts. No one has the originals of the OT books. Best evidence says that the pre-return books were destroyed and were recreated during the Babylonian exile from the memory of those scribes. And that was 500 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced by copying copies of what was written in Babylon.

  86. It is also known that some scrolls had comments in the margins that were later incorporated into the text during copying.

  87. Bridget2 said

    On top of that, when I went to view the Dead Sea Scrolls, the recording at the end stated that archeolagists were amazed when they compared the scrolls to current versions of the same text and found how true to the
    original our current Bibles are.

    Well said. In our current atmosphere of Bart Ehrman’s and the Jesus Committee (or whatever the name is of the group of ‘scholars’ that have tried to make authoritative pronouncements concerning what parts of the gospels are ‘really’ Jesus’ words) we have a bunch of folks doubting nearly every word of scripture and making about every effort they can to convince others to do the same.

    Many of their doubts (Ehrman confirms this directly in his books) stem from the fundamentalist assumption that matches that voiced by Bounded Reality and others – that if this book is truly inspired by God there can be NO ‘error’ of any kind any where in the text. And of course, ‘error’ here gets taken to the extreme as well.

    And in all of that wailing and gnashing of teeth, the facts you mention, the prophecies and their fulfillment, the almost miraculous preservation of the content of the text over millenia, the ability of the text and the spirit of the church to convince generation after generation that the impossible actually happened based on nothing more than their lives and the testimony of scripture (and the work of the Holy Spirit 😉 ) gets lost.

    The phrase they can’t see the forest for the trees comes to mind. God has made it so that the Gospel is a stumbling block to the proud, the wise, the wealthy – all that represents the pride and arrogance of humanity. He requires we come to Him humble, broken, innocent, as a child. And he won’t make it any less easy for us in the 21st century who think we’ve mastered so many of the mysteries of the universe we no longer can believe ‘as a child’ in the grace and power of God.

    Zeta

  88. Bridget
    Well stated. i, too, found the Dead Sea Scrolls remarkable. Did you know that the archaeologists held them for quite awhile because they had trouble believing that the texts could be so consistent with the modern Bible? Once again, I state my case. I do not believe that anything will be discovered that will absolutely disprove the Bible. The fact that we haven’t has frustrated many secularists. But ,they keep trying, which is good because their devotion to the subject will result in more finds which I believe will be consistent with Scripture.

  89. Arce
    My understanding is that modern scholars have been working diligently to remove the “margin commentaries.” As that occurs, I believe that notes re made in the modern translations to clarify the issue.

    Although this does not pertain to the Dead Sea Scrolls, such a notation caused my crisis of faith many years ago. I found out the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in the original text. So, I became confused which caused me to go and question many of my assumptions. That time served to increase my faith in the Scriptures and understand, more deeply, the history of the faith.

  90. Arce
    We have virtually no originals of any religious texts. However, thousands of copies can be compared to one another to refine what was most likely in the original. I may be wrong but my understanding is that we have so many ancient copies of the Scriptures that we have a pretty darn good idea what was in the original.

  91. Bridget
    This is a good time to give a shout out to the monks who lived in the monasteries in the Middle Ages. This monks labored to copy, painstakingly, not only the Scriptures but the great works such as Aristotle and Socrates. The preserved these works when the barbarians were invading, burning down the libraries in the former Roman and Greek empires.

    They developed a method of copying that was so detailed that it would have driven me running and screaming for the exits. Few people know that these unknown monks gave so much to our understanding of both our faith and the history of the world.

  92. Arce,

    No-one is claiming the DS scrolls are originals. But “they were created about the time of Jesus” is misleading – they date to 100 years BEFORE Christ. And that is critical when we discuss the prophecies concerning Christ. It also places their content hundreds of years before any other Hebrew copy of the OT, and the closeness of the text to what we currently have gives us significant confidence that the bulk of what we have matches whatever was ‘the original’.

    Zeta

  93. I know this may not wash with some conservative evangelicals because of their stances on the subject of Holy Writ, but oh well as they say.

    Personally and from my own perspective, the Bible does not have to be true in its entirety for me to grab onto faith in Yeshua as Messiah. It resonates in my human guts as true. Why? Because I believe in addition to an oft-bandied-about inherited “sin nature”, I have also inherited a spark of divine to which the redemption story appeals.

  94. Dee – about those monks… a LOT of them copied manuscripts that were preserved by Arab scholars (primarily Muslim and Christian, though there were Jewish scholars in the ME, too) and brought to Western Europe by people involved in the Crusades. We got a TON of medical, philosophical, mathematical, scientific, historical etc. knowledge that way, along with what would become the prototypes for instruments like the lute… (Also came – to some degree – from Muslim-held Spain and Portugal.)

    About marginalia and commentaries that later became part of the text: there are differing views on this one… the book of Esther is a case in point. There are major additions to the text – you can find them in a Christian bible with the Apocrypha – that are accepted by some Jewish people as true, while they are not part of the Jewish Publication Society’s new English translation of the Tanakh (complete Hebrew scriptures).

    Definitely worth looking into!

  95. Numo

    I did not know about the Arab scholars and the Bible. I will definitely need to expand my reading. Thank you so much.

  96. Dee – well… Arab scholarship was amazing! One of the primary things that was preserved in cities like Baghdad was the body of Greek philosophical writings.

    The early caliphate was pretty stellar in terms of learning, creativity and scholarship. fwiw, I am coming from a very mainstream historical perspective here – one that has been (unfortunately) obscured since 9/11. There are some good – though sometimes ponderous – books on Arab culture and civilization that you might want to go hunting for… also on Constantinople and the Greek, Armenian and Arab (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) contributions to learning and the arts both during and after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople/Istanbul.

  97. Also, I think there might be a misunderstanding re. my 1st post about Arab scholars. Keep in mind that there were many, many Jews in the ME up until the time of the Crusades (because they were not persecuted like they were in the so-called “Christian” West) – in cities like Baghdad, Cairo and Alexandria. (Along with the Muslim and Christian scholars, businessmen, etc. who were Arab and/or Copts and… it’s pretty complicated!)

    You might be really interested in William Dalrymple’s book “From the Holy Mountain,” which is a very fun travelogue/history of places in the Middle East, with particular respect to ancient Christianity.

  98. Zeta-
    Agree – the work of the Holy Spirit to bring the words of the Bible alive is so important!

    Elastigirl –
    The entire Bible points us to Jesus. The reason we have the OT was to bring us to Him.

    Arce –
    Wasn’t implying the DSS were original texts. But I really didn’t expect to be impacted the way I was when I saw them either. Seems the archeologists were impacted as well.

    Numo & Dee –
    I love history. Studied about these things when I homeschooled. We studied the good, bad, and downright ugly of religion, including Christianity.

  99. My point was that the Pentateuch was destroyed and recreated in Babylon from the memory of the scribes ca. 500 BC, and we do not even have those editions. So to argue about a specific word used in those books is inane.

  100. The DSS derived from the Babylonian exilic work by copying over 400 years. It is erroneous to refer to as original anything from the OT, because those ‘originals’ do not exist.

  101. numo,

    Great stuff about Christian history! Ya know what’s really sad? The imams and mullahs of American fundagelical protestantism don’t want the noses of their flocks anywhere near or in those kinds of books or that kind of info. It would make it harder for them to maintain control and Bible flog them into submission.

  102. fwiw… I bought a book last evening about the efforts of Protestant missionaries from New England – in attempting to convert Maronite and Byzantine Catholics and Greek Orthodox folks in what is now Lebanon.

    There is even a martyred convert, horribly persecuted by people on all sides of the conflict.

    And yes… the missionaries went there to try and convert Christians to their brand of Protestantism. it was a notable FAIL in all respects.

    The book is titled God’s Artillery (written by one of Edward Said’s newphews, fwiw).

  103. notastepford

    You know, I hadn’t noticed it before. Perhaps Steve Gaines could sue for copyright infringement.

  104. Numo

    Thank you for all of these resources. I think you should be writing a blog with all the stuff you know and have read. It puts me to shame. Color me impressed!

  105. Muff
    I remember when I wanted to study Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion. I am of the opinion if Christians can’t stand up and give reasons for their faith, they should just shut up. Thankfully, my small group was interested and we did so. But you should have heard the potshots from Christians who thought we had gone over to the dark side.

    Another time, i was involved in a long term conversation with a highly place Mormon. So, he invited me to his church which i attended with interest one time. One Christian woman overheard me telling Deb, at a football game, that I would be going to the church on Sunday. She became concerned and said it could be “dangerous” to my faith. Deb, knowing me all too well, retorted “The only ones who need to be concerned are the Mormons when she shows up!”

    Both of these experiences caused me to evaluate my beliefs and actually helped cement my trust in the faith even more. And boy can I discuss Mormonism as well as Neo-atheism! I actually enjoy have my faith challenged and looking for answers. It has become a full time occupation.

  106. Arce
    Thank you for all the historical background on the manuscripts. As always, I have much to learn.

  107. Dee – aw shucks [blushes]. Thank you – but you know, I love history and seeing connections and…

    I would rather not have my own blog; it would draw fire, and I don’t want to deal with that. Got enough going on IRL without the additional hassle!

  108. Dee,

    I too have had experiences over time which have caused me to re-evaluate what the faith means to me on a gut personal level. I’ll say one thing for the Mormons, they have a social and practical cohesion not found in the myriad sects of fundagelical protestantism.

    When the San Andreas fault finally decides to give way out here in my neck of the woods, it’s most likely the Mormons who’ll provide the lion’s share of disaster relief for all. The fundagelical biggies? Nope, very unlikely. They’ll be too busy praying to get raptured outta’ here; or failing that, for the sitting president to attack Eyeran and at least help the Lord hurry up the rapture.

  109. Arce: My point was that the Pentateuch was destroyed and recreated in Babylon from the memory of the scribes ca. 500 BC, and we do not even have those editions. So to argue about a specific word used in those books is inane.

    Keep in mind that those charged with copying the texts – today – are capable of reproducing entire texts at will. When a new scroll is created, they meticulously go through it and by memory confirm the accuracy – to every yod – of the new copy.

    We in this day do not understand how accurate a human memory can be when it is exercised to its full capacity.

    Zeta

  110. Evidence
    Look at your NIV Bible and see how the woman caught in adultery is now dealt with . Prove I am in error.

  111. Evidence
    In fact, it is getting tedious. Move along folks, nothing to see here if you get my drift.

  112. Ummm….now I’m really confused. Early it was asserted that the Bible was God’s infallible word. Now we’re talking about how there are many mistakes in the copied texts…how does this work?

    Can I trust the Bible to be infallible (without error) or does it have errors?

  113. The truth of the Bible is much more than literal, and does not depend upon the sometimes asserted literality of the OT. What is true, without any doubt, is the message of the Bible. The message of Genesis is that God created and cared for His creation.

    The story of Abraham is the beginning of God’s intervention to bring about the salvation of the peoples of the earth. So to most of the OT stories have the message of God providing a foundation for the coming of the Redeemer.

    The NT is the message of God’s love in the coming of the Redeemer and his teaching of a loving way of life, followed by the impact on the lives and teachings of his early followers.

    The message is infallible, it does not fail.

  114. doubtful Ummm….now I’m really confused. Early it was asserted that the Bible was God’s infallible word. Now we’re talking about how there are many mistakes in the copied texts…how does this work?

    Can I trust the Bible to be infallible (without error) or does it have errors?

    This is one of those questions that does not have an easy answer.

    The text we have access to has minor errors in it. That much is can be said without compromise. There are issues of translation from the original languages to our language, and there are issues in defining what the ‘text’ itself actually is. MUCH research goes into and continues to go into accurately assessing what is the most accurate record of what was actually written. Newer translations do their best to keep up with this continuing research.

    But pretty much everyone with any kind of seminary training knows about this. When a person says the scriptures are inerrant or infallible, they almost always refer to the ‘mythical’ original text. Something that in most cases we can be about 99% confident would be about 99.9% the same as what we have.

    That being said there are other issues. The Bible is a series of books written over a period of more that 1000 years. They span different cultures and times. They span different genres, historical, poetic, prophetic, etc. So again, what someone means when they say the Bible is infallible/inerrant is they mean the original text properly understood and translated. Something that once again, is a concept that is for all practical purposes a mythological ideal.

    What people are trying to capture as they wrangle with this definition of ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’ is a conflation of the concepts of inspiration and God’s own omniscience and truth. We want to justify belief in the Bible with a sort of tangible test of its authenticity.

    But we run into problems fairly early in the game, as we can fairly easily show some texts if taken superficially are wrong in a technical sense. One of the first times this ‘hit the fan’ was when Galileo’s observations came in conflict with what the RCC viewed as the scriptural implication the Earth itself was the center of the cosmos. That it did not itself move.

    This brings forward the issues of phenomenal writing, where the text is correct as a description of an observation in terms of what is known at the time of writing, but not correct in a scientific, technical sense.

    What this (and more) boils down to for me, with all the caveats that are required to call the Bible ‘inerrant’, I find the term useless in conveying what I know to be true – that the Bible is a book of God’s revelation to us, that all scripture, as Paul said, is God breathed and profitable for teaching and reproof.

    So can you trust the Bible to be God’s revelation to us, infallible in the sense that it accurately tells us what God wants us to know about Him and how to relate to Him? Yes, you can. Can you technically prove that indeed is true in some tangible fashion? I don’t think so.

    Zeta

  115. Hi, Zeta / Orion’s Belt.

    I appreciate your comments.

    A question (among many): RE: “all scripture, as Paul said, is God breathed…”

    So, when Paul wrote this, I assume his definition of scripture was the collection of books they had at the time (Isaiah, Psalms,… perhaps they had at their disposal ALL the books that are in our OT — I’m afraid i don’t know).

    But, what seems clear to me is that Paul was not referring to the writings and letters composed by himself & his contemporaries.

    So, I can see the rationale for applying the “all scripture is God breathed and profitable…” to OT things — what would have been Paul’s scripture.

    So, how is it that christians extend this belief to things Paul was not referring to? How is it that christians consider every shred of NT to be every bit as God-breathed (to the point of being word-for-word authoritative & binding) without question? Seems to me like there’s no basis for it, beyond popular christian thought over the millenia.

    (I do understand that the NT contains vital information about Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But if you have time, I’d appreciate your thoughts to my question.)

  116. Elastigirl

    So, how is it that christians extend this belief to things Paul was not referring to? How is it that christians consider every shred of NT to be every bit as God-breathed (to the point of being word-for-word authoritative & binding) without question? Seems to me like there’s no basis for it, beyond popular christian thought over the millenia.

    (I do understand that the NT contains vital information about Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But if you have time, I’d appreciate your thoughts to my question.)

    Unfortunately I’m not as well versed as I should be on the reasons for accepting the NT canon as scripture. But some of them are somewhat straightforward. First of all recognizing clearly that any direct words of Jesus would be the words or God, in the flesh. So any record of those words and His actions that was accepted as authentic would be deemed inspired and would be scripture.

    Secondly, recognizing that the words of the Apostles carried with them great authority in the Church, remembering that Christ gave them great authority, their words having the power to heal, cast out demons, or even to pronounce judgement to physical death(Annanias and Saphira), their words accurately recorded, or any words they communicated authoritatively would be considered scripture in the time of the Church.

    Finally, the great Apostle Paul was such a man as could only be recognized as also having huge capacity to bring forth inspired teaching and even the very words of God, both in understanding the OT as one of the top Pharisees of his day, but also as one miraculously chosen by God to follow Him and proclaim His truth.

    All these, save the Apostle John, were also Martyrs. And in the early church the Martyrs are given the highest possible status as having been given special power and status from God.

    We also can see in Paul’s writings that he was aware of the fact, at least in some instances, that he was communicating the very words of God. As he at least once comments from his own opinion, not God’s, and says specifically that is what he is doing.

    So the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles clearly were or had the capacity to be the very words of God.

    Why are they special over and above any other writings? They were the eyewitnesses, they were the ones charged with the message, with communicating it, with recording it. Who else would write Christian scripture if not them? It was a powerful time. And they had unique annointing and position for the purpose of producing scripture.

    In the end the writings reputed to be of the Apostles (which by the time included Paul) were debated and voted on, and what we call the NT was brought together and became the NT scriptures.

    These are then as best anyone can know the words and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. If they are not the scripture for the Church, then what else could be?

    I believe that in the end God honors these faithful men by placing His stamp of authority on these words. They become His words because He honors them and inspires them to bring us to Him. And I believe this is both in how He inspired them to write, as well as after the fact in how He brings the words to us to revive us in Him.

    Zeta

  117. Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, because I’m not at all well-versed in the whole “canon” thing, but … there are writings (even gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas) that were rejected by the early church fathers who worked to solidify the canon of Scripture as it’s commonly accepted these days.

    This is one of those pesky “Rome wasn’t built in a day” church history deals (much like the disputes and controversies over the nature of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity were back then as well).

  118. Numo
    Although there are indepth works written on why we have the canon, here are a few fact I learned from teaching church history.

    The NT canon, as we have it today, was all pretty much accepted by the end of the first century. The church leaders in those days routinely referred to the letters that are currently in our Scripture. That startled me because I thought much of the decision took place later. Well, the decision did, but it was merely codifying what was already being used.

    The church rejected gnosticism as a heresy in the first century which helped with rejecting a fair number of letters.

    Finally, the history of persecution of the Christian figured into the decision. Imagine this. You are a church father who is at high risk for an appointment with the lions. Like any one, you want to stand for the faith but you are not willing to stand for trivial matters. So, the books were also evaluated from the martyr’s standpoint. “Am I willing to go to my death for this?” For some of those letters, the answer was a resounding “Heck, no!”

  119. Dee-

    If you are going to use the 1st century lists for the canon, then you’ll have to rip out 2nd Peter, James, Revelation, and the pastoral letters of Paul from your Bible.

    Zeta-

    How do you derive an infallible message from a flawed source? I’m still not tracking on how you can say the Bible provides us with an infallible message while acknowledging that the text has been corrupted, edited, and has errors in it’s transmission and translation?????

  120. Doubtful,

    The truth of the Bible is much more than literal, and does not depend upon the sometimes asserted literality of the OT. What is true, without any doubt, is the message of the Bible. The message of Genesis is that God created and cared for His creation.

    The story of Abraham is the beginning of God’s intervention to bring about the salvation of the peoples of the earth. So to most of the OT stories have the message of God providing a foundation for the coming of the Redeemer.

    The NT is the message of God’s love in the coming of the Redeemer and his teaching of a loving way of life, followed by the impact on the lives and teachings of his early followers.

    The message is infallible, it does not fail.

  121. Dee & Zeta,

    Another fair question to ask is, what do we mean by Paul’s words (or Peter’s, or James’s) as being authoritative?

    Is the New Testament beyond the synoptic gospels authoritative in the same way that Torah was for the Jews under the old covenant? In other words is Paul our new Moses, such that his every last alpha, beta, delta & phi must be carried out to the letter?

    Just the other day on Christian radio there was a well known reformed apologist and a well educated Biblical scholar argung the finer points of infant baptism. Both had formidable arsenals of classical (Hellenist) arguments & counter arguments. But not once was there a hint of freedom of conscience on this issue from either of them!

    I know that TWW & many of the folks listed on the blog roll are gifted and talented people who hold to OEC and a form of God directed evolution. Are you guys (TWW anyway) willing to put the NT epistles under the same rigorous scrutiny as you do the Genesis accounts?

  122. The NT canon has been in dispute – from a number of sources – off and on over the centuries. (Luther didn’t like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation… I have to say I’m kinda with him on Jude and Revelation myself. ;))

  123. Not all Christians treat the words of the epistle writers as “authoritative”. Romans is a theological treatise that has some characteristics of a good legal treatise (Paul was a lawyer of sorts, and the only theologically trained of the apostles). It was addressed to the church(es) in Rome. But even Romans shows some of the biases of the day, including patriarchy, home based businesses with slaves as employees, etc. In Rome, the older man, teenage boy sexual relationship was common, and it was at least somewhat abusive. Divorce was rampant, with many marriages lasting a weekend, since sex out of marriage was illegal. Paul’s writing in Romans reflects his feelings about all of these issues.

    I think of Paul as the original church conflict consultant. Most of his letters appear to have been written in response to a query from a congregation (or a rumor about a congregation) that was having some problems. So he was addressing a particular people in a particular culture about particular problems. We do not have the correspondence from the church to Paul. Further, we know that the Corinthian letters we have are put together from fragments of likely four letters from Paul to that church.

    Another issue is that these letters were dictated, and the text shows characteristics of dictated letters, with run-on sentences, apparent change of thought during the sentence, etc. That some are as brilliant as communication as they are is a phenomenon.

    Personally, I treat the teachings of Jesus as authoritative, along with the descriptions of the events during his life and ministry, with understanding that these were written decades after the fact. Where an epistle is difficult to reconcile with Jesus’ teaching, the epistle must be subservient to the teachings of Jesus, and interpreted in that light.

    Absent any conflict, the letters are the words of the apostles providing guidance to the Christians of the day, and are, as one such letter proclaims, “profitable” for us to consider in our affairs as Christians and as churches.

  124. Numo, Muff, et al
    I will get around to answering you. It might be in the AM. Busy day and had to write a post. Blessings all.

  125. Personally, I treat the teachings of Jesus as authoritative, along with the descriptions of the events during his life and ministry, with understanding that these were written decades after the fact. Where an epistle is difficult to reconcile with Jesus’ teaching, the epistle must be subservient to the teachings of Jesus, and interpreted in that light.

    Same here – and well-stated! Like your entire post.

  126. Hi, Arce.

    I really appreciate your comments.

    I have an education ahead of me. Do you recall names of sources / books you’ve read on the subject of the NT canon, NT history, etc.? (basically, what has informed your comment at 8:31 above).

    Or, perhaps it’s years of gleaning information from too many sources to track down.

  127. Doubtful, You asked Zeta–
    “How do you derive an infallible message from a flawed source? I’m still not tracking on how you can say the Bible provides us with an infallible message while acknowledging that the text has been corrupted, edited, and has errors in it’s transmission and translation?????”

    If I may… Listen to a psalm be read such as Psalm 23 or Psalm 42. They are attributed to a man (David in this case). David committed SIN bigtime. Unforgiveable most would say. The writer is fallible, the words inspired. Try a more contemporary example of the Psalm or hymn set to music. If your were a believer at one time, perhaps you can think of an amazing song that coveys a spiritual truth. So think back and pick one that was terrific at the time.
    A couple of examples could be “Jesu, joy of Man’s desiring” or how about “Amazing Grace” or “Oh Holy Night.” something from the Messiah maybe straight from scripture. Even non Christians appreciate a work such as these. Ponder something inspirational that carries an enduring truth that Christians believe about the love of God toward man. The people doing the writing are VERY fallible, yet produce something that endures for generations, and to the company of Christians produce a message, hope, and inspiration.
    I had a cousin who had Down’s syndrome. She shared with me one time a spiritual experience where as she described it “God came inside me” She shared it with joy and confidence and sparkle in her eyes. She was dear to all of our family and was truly a loving individual. Through imperfection we experienced a transforming love by knowing her. You see the love inside of her was perfect, but she could not speak or walk or talk perfectly. It was the message of love and the relationship that were “perfect”
    A fallible man can produce an enduring work of art that is inspired.
    A disabled individual can love and receive love in a most wonderful way bringing the wisest, most successful of us to humility.
    A child can truly lead us.
    Sometimes the most perfect is delivered in the most humble of ways.

  128. Elastigirl:

    I have spent a lifetime in moderate Baptist churches, mostly old SBC (pre-takeover). I read extensively and listened to many lectures and sermons by scholars with legitimate, earned Ph.D.s in scripture and theology. Then my equally bright and well-read spouse went to a moderate Baptist seminary and I read many of her text books. I have studied two multiple-shelf commentary series on the books of the Bible that go into depth on the history of the text or each book and the controversies about how it came to be as it is in our bibles today.

    I have also read several histories of the Christian church and of the canon itself.

    The resources are available if you can find a library that is not committed to indoctrination but to open discourse. Standard academic publishers and independent religious publishers (Smyth & Helwys, for example) are good sources. Avoid Lifeway and other indoctrination-oriented publishing sources.

  129. doubtful: How do you derive an infallible message from a flawed source? I’m still not tracking on how you can say the Bible provides us with an infallible message while acknowledging that the text has been corrupted, edited, and has errors in it’s transmission and translation?????

    I think asachild produced an amazing insight into this issue that is hard to add much too. Have you ever seen a master musician playing on an old, worn instrument? You may sit there and wonder how such gorgeous sounds can come out of such a beat up old thing, yet if you talk to him, you’ll find there is much more to an instrument that what it looks like on the surface. He may tell you that instrument has been with him through think an thin. That it plays like a dream, even though its outside is a bit worn. That he’s tried to replace it with something a bit showier, but that when he plays the new instruments, they just don’t have the heart, the core that lets him play his best. The imperfections we see on the outside are fluff, absolutely inconsequential to what matters – the sound that comes out unhindered by that crusty exterior. It’s even possible that some of these ‘blemishes’ are what give this player and his instrument that special and unique sound that makes us simply love what he plays! That the very things a cold hearted critic would rail on are the very things that draw millions to his playing, rather than just a few hundred.

    What we must realize is that all these ‘errors’ that so many harp on in the Bible are essentially superficial. When you look at the core of message they change nothing. What they do is fly in the face our our pride and our intellect.

    “How can the Bible be God’s perfect message if there were translation errors?”. Because God is the master musician and can play around those errors and make it so they just don’t matter.

    “How can we know this is the revealed word of God if there have been additions or copy errors?” Well, in many ways you can’t. Jesus commented to Thomas, “you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who do not see but believe anyway”. We don’t live in the age of being able to ‘see’ the holes in Jesus hands and feet. We have to accept the message on faith. But God has not left us alone. The Holy Spirit is here to speak to us in our hearts and give us faith so we can believe. If you can listen to Him, then you can believe even if you mind is struggling.

    But there are things that can help our mind. There are a rather large set of prophecies in the OT that tell about the coming of the suffering Messiah. The ones in Isaiah are so specific as to have prompted many in the 19th century to declare they must have been added later. Prophecies like Isaiah 53:

    1 Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
    2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
    and like a root out of dry ground.
    He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
    3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
    Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

    4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
    yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
    5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
    the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
    6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
    and the LORD has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.

    7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
    yet he did not open his mouth;
    he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
    and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    so he did not open his mouth.
    8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
    Yet who of his generation protested?
    For he was cut off from the land of the living;
    for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
    9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
    and with the rich in his death,
    though he had done no violence,
    nor was any deceit in his mouth.

    10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
    and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
    and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
    11 After he has suffered,
    he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
    by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
    and he will bear their iniquities.
    12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
    and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
    because he poured out his life unto death,
    and was numbered with the transgressors.
    For he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.

    The New Testament tells us about the life of this suffering Messiah. And it gives us the teaching of Christ first disciples. They are holy and infallible not because every grammatical phrase is perfect, or even because every detail of the story is perfectly in place, or even because they have been perfectly preserved through the ages, but because the ‘song’ they play is perfect, reaching into our hearts and ripping from us the desire to seek after our own way, and placing in us the desire to know God, to walk with Him, and to worship at the feet of the risen Christ.

    Zeta

  130. Arce
    According to my pastor, we cannot fully understand the rest of the Bible unless we view it through the eyes of the Epistles. If you note, the sharp focus of these writings ison the work of the Cross. This then helps the readers to see that this Event was the pivot point of the entire history of the faithful, starting from Genesis.

    If you note, the Epistles, rarely, discuss any of the miracles of Jesus. Why? I would say that Jesus Himself utilized the miracles as proof that He was the Savior, able to forgive sins. (Remember the lame-your sins are forgiven prior to the healing?). The Epistles then go onto discuss this deeper, more important truth.This was the Christ, the One Who forgave, once and for all, our sins. Some would be temporarily healed but they would die, even after they were healed from the lameness, etc. Lazarus, raised from the dead, would one again die. But that death was not the end. In Christ, a glorious eternity was promised.

    Paul and Peter brought the faith from one centered in the Jewish population to include the rest of the world. If you note, Jesus’ ministry focused on the Jews. In fact, Jesus extended the Law (now not only adultery gets you but thinking about it as well). In fact, Jesus functioned under the Law. He lived out this Law in its fullness and only He was able to be the unblemished Sacrifice. Then, praise God, he freed us from the Law because none of us is capable of living that perfect life.

    Paul also functioned under the political laws of the day. The Romans were in charge and Paul was not going to be able to change the political situation that condoned slavery. Paul, instead, made radical statements like “In Christ there is no slave or free man. The Romans were not at al pleased with this and the Christians elevation of the slaves was another sticking point that would lead to the persecutions. He elevated Onesimus, a slave, within the church. He also comforted those slaves stuck in the system, telling them that this was not the end. There was coming a time when they would really be free. And, in that day, the solution would be permanent.

    Without the Epistles, in my opinion, we do not clearly see, to use a trendy word, the “trajectory” of the Scripture in a clear fashion.

  131. Zeta
    Beautiful. You and asachild both gave me goosebumps. Perhaps those goosebumps is a sign of the faith given to those who see with their heart.

  132. Dee,
    I do not disagree. But at times, the epistles we have today seem in some portions thereof to cause dissent and disagreement, and in those places we have to question whether they reflect the spirit of Jesus or the accommodation of the early church to the society in which those disciples lived and worked. The epistle writers make grand statements of principle, including our freedom through faith in Christ, then seem to backtrack into rules and regulations about hair, hats/scarfs, women keeping silent, etc., that, to me, appear to contradict the actions and teachings of Jesus. It is those rules and regulations which, to me, appear authoritative for the time and place and not for us, in large part because they do not reflect the teachings and practices of Jesus. As an example, among his followers on his journeys there were women, some of whom were the major source of funding for his ministry, and he never seemed to treat women as second class persons.

  133. Arce

    Agreed. And these are secondary issues that tend to cause terrible conflict. It still fascinates me how supposed Biblical scholars can go back and forth in these issues, making them primary to the faith. Perhaps the intent behind the rules should be the focus. For example, on the subject on certain rules of dress-one should probably not wear a bathing suit to church unless services are being held on a beach.

  134. Yes, and cutoffs behind the pulpit, other than as part of a skit, seem rather inappropriate, but I have seen scripture read by an adult in frayed cutoff jeans and Tshirt.

  135. sorry

    thanks, Arce, for your response.

    Concerning those “two multiple-shelf commentary series on the books of the Bible that go into depth…”

    –do you recall the title or names of contributors, etc.? I’m just trying to shorten the shortest the distance between the me-now-point and the me-informed-point.

  136. Thanks to all for the replies on what is meant by authoritative.

    I think Arce’s comment (on Tue, Nov 01 2011 at 10:12 am) best answers what I was driving at in terms of Paul as our new Moses in church polity & rigidly defined gender roles, or the Pauline texts as a great commentary on the ethics of the faith.

    The extremes can range from Bart Ehrman on one end of the beam to say Chuck Missler on the other. To me it’s prudent to find a fulcrum point.

  137. hmmmm, bathing suits…. if church were on the beach on a day that wasn’t raining or chilly, then sure.

    if I don’t have to put on airs for God, I don’t see why I or anyone should have to put on dress codes for him either.

    (the dress codes aren’t for him, anyway)

  138. I really could go for a “beach church” right about now (especially since it’s getting cold here…). I would probably wear cutoffs!

  139. I appreciate your responses, but I guess I’m now wondering how you know which parts of the Bible message are infallible and which parts are “superficial” and how you would know the difference?

    Dee-

    Did you see my comment about the 1st century canonical lists? agree/disagree?

  140. The multi-volume commentaries, one for each book except for the shorter books, or the books that are I & II, that I have read:

    The old Broadman commentaries, published by the SBC long before the take-over, now considered too moderate. You might find it in a few libraries.

    Smyth & Helwys commentaries, still being published, costs $50 or so per volume. When my wife committed to seminary, I purchased a subscription and we get a new volume every quarter or so.

    I have read a number of others in various church libraries over the years, as well as in university libraries.

    We used to subscribe to Christianity Today, now to the Christian Century. Also to the Christians for Biblical Equality publications, one of which is very academically oriented and has great articles that explicate the misinterpretation of the passages in the epistles that seem to limit the role of women in the church and in the home.

    We have about 40 shelf feet of Bible-related books in our home, and they have begun accumulating faster than I can keep up.

  141. doubtful:

    I appreciate your responses, but I guess I’m now wondering how you know which parts of the Bible message are infallible and which parts are “superficial” and how you would know the difference?

    You’d need to be specific as regards a text for me to give specific answers. But I can give some general concepts that I use as I approach the scriptures.

    When I talk of superficial elements, I’m talking about several kinds of things. One would be issues of preservation over time of the content of the original. A word lost here/inserted there. Slight differences in word choice. Those kinds of things are resolved by research and discovery. For the most part, the incredibly large number of available manuscripts and the kinds of tools we have make it possible to nail down to a fairly high degree of accuracy what the texts actually were. There are sections here and there that are still disputed, but we can be fairly confident for the most we know what was written.

    Translation issues go round and round. If one doesn’t know Hebrew and Greek, the next best things is a lexicon and several different translations. But for the most part those tools exist and are inexpensively accessed by anyone interested in a deeper understanding of scripture.

    Other things can be cultural implications, idioms. Sometimes it helps to have commentaries or a good Bible dictionary to help us sift through those issues as well.

    But to start, personally I would say dealing with the hypothetical originals, it is all authoritative, but it is not all easily discerned. It does not sit well with me to try to carve it up or in some kind of intellectual arrogance say X was inspired by Y was not.

    Some issues may indeed have been dealt with according to cultural norms that may need to be understood to properly apply the teaching of the text to our society. But the text is still inspired and profitable for teaching and reproof. For example, Paul speaks of eating meat offered to idols. We don’t worry much about that today, but the principles he puts forward as to how to deal with varying issues of conscience that were specifically addressed in the issue of eating meat offered to idols do apply to us today. The teaching is authoritative, but not necessarily literally applicable to our society today. Only by generalizing the concepts does it teach us something valuable to us today.

    Unlike some others, I don’t carve the scripture up into what is inspired and what is not. It is all inspired. But to apply it may take wisdom and guidance. In the Jewish culture, which has extremely high regard for Torah, respect and adoration for the text that puts many fundamentalists to shame, it is the responsibility of each generation to interpret and apply Torah to that generation, that culture. It is God given, but it is not wooden.

    So I would not say you carve the Bible OT and NT into sections that are God given and not God given, superficial and authoritative. It is ALL God given, ALL inspired, all God’s word. But we must seek God to understand it, to apply it in an appropriate fashion to the world in which we live. And many times that means understanding the text in a new light, a light which includes reflections from the times and culture in which we live. God inspired the text in such a way that such an application exists without corrupting it. Without diminishing its holiness. Without compromising its morality. Without ignoring what God is saying through the text.

    Zeta

  142. Zeta,

    Amen. It is all profitable for us to learn. But the application is so very important, and we cannot do that literally in today’s society. Many of the old dietary laws and others similar to them (e.g., not mixing different fabrics or threads) were useful in the time of the ancient Israelites, and perhaps necessary. Some were extended by the authorities of various eras, such as the order not to cook an animal in its mothers milk, which became having two sets of utensils, one for meat dishes and one for dairy dishes, and no cheese on a burger!

    We must approach the text with humility, seeking to understand why it was written, what the cultural and religious context was at the time, and how it would have been applied then. Then we can find, with prayer, an understanding of the meaning and implication for our lives today.

  143. doubtful
    I am so sorry. I am not trying to avoid you. I have had so much on my plate that I am forgetting to answer some questions. Give me an hour. I want to check a source that i have before I answer.

  144. doubtful

    I am sorry that I forgot to answer you. I promise that I am not trying to avoid your question. My friend and I have been overwhelmed by the numbers of people who visit our blog. The reason for that is simple. We want to run this blog on a more personal note, unlike some other blogs who exist for merely sharing their spin on information. We are grateful for everyone that takes time out of their busy day to visit here and do not take that for granted. Besides the comments, we get a fair amount of emails in which people share their experiences in the church. And, to be frank. we actually give a hoot, often thinking about and praying for everyone at night. The “guy behind the curtain” warns us we can’t keep this up but we are trying. I actually like a good challenge and such questions cause me to grow.

    You said “If you are going to use the 1st century lists for the canon, then you’ll have to rip out 2nd Peter, James, Revelation, and the pastoral letters of Paul from your Bible.”
    Let me add to your list: 2 and 3 John and Hebrews. Except for those, the canon was essentially complete by 175 AD. There was a push to settle the canon due to the Marcion challenge-he was setting up his version of the canon.

    The major test for a book to be added to the canon was whether it had the marks of apostleship-either written by one or written by a close associate (Mark-close to Peter). The Epistles of Paul were first collected by the church at Ephesus within the first century. At the beginning of the second century, the four Gospels were also part of this collection. The Muratorian Canon, discovered in the Ambrosian Library, dated around 180 contained 22 books.

    Revelation is a most interesting debate. I challenged Valerie Tarico-a well-known agnostic author (whom I follow) and former Christian (Wheaton graduate) on her assumption that Revelation could not have been written by John and was written sometime in the time frame of 90 AD. The most earth shattering event, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, in the life of the early Christians was the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Revelation talks about destruction and upheaval. It would be incredibly surprising that the Temple destruction would not be included in this document. She referred my point onto her Biblical expert (and no fan of evangelicals.) To her everlasting credit, she forwarded his response back to me. He said that this was the strongest point in favor of the earlier authorship of Revelation.

    Now came the debate over the books both you and I mentioned. They were held in question due to the concern over authorship. In 367, Athanasius, in his Easter letter, listed all 27 of the current books.

    Even Origen, in 254, commented that we do not know the original (humor intended) author of Hebrews for sure. However, there is some thought that, for both Hebrews and Jude, there was personal testimony of the apostles of the divine authority present in the books. For the rest, and this one should get our readers going, the “self-attesting” nature of the book would give witness to their divine authority.

    Where does this leave you and me? I would recommend FF Bruce’s book on how we got our canon. He deals, in painstaking depth, the deeper history behind those books that were in dispute.

    However, let me challenge you with this. If 2 Peter and a couple of others were not in the original canon (and I believe they were -inserted for heresy watchers) what difference would it make to the story of Scripture? Jesus still died and rose and Paul’s Epistles are still in play. We still rejoice in the Cross and Resurrection of our Lord and the promise of the life to come. Infallibility means the ability of the text to lead us to understanding of our problem and God’s ultimate solution.

    I am sure this will raise many more questions than it answered. But, it was my first stab and now I need a cup of coffee.

  145. Hi, Dee & Deb —

    I so appreciate your big hearts and integrity concerning your blog. It is the highlight of my day, actually. And that you pray for your “community” — I’m really blown away.

    Talk about pastors…. forget the building, the org chart, the title, and the noble head shot — you’re doin it.

    Thank you for taking the time to explain all that you’ve gleaned on this topic. It’s rich information. It does prompt new questions, as you said.

  146. Thank you, Arce, for your information on those books. Not for the faint-hearted, sounds like.

  147. Elastigirl of “the red spandex cult”

    Thank you for your kind comment. We are blessed to have a rich diversity of nice people (like you) on this blog.

  148. The “guy behind the curtain” warns us we can’t keep this up but we are trying.

    You might find that you’ll need to modify your current approach somehow, though… I am with GBTC on this one. (Not that it’s any of my business, really! ;))

  149. “…Even Origen, in 254, commented that we do not know the original (humor intended) author of Hebrews for sure…”

    For those interested, Ruth Hoppin’s “Priscilla’s Letter” is a compelling and plausible case that it may have indeed been Priscilla, the wife of Aquila who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.

    It has been denigrated and ridiculed by more than one Biblical patriarchalist and has raised the hackles of a few fundamentalists too. I can’t help but be reminded of the Vatican prelates who refused to look at Jupiter through Galileo’s telescope but more more than happy to railroad him into a heresy trial.

  150. Dee, Muff

    There is significant textual research on Hebrews that suggests a female writer. The references to Prisca or Priscilla and Aquila, in that order, suggests that she was the stronger teacher of the two. So the line is not hard to draw. If you do a google on Priscilla and Hebrews, you may find something of interest. Try Priscilla, Hebrews, Author.