See below to see the latest installment of my friend Nicholas’ interview with me about Christianity or click here for the whole thing.
Nicholas wrote: Historically, the Bible has been used to justify some pretty atrocious actions. I assume you believe there is one correct interpretation of the Bible and that any interpretation which allowed these actions was incorrect. Do you believe that you are in possession of that one correct interpretation?
With respect to atrocities that were rationalized by using the Bible - and I’m pretty sure we agree on what those actions were and that they were indeed atrocious – I think it is possible to interpret the Bible clearly, just as it is possible to interpret it clearly on the essentials of the faith.
Does the fact that people misinterpret or even abuse scripture mean the scripture itself isn’t reliable? Of course not. Otherwise anyone could disprove anything they wanted to by twisting the meanings (You didn’t pose that question; I just assumed someone might be wondering about that possibility). In fairness, we should apply this principle to other faiths as well.
In What about the Crusades?! And the Inquisition?! Etc.?! I pointed out that one shouldn’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets. But as you allude to, how can we be sure what the real tenets are?
I am probably more agitated at those who misinterpret the Bible for their own ends than you are, because it distracts people from the basic Gospel message and harms our ministries. False teachers really bother me. The Apostle Paul didn’t mind if people preached the Gospel with wrong motives as long as they got the message right. He minded a lot if they got the message wrong, even if their motives were sincere. The importance of sound, accurate teachings is a key element of Christianity.
In general, I hold to this saying regarding church doctrines: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. This means that if someone doesn’t hold to the essentials of the faith (Jesus is God, He is the one way to salvation, the Bible is authoritative and reliable, etc.) then he doesn’t meet the orthodox definition of a Christian. But there are plenty of things we can charitably disagree on.
Having said that, there have been atrocious things done that were justified by misinterpreting the Bible. These are exceptions to the saying above. They may not have been in the “essentials” category in the sense of what defines a Christian, but that doesn’t mean the issues weren’t important or worth fighting over.
As these examples will show, the solution is more and better Bible reading and study, not less. The answers are there, but we have to be Biblically literate enough to point out false doctrines when they crop up. People may come to these wrong beliefs by accident, lack of effort or because it furthers their agenda or fits their preconceived worldview. Jeremiah 17:9 says The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
There are rules to use when interpreting the Bible, just as there are when reading any work of literature. When in doubt, follow some basic Bible Study Tips: Reading passages in context is perhaps the most critical rule (see Never read a Bible verse). You can also view multiple translations, go back to the original language, let the clear explain the unclear, read it in light of other scripture, etc. This will solve most problems.
This applies to the classic example of U.S.-style slavery. I add the qualifier “U.S.-style” because it is quite different than the slavery acknowledged in the Bible. Did people try to twist the Bible to justify their actions? Yes. But a thorough reading of the Bible, in context, crushes those arguments. These people were obviously stolen from their homeland, and to say the slave owners didn’t love their neighbors (the slaves) as themselves is a massive understatement. Click here for a terrific overview of slavery and the Bible.
Now let’s consider a more current example: Abortion. Some Christians try to twist scripture to say that the Bible is supportive of abortion. Their main point is often that “Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion.” That is called an argument from silence, because there are many things that Jesus didn’t specifically mention (rape, pedophilia, drunk driving, etc.) that are clearly moral wrongs. More importantly, He did say, “Do not murder.”
The main passage pro-choice Christians use to support their position is Exodus 21. Click the link for a good overview of the controversy. If people are after the larger meaning that hitting a pregnant woman is different than hitting a non-pregnant woman, then virtually any translation of that passage will suffice. However, if someone wants to determine if there are implications to the abortion debate based on that passage then they will get mixed messages from different translations. Some make it clear that the unborn is a distinct human being, while others make it appear that there is a lesser value.
So what is the solution? Simple: Just go back to the original Hebrew. As the link shows, that clears things right up.
Another example is the Inquisition. I’m not sure what verses, if any, they used to justify their actions, but they couldn’t have been more opposed to Biblical teachings if they tried. Forcing someone to believe is simply not a Biblical motif. Consider the story of the rich ruler. The man didn’t like Jesus’ terms, so Jesus let him walk away sad. Jesus did not run after him and tackle him or force him to believe, even though Jesus loved him.
You can also watch some of the false teachers on TV and see how they twist scripture to make it look like God just wants you to be rich and healthy. They are God’s middlemen, of course, and to get things started you need to send them money. I keep trying to find that in the Bible, but I can’t.
Twisting God’s Word is not a new development. Satan did that in Genesis 3 (”Did God really say . . .”) and Matthew 4, for example. Again, the answer is more scripture, or more accurate scripture readings, which is how Jesus responded.
Let me know if you want to dive more deeply into any of these or if you have other examples you would like addressed. I think the overall principles will apply to just about any controversy you can find.
Filed under: Apologetics
I would like to see us stop acting like the crusades were a horrible atrocity committed against Muslim. Have we forgotten what as going on? Muslims were taking over land and gaining ground toward conquering Europe. The west fought back (like it refuses to do now) and gained back territory lost to Muslims.
I am glad they did it.
Does this excuse some of their excesses (killing Jews, Christians, and other innocents)? No. But the crusades themselves were a valiant act by men who fought for relative freedom (compared to the Sultans tyranny European monarchy seemed tame and lax).
One thing that has always got under my skin is the nerve of ministers calling outreaches “Crusades”. I mean do they not understand the connotation of that word to Muslims?
Everybody wants to claim the Crusades. I don’t see why. It’s pretty clear from the history of towns that were taken and lost and taken and lost that the inhabitants didn’t think that the rapes and beheadings of the “Christians” were any better than the rapes and beheaddings of the “Muslims”.
I don’t see how murdering a Muslim baker for the bread in his shop is any less a crime than murdering a Christian baker for the bread in his shop.
The crusades were just all around ugly, and God don’t like ugly.
Excellent work, Neil. I agree wholeheartedly that the abusers of the Bible give the rest of us a bad name.
The best way to know what the Bible is truly saying is to go back and look at the original texts (hebrew for Old Testament, Greek for New) and see what they say. No translation is perfect or inspired, and be extremely wary about using a translation that does not use the original texts, but uses less reliable texts or modifies a pre-existing translation.
thelonedrifter,
I am curious about this, because the Noah story shows up in much earlier writings of other cultures. Is the Hebrew version more reliable, or the older written versions?
How do we select these? Is there an accepted process?
The Crusades, like all wars, had atrocities. But it is not fair to condemn all the participants for the actions of part of them. Honorable men fought in the Crusades for honorable reasons and dishonorable men were involved as well.
I think Christians at the time felt, probably rightly, that they had to stop the invaders or be driven into the sea.
In fairness though, there were probably as many bad men among the Muslims as the Christians. It is likely that people on both sides who were neither Christians or Muslims took advantage of the situation.
I hope this makes a little sense, we are planting corn and I am pretty sleepy.
Sunday School Teacher,
I think it makes perfect sense. I don’t think anything in human history happens without reason, or without both good and bad people participating on both sides. But to claim that something is Rightous, I think you need a higher standard.
After all, there were people on both sides of the civil war who also were good people who jointed the war for rightous reasons, who believed in the Bible, and felt it inspired their actions. One side was perhaps more right than the other, but it was human stubborness that caused the war. The fact is that the good men on both sides believed that they were doing God’s will when they were really doing their own, and it created a situation where opportunitic baddies could flourish.
People on both sides came away feeling rightous. One feeling rightous and vindicated (God helped them win), and thus felt free to over-reach their victory with burdonsome meddeling beyond what was sensible or fair, and one side feeling rightous as the noble sufferers (like Christians thrown to the lions) who were being treated unfairly, and rightous in nursing grudges in secret societies that created a twisted version of religion that we are still dealing with today.
While religion didn’t CAUSE all of this…and it certainly helped earnest and fair indiduals who were caught up in the situation cope and get by in their hearts…on the grand scale it is difficult to see that religion contibuted much that was positive to the situation at large.
I am very disturbed by the rhetoric I see in some places calling Muslims and Islam inherently evil. That sort of talk has NEVER lead to anything good in all of history.
That is also not the fault of religion, it is a natural result of war. the longer and more difficult this war becomes, the worse it will get. Religion will become a tool to that sentiment if it is allowed to, and I doubt any earnest Christian wants that.
I have students and neighbors and friends who are Muslim (or Arab Christians who are persecuted because people assume they are Muslim), and I will defend them from harm as viggerously as I would defend my Buddhist or Hindu or Christian or Atheist students and neighbors and friends.
God doesn’t have to tell me to do this. Being human is enough.
teresa, a side note… all people are inherently evil. Without exception. But that’s another argument for another day.
There are several other ancient texts that contain stories that sound like the flood of Noah, most notably the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, many of these were not actually written before the Biblical account was. Many were legend passed down through time from person to person with pagan myths inserted to what had really happened. Perhaps the most fascinating thing is that so many various stories reference the same thing, while these stories were obviously from different cultures in different geographical areas. While I must confess that I don’t really know how the one was preserved in such a manner while the others fell away, I think it is amazing that so many texts would refer to the same thing happening but people dismiss it today.
As to how you determine what is legitimate, again, I am not entirely schooled in this. I have heard people say that the Bible was really established and the inconsistencies weeded out at the Council of Nicea. While it is true that the texts were compiled into one big Book and given chapter and verse division, and errant passages were eliminated, it is not true that it was established there. Think of it this way: any Joe could come along a claim he had divine inspiration even if he didn’t. But, did his claims line up with the early Scriptures? Such passages as the “book of Judas” were often written and preserved by druids and various other mystical religions. These did not line up with the laws of God set forth in the first five books, the propecies of God set forth in much of the rest of the Old Testament, and the grace of God fulfilled in Christ. The texts that are most acceptable are the ones that were consistent and preserved the best.
This is very interesting, because we agree, but in some cases, come to very different conclusions. Interpreting the Bible isn’t easy or simple, and I don’t think it has a lot self-evident meaning that becomes clear without a lot of thought and work.
Its really difficult to identify misuse of the Bible, because my faithful use of it seems to you to be erroneous and mistaken, and I feel the same way about some of your uses of it. So how do we decide between these various uses, all of which seem relatively justified within a given mode of interpretation?
Part of my answer to this is why I bring my experience, the experiences of others as they are communicated to me, and ethical reasoning into Biblical interpretation. In fact, when I approach the Bible, I try to get as much information as possible – from history and archaeology, social sciences, other cultures of the period, other works from the time in a similar literary mode, the original languages and semantic fields of the words involved, as well as modern insights, particularly about physical science and psychology.
I’ve found that this practice described above makes more conservative interpreters very upset with me, but frankly I see this going on in every person as they interpret the Bible. Cultural assumptions, personal ethics and morality, social location, and educational background all come into play when we approach any text, including the Bible.
In short, it makes talking about faith across ideological divides very difficult. I feel like I’m trying to speak in a foreign language sometimes. Do you get this impression as well? How do you deal with it when you disagree with someone who also feels their arguments and interpretations are sound?
Doug, I agree with most of what you said. When the Corinthians, for example, got their letters from Paul they didn’t need a Life Application Study Bible to determine what the cultural references or illustrations meant. But we do, because this it is nearly 2,000 years later. So I applaud your use of archeology, culture of the times, consideration of literary genres, etc.
Those are good questions (in your last paragraph). On the non-essentials, I think we just have to be charitable. People disagree on forms of baptism (infant vs. non-infant, sprinkling versus immersion), how often and how to do communion, what music to play, etc. My philosophy on those is that as long as you don’t make me attend the meetings I’ll live with what you come up with.
I think the more serious issues occur when our foundations aren’t aligned. I think where we diverge is on the authority of all scripture. As I noted in a comment on the “Quote of the day” post, your view is that the Bible has lots of mistakes and that the original writings were not all inspired by God (correct me if I didn’t interpret that properly – I don’t want to misquote you again!). I hold the opposite view.
Glad you stopped by! I always appreciate someone who can charitably disagree.
thelonedrifter,
Thank you for your view on the history of the Noah sotry and how it came to be in places that pre-date the Bible. It was my understanding that the sources for these other myths were dated older than the sources for the Bible, but now I will look at it again.
Hi Theresa,
To add to thelonedrifter’s comments, there are over 200 flood stories from various parts of the world such as Babylonia, Ancient Mexico, and Hawaii. The Epic of Gilgamesh is dated earlier than the OT Texts but it doesn’t prove them wrong (we knew that
)
Check out this link:
http://icr.org/article/570/
I visited the icr museum and it was very good.
Edgar,
I don’t know a whole lot about the actual dates of the stories (the research I’ve done on it has been somewhat limited), but it is not unlikely that some of them are older than the Bible as the Biblical account was not written until years later.
As a military brat I had the opportunity to live outside of Tripoli, Libya; it was very much Muslim and we had a typical postcard mosque with a tower 100yds from our villa.
The only reason I bring this up is the thought of interpretation.
Most people, especially Christians, have never been exposed to what i saw every day. Our compound of villas was away from the military base so we were removed from what we would consider to be “normal” surroundings. I saw the Muslims stop, unroll their carpets and pray more times than we went to church – they did this several times a day with a guy at the top of the tower leading them on. As far as Muslims wanting to kill me – I could ride my bicycle anywhere I wanted and the rams in the flocks of sheep were my only foes. They hit hard!
That was over 40 years ago and I have never forgotten the 3 years there. The people we lived among are supposedly the enemy of Israel. (Like most people, I think they would rather live life than go and war with a country as they were pretty much laid back country folk)
When I think about it – how did we Christians (I was of the catholic flock then and going through their full blown catechism) get along with them to the point my father would socialize with our landlord – the sheik that owned the town?
They had to know full well we weren’t the American Muslims from KC.
It make makes me wonder what was ever going through their minds; especially when we had Christmas trees and the Arabs would do their part in live manger scenes on the base with camels, donkeys, sheep. (No, we didn’t have a real Mary, Joseph or Jesus).
These are things I keep in mind whenever I hear or think Muslim, Jew or Christian.
Neil,
The authority of scripture is indeed a point of divergence for conservatives and progressives. Not because one side has a higher view of scriptural authority than the other, but because we have differing views of inspiration and we consistently mischaracterize our opponents views.
For example: you said that Doug sees scripture as full of mistakes. This really isn’t the right category. Yes there are mistakes in scripture in the sense that there are clear and obvious points of scribal error in transmission, but they are usually small and affect interpretation only minimally. The operative category isn’t mistakes – the operative category is the means of inspiration. For example, the Deuteronomistic writers of Joshua did not make a “mistake” in writing that God told the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites (an event which never happened historically). The writers were writing for the purely mundane human purpose of creating political propaganda for the revanchist reform of Josiah and the Davidic court in Jerusalem. (I say all this with the extremely limited certainty that historical investigation can have). They knew why they were writing what they did, but it had nothing to do with God “telling” them to write it and even less with God actually commanding genocide. God never would nor could do such a thing and remain a good God. God’s that commit genocide are evil, by any definition.
This is an example where the text doesn’t even claim that it is speaking in the voice of God. It does that in many places elsewhere, but this does not mean we should naively assume that it is actually speaking as if recording verbatim a speech that God gave from a podium on Mt. Sinai. It is a genre of religious language to claim authority by speaking for God. Even a sermon, if understood as Calvin or Chrysostom understood it, is speaking the Word of God to be given the same authority as scripture. I know that I would not want people taking every word I said from the pulpit as if it had literally come from the vocal chords of God.
There is a view of inspiration of scripture, which I find unsupportable, that holds that every word was literally whispered in the ears of the writers by the Holy Spirit and that same Spirit secured it’s accurate transmission and translation down the ages.
This is not how it happened. It is not how the scribes or theologians of almost any era understood it until relatively recently. Biblical Inerrancy is a 19th century doctrine.
Instead, inspiration should be understood as the Church’s affirmation that in the canonical scriptures we have in the past and can in the present encounter the Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ. Such an encounter is only by the power of the Holy Spirit and it does not impute anything like literal truth to the ink on the page, which is just a dead letter without the witness of the spirit.
Respects,
Aric Clark
Hi Aric – thanks for stopping by.
“They knew why they were writing what they did, but it had nothing to do with God “telling” them to write it and even less with God actually commanding genocide. God never would nor could do such a thing and remain a good God. God’s that commit genocide are evil, by any definition.”
So instead of mistakes in the Bible, you see lies.
The genocide sound bite may be emotional for some, but it seems to me that no matter what God does someone will be unhappy. A few people get killed and many ask, “Where was God?” So when He let the Canaanites commit spectacular evil for hundreds of year (child sacrifice and such) one could ask what took him so long to wipe them out.
Unless 2 Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness . . .) and others were written in the 19th century, then I think your inerrancy comment is way off base. Jesus was God, and He didn’t seem to have a problem with any of the Old Testament.
I later read how Doug denies substitionary atonement. That speaks volumes.
The original writings were inspired. Of course, translations might have errors, whether deliberate or not, but it isn’t hard to get back to what the originals said.
I didn’t follow your last paragraph. What is the basis for that conclusion?
Peace,
Neil
Neil,
Why do you insist on such reductionist interpretations of what I say.
I did not say that the writers of the canonical scriptures lied. They were telling the truth as they saw it with their own motivations and flaws in the mix much the same as any preacher who climbs into a pulpit today. We call preaching the Word of God (Calvin said the Preacher’s lips were the very lips of Christ) but this does not mean we would uncritically accept as empirically true every word that every preacher ever said. We acknowledge that as preaching (and scripture) goes it is an incarnational affair. Meaning it is partly inspiration and partly fallen humanity. The text of canonical scripture is not the Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, which scripture is a witness to.
As for passages like 2 Timothy, he could not have meant by that what you do – that all the canonical texts are inerrant. He could not have meant this for several reasons: at the time he was writing there was no canon and no New Testament. There really wasn’t a canon as we protestants know it until after Luther. So when Timothy said scripture he might have just meant Torah and Prophets, but not even all the prophets, or he might have included prophets we don’t know about.
Furthermore, theologians and exegetes who work with the historical critical method or who read scripture as Calvin, Augustine and others do not deny that scripture (all of it) is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The Bible does not consist of one genre. It is not a “handbook for life”. It is a collection of vastly different texts, written for vastly different reasons. To read all of them as if they were the same is destructive. It’s like saying you could get lessons on computer science from a history text book. You could, I guess, but it wouldn’t be very reliable.
To stick with my Joshua example to avoid confusion – We should not read Joshua the way we read the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount gives ethical guidelines which clearly contradict what goes on in Joshua. The Sermon on the Mount though, is primarily about the ethical guidelines whereas the point of Joshua is conveying a theological concept of God’s favoritism to Israel represented by the Davidic Court. Joshua tells us more about human beings than about God.
Oh, Sorry! I forgot to answer your last question:
What is my basis for concluding that, inspiration should be understood as the Church’s affirmation that in the canonical scriptures we have in the past and can in the present encounter the Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ.?
The traditional understanding of the doctrine of the inspiration (vis a vis Athanasius, Augustine, Luther and Calvin) is that the texts chosen for the canon, because of their traditional usage by the Jews (in the case of the OT) and their apostolic connections (in the case of the NT) and most importantly because of the present experience of the church of these documents as beneficial to spiritual reflection should be regarded as means of inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
In other words, it is our present experience of reading the text and profitably encountering the risen Christ thereby which makes the documents inspired and inspiring. NOT their original inscription.
Indeed original inscription is a problematic concept because the farther back in history we go the more variety and contradiction we find in the texts not less. There are more versions of Isaiah floating about in the 1st century AD then there are now and more versions in the 1st century BC then in the century after. Etc… Time has had the effect of creating more consistency and unity not less.
Aric, thanks for the follow up. I really am trying to understand you. Your argument seems to be that some of the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Therefore, the Bible is incorrect, because it claims to be the Word of God. So the writers either made mistakes (which you came back and said was not the case) or they deliberately lied. I don’t see many more options.
I don’t see how your preaching example supports your argument. I don’t know anyone who ever claimed infallibility (uh, other than the Pope) for any sermons they delivered.
The Timothy verse does apply. Peter references Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). When the Canon was formed most of the books were slam dunks because they had been considered scripture for centuries. I assume Paul meant the Septuagint in 1 Timothy 3:16, though I could be mistaken.
I follow and agree with the concepts that there are different literary genres in the Bible and that should be factored into the analysis (not sure where you drew the conclusion that I didn’t think that already, though). And I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that Joshua tells us more about human beings than about God.
If you think that our “present experience” is what is inspired and not the original writings then I think you and Doug are in the Dalmatian Theology camp.
Again, the Bible claims to speak for God thousands of times, including many times in the book of Joshua. Thousands! If it doesn’t really speak for him, as you claim, then I’m not sure why you bother with it. Sure, it may have some interesting points, but I generally don’t bother with books that have anywhere near that many mistakes/lies. [insert joke about public school textbooks here!]
I don’t follow the Isaiah example. If there were more versions in the 1st century, then wouldn’t we have those now in addition to “new” versions? If we don’t have the 1st century versions then how do we know they existed and were different? Is there some kind of historical record that claims there were lots of versions but doesn’t include the differences?
I think part of the reason that Christians disagree about forms of religion can be illustrated by the old story of the blind men and the elephant.
The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.
Because God gives each follower of Jesus exactly what he needs, no two experiences are exactly alike. Naturally each of us thinks his experience is the right one. I have to remind myself of this regularly.
The second point I want to mention is the morality of God. It seems to me that God can judge us, but we cannot judge God. This is because God sees the whole picture and we only see our part of it.
So if God wipes out a city, who can say that he is wrong.
Actually I take some comfort from the Old Testament, after all if God takes death casually, we have to remember that He knows what comes after.
As to people in both sides of a war feeling that God is with them, I would suggest that He probably is. I don’t mean that there are not false gods and people may be deceived into fighting for one. But God is interested in individuals and can use all things to work for good, and God does not throw out a true believer for a bad choice, He just keeps trying to help them grow in the spirit.
Sunday School Teacher,
If that is so, then how could someone possibly call religion a “clear moral guide” and insist that it can be used as the ultimate arbiter of public policy.
I can see how it might be a clear moral guide for an individual, but if everyone is required by public policy to treat an elephant like a hand fan, you’re not goinng to have a very effective way of dealing with the reality of the elephant.
Secondly, we cannot judge God, but the Bible is not God. The Bible is the work of men. I would not judge God, but I feel free to judge what the Bible says of God, and it says many not-nice things about him.
When I try to discern someone’s character, I try to remember to not weigh what people say about them as heavily as what they do. So I will discern God’s character from what I can see of his works rather than from some book that people wrote about him.
I agree that the Bible is not God. But if it is the Word of God – as it claims to be – then it isn’t just the “work of men.” I’m familiar with the alleged “not nice” things it says, but the real question is whether they are true or not.
How do you discern God’s character from his works if you don’t have a standard to compare it to?
Teresa, as you say, the Bible is not God. However, there is no other explanation than to say that the Bible was inspired by God. The chance of it being as all-encompassing, accurate, and self-consistent over such a long time period when written by so many people is none at all, unless guided by God.
Jesus once said to Thomas: “…because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.”
The might have been inspired by God, but the universe was made by his hand. I think the laws of nature are a more reliable souorce for his nature than the Bible. The laws of nature don’t change. They are constant. The God of the Bible is different from OT to NT, but not only that, he changes his mind and contradicts himself.
Where the Bible speaks ill of God, his creation is the most reliable testiment.
The way I see it, men wrote the Bible for their purposes, God created the universe for his.
Sorry, that’s “The Bible may have been inspired by God,…
Hi Teresa,
I agree that the laws of nature don’t change. I often point out that God’s moral laws don’t change, either. We break them at our own peril.
The Bible has over 41,000 verses, so I think it is safe to assume there will be some challenging things to reconcile and perhaps some paradoxes.
Re. the OT / NT differences: I assume you mean the stereotype of the vengeful OT God and the kindler, gentler, NT God. But having read the whole thing a few times, I like to point out that the OT God (I say that tongue in cheek, of course, because I find him to be the same God) was remarkably patient and quick to forgive. Sometimes it took him centuries to finally act. Then we have Jesus (as God) in the NT where He speaks of judgment and Hell much more than the OT does.
Do you have some examples of where you think the Bible speaks ill of God or He contradicts himself?
If men are the sole authors of the Bible and God wasn’t involved, do you think that God has only revealed himself in creation and not in any reliable written form?
Neil,
I think that God’s moral laws HAVE changed from the OT to the NT. At least, that is why I am told we can eat shellfish and pork and wear poly-cotton blends and a woman who is in her cycle doesn’t have to leave the city. Just for a few examples.
The Bible portrays God as inconstant when he floods the world, and then expresses regret, promising to never do it again. As if God can do something he regrets.
The book of Judges pretty much covers some pretty harrowing things that we now consider immoral, but the Bible says the were done to God’s will.
Sorry this is not complete or carefully crafted, as I had class tonight and had a lot going on today.
I think that the writings of men can be inspired and useful, but I don’t think they can be called the word of God. I think that God is revealed everyday, and people miss it because they are looking for hailstorms and rivers of blood, and plagues of frogs and the bullet that stopped at the last page of the Guideon’s testement, and in the weeping statues of the virgin Mary.
They are so busy looking for the miracles of the Bible that they miss the everyday miracle of the world they live in. They hope to see God in the SUPENSION or INTERRUPTION of the natural order, and fail to see him in the fabric of the universe.
They are so busy obsessing about getting Genesis taught as science that they deny the evidence of the nature of
God’s ordained laws all around them, to say that natural laws are “human inventions” and “human foolishness” and then call a book we know was written by human hands the work of God.
Sorry if this is offensice to you, I am not trying to be offensive, just saying what I believe.
Here’s a cool site where they depict important Bible stories with Lego blocks. Here is a link to the stories of Judges.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/index.html
I wish I’d had this when I was in Sunday school!
I don’t think I said exactly what I meant, I was thinking about the relatively trivial disagreements among denominations, certainly not disagreements between religions. Many people may call themselves Christians, but those who do not accept Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not.
I don’t call religion a clear moral guide, but I do call the Holy Spirit an infallable one. The Bible gives us the information to discern the true spirit from the false ones. And yes I think that persons making public policy should be guided by the spirit.
I don’t see that God has changed his morality or his plan. God may have appeared to change his mind in a couple of instances, but I think that was trying to teach his reasons for his actions or inactions. My father used to do something similar to teach us management. He already knew what he wanted to do, but he wanted us to understand why and how he arrived at the decision.
As to God’s morality, I see no indication that that has ever waivered.
Hopefully somebody more articulate than I, will understand what I am trying to say and explain it more clearly.
Neil,
First of all, may I say that you’ve handled yourself very graciously and where these kind of disagreements have the potential to become just aggravating and a waste of time, you’ve kept the discourse polite and reasonable. Thank you.
Now, you said that I claim:
“some of the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Therefore, the Bible is incorrect, because it claims to be the Word of God.”
I do not claim that some of the Bible is NOT the Word of God. I claim that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is scripture. There is a difference. We use scripture as a guide to discovering the Word of God, but they are not identical. This is consistent with Calvin, Luther, Augustine and many other orthodox luminaries of the Church.
The Bible “claims” nothing, because the Bible is not alive, it has no agency and it is a collection of many different books not just one book. Nowhere in the Bible can any verse be responsibly read as though it was written to refer to the entire canon for the simple reason that all the texts were written pre-canon.
At many many places, as you have pointed out, individual authors claim to be speaking in the voice of God, or more often, claim that the central character in their narrative is speaking in the voice of God, but this is not the same as claiming that the text is synonymous with the Word of God.
Word (with the capital W like that) refers specifically to the theological concept, taken mostly from John and his logos language, of Jesus Christ as the Word made Flesh.
I’ll try and say it as clearly as I can to avoid misunderstanding: Scripture is a witness to Jesus Christ. Therefore, when we read scripture our hermeneutic principle is to compare what we read against what we know of the person of Jesus. At times, with caution, this leads us to consider that certain texts are incongruent with Jesus ministry and therefore require a different reading than the plain sense in order to be spiritually useful.
In another comment, not addressed to me, you ask, “If men are the sole authors of the Bible and God wasn’t involved, do you think that God has only revealed himself in creation and not in any reliable written form?”
It is interesting to note that it is a humanist concept (ie: reformation period on forward) to regard written texts as more reliable than other witnesses. Ancient and oral cultures think just the opposite. The empirical sciences for the most part also disagree with this view (they consider evidence gained via experimentation more reliable than texts). As a scholar in the humanities I have some sympathy with your view, but I also know from my many cross-cultural experiences that there really is no firm reason why written information is more reliable than other means of delivering information. Indeed, there are plausible arguments to say the opposite. Just a consideration.
In Christ,
Aric
Aric, your premise seems to be that the Bible disagrees with Christ, who of course is God the Son. But where?
Teresa – re. the link – wow, someone had a lot of time on their hands! I’ve never seen so much work put into so many straw men. Nobody light a match!
Aric – thanks for the reply.
“At many many places, as you have pointed out, individual authors claim to be speaking in the voice of God, or more often, claim that the central character in their narrative is speaking in the voice of God, but this is not the same as claiming that the text is synonymous with the Word of God.”
I’m not sure how to respond to something like that, especially to someone who has obviously spent some time in the Bible. I just challenge anyone on the fence to read the countless passages that say, “The Lord said,” etc. and decide for themselves which is the more likely explanation.
I think you are wildly misinterpreting the whole Logos thing – it seems rather circular and postmodern – but I don’t have time to go through it bit by bit.
I will say, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12 )
“I also know from my many cross-cultural experiences that there really is no firm reason why written information is more reliable than other means of delivering information.”
I must be misinterpreting what you’ve said, because I can’t imagine this being true in any broad or in-depth way. We have enough trouble communicating what God said when it is written down. I don’t see how it would be better if it had never been written down.
“Nowhere in the Bible can any verse be responsibly read as though it was written to refer to the entire canon for the simple reason that all the texts were written pre-canon.”
Your statement is only true if you assume that God didn’t inspire the original text. But isn’t that what you are trying to prove?
Peace,
Neil
Hi Teresa,
First, I’m not offended. Those are reasonable questions.
“I think that God’s moral laws HAVE changed from the OT to the NT. At least, that is why I am told we can eat shellfish and pork and wear poly-cotton blends and a woman who is in her cycle doesn’t have to leave the city. Just for a few examples.”
This probably requires a whole post, but here’s a short version: God made some Israelite-specific laws to set them apart from other people. These were called civil and ceremonial laws. They were not meant to apply to other cultures. He also made moral laws which do apply to other cultures.
An example is Leviticus 18. It is written to warn the Israelites not to do what the Canaanites have done. The Canaanites were expected to follow moral laws that everyone knows, but they were not expected to follow the civil and ceremonial laws (shellfish, clothes, etc.).
Coincidentally, Lev. 18 it starts off with, “The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God.”
I realize you weren’t doing it deliberately, but I have found that many people who should know better (i.e., Christian leaders) will mix up the types of laws to dismiss arguments they don’t like.
“The Bible portrays God as inconstant when he floods the world, and then expresses regret, promising to never do it again. As if God can do something he regrets.”
Part of the challenge with passages like that is that the Bible uses human characteristics to describe God. God is clearly a spirit, but the Bible will refer to his hands, eyes, etc. to help communicate something. The fact that God was grieved over the incredibly sinful generation of Noah doesn’t diminish his deity.
The promise not to flood it again was merely a covenant on his part. It isn’t like he had acted irrationally or that his judgment ceased – He will judge all creation at some point.
“The book of Judges pretty much covers some pretty harrowing things that we now consider immoral, but the Bible says the were done to God’s will.”
Yes, He commanded the Israelites to clear out the promised land of a group of spectacularly wicked people who had been given 400 years to repent, and didn’t. I’ll be that the surrounding people during those years asked, “Where is God?,” as in, “Why doesn’t He do something about them?”
We (that’s the collective we, not just you and me) tend to want God’s immediate justice when something happens that we don’t like, but are shocked when God actually steps into his creation now and then and administers his justice.
“I think that the writings of men can be inspired and useful, but I don’t think they can be called the word of God. I think that God is revealed everyday, and people miss it because they are looking for hailstorms and rivers of blood, and plagues of frogs and the bullet that stopped at the last page of the Guideon’s testement, and in the weeping statues of the virgin Mary.”
You may be right, but I don’t expect the miraculous like that. Yes, God can and does do miracles but I find that miracles like that show up in the Bible for a reason.
And don’t get me started about Mary-worship!
“They are so busy looking for the miracles of the Bible that they miss the everyday miracle of the world they live in. They hope to see God in the SUPENSION or INTERRUPTION of the natural order, and fail to see him in the fabric of the universe.”
Agreed.
“They are so busy obsessing about getting Genesis taught as science that they deny the evidence of the nature of
God’s ordained laws all around them, to say that natural laws are “human inventions” and “human foolishness” and then call a book we know was written by human hands the work of God.”
I’m not sure I completely follow. Yes, some people obsess about Genesis. But I think their larger point (at least mine) is that God did ordain all these natural laws. We appear to agree on that.
I realize you think the Bible was just written by men. Yes, their hands wrote it, but I find the evidence for God’s inspiration to be rather compelling. If He set out to inspire the Bible – and I think He did – then I don’t think it would be a very difficult task for him to accomplish.
Neil,
Thank you for your thoughtful and kind responses.
I don’t agree about miracles, quite. People will often say “God cured me of my cancer.” believeing that he reached in and interrupted the way cells and genetics and immunology work, and call it a miracle. I rather see it as a miracle that our cells work they way they do. Cancer results of parts of the natural functions of cells.
Our bodies “cure” us of cancer and other terrible diseases as a matter of course most of the time. When it malfunctions, science has been able, in some cases, to use the natural processes to put things back in balance.
Sometimes it works out the way we want it to, and sometimes it doesn’t, but I don’t believe that God gives people cancer to punish them, and I don’t believe he cures specific people as a matter of grace.
I think his grace is umnipresent and so I try to rejoice in everything. Though this is not easy.
About Genesis, What I mean is that people are so caught up in the six days of creation and seventh day of rest that they deny the natural laws that explain evolution, calling it “Evil-lution”.
Essentially putting the writings of humans above the works of God, and calling the works of God “evil”.
Hi Teresa – Actually, I think we agree on the examples of “miracles” you mentioned. Our adult Sunday School class is going through a book on prayer by Phillip Yancey that is quite good. It wrestles with lots of tough questions about prayer and miracles.
I definitely don’t think cancer is a punishment. I do think He does healings sometimes for his own good purposes, but if He did them all the time they wouldn’t be miracles. There is some mystery to it (at least in my limited capacity).
Re. Genesis – I think that some people go too far with things that weren’t meant to be read as a science textbook. That doesn’t mean I’m on board with full-blown Darwinian evolution, but I do think Christians can get off track with the Gospel message sometimes by focusing too much on other issues.
Neil,
Where our difference comes in is that I don’t personally believe that God intervenes or interrupts nature to create miracles of any kind. Some Deists believe, as you do, that God intervenes to show his power and give us hope in him.
I do not believe that he woud do that, because wouldn’t an all-powerful, all-knowing God create a universe in which we can have hope? I see no reason why not.
Deists who believe as I do, therefore, do not pray “for” things. Because we believe we have been given all that we need if we only accept it and call on it in need.
The world and the universe work as they should. We have what we need to live in them, and we have to power and the choice to use what we have well or poorly. So prayers and meditations of thanksgiving and communion are what we do.
For me, there is only one miracle, and it happened about 14 billion years ago, and everything that has happened since has been part of that. Infinate possibility within perfect order seems to be a big enough trick to satisfy me.
Hi Teresa,
Interesting points. We agree on some rather large and important items – e.g., that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
I suppose it is possible that God created us to have hope and that no further revelation would be necessary. I do believe He wrote moral laws on our hearts.
I don’t see why that would exclude him from doing miracles to show his power and give us hope. After all, He designed us to reason and to seek evidence to support our positions. If you look at the book of Acts the presentation of the Gospel always revolves around the evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Interestingly, even during the road to Emmaus where the post-resurrection Jesus talks with two disciples, Jesus points them to the Old Testament to prove out how He fulfilled the scriptures. (”And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”)
It seems logical to me that He would reveal himself to us more specifically.
I am all for the prayers of thanksgiving as well, and for acknowledging just how great the miracle of creation was!
How do Deists typically deal with the concepts of sin and eternal life? (I realize they are probably no more of a monolith than any other group, but thought there might be a general view).
Neil,
I agree that God does healing for his own purposes and not for Grace. For Grace he would take us home.
My wife had exploratory surgery for a mass in her abdomen shortly after we adopted our daughter. Looking back, I think I was in shock after the surgery because I didn’t really grasp what the surgeon was telling me when he said there was nothing he could do. We had to wait while the oncologists decided on a course of treatment, but meanwhile everything went away.
Medically, they say it must not have been cancer in the first place since it disappeared like that. They even have a term for something that appears to be cancer and then goes away, although it is so rare that they really don’t know anything about it. Later both my father and mother-in-law died from cancer.
I can’t prove or even know for sure if this was a miracle or not. I am inclined to think it was, our daughter was 11 at the time and had just lost her mother to heart disease. Maybe God thought she needed a break.
Neil,
Sorry it’s been so long. My brother and his girlfriend are visiting, and contrary to my nature I’m AVOIDING politics and religion. LOL. We can’t talk about those things at all.
AS far as eternity, I don’t worry about it. have all the evidence necessary to prove that God is providintial. He has provideds so well for this world, I trust that he will provide for the next. Whatever comes, he will be just and I will be content.
Sunday School Teacher, I’m glad that your wife was spared a death from cancer, and your gratitude is well place. I am sorry for your adopted daughter, but thank God that we are a species who can love and care for other people’s children as our own, and can embrace those who need our love. I’m glad that your daughter was spared another tragic illness and untimely death of someone who she depends on and loves.
I have a question, and please take it as simple curiosity, would it be less of a miracle if what spared your wife could be proven to be a natural phenomenon?
From your statements and questions, I would think not, as you would still be grateful and would still give glory to God who made the world where such a thing could be; And thank God as is proper. Also, when someone we love is not spared it is proper to thank God that we knew them and that they touched our lives.
Hi all!
Teresa – so you’re saying I’m not the only one with a laundry list of things you can’t talk about with relatives?!
SST – Thanks for sharing that. I think there is some mystery with prayer and miracles. I think Teresa is right that we can be grateful either way. I did read a good quote where a guy said that some of his answered prayers could have been coincidences. But he noted that the when he stopped praying the coincidences stopped as well.
Did you adopt your daughter when she was older? Good for you. I was adopted but it was at birth.
Neil,
Oh no, all of my family are very religious conservative Christians. Except one set of grandparents, but unfortunatly, my grandma passed several years ago from pancreatic cancer. My grandpa is still alive, but when everyone else is talking we just sit and smile at each other and talk quietly in private.
My grandma was so liberal she made me look like Rush Limbaugh. She was really opinionated, and she would watch the news and a little purple vein would start throbbing in her forehead.
I remember one time there was a minister commentating on the news one of those TV ministers, you know, and he said we should round up all the homosexuals and put them on an island somewhere (this was in the mid ’80’s) She went ballistic, and said “The last time someone thought it was a good idea to round up everyone of a certain kind of people and put them in the same place the whole world went to war over it. I think we should find an island for that guy and everyone who wants to join them. Then the rest of us can worry about the deficit.”
LOL! I miss her. Family gatherings were a lot more excieting then.
I remember on her death bead, all her Republican brothers came to osay good-bye, she was the only girl and the only liberal in the family. She rallied, and was arguing politics before you knew it, and the angrier she got, the stronger she got. Everytime it looked like the end her brothers would come and she’d rally again and whoop them at political argument.
Now, my family sometimes tries to put me down by calling me by her name, or saying “You’re just like your grandmother.” I just say “thank you” because to me it is a huge compliment.
Nobody in that family would be where they were if it weren’t for her and her savvy investments, support, encouragement, hard work (farmer’s wife AND teacher)and giving nature.
Thanks for sharing that – it sounds like she was an inspiring and colorful person!
We adopted our daughter when she was eleven, the adoption had not been final for long when my wife had her problems.
Yes I am grateful to God whether this was a natural phenomenon or not. But it goes a lot farther than that. We had also been infertile for a number of years, that is how the paperwork was in place for us to adopt our daughter when her mother died suddenly. We had said we would not consider an older child, but we said we would meet this child and we pretty much all bonded right away.
My point though, is that I was forced to do a lot of praying, thinking and studying about God’s will. I had to accept that God was able to make us fertile, but might not. The later I had to accept that God could cure my wife, but might not. That was hard, but I finally realized that I had to trust God. He can see the big picture and I cannot.
As far as God’s intervention in people’s lives, I have seen it many times in my own life and others. But you have to ask for God’s help, accept his will even if it is not what you want, and have faith. And I think the faith has to come first, how many times did Jesus tell people that their faith had healed them.
So I am greatful to God for the tribulations and the healing.
In case you wondered, we later had two successful pregnancies. And, at least in my case, whatever bond that happens between a parent and child seems to be exactly the same with all my children.
Hi all,
I have watched this thread and my own thoughts on what is written in the bible is far different than that of those that have spent years studying and debating it to the point it makes no sense. Bill Clinton was a bible scholar if he can flummox the Supreme Court of the USA with the question of “What does “is” mean?”
It wasn’t written as so, was it? By the time the scholars and theologians pick it apart it is as a frog in a science lab. It was to be read, reread and interpreted by the reader as they understand it. This understanding is advanced as one reads from Genesis to Revelation as there is no midway leap as far as I know.
There is the Old Testament, basically the history of time and man’s connection with God, also know as the Jewish bible – though they focus on the first 5 chapters, or the TORAH. Some of the OLD testament prophets tell of the coming of Jesus, in puzzles or in detail.
Then there are the gospels written by the disciples of Jesus Christ and ending in the Revelation of Jesus; know as the New Testament. This second is the telling of the crucification and rising of Jesus from the dead, the sole reason we have the Christian movement, or faith. Jesus was God on earth, moved around, ate, drank and lived with humanity. Most importantly, He opened his mouth and spoke. What He spoke of applies to us in this very age as we breathe.
Listen to Him rather than watching television.
Having another explain beforehand in their point-of-view what you are to read and not agreeing with that point-of-view is confusing, at best. “Did i read it wrong?” Having that person convince you so that you agree is brainwashing.
Psalms and Proverbs can stand on their own at times but the bible is written in a serial manner.
Hammering at each other about what was meant in one of Paul’s letters to Romans or Galatians is representative of different CHURCHES – or, AGENDA.
The minister of the Methodist CHURCH in St. Paul, MN may have a different interpretation than the minister of the Methodist CHURCH in Des Moines, IA. They both have differing interpretations than the priest of the Catholic CHURCHES in their respective towns.
All are Christian, correct?
The Jehovah’s Witness that comes around here on a regular basis may as well stoop and bang her head on the pavement before trying to convert me. I will talk to her, out of doors, and I can usually run her off because she isn’t as learned as she thinks. I refuse her Watchtower propaganda; the last one had a black cover and was entitled “Will the Evil ever End?” I told her not to bother because it will end when it does. None of us know and Miss America can wish for World Peace all day. I also ask her not to read from her bible and then quiz me about what she just blurted out.
I am annoyed when any at a pulpit, lectern, etc… reads a passage, pauses and then follows it up with “Now watch this.” Watch what? That’s like a network advertising a television show announcing “The Cure for all Cancers” for broadcast two weeks in the future.
Wouldn’t “Listen to this” be more appropriate? I would rather hear “Now listen up!”
Any priest, minister, pastor or missionary that does that annoys me to no end.
My cousin is a wacky Mormon. They built a Disneyland temple here in the DC area that looks cool but that’s all I want to know about it. I learned from her that the angel atop the highest spire is MORONI.
I asked her about a general overview of the “religion” and she prefaced with “This might sound weird”. I told her to stop there.
Hammering one’s own opinion, academic or theological at another proves the differences in interpretation. There is no GUIDEBOOK or set of rules. Its as if God/Jesus were right there speaking to you. What did he say to you? Its in your native tongue, why do you need a translator?
Bible study groups are cool because you can explore different ideologies. This is different than the catholic catechism which teaches ONE train of thought in the same way people are brainwashed.
If I offended any particular denomination I am sorry.
I don’t claim one as I have yet to find one that speaks of “GOD” in the same manner I do when I speak with him daily and I will not have any man taint my faith with his AGENDA.
Yes, You may talk to God all day if you want, I have at times. I have ranted and raved, been angry and cried with tears. God is depicted differently in the OLD testament and most of the people that are written about talked directly to Him. You may pray all day and night; the real question is “Are YOU listening to Him?”
As far as healing illnesses, I heard a catholic priest describe what I felt but never put into words.
Miraculous Healing, one that leaves one totally free from disease is possible but extremely rare as only Jesus or one that he anointed could do so. The Holy Spirit must strong with one that is.
I am experiencing sustained healing, in which you speak to God every day so, as the description explains, to sustain His grace that heals.
I would argue that those that may experience miraculous healing might forget Who, How or Why they are healed whereas sustained healing causes one to stay in constant contact and you never forget. I could never forget.
I am wasted with this – did I make a point at all?
SST – Thanks for sharing your story! I appreciate your faith and praise God for how it all worked out.
It is surprising how many people deal with infertility. My parents and my two sets of Aunts and Uncles all adopted two kids.
We had two girls on our own, but had a total of five miscarriages before and after. I’m assuming I’ll meet them all in Heaven; I’ll let you know how that works later!
Michael – I agree with lots of your points about how we approach the Bible. I do think a lot of the differences can be eliminated with some basic guidelines we would use with any piece of literature – Who wrote it? Who were they writing to? What was the context of the passage? Etc. I think that many times people take a verse out of context, and it is pretty easy to show how it has been incorrectly interpreted.
Neil,
i’m sorry to hear about your family’s lost pregnancies. There are no words for that sort of heartache.
Neil,
I know I covered a lot of ground in that crazy writing but I felt a need to state some of my observations.
What you mentioned is bible study class in which the entire class has an opportunity to ask questions or express opinions.
Being preached to is an entirely different subject when it comes to one’s personal faith. I attended a Baptist church after a personal invitation from the pastor/minister/whatever. I was let down to say the least. The first 30 minutes was basically a cry for money and pastor “so and so” ran down a list while Gestapo ushers passed plates around with eyes like hawks on them as they shuffled them from pew to pew. I had intended on dropping $10 in whatever collection plate or basket might come around. I watched and felt their eyes as I laid the bill on top and passed it quickly to be rid of it. I was stunned and wonder to this day what kind of racket they had going.
The next hour was spent listening to “so and so” relate anything he could to a small part of a chapter he had chosen. I listened as he talked about tennis, skiing, driving and whatever would bore me even more. If I am to be preached fire and brimstone I want it as it was written and from the mouth of that person as if they feel it.
I enjoy watching a listening to Joel Osteen at times but he has a fashion of God-Lite that becomes sappy at times. I know Jesus was purposefully light in His delivery to the masses and demonstrated so while He was harsh on His inner circle if they were to carry out what He had selected them for. How many times did He push them to goad them with “Ye of little faith”?
Paul, who was Saul, was struck down blind.
Hello, you have my attention!
Hi Michael,
What a coincidence – I was just working on a piece about Joel Osteen.
I like how you distinguish between how Jesus was different with his Disciples at times.
Sorry to hear about the bad church experience. Ick. I hate hearing about churches who are just after money. Giving is a joy, but when people make it a requirement it takes all the fun out of it.
Neil,
I wonder how many people pick up on that what you mentioned –
“I like how you distinguish between how Jesus was different with his Disciples at times.”
The old testament is nothing if not a continuing tale of God tempering people’s obedience. Adam as most first sons do, caught the full fury of his Father. He was the pioneer to break the mold and the first to try God’s patience. I am the first born and I can relate. Noah had the burden of building an ark to preserve what he was to of the earth. Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac up until the knife falls. Isaac and Esau have their falling out and it escalades to Joseph and his brothers who become the enslaved nation of Israel freed by Moses. Whew! That’s quite a piece there if read straight through and only covers the first 5 books.
Job had one of the most trying of times and is hard to read.
David is as if schizophrenic as he goes from good to bad to good and is one of the most colorful characters covering all bases. Kings, Judges and Chronicles are just that with more stories of tempering humanity and the numerous prophets such as Isaiah and Daniel foretell the next book. Ezekiel was very timely to me a few years ago. I haven’t looked at it in the same light since but I am prompted to now.
I might describe the bible too quickly but this is what I feel when trying to sum it up.
Again, Jesus talked to the masses on a simple level as that is what he had to work with. He was sowing seed. He reserved the real teachings for his disciples and as I mentioned when he was with them they had a lot to learn in very little time. If it were in seminar fashion it would be a crash course. They were the truly anointed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
It is too bad most of Paul’s writings became the cornerstone of the catholic church. The irony is they got too hung up on ideals in their catechism and political control to teach the word. I was part of it and it reads differently from a neutral point of view.
The scary parts of Revelation seem more realistic now than ever in the past. Just a century ago people would claim the same but the world had not yet gone global then; something necessary for most of the pieces to fit as almost everyone is now afforded to hear the gospel.
Whether you want to stop and listen then or by just shutting the world off to listen will determine if you hear or not.
Most of us become too dependent and complacent with the electronic gadgetry that runs our lives – pagers, cell phones, mp3 players, radio and television and fall out of touch with the our spiritual sides or – God.
I find when I type in this manner it is very reflective for me as this isn’t something I am reading. I pickup my bible to check chapter and verse numbers but I like to be in the habit of picking it up and reading and this pastime prompts it.
I wanted to point out something to a friend yesterday that I feel touches on what is in Revelation 13:14-18 concerning the mark one must receive to buy goods or whatever at that time. He mentioned sub dural microchips such as what hospitals are eager to put on your child. I also mentioned the chip of info that is placed on your passport about your life. Our SSNs already disclose too much.
I wonder if a bar code would be an ideal marking.
Thanks, Michael. I think it is worth doing a quick run-through of the Bible sometimes to help remember how it all fits together.
Re. the bar code thing – you might be right, but I think the “mark of the beast” thing could just be symbolic. After all, if I am really a Christian won’t that show through whether I have a physical mark or not?
Neil,
Scripture seems to be adamant about a physical mark on the hand or forehead.
The Nazis marked the Jews with tattoos, I have seen one.
I do not think the fact to be too outlandish for end times. It seems to be one of the sanest things written in that one book. I have no idea what the other figurative descriptions actually mean as it was John seeing the future and writing what he saw. For any of us to explain what he described is folly.