Well if you’re reading some book that has any basis on past history, and you notice it’s getting dates and locations wrong, and some chapters say you should do X while others explicitly tell you not to, you’d be smart to think this book may not be all that reliable with the other things it’s talking about too.
I actually read an article the other day that said something to the effect of, “There may be contradictions, but God was working through the scribes who put it together so of course it is reliable.”
Let’s make something explicitly clear: if you contradict yourself, you’ve made a mistake. So did God mess up, or was it the scribes? I don’t imagine it was God, being infallible, so how can the scribes mess up if God was there too, working through them? I don’t understand this at all, so I’m left to think the bible was written by man, which makes sense because men love to contradict each other.
In the end, I don’t find a book filled with errors and contradictions and written by men (and subjected to generations of politicking – men also love politics) to be very reliable.
This is a false dichotomy. If it’s not inspired by god, it’s not automatically all lies.
I don’t think the Harry Potter stories are inspired by God, and I don’t think they’re all lies – they’re a series of stories whose aim isn’t to be a factual account, which also happen to illustrate particular moral values.
Similarly the bible may also be a series of metaphorical stories, which don’t aim to be truthful accounts of historical events. I don’t claim that’s what they are, I am merely pointing out that there are more possible options than “inspired by God” and “load of lies”.
1. There was no canon in the beginning, just lots of texts like Mark and Luke that different groups liked (or didn’t) and argued about. There were the adoptionists, who insisted that Jesus was a mortal man of normal birth who was “adopted” by God at his baptism. There were the docetists, who insisted that Jesus was never a mortal, that he was entirely a divine spirit, and only gave the illusion of being born and dying. There were the separationists, who believed that a spirit came down and entered the mortal man Jesus, and left him shortly before he died. There were even groups, like the Gnostics, who were sure that the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament were two completely different gods! There was another group which might be called proto-orthodox, who believed that Jesus was both divine and mortal at the same time.
The proto-orthodox group won out simply by gathering more believers and convincing more people. Through chance, their beliefs about Jesus stood the test of time and became the book that so many people believe is “divinely inspired” today. The texts that supported the beliefs of the other groups still exist… they were just not included in the bible.
Are there contradictions or just lack of understanding on our part? What about the agreement that is found between two differing authors written at different times? What about new testament reference to old testament scripture?
In personal study at times I have misunderstood scripture due to lack of proper context. This seems easy to do when we consider the different authors and the various times. Merely trying to point out that while we are discussing contradictions of scripture it seems appropriate that we discuss the coherency as well. Yes there are contradictions, however there is plenty of coherency.
What’s an example of something you misunderstood? I’m only asking because your statement shows how there could be 50 different interpretations of a certain line/phrase.
It seems pretty easy to say that any of those 50 statements are correct/incorrect….
Which then adds on to make it more contradictory (does this make sense? sometimes i fail at explaining things)
I am not sure of the perceived contradictions. Rather than assume that there are any, I would like someone to specify what contradictions are present.
My studies have never produced a contradiction of consequence in what we consider Scripture. So i am honestly asking for clarification regarding the misrepresentations that others claim to be present.
Chavis. Good point. And most contradictions are better understood and explained once they are examined in context. This does not, however, account for varying perspectives of the same event, calendar and dating system differences among writers, and loose facts where the writer is only communicating transcendent truth in the context of the truth he knows. Revelation would be a prime example of this.
On the question of errancy because of the involvement of fallible people — even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.
We do not claim that the humans who penned the books of the Bible were always accurate in everything they said or did. We simply believe that the Bible is right when it claims that God guided these men in their task of writing Scripture, in such a way that the result is an infallible book. The apostle Peter undoubtedly said some foolish things during his lifetime, but God did not allow him to clutter up the Bible with any of those blunders.
I understand there are some groups of Christians who claim the message as a whole is accurate, though the details may not be. I’m not prepared to go even that far.
The 40 authors of what we call the Bible differed widely in their culture and education, and with personality and intellectual perception, and yet the books they wrote thread together like one magnificent seam.
Further on the grounds of prophecies, historicity, and indestructibility, the Bible adds to its resume of clout and legitimacy.
The Bible deals with the subjects of history, biography, poetry, speeches, proverbs, songs, parables, prophecies, romances, drama, tragedies, sermons, dialog, and ethical teachings. This is to be considered when critically reviewing the Bible for accuracy.
Never has a book endured as much criticism, yet has always answered the critics. In terms of authenticity, it trumps Homer’s Illiad, Julias Cesar, Pliny’s History, etc…
@Greengodzilla Those misunderstandings plague even those within Christianity. In reality, there are not 50 interpretations, there is but one primary meaning of what was written, what was intended and what it meant to the original audience. So it’s not a putting the finger to the wind, but rather faithful study and exegesis that would go into any work of antiquity.
@Unprobable Those who personally followed Jesus, gave their lives as a witness to his testimony and recorded the story are those whom I’d be more concerned with what they had to say about him. Even independent (meaning, people who weren’t followers of Jesus – like Josephus), provide us historical accuracy about the Jesus Movement. All these other groups were referenced by Paul. The process of canonology was not without debate and fervor. You should come check out the canonology discussion next weekend with Roy Fisher.
Wow! Some really interesting comments. I do realize the fact that there seems to be some contradictions, this is, in my opinion, due to the fact that there is a human element involved in writing it. Men and a woman of God wrote it, and yes they were inspired by God. However over the years and after many translations, there can be minor contradictions. But there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God and truths in His word that are irrefutable.
As for me, I find that there is enough “truth” in the Bible that the few “contradictions” are irrelevant. I have had enough “God-encounters” that the so called contradictions have no effect on my trust in God and His word. It brings life, light and hope.
Do we dare to question the word of God?.. I don’t plan on doing so.. the enemy has many ways to deceive the very elect.. remember how he quoted verse to Our Lord during the temptation of Christ?.. We tred in deep / potentially hot waters when we ( instead of seeking to live according to and doing God’s will ) decide to question the word of God ( The Bible )..
I think that the following questions would be nice to hear some interaction on. I believe in Jesus Christ. But these questions often come up when I interact with agnostics and atheists. Does anyone have some answers to these questions: (1) How can Christians claim that their Sacred Text is the Word of God when men voted on whether or not it was included in the Canon? (2) How can Christians maintain faith in Writings that have transmission errors?
@Jeff: the questions are not posed to the “Word of God” they are posed to you. How do you answer people who have questions in these areas? Your Writings tell you to “be ready to give every man an answer that asks you . . . ” What answer would you give to the woman who asks, “How can you believe the Bible is God’s Word?”
@Dez: It seems you too are trying to defend and secure your own persepctive. How would you explain an answer to someone who didnt believe in Jesus Christ and who didnt trust the Bible as being God’s Word. The First Century (and all the way to the 16th for that matter) Christians didnt have Bibles. So what was the Word of God to them? Most of the New Testament wasnt written until (at the earliest) the latter half of the first century. So what did Christians use as their final authority if they didnt have Written Texts?
Does anyone have any actual scripture to support their more specific claims about scripture’s alleged lack of contradictions, or perceived unity of message?
This is not a rhetorical question. I think it’s important to get on the table what the Bible actually seems to claim for itself in this regard, and to not claim things for the Bible that the Bible doesn’t claim for itself.
When I was a fifth grader in Catholic school, I got tossed into detention for asking how Adam and Eve could have possibly populated the world when they had two sons.
My dad was incensed — he thought this was a pretty sophisticated question for a kid to be asking and since it was his kid doing the asking, he wanted the opportunity to answer it. After threatening to pull his three kids from the school, and therefore end his tuition payments, he got me sprung from detention.
We sat down on a bench just outside the office where he said, “Ok Kristine, here’s the deal. You know how Mommy is always saying that men are terrible at taking phone messages because they forget to write down a lot of important details?”
“Yes,” I responded.
“Well Honey, a man wrote the Bible and he forgot to mention there were women around to help populate the world!”
And there you have my early lesson that the Bible cannot be taken literally!
@JeffGarner:Yes, I was defending my perspective. I was not thinking on the lines of “How do you explain it to an unbeliever”. Good point. Haven’t put a lot of thought to it. It is challenging, not because the Bible is full of lies/contradictions, but because as human beings, our minds are always attracted toward the negative. We can be quick to find fault than see the good. Although most of the Word DOES NOT contradict, I think one post (James) said over 90% agrees, most people focus on the few that can be contradictory. The early followers probably followed the Master with a simple believing Faith. Yes, they did not have a Bible. What if God’s Spirit led them in a special way, until the Word was canonized? It might be easy for an unbeliever to say all of it is a bunch of lies and contradicting stories. But what if it isn’t? What if the over 90% that does agree is true?
BTW JeffG, this is Anthony Mathiasz, was one of your students at CLC 10 years ago, glad I found this blog. Dez is my middle name Like the conversation.
@Kristine – How is your dad’s wonderful illustration supportive that the Bible can’t be taken literal? It only means “forgetting details” explains some gaps that we don’t know.
As a Christian, it is important to ask yourself if your revere the Bible as a requirement for your evolvement in a religious organization, or if the Bible truly serves as encouragement and inspiration in your Walk of Faith as you aspire to be Christ-Like.
Clearly, things humans are involved with are never perfect, including the writing of the books of the Bible and their canonization.
Obviously, the Bible is not 100% reliable for scientific or historical studies, no matter how many copies of it have been written. So no, it is not reliable IF Science and History are your only focus.
Becoming inquizitive regarding the accuracy of the stories does not mean you need to depart from faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.
Faith is so beautiful and so simple. Like in any relationship, faith must grow.
If you have no relationship with the Spirit behind the Word, then the bible is just another book.
Stop trying to prove things logically to prideful, carnal minds. Being able to see a reflection of Jesus Christ in you is their only hope.
Alright, briefly ( I wish I could stay on this site all day)…Christians, something I have trouble with (and someone mentioned it above): The new testament authors quoting the Old Testament.
They rip scripture from it’s original context and apply it in messianic “understanding” but yet if I was allowed the same freedom to really change and adjust the meaning of scripture for my own selfish, religious purposes for some “new revelation” that I have found, would I not be a heretic?
So why can new testament authors do unto scripture what we cannot?
@JakeR: To answer your question, in Catholic school I was told that Adam and Eve populated the world. I believed that up until I was 10 years old. I took the story literally — my dad’s illustration showed me that I shouldn’t because as other folks on this blog have already pointed out, the Bible was written by man!
@JR The Hermeneutic that seems nonexistent in Paul’s writings is in reality a more salvation-historical hermeneutic. Someone explained to me before that his (Paul) was a Hillel-influenced Hermeneutic and not absurd at all in that light.
Secondly, I think more often than not, Paul used scripture as a prop or illustration to support a point. In other times, he “pulled back the curtain” as an Apostle in such a critical eschatological age to reveal not only that the Messiah was Jesus, but that the entire story pointed to the Messiah. It was hard for others to see the story since they had not seen the “end,” which is what Christ represented.
That’s my shot at your question (a question I’ve indeed pondered myself).
If we all handled the Story with the same authority as the Apostles (and Jesus), God help us. In fact, it’s not an “if” anymore. Plenty do this
Kristine, so that’s it? The Story is concocted and written by the pen of a creative dude centuries ago? Was that your conclusion?
By saying “populated the earth” could this be a more figurative way of referring to the generations that followed Adam and his family? Is it impossible for them to populate the earth? (This begs another question, and problem I believe about spontaneous, random creation — particularly if that random occurrence produced one man or one woman or an entire species!)
I think many on this blog have not said “the Bible is written by man therefore none of it can be taken literally.” If anything, I believe Hambone presented a more moderated consensus, if there even is close to one, on the post. What about “because God used man to write His Story, there could be errors in the message, just as there are today — but “even man gets it right now and then… especially if they are under the supervision of someone that is quite Perfect” Just some thoughts.
I think the dismissal of “oops.. it’s man. So everything I don’t understand, I explain as more evidence that none of the Bible is literal (or even trustworthy, as some would continue the thought).”
April 1st, 2010 at 1:36 am
the bible is written by man?
April 5th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
The gospels were written long after Jesus was around, how can they account for anything that Jesus represents as true?
April 5th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Well if you’re reading some book that has any basis on past history, and you notice it’s getting dates and locations wrong, and some chapters say you should do X while others explicitly tell you not to, you’d be smart to think this book may not be all that reliable with the other things it’s talking about too.
I actually read an article the other day that said something to the effect of, “There may be contradictions, but God was working through the scribes who put it together so of course it is reliable.”
Let’s make something explicitly clear: if you contradict yourself, you’ve made a mistake. So did God mess up, or was it the scribes? I don’t imagine it was God, being infallible, so how can the scribes mess up if God was there too, working through them? I don’t understand this at all, so I’m left to think the bible was written by man, which makes sense because men love to contradict each other.
In the end, I don’t find a book filled with errors and contradictions and written by men (and subjected to generations of politicking – men also love politics) to be very reliable.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
This is a false dichotomy. If it’s not inspired by god, it’s not automatically all lies.
I don’t think the Harry Potter stories are inspired by God, and I don’t think they’re all lies – they’re a series of stories whose aim isn’t to be a factual account, which also happen to illustrate particular moral values.
Similarly the bible may also be a series of metaphorical stories, which don’t aim to be truthful accounts of historical events. I don’t claim that’s what they are, I am merely pointing out that there are more possible options than “inspired by God” and “load of lies”.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
1. There was no canon in the beginning, just lots of texts like Mark and Luke that different groups liked (or didn’t) and argued about. There were the adoptionists, who insisted that Jesus was a mortal man of normal birth who was “adopted” by God at his baptism. There were the docetists, who insisted that Jesus was never a mortal, that he was entirely a divine spirit, and only gave the illusion of being born and dying. There were the separationists, who believed that a spirit came down and entered the mortal man Jesus, and left him shortly before he died. There were even groups, like the Gnostics, who were sure that the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament were two completely different gods! There was another group which might be called proto-orthodox, who believed that Jesus was both divine and mortal at the same time.
The proto-orthodox group won out simply by gathering more believers and convincing more people. Through chance, their beliefs about Jesus stood the test of time and became the book that so many people believe is “divinely inspired” today. The texts that supported the beliefs of the other groups still exist… they were just not included in the bible.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Are there contradictions or just lack of understanding on our part? What about the agreement that is found between two differing authors written at different times? What about new testament reference to old testament scripture?
April 7th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
@brome
what about the agreement found between two differing authors written at different times? (i’m not sure which part you’re referring too)
April 8th, 2010 at 12:37 am
In personal study at times I have misunderstood scripture due to lack of proper context. This seems easy to do when we consider the different authors and the various times. Merely trying to point out that while we are discussing contradictions of scripture it seems appropriate that we discuss the coherency as well. Yes there are contradictions, however there is plenty of coherency.
April 8th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
What’s an example of something you misunderstood? I’m only asking because your statement shows how there could be 50 different interpretations of a certain line/phrase.
It seems pretty easy to say that any of those 50 statements are correct/incorrect….
Which then adds on to make it more contradictory (does this make sense? sometimes i fail at explaining things)
April 9th, 2010 at 1:19 am
Can someone name me a literary work that has passed the authenticity test with even the most criticism than the Bible?
More ancient manuscripts (copies) than any other work.
The most copies closest to the original work of books of antiquity.
Despite textual errors, manuscript found in different parts of the country still are over 90% consistent, the variants being explainable.
Let’s start there.
April 9th, 2010 at 1:20 am
My last post was awkwardly posted. Let me re-word that. Textual error
April 9th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I am not sure of the perceived contradictions. Rather than assume that there are any, I would like someone to specify what contradictions are present.
My studies have never produced a contradiction of consequence in what we consider Scripture. So i am honestly asking for clarification regarding the misrepresentations that others claim to be present.
Can anyone help me?
April 9th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Chavis. Good point. And most contradictions are better understood and explained once they are examined in context. This does not, however, account for varying perspectives of the same event, calendar and dating system differences among writers, and loose facts where the writer is only communicating transcendent truth in the context of the truth he knows. Revelation would be a prime example of this.
On the question of errancy because of the involvement of fallible people — even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.
We do not claim that the humans who penned the books of the Bible were always accurate in everything they said or did. We simply believe that the Bible is right when it claims that God guided these men in their task of writing Scripture, in such a way that the result is an infallible book. The apostle Peter undoubtedly said some foolish things during his lifetime, but God did not allow him to clutter up the Bible with any of those blunders.
I understand there are some groups of Christians who claim the message as a whole is accurate, though the details may not be. I’m not prepared to go even that far.
The 40 authors of what we call the Bible differed widely in their culture and education, and with personality and intellectual perception, and yet the books they wrote thread together like one magnificent seam.
Further on the grounds of prophecies, historicity, and indestructibility, the Bible adds to its resume of clout and legitimacy.
The Bible deals with the subjects of history, biography, poetry, speeches, proverbs, songs, parables, prophecies, romances, drama, tragedies, sermons, dialog, and ethical teachings. This is to be considered when critically reviewing the Bible for accuracy.
Never has a book endured as much criticism, yet has always answered the critics. In terms of authenticity, it trumps Homer’s Illiad, Julias Cesar, Pliny’s History, etc…
@Greengodzilla Those misunderstandings plague even those within Christianity. In reality, there are not 50 interpretations, there is but one primary meaning of what was written, what was intended and what it meant to the original audience. So it’s not a putting the finger to the wind, but rather faithful study and exegesis that would go into any work of antiquity.
@Unprobable Those who personally followed Jesus, gave their lives as a witness to his testimony and recorded the story are those whom I’d be more concerned with what they had to say about him. Even independent (meaning, people who weren’t followers of Jesus – like Josephus), provide us historical accuracy about the Jesus Movement. All these other groups were referenced by Paul. The process of canonology was not without debate and fervor. You should come check out the canonology discussion next weekend with Roy Fisher.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I enjoy the input thus far. Good perspectives.
Fundamental to any Evangelical church is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Maybe we should ask what that even means then?
April 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Wow! Some really interesting comments. I do realize the fact that there seems to be some contradictions, this is, in my opinion, due to the fact that there is a human element involved in writing it. Men and a woman of God wrote it, and yes they were inspired by God. However over the years and after many translations, there can be minor contradictions. But there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God and truths in His word that are irrefutable.
As for me, I find that there is enough “truth” in the Bible that the few “contradictions” are irrelevant. I have had enough “God-encounters” that the so called contradictions have no effect on my trust in God and His word. It brings life, light and hope.
April 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Do we dare to question the word of God?.. I don’t plan on doing so.. the enemy has many ways to deceive the very elect.. remember how he quoted verse to Our Lord during the temptation of Christ?.. We tred in deep / potentially hot waters when we ( instead of seeking to live according to and doing God’s will ) decide to question the word of God ( The Bible )..
April 13th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
I think that the following questions would be nice to hear some interaction on. I believe in Jesus Christ. But these questions often come up when I interact with agnostics and atheists. Does anyone have some answers to these questions: (1) How can Christians claim that their Sacred Text is the Word of God when men voted on whether or not it was included in the Canon? (2) How can Christians maintain faith in Writings that have transmission errors?
@Jeff: the questions are not posed to the “Word of God” they are posed to you. How do you answer people who have questions in these areas? Your Writings tell you to “be ready to give every man an answer that asks you . . . ” What answer would you give to the woman who asks, “How can you believe the Bible is God’s Word?”
@Dez: It seems you too are trying to defend and secure your own persepctive. How would you explain an answer to someone who didnt believe in Jesus Christ and who didnt trust the Bible as being God’s Word. The First Century (and all the way to the 16th for that matter) Christians didnt have Bibles. So what was the Word of God to them? Most of the New Testament wasnt written until (at the earliest) the latter half of the first century. So what did Christians use as their final authority if they didnt have Written Texts?
April 13th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Does anyone have any actual scripture to support their more specific claims about scripture’s alleged lack of contradictions, or perceived unity of message?
This is not a rhetorical question. I think it’s important to get on the table what the Bible actually seems to claim for itself in this regard, and to not claim things for the Bible that the Bible doesn’t claim for itself.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Some of you may find a recent debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Craig A. Evans useful. It is on the historical reliability of the gospels. Ehrman challenges the usefulness of the gospels; Evans defends. I have put a link here: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/craig-evans-and-bart-ehrman-debate-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels/
April 14th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
When I was a fifth grader in Catholic school, I got tossed into detention for asking how Adam and Eve could have possibly populated the world when they had two sons.
My dad was incensed — he thought this was a pretty sophisticated question for a kid to be asking and since it was his kid doing the asking, he wanted the opportunity to answer it. After threatening to pull his three kids from the school, and therefore end his tuition payments, he got me sprung from detention.
We sat down on a bench just outside the office where he said, “Ok Kristine, here’s the deal. You know how Mommy is always saying that men are terrible at taking phone messages because they forget to write down a lot of important details?”
“Yes,” I responded.
“Well Honey, a man wrote the Bible and he forgot to mention there were women around to help populate the world!”
And there you have my early lesson that the Bible cannot be taken literally!
April 14th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
@JeffGarner:Yes, I was defending my perspective. I was not thinking on the lines of “How do you explain it to an unbeliever”. Good point. Haven’t put a lot of thought to it. It is challenging, not because the Bible is full of lies/contradictions, but because as human beings, our minds are always attracted toward the negative. We can be quick to find fault than see the good. Although most of the Word DOES NOT contradict, I think one post (James) said over 90% agrees, most people focus on the few that can be contradictory. The early followers probably followed the Master with a simple believing Faith. Yes, they did not have a Bible. What if God’s Spirit led them in a special way, until the Word was canonized? It might be easy for an unbeliever to say all of it is a bunch of lies and contradicting stories. But what if it isn’t? What if the over 90% that does agree is true?
Like the conversation.
BTW JeffG, this is Anthony Mathiasz, was one of your students at CLC 10 years ago, glad I found this blog. Dez is my middle name
April 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
@Kristine – How is your dad’s wonderful illustration supportive that the Bible can’t be taken literal? It only means “forgetting details” explains some gaps that we don’t know.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:22 am
As a Christian, it is important to ask yourself if your revere the Bible as a requirement for your evolvement in a religious organization, or if the Bible truly serves as encouragement and inspiration in your Walk of Faith as you aspire to be Christ-Like.
Clearly, things humans are involved with are never perfect, including the writing of the books of the Bible and their canonization.
Obviously, the Bible is not 100% reliable for scientific or historical studies, no matter how many copies of it have been written. So no, it is not reliable IF Science and History are your only focus.
Becoming inquizitive regarding the accuracy of the stories does not mean you need to depart from faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.
Faith is so beautiful and so simple. Like in any relationship, faith must grow.
If you have no relationship with the Spirit behind the Word, then the bible is just another book.
Stop trying to prove things logically to prideful, carnal minds. Being able to see a reflection of Jesus Christ in you is their only hope.
April 15th, 2010 at 5:05 am
instead of quoting this guy, I think i’ll just link it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqTysSMQpk&annotation_id=annotation_283570&feature=iv
4 minute video, very short
April 15th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Alright, briefly ( I wish I could stay on this site all day)…Christians, something I have trouble with (and someone mentioned it above): The new testament authors quoting the Old Testament.
They rip scripture from it’s original context and apply it in messianic “understanding” but yet if I was allowed the same freedom to really change and adjust the meaning of scripture for my own selfish, religious purposes for some “new revelation” that I have found, would I not be a heretic?
So why can new testament authors do unto scripture what we cannot?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
@JakeR: To answer your question, in Catholic school I was told that Adam and Eve populated the world. I believed that up until I was 10 years old. I took the story literally — my dad’s illustration showed me that I shouldn’t because as other folks on this blog have already pointed out, the Bible was written by man!
April 16th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@JR The Hermeneutic that seems nonexistent in Paul’s writings is in reality a more salvation-historical hermeneutic. Someone explained to me before that his (Paul) was a Hillel-influenced Hermeneutic and not absurd at all in that light.
Secondly, I think more often than not, Paul used scripture as a prop or illustration to support a point. In other times, he “pulled back the curtain” as an Apostle in such a critical eschatological age to reveal not only that the Messiah was Jesus, but that the entire story pointed to the Messiah. It was hard for others to see the story since they had not seen the “end,” which is what Christ represented.
That’s my shot at your question (a question I’ve indeed pondered myself).
If we all handled the Story with the same authority as the Apostles (and Jesus), God help us. In fact, it’s not an “if” anymore. Plenty do this
April 16th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Kristine, so that’s it? The Story is concocted and written by the pen of a creative dude centuries ago? Was that your conclusion?
By saying “populated the earth” could this be a more figurative way of referring to the generations that followed Adam and his family? Is it impossible for them to populate the earth? (This begs another question, and problem I believe about spontaneous, random creation — particularly if that random occurrence produced one man or one woman or an entire species!)
I think many on this blog have not said “the Bible is written by man therefore none of it can be taken literally.” If anything, I believe Hambone presented a more moderated consensus, if there even is close to one, on the post. What about “because God used man to write His Story, there could be errors in the message, just as there are today — but “even man gets it right now and then… especially if they are under the supervision of someone that is quite Perfect” Just some thoughts.
I think the dismissal of “oops.. it’s man. So everything I don’t understand, I explain as more evidence that none of the Bible is literal (or even trustworthy, as some would continue the thought).”
Thinking through the questions with you…
April 21st, 2010 at 3:05 am
Possible source of bible covenant with god
http://www.examiner.com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Source-of-Bible-Covenant-with-God-discovered
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs