Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.
I’m currently reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, a fascinating study of hidden incentives, unasked questions, and unexpected realizations. This particular quote stood out to me:
It was John Kenneth Galbraith, the hyperliterate economic sage, who coined the phrase ‘conventional wisdom.’ He did not consider it a compliment. ‘We associate truth with convenience, with what mostly accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life…We adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.’
I’d like to shift the focus of this principle from an economic field to the realm of Christianity. Faith in the unseen is at the core of Christian doctrine; by its very nature, much of Christianity cannot be substantiated. However, this has not stopped us from developing our own conventional wisdom, and the church’s response to those who challenge the norm has been unpleasant, to say the least. Questioners are socially ostracized. We used to brand them as heretics and excommunicate them…or burn them at the stake. We develop a comfort zone of beliefs which we don’t want anyone messing with, and then wrap it up all nice and neat, stick a bow on it, and call it faith. I call it conventional wisdom, and like Galbraith, I don’t think highly of it.
The Bible
One of the most obvious manifestations of this phenomenon is our insistence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Is it really? Who says? I know my church history. I know about the great church councils and the canonization of the 27 books which comprise the New Testament. I know all the self-authenticating Bible verses, such as 2nd Timothy 3:16 (“All scripture is God-breathed…”). Undoubtedly, we have a huge number of witnesses spanning two millennia who help shape our conventional wisdom; unfortunately, while the magnitude of testimony must weigh heavily, it doesn’t conclude anything.
The Bible claims, on many occasions, to be the Word of God. Well, so does the Qur’an, and I find it to be inconsistent, self-contradicting, and extremely non-progressive. I would think God can do better than that. Or take the Book of Mormon, which claims to be the final (as in, more authoritative) revelation of Jesus. I find it overly fantastic and completely incongruous with subsequent scientific and archaeological discoveries. Should I not apply the same critical analysis to my own scriptures as to those of other faith traditions? And when I do, what happens when I discover self-contradictions? What do I do with prophetic messages that clash? What do I do with rules that demean women? How do I respond when God acts in a way that is in direct conflict with the testimony of Jesus? As I see it, we have three choices: 1) Change our view of God, or 2) Change our view of the Bible, or 3) Not think about it and use the “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand it so we should just believe” intellectual out-clause.
Conventional Wisdom
Christian conventional wisdom tends to take the third option. It’s safe. For one thing, it’s what the community is supposed to believe, so we don’t risk rocking the boat. Besides, if we don’t ask questions, God will surely be pleased with our faith and so he won’t throw us in hell. The other alternatives are scary, so we stick with what we know, doing everything in our power to avoid uncomfortable disequilibrium. This is human nature. I don’t want to downplay the cost of questioning; it is enormous. If we are truly Christians, then our spiritual beliefs form the foundation on which we build our lives, and if those are wrong, then what does that say about everything we’ve worked to accomplish? If we are wrong, then the apostle Paul is right, and we are to be pitied above all persons.
My Choice
I chose to change my view of the Bible. I now view it as the most fascinating collection of ancient theology ever assembled. It is writers like me trying to make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in. It is myriad voices blending together to proclaim that God is up to something in this world, and it’s worth our effort to be on board. So although I’m not convinced Abraham was a historical figure, I still embrace his story as my story. And though I don’t believe the exodus happened as described, I celebrate my deliverance from bondage along with the ancient Hebrews. And while I don’t believe Revelation to be a literal end-time vision, I celebrate God’s eventual triumph over evil with all the white-clad saints.
Moving Forward
I challenge Christians everywhere to let God out of the book. Over the centuries, humankind has made exponential progress in areas such as science, medicine, government, economics, philosophy, agriculture, and psychology. Is it so blasphemous to think moral understanding didn’t peak over nineteen hundred years ago? I think not. The council of early Christians in Jerusalem decided a vast majority of Torah—the Law of God—was irrelevant to gentile converts, a decision which must have been excruciatingly difficult to come to. Let us have the courage to do the same, when necessary. I absolutely believe the Bible should be the first thing we turn to for answers to moral dilemmas; it is our story and our tradition, after all. But is it God’s end-all, be-all Word? Not unless it’s a sin to trim your beard.
Thanks for the article Josh. Naturally, while I agree with the critical thinking, I find the results unsatisfactory. Particularly the following:
And when I do, what happens when I discover self-contradictions?
I’m curious what kind of contradictions you are talking about? Naturally, I have seen some shaky numbers and some “contradictions” that are caused more by historical cultural misrepresentations - but I have not found anything so glaring in the text itself as to be compared to the blatant distortions isn say, The Book of Mormon.
What do I do with prophetic messages that clash?
The “clashing” of prophetic messages strikes me as something inherent in prophesy - not a criticism. Unless there is some date given or names named, then such “clashing” can be manifested in misinterpretation.
What do I do with rules that demean women?
First of all, it is your modern interpretation that assumes they demean women - it is historically dishonest to take social customs from 7,000 miles away and thousands of years back and port them into modern social conventions. You should deal with them like any other outline of cultural history - honestly and in context.
How do I respond when God acts in a way that is in direct conflict with the testimony of Jesus?
Technically, it would be the other way around, as God establishes himself first in the bible. Either way, I don’t see Jesus contradicting God - he behaves differently (but not incompatibly) - but Jesus is a different person in the Trinity and his responsibilities (God the Father doesn’t die on the cross, God the Son does) and attributes are different.
As I see it, we have three choices: 1) Change our view of God, or 2) Change our view of the Bible, or 3) Not think about it and use the “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand it so we should just believe” intellectual out-clause.
One and Two assume that God and biblical truth is subjective to human interpretation - the premise there rejects absolute truth. The third assumes faith, but is nto the only “way out” of what you are bringing up.
I suggest that where faith is lacking, take a critical look - but without the blunders of subjective interpretation and historical moralizing.
I have always found places in scripture and my faith which cause me to question “conventional wisdom” - but I must shy away from a different “conventional wisdom” interpretation. If God is all knowing and the standard of Truth, as I believe he is, then he’s not going to be daunted by my questions. In those places where I have had severe doubts, I usually found that the doubts were caused by my own dishonest or ignorant analytics, rather than a failing in the source itself.
I won’t go so far as to deny the historicity of Abraham or the exodus, but it wouldn’t shake my faith if Esther, Job, and Jonah are grounded more in myth than historical truth. I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God, but that doesn’t mean I believe every word is meant to be taken literally. At the very least we must remember that the ancient Israelites had a different concept of history than we do in the modern West. They weren’t so concerned with precise dates and numbers as they were with the meaning of events in relation to God and his people. For example, Matthew didn’t have any problem fiddling with the geneological records in order to produce a symbolically significant number: three sets of fourteeen generations from Adam to Jesus.
At the very least we must remember that the ancient Israelites had a different concept of history than we do in the modern West. They weren’t so concerned with precise dates and numbers as they were with the meaning of events in relation to God and his people. For example, Matthew didn’t have any problem fiddling with the geneological records in order to produce a symbolically significant number: three sets of fourteeen generations from Adam to Jesus.
This is my point. Only when we come in with our modern concept of how history is recorded do we say “WAIT!!!! CONTRADICTION!” The bible never premises itself as a history or science textbook - it identifies itself as a message from God to man that reveals the nature and will of God. People, cultures and nations are only used in the bible to speak this ultimate message. Trying to derive a people-centered or humanistic interpretation of the bible is always going to leave a gap.
I don’t think Hungry Sasquatch is referring to simple discrepancies like geneologies, though. Those are explainable with a little bit of study. That would be too easy. He mentioned contradictions between the actions of God and the words of Christ, which is a problem even if we accept that the Bible isn’t a history book or science textbook. The whole point of the Bible is to reveal God’s nature, right? And if nothing else, it should get that right, without major contradictions.
Agreed, but I fail to see any major differences between the persons of Jesus and God the Father - only in compatible differences of roles and responsibilities.
Colin made all my points. Thanks, dude.
Josh, are you familiar with the “Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic?” I do agree with some of what you wrote, but I’d like to point out that the Bible being inspired and useful in all the ways mentioned in 1st Timothy 3:16 is a long way from the strict inerrancy of some groups.
Welcome, Josh. I’m glad you could contribute.
“I don’t want to downplay the cost of questioning; it is enormous.”
I went through a pretty intense period of questioning myself when I was in my early 20s. It was a time for me to reject some of the narrowness of my spiritual upbringing. For me, that meant accepting a wider range of denominations–both in their doctrines and their practices, quit hating Catholics, and rethinking my own views on the inspiration of scripture. My revised view of scripture didn’t go as far liberal as yours, but I did learn to understand some of the meaning of metaphor in scripture. The topic itself is of supreme importance to me, both for my own faith and in consideration of my life’s work.
Like Colin, I’d like to see some specifics in your list of contradictions. Theologians have been arguing about them for centuries, you know. It would be a good exercise to go through the list.
On one specific, I pretty much object to the idea that scripture has rules that “demean women.” So much of what is “demeaning” is culturally determined, both in Bible times and in our times. For instance, when we lived in a technologically primitive society in the Solomon Islands, we saw that women were owned by their men. But was that a bad or demeaning thing? No, because while they were considered possessions, they were considered valuable and precious possessions, possessions to be taken care of. I’m a 21st century woman, and I don’t feel demeaned by its “rules.”
In the end, I worry that you’ve given yourself permission to throw out just about any part of scripture that you don’t agree with or that you dislike or don’t understand fully. If the only thing we’re left with is a nice book to go to for our moral dilemmas, how will our sins be forgiven?
Perhaps I’ve overstated your view; if so, please correct me.
To respond to the article properly would take me days… suffice it to say that your postmodern view of the Bible is extremely dangerous and I sincerely hope and pray that through more careful study, you will find that you can indeed have faith in God’s Word.
“As I see it, we have three choices: 1) Change our view of God, or 2) Change our view of the Bible, or 3) Not think about it and use the “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t understand it so we should just believe” intellectual out-clause.”
There is an obvious 4th choice here that you neglect: Allow God’s wisdom to become our own. It doesn’t require any of the other three choices to do so.
Colin pretty much said everything for me anyway
Darius, your option 4 is the same as Hungry Sasquatch’s option 3, just in different terms. If there’s a qualitative difference I’m not seeing, feel free to elaborate.
Jew, the difference is he says option 3 entails “not thinking about it” when what I am suggesting (though perhaps didn’t clarify this properly) is that it does entails thought, but also an acknowledgment that we need to be endowed with God’s wisdom. The Bible clearly states that God allows those He calls to be granted wisdom and insight that man is not capable of. What Josh is suggesting is making ourselves our own “God” and using the Bible to suit our needs.
Personally, I have never found any contradictions within scripture that were not able to be explained (usually, quite easily if I was willing to set aside my own personal feelings) with a little careful further study or talking to a Christian friend or someone in Biblical authority over me (like a pastor). I would encourage anyone who finds numerous and unanswerable contradictions within the Bible to find someone who is well-founded in his understanding of Scripture and ask him to answer your questions. A solid Bible study can go a long way to opening one’s eyes to the truth.
Now you’re just skirting the issue. If we assume that there are contradictions within scripture that cannot be explained after serious study–which is what the article posits–then your option #4 becomes no different than option #3. Both entail study; the only difference is, option #3 assumes that the study has already been undertaken and no explanation for the inconsistencies has been found.
Darius, it sounds like what you’re saying is that if you see contradictions in Scripture, then you either haven’t studied it carefully, or you’re unwilling to drop your preconceptions and change your theological beliefs to match what the Bible says.
Or am in need of some divine clarity from the Holy Spirit…we can do all the Bible study in the world, but if God doesn’t allow us to understand it, we won’t.
“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”
Jew, perhaps my #4 choice is basically Josh’s #3… fine, for the sake of the argument, I will grant that. But calling it the “intellectual out-clause” makes God out to be someone who can’t be understood, which is incorrect. God has given us His Word so that we CAN understand Him, not fully, but sufficiently. There are no contradictions in the Bible, if you read everything and consider context and culture.
The accounts of Judas’ death have a couple of inconsisties.
(NASB)
Matthew 27:3-10 - “3 Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!”
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.”
7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.
8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
10 )AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER’S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.”"
Acts 1:18 19 - “18 Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)”
Here’s my response, I welcome dialog.
http://ncmin.com/archives/139
By the way, that “A Response to “The Inspired Word of God” is solid (at least at first glance).
Jasen, I don’t see any inconsistencies (at least, important ones) but rather some likely details were left out. Either way, this isn’t an important issue, not like some knowledge about God or doctrinal issue.
Like Colin said, the Bible is NOT a history book.
Casey, on further reading, I agree completely with your analysis of this article. You show quite well the logical end to the author’s thinking.
And yes, while I have yet to read it, I have heard very good things about Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology book and intend on reading it when I get a chance.
I would also recommend www.monergism.com
Hello Netizens,
I actually didn’t get torched as badly as I expected. I don’t think I’ll get to finish my response before church, so I’ll write more later tonight. For now, I’ll see what I can do.
Some of you seem to have the idea that one day I decided I didn’t like the Bible, so I started picking and choosing what I like while discarding the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth. My parents are conservative Bible translators, and I spent six years studying Bible at a conservative Christian university. In my quest for truth, I interrogated ministers, professors, friends, the scriptures, and God himself. I ruthlessly examined my motives, assuming my doubts were due to my own inept intellect and/or faith. Through all the study and reflection, these are the conclusions I have come to. I admit I could be wrong, but I didn’t change my views on a whim.
With that out of the way, onward to defending my heresies!
Colin: By saying everything that was on so many others’ minds, you have saved me the work of a few extra responses. Well done sir! As to self-contradictions, Jew is right that I’m not terribly concerned with minor details. I agree that the Bible is not trying to be a science or history book; such inaccuracies don’t bother me. I will provide a couple of examples which are more problematic to me. (And for the record, I find the Bible substantially more credible than the Book of Mormon.)
Second Samuel 24 records the story of King David taking a census and the ensuing consequences. It begins with this premise: “Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.’” Laying aside the theological can of worms this opens, flip over to First Chronicles 21, which tells the same story with a different opening: “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” These cannot possibly both be right. Who was responsible for instigating a calamitous that resulted in 70,000 innocent people dead?
My other example is the message of Nahum versus the message of Jonah. Nahum portrays God as eagerly anticipating the destruction of Assyria, symbolized graphically in the image of God holding up a woman’s skirt for the other nations to see her private parts, while he simultaneously throws feces at her (Nahum 3:5-6). The theme of the entire book is complete destruction and humiliation for Assyria. Enter Jonah, a contemporary of Nahum. As the book opens, the character of Jonah seems to share Nahum’s mentality, but God’s perspective is portrayed entirely differently. In the end (the chapter usually ignored in Sunday school) God asks, “Shouldn’t I care about these people too?” These views are clearly in contention with each other. What is God’s true desire for the Assyrians?
Prophetic messages clashing: See above for an example of that. I should state my view on prophecy (which may get me in even more trouble). I don’t think any of them are quoting God, nor are they predicting future events in a pre-ordained sort of way. They are taking what they understand about God, and using that understanding to proclaim a message and cast a vision. I have no problem with “predictions” not lining up with historical events.
I need to leave in four minutes, so I’ll respond to the rest of your challenges, as well as everyone else’s, when I return. Peace
I have already posted a response to the original article, but I found these examples worth addressing. First a response regarding the text in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.
The conflict is actually pretty easy to resolve if you study the Bible systematically. 2 Samuel states that the “anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them…” compared to the parallel text in 1 Chronicles that states that “Satan stood against Israel and incited David…”
This is where sound theology and systematic study really comes into play. The doctrine of compatibilism is the explanation for this surface contradiction. Just like in the book of Job where God permitted Satan to test him, Job accredited the destruction to God instead Satan, eventhough Satan was the instrument used by God to test him.
It is clear that Job was being tried by Satan, but the trying was under the supervision of God’s sovereignity and therefore Job “Did not sin with his mouth” when is he “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Chances are the author doesn’t embrace the sovereignity of God over his creation, which makes text like these difficult when you see responsibility placed on two separate parties.
As far as the Nahum vs. Jonah conflict, this also further shows the hermeneutic incompetence of the author. The prophecy is a genre that has many hermeneutical issues that have to dealt with before proper ezposition can take place. Prophetic literature has many conditional elements. Many if not most judgment prophecies are conditioned upon the obedience of the one over whom the prophecy is pronounced. This is exemplified in the Nahum vs. Jonah conflict, God expresses his wrath towards the sin of the Assyrians while also expressing his love for those who repent and turned to him for forgiveness.
These conflicts do not challenge the clarity and inspiration of Scripture, but rather prove their reliabiity and the need for exegesis to be done in a systematic way that takes into account the whole of Scripture and sound hermeneutic method.
For the Cross,
CH
www.ncmin.com
Darius, it’s not that detail are left out, it’s that some of the details are different. What did Judas do with the money? Who bought the field? Why was the field named?
Are you saying there are inconsistencies in the insignificant details? The Bible may not be a history book (actually it is, but it doesn’t use modern methods of presenting history) but the common idea is that the Bible is completely accurate in all it does cover. That belief is the cornerstone of many people’s theological systems.
Seriously, Casey, well-done! You said exactly what I was thinking, yet in a much more eloquent and concise manner than I could have.
Josh, I’m glad that you’re open and willing to consider other opinions that contrast your belief that the Bible is not divinely inspired and is contradictory. Hopefully, either through this site or biblically-based advice from friends or a good systematic theology book, you can have these questions and concerns answered to help restore your faith in God and His Word.
Ultimately, what makes one a Christian is the ability (whether inherent or God-imbued, that is a different discussion) to, in faith, take God at His “word” that what the Bible says is truly “God-breathed.” If we can’t trust His Word completely, how can we put any faith in what it says about Jesus? And if Abraham is not a historical figure, what good is God’s covenant with him and his descendants (both the Jews in the OT and Christians in the New Covenant)? Belief is what makes someone a follower of Christ, not actions, deeds, or words. Belief. And belief in what? Belief based on false stories or theology or doctrine is empty. What does it profit a man to believe in Jesus if Christ ultimately isn’t everything He claims to be in the Bible?
What if one were to study a math or English book and decided that certain math problems or grammatical rules were incorrect or didn’t apply to him, either because they were too difficult to understand or too much of a pain to use and apply? Now, this doesn’t mean that we can’t question and study those math rules, and see if they are indeed correct. But most likely (even more so with Christian theology, since God wants the truth to be known), an algebraic expression has been tested and studied for hundreds or thousands of years by people more intelligent and educated on the subject than I and if there were a problem with the equation or a better solution could have arisen, it would have long ago.
Similarly, while we should continue to test and question our understanding of the Scriptures, we must be very loath to throw away any well-founded doctrine for a novel way of thinking about God. Furthermore, a church should not be in the business of needlessly questioning Scripture or tossing around heresy in the name of “tolerance” or “every idea is important.” I can’t recall any place in the New Testament where this is encouraged. Rather, everywhere where heresy comes up, the authors of the NT immediately demand that the heretics be thrown out of the church. After all, God holds his most significant damnation for those who preach heresy within the church (Matthew 18:6, Matt. 26:4). All sins pale in comparison to calling God a liar or attributing some characteristic to Him that is false.
Jasen, here is a good site that explains the Judas issue pretty well, I concur with it.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
Casey Hough,
First of all, that was a careless error on my part concerning the Timothy reference. Thank you for catching it. I would be grateful if one of the site editors changed it (should be 2nd Timothy 3:16). [Fixed. - Jew]
I appreciate that you have another perspective. What I don’t appreciate is you attacking my intellect and character due to our disagreement. That was a one-and-a-half page article on a topic to which 50 pages couldn’t do justice. I didn’t have a whole lot of space, or else I would have presented a broader spectrum of biblical theology, complete with more quotes and deeper analysis. To call me ignorant of all hermeneutical processes is simply unfair and uncalled for. You could ask me to elaborate or clarify before you blast me. If this is your pattern of response, then I have no desire to dialog.
To everyone, I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across as insulting or demeaning. That was not my intent, though I realize I may have communicated such with my tone. I am grateful for a platform in which to express my views.
The rest of my reply will unfortunately have to wait until tomorrow. It is past my bedtime.
Dear Josh,
I wish that I could say I appreciate your perspective, but I can’t do to the nature of your article. I have not desired to engage in “ad hominem” of your character or your intellect, but your article lacks much in the areas of exegesis, Biblical support, and thoroughness. In a postmodern society, many would like to agree to disagree, but that is not my perspective. If you intend to publishing something as a sound opinion and you include in it your educational credentials so as to validate your ability in handling such a topic, then you open yourself up for criticism.
I didn’t feel the need to include on my response my educational, apologetic, and ministerial experiences. I found your inclusion of your education to be somewhat self-absorbed considering the way in which you compared yourself to the Biblical writers.
Also in your response you said that you would have included a broader spectrum of Biblical Theology complete with more quotes and a more in-depth analysis. But dear friend, if you approach the Bible denying it’s authority and inspiration, then what more do you have to say, except for the opinions of neo-orthodox “theologians” and postmodern philosophers. If your interpretive method is wrong, then your understanding of the Biblical Theology is going to be wrong as well. Bad Exegesis leads to Bad Hermeneutics which leads to Bad Theology which is where you are.
You have undercut the authority of Scripture using a logic that is based on the very revelation of God that is found in Scripture. You are a living contradiction to claim that the Bible is nothing more than man’s thought about God but yet to claim that you have a knowledge about God. If God has not revealed Himself in His word, then you are hopeless as the pagan, having a understanding that there is a God, but not having any special revelation that teaches you about God.
I mean it’s a contradiction in terms for you to say that you could present a “broader spectrum” of Biblical Theology, since you don’t even believe that the Bible is God’s word. Who wants to hear you present a broader spectrum of man’s opinion about God?
And for whatever it is worth, I would love to see you try and elaborate and clarify your position. I welcome that dialog, but I refuse to gentle with falsehood. The reason my response was as hard as it was is because we live in a day where by and large Christianity is weak and pathetic and has lost a Biblical understanding of objective, God-centerd truth. If you are a Christian, then you are suppose to be representing Christianity. If someone presents something in the name of Christianity and what they present is wrong according to Scripture, then I will oppose it for the sake of the Church and the glory of God. Were your opinions stated in the times of the New Testament church to the apostles and the early Christians, there response would have probably been just as hard.
And for clarification, when I use the word “ignorant”, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I am assuming (because of what is evidenced in your article) that you have not been educated in Biblical hermeneutics and are therefore “ignorant” or “unaware” of the proper method by which to interpret and resolve textual issues. If you are aware of how to properly exegete a text of scripture and systematically study the Word of God to deduct truth yet refuse to do so, then you are no longer “ignorant” but a fool.
For the Cross,
CH
Jew,
Can you please point me to the “how dare you question the Bible” comment that I made in my response? The very logic that is behind the sciences is first and foremost rooted in the existence of a transcendent God who establishes absolute truth. Josh’s elevation of other studies over theology is self-defeating since a revelation of God must be available in order for any objective truth claims to be made.
If the revelation of God from scripture falls apart, then the ability to know and sustain any truth at all ceases to exist. Also my response was not a response defending inerrancy, but rather it was a response to someone questioning the inspiration of Bible. Though the doctrine of inspiration has major implications on inerrancy, it is still a slightly different study that involves a separate approach.
Also whenever you say that you agree with the authority of Scripture, you have to admit that you do not believe that the Bible is authoritative on the things that you feel are wrong. This path leads to subjective interpretation and ultimately makes you the determiner of what is true and what is not, which ultimate undermines the authority of Scripture to speak for itself.
Maybe I have misunderstood or misrepresented the comment that you left on my blog, but if you would like for me to better articulate my stance on Biblical inerrancy, then I would be happy to provide one after Thursday night (gotta quiz:). Let me know, I appreciate your criticism, for I want to make a clear and strong defense. I welcome your hard words as we seek to understand God as he has revealed himself to be.
For the Cross,
CH
Jew,
I think I better understand your post now. Point taken, though I do not agree that my response was based off of “conventional wisdom” like Josh’s article suggested. I will prepare an article on Biblical Inerrancy to state my stance on the doctrine.
For the Cross,
CH
Casey wrote: Jew, Can you please point me to the “how dare you question the Bible” comment that I made in my response?
You’re right, I shouldn’t have used those words. I meant to rewrite that phrase because I do not believe it is accurate, but I neglected to do so. Thanks for understanding my post despite my poor choice of words. I look forward to your article.
To everyone, I sincerely apologize if anything I said came across as insulting or demeaning. That was not my intent, though I realize I may have communicated such with my tone. I am grateful for a platform in which to express my views.
Joah, I don’t think this is the case at all. It takes a lot of guts, and a lot of grace to come on here knowing that no one is going to agree with you. I appreciate your contribution and hope you will write some more for us later.
I second Colin’s comment, I didn’t find your article or comments at all demeaning or insulting (other than perhaps to my knowledge of Scripture :)). As for Casey’s perceived attack on your character, he was merely making the correct observation that you appear to be ignorant (as defined by Casey) of basic hermeneutical and exegetical rules. This isn’t intended as an insult. As Casey said, either you are ignorant or a fool. Better the former than the latter.
Casey said: I found your [Josh’s] inclusion of your education to be somewhat self-absorbed considering the way in which you compared yourself to the Biblical writers.
Josh can explain exactly what he meant, but I don’t think he was putting himself on the same level with the biblical writers. He was drawing only one point of comparison: both he and the biblical writers were trying to “make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in.” Surely all committed Christians can make the same claim.
I always find I have the best discussions when I insist the other person must be either a fool or ignorant.
Jasen, where is Casey wrong in his deduction that Josh appears ignorant of typical hermeneutical rules? After all, Josh makes the claim that anyone who believes the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant must believe that trimming one’s beard is a sin. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of exegetical study of the Bible knows that this is a severe distortion.
Unfortunately, in our culture “ignorant” has come to mean “stupid.” Hardly the case… I am very ignorant of the strategies behind NHL hockey, but that doesn’t make me stupid or unable to at least comment on what I see in a hockey game (though it should be taken with a grain of salt).
Jew,
Josh’s exact quote: “I chose to change my view of the Bible. I now view it as the most fascinating collection of ancient theology ever assembled. It is writers like me trying to make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in. It is myriad voices blending together to proclaim that God is up to something in this world, and it’s worth our effort to be on board.”
Josh views the Bible as an ancient collection of theology. He claims the Bible is made up of writers “like” himself, “trying to make sense of their own lives in conjunction with the God they believe in.” Jew, you are missing the point, he doesn’t put the biblical writers on a level, because they are not writing the words of God, only thoughts and observation about God interpreted from their own experience. It’s a cross between existentialism and postmodernism. No objective truth about God can be know according to Josh’s view, because the Bible is nothing more than “writers” like Josh expressing their own thoughts and opinions about God.
I don’t think you realize what is at stake by embracing what Josh is prescribing. If the Bible is nothing more than man’s opinion about God, then you have no revelation of God, just sin-stained opinions. If all the Bible is, is “man making sense about God in conjunction to his life”, then you will have nothing but subjective relativism due to the fact that man is fallen in sin and is unable to know anything about God. There are no grounds for confidence in God if the Bible is simply man’s thought about God.
For the Cross,
CH
Jasen,
The point that I was making is that Josh is either ignorant (or uninformed) on the proper hermeneutical method for interpreting Scripture or he is a fool to know how to properly interpret Scripture and yet refuse to do so. For instance, you would not expect a child to perform open heart surgery because of their ignorance of the process. There ignorance makes them incompetent of achieving the goal of surgery. Yet you would most certainly find it foolish for a cardiovascular surgeon to ignore the surgical training, protocol, and procedure that they were educated in because they have been convinced otherwise by personal preference and convenience. The same stream of thought applies with the interpretation of scripture. One who is unaware, uninformed of hermeneutical process is therefore ignorant of it. One who is aware of hermeneutical process yet ignores it for preferential convenience in existential interpretation is a fool.
My intention was not to offend, but if the truth brought offense, then I am held captive to the truth of God. One is either ignorant of a method or they are aware of it and choose not to use it, therefore making them a fool. I make the same conclusion about myself on many issues. I am ignorant of lots of things about science; I am fool to know what I know about having a good diet and yet still refuse to eat better. No difference.
And one other things, foolish and ignorance are not the only options. Those are not the only options available. But unfortunately, in the case of Josh’s article, those are the only two available.
For the Cross,
CH
Better analogy than mine, Casey.
So, if you don’t agree with Casey, you’re either ignorant or foolish. Got it.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, the mature ones among us can continue with a rational discussion, realizing that intelligent, well-informed people can have legitimate differences of opinion. Heresy is still heresy, of course, but we won’t underestimate it by presuming that the heretics are either idiots or ignoramuses, or both.
And speaking of heresy, I did promise Colin that I would administer savage beatings to Josh if necessary. How severe a beating does this particular heresy require? What do the people say?
Jew, there is no need for hyperbole. You don’t seem to recognize the difference between what you’re accusing Casey of (arbitrarily calling people ignorant, thus wrong) and what Casey is ACTUALLY doing. Furthermore, it dismays me to see that Casey seems to be about the only one standing up for truth regarding this article, while you, Josh, and Jasen are getting stuck on semantics. There is great danger in what Josh is proposing if taken to its logical end, and some don’t seem to see that. Casey is 100% correct that Josh appears ignorant of standard hermeneutical rules. In this case, I actually hope it is just ignorance. Like I said before, this can be remedied by finding a Biblically-sound source outside of himself to test his theories against.
Also, Jew, no one called anyone an idiot. Don’t lie or insinuate falsehoods, it doesn’t help your argument.
For anyone who feels that God’s truth is something not worth fighting for, I would recommend John MacArthur’s book, The Truth War. Very solid book.
Thanks Darius. I re-read the comments and I guess I didn’t make my own positions clear. So let me be clear: the Bible is inspired by God. (What, precisely it means to be inspired is another debate.) If we can’t at least trust the Bible to be authoritative in matters of doctrine, then I don’t see how we can possibly be sure of our salvation.
I didn’t see much need to respond to Josh’s article because 1) others have already done so, and 2) I don’t see the inconsistencies and contradictions that he refers to (or at least, I don’t see any that call the veracity of the text into question.)
“And speaking of heresy, I did promise Colin that I would administer savage beatings to Josh if necessary. How severe a beating does this particular heresy require? What do the people say?”
Are we being sarcastic? Seriously, to answer the underlying question… as with all heresy, the “heretic” should be corrected and given the opportunity to renounce his false statements. If he rejects that option, offer him a second chance to rethink his position(s). If he still refuses, and especially if he begins to lead others astray, then that person must be thrown out of the Christian commmunity. Titus 3:10, 2 John 1:10, etc.
Darius said: Also, Jew, no one called anyone an idiot. Don’t lie or insinuate falsehoods, it doesn’t help your argument.
Yes, but foolish doesn’t alliterate as well, and idiot is technically a synonym.
I figured that was the case, Jew, I just thought that the forest of heresy was getting lost due to the trees of semantics. Everything I’ve seen you write on here leads me to believe that you’re pretty solid on your theology. However, the “church” must be united against heresy, rather than bickering over semantics. You are correct that normally, one shouldn’t go around assuming ignorance to explain disagreement. We’ve all fallen for this trap in discussions on here. But in this case, Josh has pretty clearly shown that he is likely ignorant (would you rather I use the word “untrained”?) of exegetical rules.
Casey didn’t call him a fool, but rather ignorant (or untrained, if you will). He correctly noted that fool was an option, but he was hoping that this wasn’t the case.
“And speaking of heresy, I did promise Colin that I would administer savage beatings to Josh if necessary. How severe a beating does this particular heresy require? What do the people say?”
I say make him clean all the toilets, mow the yard, do the dishes and vacuum the entire house while wearing shoes.
I didn’t mean to imply that anyone called anybody a fool. I apologize if it sounded that way. I just took the two options (foolish and ignorance) and reworded them as idiots and ignoramuses, because I thought that would sound less repetitive. Plus, hey, alliteration.
Thainamu, I was thinking more along the lines of mauling his face with a claw hammer.
A friend and pastor of mine pointed out what we all have neglected: what was Jesus’ view of Scripture?
Matt. 5:17-18
Matt. 22:29
John 10:35
Furthermore, did Jesus not constantly use the Scriptures to settle arguments and theological disputes? If it were not inspired by God, why did He put so much faith in it? He never said, “Isaiah said this, but that’s just his opinion.”
If Jesus considered the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” (and it is pretty clear He did), who are we to say otherwise? Are we not supposed to have the mind of Christ?
“Thainamu, I was thinking more along the lines of mauling his face with a claw hammer.
Then you don’t understand pain.
If I’m either a fool or ignorant, then I suppose I’m a fool. There is a third option of course: I’m right. But that won’t do. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a fool!
It appears the last sentence of my article has gotten me in a lot of trouble. That was an attempt at snide humor which appears to have failed miserably. My bad.
Colin and Darius: Thank you for your words of encouragement. I do intend to keep writing, if given the opportunity.
Jasen: I’m not familiar with the Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic (or at least with that term). Please, enlighten me.
You said, “I’d like to point out that the Bible being inspired and useful in all the ways mentioned in 1st Timothy 3:16 is a long way from the strict inerrancy of some groups.” I agree. Believe it or not, I agree whole-heartedly with every part of 2nd Timothy 3:16. I just think we should rethink what “God-breathed” means…after all, humans are God-breathed as well.
Thainamu: Thank you for being understanding of my faith struggle. to answer your (and Colin’s) challenge concerning women: I believe Genesis 2 paints the ideal portrait of male/female relations. Adam is surrounded by animals, but he is alone, for none of them can measure up. So God creates Eve, and Adam is ecstatic—here, at last, is his equal. Eve is described as Adam’s “helper.” Incidentally, the word translated helper most often refers to God in the Old Testament. Note: I am NOT equating Eve with God. What I am trying to show is that “helper” is not a diminutive or subordinate term. If anything, the word choice implies Adam needs Eve (and man needs woman) to save his rear end. This is the ideal.
Now take various laws in the Mosaic code. A woman is unclean for forty days after giving birth to a male child; eighty for a female (Lev 12). Why the difference? No explanation is given. If an unmarried or unengaged woman is raped, the perpetrator is forced to marry her without the option of divorce Deut 22). Now in the ancient world in which this law was given, this is radically progressive. In most cultures, the poor woman would have been written off as damaged goods, with a life in prostitution as her best chance at survival. For the ancient Hebrew woman, she had someone to provide for her the rest of her life. Like I said, this was moral progress. And yet, the woman was still condemned to a life with her rapist, while he got off easy. Is this really the best solution God, the maker and sustainer of the universe, could come up with? One more. When the Israelites men went to war, they were allowed to take a woman captive in order to marry her. First they had to shave her head and trim her nails. Then, after allowing her to mourn for a month, they could have sex with her. If they liked her, great. If not, they could send her away, though they couldn’t sell her as a slave (Deut 21). Again, this law elevates her status in context with contemporary cultures. But what if she were released? She would be a foreigner in a strange land with no prospects…and not at her peak physical appearance, which, let’s be honest, would further hurt her prospects.
Fast forward to Ezra. Many Jewish people had been given freedom to go home, and first on the agenda was to rebuild the temple. Ezra was informed that all the men had foreign wives, which he found appalling; after all, this practice was forbidden in Torah (which makes me wonder about Deut 21…I suppose if I weren’t so ignorant about hermeneutics I would understand that there’s no contradiction here (note: that was sarcasm)). The book climaxes with all these men agreeing to send away their wives and children. This is regarded as a triumphant moment of repentance in Israelite history. Um, forgive my skepticism, but how can anyone other than terrible husbands think this is a good thing?
I believe good exegesis explains problematic gender-related passages in the New Testament (with one exception) so I won’t go into those now. Perhaps, if I’m ever allowed to write another article, I will wax quasi-eloquent on that topic. Anyway, here’s my point on all that. I am aware of different times and cultural contexts. If Moses or another person is the source of those laws, as I believe, it is a landmark for morality. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than anything else. But if God wrote the law, as the text claims, well…are we really satisfied with them? They seem to fall well short of the Genesis 2 ideal. Thainamu, to address the example you gave in the context of the Solomon Islands: Women are not possessions. They are created in the image of God, and they are free to reach whatever potential they are capable of. I don’t care how well people are treated and treasured, they cannot be owned.
I have to go soon, but I want to make one more defense. Several of you are accusing me of being a relativist, of picking and choosing whatever morals suit with no regard to any absolute. But aren’t you doing the same thing with women? Is the treatment (or mistreatment) of women exempt from pervading truth? If there is a right way to treat people, regardless of sex, isn’t this universal? And if you argue it isn’t, then many of y’all’s arguments against me start losing water.
For the record, I’m an egalitarian, not a feminist.
Casey: I fear I’m in such a deep hole in your eyes that nothing I say can redeem me in any way. You do raise one fantastic point, however, which I want to address:
“I don’t think you realize what is at stake by embracing what Josh is prescribing. If the Bible is nothing more than man’s opinion about God, then you have no revelation of God, just sin-stained opinions. If all the Bible is, is “man making sense about God in conjunction to his life”, then you will have nothing but subjective relativism due to the fact that man is fallen in sin and is unable to know anything about God. There are no grounds for confidence in God if the Bible is simply man’s thought about God.”
You have no idea how long I wrestled with this dilemma. I would love to share my take on it if you really want to know.
Further responses will come when time permits.
Way too many comments… I want to hold the record for more than a day. Quick, someone go call Darius a poop-head in the Ron Paul article.
Very mature, Colin, very mature.
Colin, everyone knows that to get a rise out me, you would be better served by calling me a liberal.
I don’t really have anything intelligent to say about the specific OT situations you mention in the way women are treated. But personally, I have a lot more trouble with all the bloodshed on the OT which seems senseless to me. In both cases, we can be glad Christ changed things.
“Thainamu, to address the example you gave in the context of the Solomon Islands: Women are not possessions. They are created in the image of God, and they are free to reach whatever potential they are capable of. I don’t care how well people are treated and treasured, they cannot be owned.”
Josh, I am owned. I’ve been bought with a price. (ICor 6:19-20) I am owned by God and I’m owned by Gary–although Gary got off cheap with a $5 marriage license :-). Being owned means I belong somewhere. It doesn’t mean I can’t reach my potential as a human being (whatever that means). It means somebody really loves me and wants to keep me. (And for the record, I own Gary too. I Cor 7:4 points to dual ownership: people are owned by both self and spouse, besides being owned by God.)
Now I realize that by ownership you are thinking in terms of the owner having the right to throw away what he owns without consequence. Christ doesn’t throw me away because I was bought with his precious blood, and I am his loved child. Gary doesn’t throw me away because I am a valuable helper to him.
It is the same in the Solomon Islands. A wife is owned because she is bought with a price (pigs, porpoise teeth, traditional shell money, and bags of rice). An unmarried woman is the one to be pitied–if she is not married, she must not be worth much.
The helper metaphor is a good one, but it implies there is someone for a woman to help. If that is the scriptural ideal, then you better do your part and marry someone so she can fulfill the role God has for her. (I’m only half joking.)
Josh, the “redemptive-movement hermeneutic,” is an attempt to formalize why we take some passages in the Bible as cultural (likely not applying to us today) and some as trans-cultural (applies to us today). It also addresses concerns like you’ve risen about the laws regarding women.
The idea is that God’s commands have increased the ethical level of his people, but perhaps not the absolute best ethic for various reasons (Perhaps Israel wasn’t prepared for it, and such a thing would hinder the spread of the gospel at a crucial stage). Today, following plain meaning of some of the laws given to Israel would miss the redemptive point. To follow them would be harming women instead of helping them as the laws were meant to do.
There are also “seed ideas” which might reveal God’s actual ethic, which might or might not be actually realized in by the people in the Bible. The classic example of this is slavery. Israel’s laws regarding slavery made lives better for slaves than in the surrounding cultures, and Paul’s writing on slavery would make it better for them still. However, the “neither slave nor free” idea, the story of the exodus, and the movement of scripture against the surrounding culture suggest that there was still further “redemption” of the theology to accomplish.
If any of that sounds intersting to you, I recommend “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis,” by William J. Webb.
Jew: First of all, you’re only allowed to beat me if I miss a deadline. And that may not be an issue, as now calls are being raised to expel me from the community. Sigh. Would y’all like me more if I told you I support Ron Paul?
Also, you said, “Josh can explain exactly what he meant, but I don’t think he was putting himself on the same level with the biblical writers.” I will explain now. I am like the biblical writers in that I believe God is good and that he is in charge of what’s going on, and I view life through that lens, even when the reality of my existence seems to contradict my beliefs. Like the biblical writers, sometimes I cry out, “How long, oh Lord? Will you abandon me forever?” At other times, I sing, “Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, his love endures forever.” Like the biblical writers, I am trying to make sense of my story and the story of my people in the greater context of God’s story. They are trying their best, I am trying their best. Their best has been shaping people’s faith for thousands of years; my best gets me branded a heretic. Clearly, the biblical writers have a leg up on me. I believe that all of us in this forum who are earnestly seeking to know God and know truth are divinely inspired. Are any of us completely right? No. Are any of us quoting directly from God? I doubt it. Are some of us more on target than others? Almost certainly. Ultimately, this is my view of the biblical writers as well.
Darius: First off, you said, “Ultimately, what makes one a Christian is the ability (whether inherent or God-imbued, that is a different discussion) to, in faith, take God at His “word” that what the Bible says is truly “God-breathed.”” Um, I thought what makes someone a Christian is if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God and they live their life in accordance with what he did. That’s what I’m trying to do. Often, I’m not very good at it. Jesus said some really tough things which I’d like to blow off, but—despite accusations otherwise—I don’t do that. Throw rocks at me if you like. Excommunicate me if you like. Announce to the world that I’m the worst of sinners and damned to the most excruciating hell if you like. I’m trying to follow Jesus. I’m trying to love the Lord with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. I’m trying to love my neighbor as myself.
“A friend and pastor of mine pointed out what we all have neglected: what was Jesus’ view of Scripture?
Matt. 5:17-18
Matt. 22:29
John 10:35″
Good move, sir. Jesus is clearly talking about the Old Testament, as the New Testament had not yet been written. I’m curious about how you jibe these statements of Jesus with Acts 15. Surely you’re not proposing that it is, in fact, a sin to trim your beard?
“Furthermore, did Jesus not constantly use the Scriptures to settle arguments and theological disputes?” Absolutely, an if you will recall, I condoned such action in the original article.
“He never said, “Isaiah said this, but that’s just his opinion.”” Or maybe he did, and none of the gospel writers recorded. We’ll never know for sure, will we? For the record, I don’t think he did any such thing. The common interpretation of scriptures was so screwed up by the time he burst onto the scene that it was certainly more strategic to emphasize the “weightier matters of the law” rather than introduce questions of origin. It seems to me he left that to his followers, including us. In Jesus’ time it was common for a rabbi to say “I give you the keys to the Kingdom” when his disciple had proven himself worthy of adequately interpreting the scriptures, thereby empowering him to do so. So when Jesus says this to his disciples, he is acknowledging that the scriptures do need to be interpreted, and he charges them with doing it. Look, I know my own interpretation may be wrong, but Jesus clearly does want us—his followers—to interpret them. Unless, that is, my exegesis is ignorant again.
Jesus’ faith was in God, not the scriptures. There’s a difference.
Casey: I intend to challenge your hermeneutic and criticism of mine, but I can barely see straight, and 5:30 will come really early tomorrow. Good night, Netizens.
[Note from Zeal for Truth admin: this comment got caught in the spam filter for a couple of weeks, but we found it and restored it. I apologize for the delay.]
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” - Alexander Pope
This foolish intruder may well provoke all previous contributors to this thread to turn on him.
Josh Herchenroeder, aka “Hungry Sasquatch,” wrote:
“Or take the Book of Mormon, which claims to be the final (as in, more authoritative) revelation of Jesus.”
Yes, the Book of Mormon does claim to be *an* authoritative revelation of Jesus, but in no way does it claim to be “the final” revelation. Mormonism claims continuing revelation through living prophets, and our canon of scripture remains open.
The title page of the Book of Mormon, a translation of a plate inscribed by its last author, Moroni, circa 420 AD, makes its purpose clear, “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”
“All nations” makes clear that this is not “the last.” Rather, the Book of Mormon is just one of many other testaments of Jesus Christ which are yet to come forth.
Moroni concludes his statement with this remarkable disclaimer: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” (Title Page.)
This is the approach Latter-day Saints take to all scripture. God is perfect. The scriptures, the efforts of imperfect humans to express his word in their imperfect languages, are not. But when we study them with prayerful intent, they will surely point us to the living Christ.
The Lord promised the first writer in the Book of Mormon, Nephi, that He would speak not only to his descendants (The Book of Mormon) and to the Jews (The Bible), but also to the other tribes of Israel “which I have led away,” and to “all nations of the earth.” He also promised that in the last days each of the groups would have the sacred records of the others. Clearly there are still many ancient sacred records hidden away that will come forth in the Lord’s own due time. (2 Nephi 29).
Please read the whole chapter. It takes modern scoffers to task for the way they “thank” the Jews for the Bible (yes, the entire Bible was written by those despised Jews) and asks them why God cannot choose when and where he will reveal his word to his children.
“I find it overly fantastic . . .” I find it no more fantastic that the claims in the Bible that you find problematic, but which I happen to accept. Many of these, including the parting of the Red Sea, manna, and the miracles of Jesus are, in fact, confirmed by the Book of Mormon.
“. . . and completely incongruous with subsequent scientific and archaeological discoveries.” Not so fast, Josh! At least one site named by the Book of Mormon in the old world, but unknown to the world in 1830, and located in the probable locus of the narrative, has been discovered: the place Nahom. (1 Nephi 16:34).
Your dismissal reflects first, failure to seriously study the Book of Mormon, and second, a simplistic parroting of the shop-worn anti-Mormon polemic that passes for “education” in so many “higher” institutions of “theology.” I point you to just one scholarly review of the vast wasteland of anti-Mormon “evidence” against the Book of Mormon. This article points out that some of the same difficulties that anti-Mormons propose for “Book of Mormon archaeology” arise with scientific archaeology and the Biblical record. Those who would use science against Mormonism risk falling on their own sword.
In fact, the Book of Mormon reinforces much of the Bible that post-modernism rejects. It emphatically emphasizes, again and again, the miracles of the Exodus and the covenants that God made with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. And it adds about 2,500 additional personal witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3 Nephi 17:25).
“Should I not apply the same critical analysis to my own scriptures as to those of other faith traditions?” Sadly, I’m afraid that your “critical analysis” of the Book of Mormon speaks worlds about your “critical analysis” of your “own scriptures.” If the Book of Mormon is true, then so is the Bible, and vice-versa!
Curiously, in a later comment you add, “And for the record, I find the Bible substantially more credible than the Book of Mormon.” I invite you to mention, specifically, what you find so incredible in the Book of Mormon relative to any claims in the Bible.
Colin Elliott chimes in, “I have not found anything so glaring in the text itself as to be compared to the blatant distortions in say, The Book of Mormon.”
Colin, I invite you to mention one specific “blatant distortion” in the Book of Mormon. Having made a lifelong study of both the Book of Mormon and the Bible, I find the consistency within each and between both to be intellectually stimulating and spiritually synergistic.
It is simply amazing that an unschooled 21-year old farm laborer could have dictated this incredibly complex text over the course of about sixty working days. But then, the apostles of Jesus Christ of old were also unschooled.
A final note on the complexity of the Book of Mormon. It is replete with idioms now recognized as Hebraic that many scoffers have ridiculed as “ungrammatical.” But perhaps the most significant Hebrew structure in the Book of Mormon, chiasmus, was not discovered until 1969 — 139 years after its publication! One entire chapter, Alma 36, is a perfect chiasmus. It begins and ends with the promise of Alma to his son Helaman that the Lord would prosper him if he kept the commandments, and it centers on Alma’s personal witness that the Lord Jesus Christ had redeemed him from his sins. (Alma 36). To examine the structure of Alma’s remarkable testimony, see this outline. (Scroll about 40% through the page.) Bear in mind that this was about 73 years before the birth of Christ!
Jack Welch, who discovered chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, writes that in many respects, the Book of Mormon still remains a sealed book, with many hidden treasures waiting the earnest seeker.
I invite all believers in Christ to make a serious investigation of “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
hthalljr’gmail’com
“Would y’all like me more if I told you I support Ron Paul?”
No.
“Um, I thought what makes someone a Christian is if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God and they live their life in accordance with what he did.” [and that he died for our sins and rose again, don’t forget that most important part]
Yes, but to do so one MUST believe that what the Scripture says about God and Jesus is true. How are we to be Christians if we believe that the resurrection is just some neat story cooked up by the disciples to make sure people didn’t forget Jesus’ “moral” teaching? (Note: I’m not saying you said or believe this detail, but just that if we use your argument, this is it’s natural conclusion.)
Belief is MORE important than actions. The Bible and Jesus makes that very clear. So if belief is so important, doesn’t it behoove us to make sure we’re firm in what we believe? Salvation hinges on right belief… after all, even the demons believe in God.
I would love to see someone knowledgeable on hermeneutics to explain/critique them in an article. There are some rules that I find arbitrary: like first mention.
Josh,
I’m a reasonable guy. I would be more than happy to hear your take on the dilemma you face. I don’t want to burn the bridge of dialog. And in all serious, I will consider what you say as well. I believe one of the most neglected elements of modern-day communication is people’s refusal to listen and reason. I’ll listen to you and we can dialog, and we don’t have to be heated. Winning an argument is not my goal.
But in all fairness as well, I am convinced by Scripture that the Bible is the very word of God. I will continue to defend that position and reason with others to embrace it as well, unless convinced otherwise by the Word of God itself. With that said, I repent of any personal attacks on your character and integrity. That is not Christ-like. Eventhough I feel one can be justified in holy anger about an issue that they are passionate about, I do not think the way it is manifested is by maligning others. I hope you forgive my Luther tendency
I look forward to continued dialog. It sharpens me to be challenged and it sharpens me to challenge. Take care.
For the Cross,
Casey
RC Sproul has a great video series and book called “Knowing Scripture” that delves into hermeneutics.
Thainamu: How many bags of rice are you worth? How many pigs would you sell your daughter for?
“…you better do your part and marry someone so she can fulfill the role God has for her.” I’m working on it. Unfortunately, there aren’t a whole lot of passionate Christian single girls who are interested in heretics with little interest in money and stability. Maybe I should stock up on porpoise teeth and move to the Solomon Islands. I’m kidding, of course. In all seriousness, I appreciate the perspective you bring, and I hope to someday know as happy a marriage as you do and to glean as much wisdom from it as you seem to have.
Jasen: Thanks for the info. That definitely sounds interesting enough to look into.
Darius: “Belief is MORE important than actions. The Bible and Jesus makes that very clear.” I completely disagree with this statement. While John’s gospel certainly emphasizes belief, Matthew places a premium on behavior and the heart condition that motivates behavior. The overall position of the scriptures seems to be that belief without any action is, in fact, nothing at all. You’ve got the meaning of this quote completely backward: “…even the demons believe in God.” So you believe in God? Well, whoopty freakin’ doo! So do the demons. It’s our actions that separate the saints from the demons.
“No.” Is that because you don’t like Ron Paul or because you still don’t like me?
“How many pigs would you sell your daughter for?”
If you’re thinking of starting a pig farm, it better be a BIG one.
We do tease her that she only cost three sweet potatoes–the price we had to pay the hospital where she was born.
“The overall position of the scriptures seems to be that belief without any action is, in fact, nothing at all. You’ve got the meaning of this quote completely backward: “…even the demons believe in God.” So you believe in God? Well, whoopty freakin’ doo! So do the demons. It’s our actions that separate the saints from the demons.”
This will quickly take us into the Calvin v. Arminius debate which theologians have been working on for, um, some time now. Belief does mean more than just cognitive assent to something. Belief that brings salvation including repentance (turning around and going the opposite direction)and results in actions (out of love and obedience). Demons believe, but they don’t repent.
Josh, this is where you are very incorrect and misunderstand the “even demons believe” passage. As Thainamu mentions, proper belief combined with repentance (belief that we are utterly sinful and need forgiveness) is all that is necessary for salvation. Jesus and the Scriptures put significant emphasis on belief in the RIGHT ideas, doctrines, etc. That is not to say that actions mean nothing, but that they are the “results” or fruit of our right belief. Demons believe that there is one God… doesn’t mention them believing that they need forgiveness/repentance (though from what the Bible teaches, they are already past the point of no return spiritually) or that Jesus is Lord of their lives.
“Is that because you don’t like Ron Paul or because you still don’t like me?”
I was just being silly with my short one-word answer.
As for not liking you, I have no problem with you. For all I know, you are a very nice person. I have a big problem with what you are proposing/teaching. I pray that God would open your eyes while there is still time. The Scriptures teach that