Thread: Kerygmania: Word of God? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000979
Posted by anglocatholic (# 13804) on
:
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God?
Do the words of the Bible equal the word of God?
Or is it the illuminated meaning of the words of the Bible that are the word of God?
Or is it something else?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:28: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
A great topic – could spin out in many directions, but following W Hyatt's very good analogy and trying to keep is short...
Because the phrase “Word of God” means different things in different contexts, perhaps a 'top-down' answer to the OP questions would be that the bible is (rather than just contains) a message or communication from God that is intended to impact on humans in such a way that they are faced with a decision for or against loyalty to God.
From a 'bottom-up' angle an answer would be that the assorted human writers (or speakers) whose messages ended up in the collection of works known as The Bible were theologians who, by virtue of their extensive experience and understanding of God, produced works that accurately enough portrayed God's design and intention for creation.
Both ends of the spectrum (top-down and bottom-up) work together to produce an affect in readers / hearers that effects a change – starting with having to take a decision.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the Logos made flesh.
Everything else is words.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
...so the Bible (well the Gospels, but you know what I mean?) is the word of the Word of God? That puts us in a slightly different position from the other 'Religions of the Book' as comparative religionists sometimes group us.
(Q: does 'comparative religion' result in our ending up comparatively religious?)
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
...so the Bible (well the Gospels, but you know what I mean?) is the word of the Word of God? That puts us in a slightly different position from the other 'Religions of the Book' as comparative religionists sometimes group us.
(Q: does 'comparative religion' result in our ending up comparatively religious?)
Exactly. To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
I couldn't disagree with this more. I feel a bit like a Salvationist in Eccles.
To me, the bible is a library. It contains the accumulated wisdom of two closely related religious traditions. If I want to know Christ, I pray, I receive him in the eucharist and I read the bible. I also read the works of the mystics, and experience the light of his presence in other people.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
quote:
“Cranmer was careful neither to equate nor separate the scriptures from the Word of God, Christ. To equate them ran the danger of bibliolatry, confusing the sign with the thing signified (as he saw transubstantiation doing). Such a view made preachers to be indispensable interpreters of a divine reality, as much mediators as a pre-Reformation priest. To sharply separate the scriptures from Christ, however, would mean that the words of the scriptures could not be for us the Word of God. Cranmer is not as careful in his use of language at this point as he is with Holy Communion, where he is scrupulously careful. There was less danger for him in confusing the words and Word of God than in running together the element and matter of the Lord’s Supper. The following citation from the Homily reflects this sacramental sense.
“The words of holy scripture be called words of everlasting life; for they be God’s instruments, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to turn (convert) through God’s promise, and they be effectual through God’s assistance, and (being received in a faithful heart) they have ever an heavenly spiritual working in them."
Report of the Anglican Communion “Bible in the Life of the Church
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
That's my question too. If Jesus is the real Logos and the Incarnation our only true way of knowing about God, how do we know anything about Jesus? Through the Gospels. If the Gospels are not reliable, then it's meaningless to say that the Incarnation teaches us anything about God.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
I think the second paragraph of that Report, leo, gets at something important that is often missed in discussions of what is and what is not the "Word of God" - and that something is the aspect of intention. God communicates in order to achieve an end. Debates over "Word" can limit the sense to something static, a definition, whereas communication is dynamic and has import.
That's why I prefer to use the words "God's message" or "communication," to avoid getting bogged down in a static debate.
FooloftheShip - I understand the point about experiencing God, but I'm always thrown back on the issue of validation. Simple experience does not necessarily ensure one is experiencing the right or correct thing; examples abound of people who earnestly believe they are led by God's Spirit, but whose lifestyle impacts adversely on others. Hence the need for a public validation, i.e., an ability to set out the reason / evidence for holding a particular belief. Having recourse to an defined collection of books that are in the public domain goes to that end.
The only way I can see that there is a 'safe' way to appropriate God via experience alone is if one lives completely cut off from any other human contact, so that there can be no impact of one's way of living on anyone else. But no man is an island, is he?
Also, although reading the works of others is commendable and profitable, doesn't that just shift the discussion along the spectrum a bit? Doesn't God now 'speak' in some profitable way to the reader through the work of the mystic, rather than through the bible?
Further to that thought, I think all Christian belief and experience has to go back to the bible eventually. We may think we are dealing with experience or theology at a remove, but trace it back and I keep finding it rooted in that bible. Sooner or later it becomes the arbiter of debates. We are where we are, I guess.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
That's my question too. If Jesus is the real Logos and the Incarnation our only true way of knowing about God, how do we know anything about Jesus? Through the Gospels. If the Gospels are not reliable, then it's meaningless to say that the Incarnation teaches us anything about God.
John 5:39-40 is crucial to my understanding of this.
quote:
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Not referring to the Scriptures as "the Word of God" doesn't mean they cannot be a reliable witness. I believe that the Scriptures are a unique testimony to Jesus, who I exclusively refer to as the Word of God. The problem with the shorthand of referring to the Bible as the Word of God is that it fails to deal with the pitfall Jesus' hearers fell into: you can read it, "dilgently study" it even, and completely fail to come to him to have life.
I think Hebrews 1 and 2 Corinthians 3 have a lot to say to this issue too. Jesus is the ultimate Word of God (Hebrews 1). It is perfectly possible to read the Scriptures and not grasp their ultimate purpose, which is to lead us to the Word of Life. That requires the work of the Spirit (2 Cor 3).
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
OK, so this is where my catholic side comes out. We are all on a pilgrimage to God, and we need various witnesses and companions for the purpose. This is the purpose of the church - to provide an interpretative community for the bible and for personal experiences of God. And, of course, to experience God in each other, and for spirit to guide spirit.
Given the rapid tour of catholic and quaker ideas of corporality, anyone would think I was an anglican.....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
Problem with that last one is that you then have to conclude that God thinks that people should be stoned to death for a great list of minor offences, many of them simply boiling down to having a different religion, and that rape victims should in some circumstances marry their attackers. And in some others be stoned to death themselves.
I really, really, really, really hope God DOESN'T think the way he allegedly does in some places in the Bible, because that God is one sick puppy.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's a 2d picture of flowers in a field. If you give yourself a headache it contains some hollow shapes that might be vaguely butterfly like. But it's basically a picture of yellow flowers.
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
But it's not ONLY a picture of yellow flowers. They have to be in that very specific pattern for the 3D image to be formed. And even then it is easier to see for some than others. I have no difficulty seeing 3D pictures as I can diverge my eyes very easily. If you cannot do this, or you have poor vision in one eye, or a squint that means you don't have depth perception then you are unable to see them. Maybe there are possible spiritual parallels to that as well? Due to our makeup, psychological or whatever some find 3D patterns emerge more easily than for others? Anyway, I digress...
(By the way if you are seeing them as hollows rather than as stand out shapes above the page you are trying to see them by going cross eyed ie converging your eyes rather then diverging them, diverging is how the pictures are designed to work! - to declare an interest I'm an optometrist by training and these sort of visual illusions interest me!)
[ 07. May 2013, 10:30: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I know why I see them as hollows. I also know that I can't see anything at all any other way ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Bit of a tangent really.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
I'll echo what Karl said - I really hope God doesn't think that rape victims who don't scream loud enough should be killed - but also it begs the question of which Bible? Since the Protestants are the newcomers, should the Catholic Bible be considered to be divine? What about Revelation, which some African Christians reject? And can one library contain ALL of what God thinks?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
You're right, it does reinforce the analogy. I actually think the Word of God helps us sense his presence more than it lets us see him in any definitive way.
Posted by anglocatholic (# 13804) on
:
I do not believe the printed text is the Word of God but the channel that brings us the Word of God. It is important to not divorce Spirit and Word. The same Spirit that inspired the Bible also illuminates its meaning. It is the revealed meaning of the text that becomes for us, the Word of God.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I feel a bit like a Salvationist in Eccles.
I don't understand that bit.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Oh...!
Now I geddit.
You feel like a Salvationist in Eccles - as in Ecclesiantics !
I thought you meant Eccles in Greater Manchester - I thought, 'I don't know any Salvationists in Eccles...'
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 08. May 2013, 08:00: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
You're right, it does reinforce the analogy. I actually think the Word of God helps us sense his presence more than it lets us see him in any definitive way.
Don't know about that. I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Of course - you've been told there's a picture of butterflies (or fairies) and all you get are flowers and a headache.
If I did not have an approach that allows me to see an infinitely loving God throughout the Bible, despite all its objectionable stories, I'm sure I would conclude that it could not be the Word of God.
[ 08. May 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God, but that is not to suggest that there are redundant words or phrases which can be dispensed with. What I mean is that it is the understanding which is inspired, not the form of words necessarily.
Some years ago I was involved in a Bible translation project for a local language in Uganda. It involved checking the consistency of the translation of various Bible portions, and this raised interesting questions about how different languages convey ideas. I certainly believed that God was directing this project, and, because of this, I conclude that there was a sense in which this translation was 'inspired' (without wishing to give any credit whatsoever to the imperfect and often bumbling human agents involved). Through a good Bible translation (and there are some truly awful ones) God can speak afresh to a particular people using the particular characteristics of their language. While, of course, faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is vitally important, I don't accept that a Bible translation necessarily is merely a poor imitation of the glorious 'original' (whatever that original was, for which there is, as we know, an ongoing debate).
Given the abundance of textual variants and the difference of wording and structure of parallel passages in the Gospels, it is obvious to me that the actual words cannot be incontestably true, in the sense of strict verbal accuracy. At least some of the words of Jesus cannot be strictly accurate translations of the original Aramaic, because of the differences; for instance, the different order of the temptations in the wilderness in Luke and Matthew. One of these passages must be 'wrong'! But, yet, in another sense, the differences demonstrate the lack of editing, and therefore speak of the Gospels' authenticity. The substance is true, even if the variability of the wording attests to human construction and memory.
The Bible is also not "the Word of God" if it is understood without reference to its historical context. This is why Karl's objections are invalid, in my view. We cannot understand the actions of God in one particular context as examples of His universal modus operandi for all people in all situations. We need to work hard to understand why certain laws and judgements, which appear harsh and unfair, were necessary in a certain context.
The "Word of God" does not float above history in the way that the universal truths of mathematics do. It is bolted to history, and speaks through the historical and very human context. Therefore previous generations have not done all our thinking for us. Each generation has to seek God afresh, while listening to previous generations and by wrestling anew with the information in the Bible.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
I know perfectly well that what I'm about to say is controversial, though the controversy genuinely puzzles me.
I don't believe that the bible contains the whole of God's self-revelation. Therefore, redundant words and phrases are not a huge problem, because I'm not looking to wring the maximum possible meaning from every syllable. It seems clear from John's gospel that, in the writer's estimation at least, further revelation would follow by the mediation of the holy spirit. There is also the primacy of the incarnation.
All of this is witnessed to by the bible, but I am approaching it as a witness, not as the written embodiment of all truth.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
They don't bother me. They're not meant to be the Word of God. There is no intellectual problem with them being arseholes.
The relevance of your question escapes me.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
Problem with that last one is that you then have to conclude that God thinks that people should be stoned to death for a great list of minor offences, many of them simply boiling down to having a different religion, and that rape victims should in some circumstances marry their attackers. And in some others be stoned to death themselves.
Depends how you read the Bible. I read it as written by people of their time, who did believe those things. They did believe God thought those things.
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
HughWillRidmee put it perfectly the other day.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.
I see the Bible as the 'story of Jesus' and I am a follower of Jesus.
Works for me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
Aye, well, there's the rub. A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders, or an all-loving God of our wishful thinking.
Fucking crap choice there.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders, or an all-loving God of our wishful thinking.
Fucking crap choice there.
Other choices are available... For example, some advocate interpreting the Bible using the idea of progressive revelation, which lets us off the hook of having to explain how an all-loving God who 'wishes that none shall perish' nevertheless flooded the entire earth and commanded genocide.
EDIT - The Bitly link is to Wikipedia but the page URL has brackets, which the SoF software doesn't like.
[ 09. May 2013, 09:57: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
By looking to Jesus and his character.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
By looking to Jesus and his character.
But how do you find out about Jesus' character apart from through the Bible - the same Bible that also contains the words of the nomadic goat herders?
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Other choices are available... For example, some advocate interpreting the Bible using the idea of progressive revelation, which lets us off the hook of having to explain how an all-loving God who 'wishes that none shall perish' nevertheless flooded the entire earth and commanded genocide.
EDIT - The Bitly link is to Wikipedia but the page URL has brackets, which the SoF software doesn't like.
The link didn't work for me - just got an error message from Wikipedia?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Do please elaborate.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I do think that every Bible student, preacher, minister - in fact every Christian - should be required to memorise the words of Edwin Muir as a dreadful warning: quote:
The Word made Flesh is here made word again ...
And GOD three angry letters in a book.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders...
Do please elaborate.
"23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
So if a rapist is able to prevent his victim from screaming (knife to throat "you scream, you die!"), then they both die. Nice eh?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
"23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
So if a rapist is able to prevent his victim from screaming (knife to throat "you scream, you die!"), then they both die. Nice eh?
You are condemning a particular law (and by extension, the Lawgiver), based on an imagined and hypothetical scenario. I suppose this is a plausible method of argumentation - admittedly I do it all the time, it's called the reductio ad absurdum argument. But this only works if we fully understand what the law is actually saying and implying in this particular socio-historical context, and whether there are any mitigating circumstances which prevent its full implementation. So I will look into this, and get back to you. Watch this space, as they say!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
But I await your justifications. When you're done there, you could take a look at:
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Or indeed:
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
where we find that not only are we to stone women to death for pre-marital sex (that's most of the populations of most universities gone ) but that it's up to them to prove their innocence and if they didn't happen to bleed first time they're deemed guilty.
I think justification for these would have to be pretty damned inventive.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Sorry my link to the Wikipedia article on progressive revelation didn't work - try this one instead. You can then read about progressive revelation in Christianity and also in the Bahá'í faith.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think there's a lot of mileage in progressive revelation, but it has to be open enough to say "that bit you thought I said in the past, well, you didn't quite get me right, see..."
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
You want me to pronounce on all this stuff?!
Funny, but I didn't think this had anything to do with the veracity of the Bible! What book of the Bible mentions Jimmy Savile? Pray, do tell me...
quote:
But I await your justifications.
Ah, I see. The jury has already delivered its verdict, and therefore anyone who questions that verdict is engaging in futile and sophistic defence of the indefensible. So I realise what the score is: I can't say anything to cause you to question your view (do I detect a certain agenda on your part?), but, for my own benefit at least, I will address this issue.
quote:
When you're done there, you could take a look at... [verses 28 & 29]
Nah, I don't need to, because the work has already been done.
I'll get back to you about the 'screaming' issue in due course (and the other passage you cited).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
You want me to pronounce on all this stuff?!
Funny, but I didn't think this had anything to do with the veracity of the Bible! What book of the Bible mentions Jimmy Savile? Pray, do tell me...
The point is fairly obvious - one cannot assume that not screaming means consent.
quote:
quote:
But I await your justifications.
Ah, I see. The jury has already delivered its verdict, and therefore anyone who questions that verdict is engaging in futile and sophistic defence of the indefensible. So I realise what the score is: I can't say anything to cause you to question your view (do I detect a certain agenda on your part?), but, for my own benefit at least, I will address this issue.
You do like to assume bad faith on your debaters, don't you? I'd say it's pretty clear that stoning people to death for failing to scream is pretty indefensible - wouldn't you?
quote:
quote:
When you're done there, you could take a look at... [verses 28 & 29]
Nah, I don't need to, because the work has already been done.
I'll get back to you about the 'screaming' issue in due course (and the other passage you cited).
Well you can, but I have others. These are examples, not the sole sticking points here. We've already done the Joshua genocides to death, and I don't intend to revisit them here, because you know as well as I do that I will never, ever accept genocide as the will of God and you will get all hot under the collar again like you did last time at my intransigence and all the rest.
It's probably the same with this stuff. I have no a priori commitment to believing that the Bible is the Word of God, so I feel quite free to call obnoxious attitudes in Scripture as I see them.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
You do like to assume bad faith on your debaters, don't you?
Not with everyone, no. But it is an understandable reaction to your use of the word 'justifications', which, as you know, is a loaded term.
But no more about this, as it's a hell issue.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think there's a lot of mileage in progressive revelation, but it has to be open enough to say "that bit you thought I said in the past, well, you didn't quite get me right, see..."
I should have mentioned this upthread but the other key point in progressive revelation (at least the version I've read a bit about) is that Jesus gives us the ultimate revelation of what God is like. So we take the Old Testament nasty bits as steps towards a true picture of God (e.g. the flood = God cares about our actions and behaviour), not as an accurate portrayal of God's character.
The focus on Jesus gives grounding to the progressive revelation idea, and stops it becoming a wishy-washy, 'believe what you like' thing.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
On the subject of Deuteronomy 22:23-27...
quote:
“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbour’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."
Karl proposed a hypothetical scenario in which it would not have been possible for a genuine rape victim to cry out in the city. This scenario - or thought experiment - thus demonstrates that the law of God is perverse, obnoxious and unjust (with the implication that the Lawgiver is Himself worthy of being described by those adjectives).
But does the text justify this kind of criticism?
What Karl is really saying is that the law of God does not allow for mitigating circumstances (and he has also insinuated that this law should be understood in terms of universal applicability, hence his reference to Jimmy Savile's crimes etc).
Is there textual evidence that the law of God - in general - allows for mitigating circumstances? What kind of law is this? Does this kind of law ask about motive and consent?
Well, the answer to this is a resounding yes! Here are verses 25-27 again with emphasis:
quote:
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."
Clearly the law presents a scenario, in which the woman is absolved of any wrongdoing, on the basis of mitigating circumstances: she was in the country and it was not reasonable to expect anyone to be around to bear witness to the crime.
Now I realise that this does not answer Karl's hypothetical scenario, but it does establish the general principle that God recognises the role of mitigating circumstances in the framing of His law. This has to be taken into account, especially by someone like Karl, who, after all, is seeking to draw general conclusions from a specific law relevant to a particular socio-historical context. Therefore honesty demands that he should draw all relevant general conclusions, and not just some.
So why would God give a woman the benefit of the doubt if she happens to be outside the city walls, but not the benefit of the doubt when she is the other side of them?
I suppose someone could just say that the law was badly formulated or that God is simply perverse. Fine. I can't stop people thinking like that, if that is what they want to do. However, it's not a very scholarly approach.
The scholarly approach is to interpret what is actually in the text and draw relevant conclusions. The text communicates to us the idea that the law of God recognises the principle of mitigating circumstances. To deny that, is to argue from what is not in the text. In other words, it would involve a reliance on a hypothetical argument from silence.
But, nevertheless, it is logically possible to construct a scenario in which it would appear that the law, as pertaining to an action in the city, does not allow for mitigating circumstances and misconstrues silence as consent.
With our limited knowledge of the Ancient World, we cannot categorically prove that Karl's imagined scenario could not have occurred. There is an inevitable agnosticism concerning the events, customs and lifestyles of a period only comparatively thinly attested to by documentary evidence. I have noticed that certain vociferous atheists (particularly of the internet kind) tend to make claims about the Ancient World which are really unwarranted, in view of the paucity of evidence. For example, if there is a lack of archaeological evidence that a certain event took place, for which there is some mention in an ancient document (such as the Bible), then "we must assume that the event did not take place". Or if a location is mentioned in the Bible, for which there is scant or no archaeological evidence, then "we must assume that the place did not exist" (such as Nazareth, and this is followed by the extraordinary leap of faith into pronouncing ex cathedra that Jesus Himself could not have existed!).
This is not a scientific approach, but a dogmatic one (driven largely by ideological prejudice). Just as science can only work with the empirical data to hand and is happy to say "we don't know, but the problem may be resolved one day in the future", so historical research - particularly of the Ancient World - takes the same approach.
However, we do have some pointers, that can shed light on this problem, concerning a rape victim being able or unable to cry out in the city.
The cities of the Ancient Near East were rather different to modern cities. While I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the structure of ancient cities, I don't think it is too far off the mark to state that dwellings were generally tightly packed together, and therefore noise could carry very easily. Furthermore, can we assume that, in a highly patriarchal society, women generally did not associate with men to whom they were not related? Again, I am no expert on this question (perhaps Karl is?), but a woman who was approached by a strange man, in a private space, would presumably immediately assume some undesired motive and would react, such that others could hear her? I can't imagine that there would be a scenario of a woman just lounging around at home having a chat with the bloke from three doors away (to whom she is not betrothed), and then he suddenly, in a swift movement, clamps his hand over her mouth, sticks a knife to her throat, tells her not to make a noise, otherwise "she's gonna get it", and then proceeds to rape her. This is modern thinking being read back into the lifestyle and culture of the Ancient World. So what I am saying is that it is highly likely that women would have considerable advance warning when approached by an inappropriate male in a private room. Of course, if they are approached in the street, then there would be witnesses to the violent act, given the high population density of these urban areas.
Now I am sure that Karl, in his creativity, could cook up a possible scenario that would still 'prove' that the law of God was cruel and unworkable, but, as I have said above, we can only draw general principles from what is actually in the text, not from what we imagine ought to be in the text, but is not actually there. The text clearly reveals that the law of God recognises the role of mitigating circumstances. And that is all we can say from this vast social, temporal and cultural distance.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Now, EE, assuming that you're correct in all the assumptions you're making about ancient middle eastern cities, can you address how it's reasonable for God to demand a death penalty for the crime of pre-marital sex with a betrothed woman, for both parties?
Hell, it's not even a crime in this country. Do you think it should be? Why then? Why not now?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I should add - it's notable that the end result if the woman isn't betrothed is that the couple get married.
This is interesting. It means that the death penalty is applied for taking and defiling someone else's property - i.e. the betrothed woman - not for the sex.
Now, forgive me, but to me this seems much more the sort of law I'd expect from a patriarchal society making stuff up that maintains their patriarchal status quo in which women are little more than chattels, than it does like the decree of a just and perfect God. Especially when we realise the status of the woman - betrothed or otherwise - is the salient point here.
Yeah, we could find ways of explaining how these laws are just and good, but for my money it's a darned sight easier and a darned sight more convincing to see them the way I've suggested.
Even if it does bugger up the "bible = word of God" idea.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Now, EE, assuming that you're correct in all the assumptions you're making about ancient middle eastern cities, can you address how it's reasonable for God to demand a death penalty for the crime of pre-marital sex with a betrothed woman, for both parties?
Hell, it's not even a crime in this country. Do you think it should be? Why then? Why not now?
Well, I can only assume that this was considered to be the only appropriate and effective deterrent at the time, when Israel - a nation chosen to uphold and bear witness to the purity and holiness of God - was surrounded by the influence of deeply licentious and decadent pagan nations, who sought to draw Israel away into idolatry.
It is no longer appropriate in view of the specific role of Old Testament law, given that we, as a nation, are not specially chosen by God to establish a particular spiritual revelation that would lay the groundwork for and point to the coming of the Messiah. God has established a New Covenant with His people, who are now part of a spiritual kingdom - i.e. one that "does not come by observation", as Jesus said.
As for the Jewish custom of betrothal, don't confuse that with our rather laid back practice of getting engaged. More explanation here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Problem here is that (a) I do not believe you can justify draconian punishments for offences purely on grounds of deterrence. We don't seem able to do anything about people doing 90 on the M1, but if we suggested they should be shot because it's the only way we can deter this behaviour, they'd think we'd gone mad.
Secondly, I'm, shall we say, rather uncomfortable with the idea of using the threat of punishment of death to enforce behaviour consistent with a particular religion. We don't accept that argument from Iran, do we?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Problem here is that (a) I do not believe you can justify draconian punishments for offences purely on grounds of deterrence. We don't seem able to do anything about people doing 90 on the M1, but if we suggested they should be shot because it's the only way we can deter this behaviour, they'd think we'd gone mad.
There seems to be an assumption behind your comments that suggests that you think "Bible believing" Christians ought to be Gary North style reconstructionists. I don't read the Bible in this way at all. If the Bible was simply a set of absolute principles relevant for all times and places, then God Himself would be redundant. All we would need was a set of principles. No need to think. No need for discretion. And certainly no need for God, because religion will do just fine!
You seem to be a hermeneutical idealist. I am a hermeneutical realist (and dare I be so bold as to suggest that God is as well?). There was obviously a reality to the situation in ancient Israel that required a draconian approach. The modern world is also full of draconian responses to many situations; just look at the Allied response in WW2. In fact, there are many examples of rather draconian responses to many issues in our so called enlightened humanist civilised society, such as, for example, killing an unborn child for having a cleft lip or putting an elderly person on a death pathway, who may not have given her consent to being killed by thirst and starvation.
Yes, I know I am using a tu quoque argument, but I do find it incredibly ironic that the very people who condemn God for the so called 'genocides' in the Old Testament have no qualms about advocating the killing of the unborn in a wide range of circumstances. I would have some respect for their concerns if they were uncompromisingly pro-life, but, by and large, they are not. I know we can't talk about this subject here, being a DH one, but nevertheless this cognitive dissonance is a disturbing phenomenon. And so the point needs to be made.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
They don't bother me. They're not meant to be the Word of God. There is no intellectual problem with them being arseholes.
The relevance of your question escapes me.
Logic runs: Written communication - whether 'Word' or not - doesn't fall from sky. It's communicated by humans. So to vent frustration on the word(s) is to offer an opinion on the author(s). Offer violence, even, albeit by proxy?
And logic runs: if the word(s) do indeed happen to be 'Word' - a communication from God, no less - the to vent frustration with the word(s) is to offer an opinion (violence?) against God as author.
So it could be argued.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
Once someone else mentioned to me that they saw both butterflies and fairies different times that they looked at it, I went back and experimented and found that I am able to see fairies as well. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
This is one reason I like this analogy so much: it can show that discussion about how we each see different images in it can lead to new discoveries rather than debates about what the one "right" interpretation is.
Another reason I like it is that it depends on repeated patterns with slight variations, which is something that we find all over the Bible. For example, with this autostereogram, once you can see the shark, you can see why there are apparent anomalies in the patterns of the 2D images*. This idea corresponds very nicely for me with why I can believe that there is a deeper meaning hidden within the text of the Bible.
But the reason most relevant to the OP for my fondness for the analogy is that it illustrates so well the concept that the hidden image and the plain image can be completely unrelated to each other. You can debate the pros and cons of yellow flowers without implying anything about the butterflies or fairies. And conversely, you can appreciate the beauty of the butterflies and fairies without endorsing the image of a pollen-ridden nightmare of a field full of yellow flowers. This is why I can believe that the Bible contains within it a beautiful image of a loving God without subscribing to any of the awful things attributed to God in the literal text itself.
On the other hand, the author can decide to make some parts of the 2D image correspond very closely with the 3D image, as in this example of a rose, which would be analogous to the Two Great Commandments or some of the Psalms.
* Specifically, the neck of the animal being ridden by the figure with yellow hair across the top of the image is longer in the repetitions on the left compared to those on the right because it's an important part of the shark's top fin. Similarly, the fact that the moon images are full with a single figure beside it on the left side and partial with multiple figures beside it on the right side is because that's important for the shark's left side fin. You can also see the outline of the shark's top tail fin where the animal's hips are cut out of the rightmost image along the top.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
They don't bother me. They're not meant to be the Word of God. There is no intellectual problem with them being arseholes.
The relevance of your question escapes me.
Logic runs: Written communication - whether 'Word' or not - doesn't fall from sky. It's communicated by humans. So to vent frustration on the word(s) is to offer an opinion on the author(s). Offer violence, even, albeit by proxy?
And logic runs: if the word(s) do indeed happen to be 'Word' - a communication from God, no less - the to vent frustration with the word(s) is to offer an opinion (violence?) against God as author.
So it could be argued.
So it could. Hence my hope that God is not the author.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So it could. Hence my hope that God is not the author.
I think, though, that always brings us back to the question: What other criteria should be used to define what Christian belief and behaviour should be? Some rule or set of rules would have to be used to decide which bits of Christian heritage / inheritance should be scissored off. Which other 'message' is ruling the decisions, here?
Those are probably rhetorical questions as I guess they move the discussion beyond the pale of the OP. Although perhaps the first question in anglocatholic's opener could be used in reverse: In what sense is the Word of God the Bible?. I.e., assuming:
- There is a God, and
- That this God communicates to his creatures, then
Is there any sense in which God does so communicate through that collection of books we call 'The Bible'? If not, how does he communicate his intentions to us? If he does communicate through that Bible, but only partially, how will we decide which bits are his communication and which not?
Age old questions, I know!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
For those who take it upon themselves to pick and choose which bits of the Bible are "of God" and which are "so obviously not of God", the "Word of God" is clearly that philosophy that enables them to undertake this work of selection.
And that philosophy is?
And how is that philosophy justified?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Is there any sense in which God does so communicate through that collection of books we call 'The Bible'?
I really like what Brian McLaren has said about what the Bible being the 'inspired Word of God' might mean. He says the typical protestant approach is to think of the Bible as a legal handbook or constitution; so we come against a problem or issue of life and look up chapter and verse in the Bible to see what God's view of the issue is.
But McLaren prefers the idea of the Bible being a cultural library, telling us the story of God's interactions with humanity. And, seeing as the Bible is the inspired Word of God (which McLaren is happy to affirm, although obviously he means something other than the typical evangelical slant), he says it's a brilliant and accurate cultural library.
But we can't simply dive in, pluck out a verse or two, and pronounce that they accurately convey God's view. Even if the verse says 'God commanded...' or 'God did...' - that goes back to the progressive revelation idea I mentioned upthread.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For those who take it upon themselves to pick and choose which bits of the Bible are "of God" and which are "so obviously not of God", <snip>
The "pick and choose" locution has always bothered me immensely. It is clearly manipulative and nothing else. If we substitute "use their reason and judgment," which is denotatively equivalent AFAICS, much of the desired effect simply vanishes.
--Tom Clune
[ 10. May 2013, 11:57: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For those who take it upon themselves to pick and choose which bits of the Bible are "of God" and which are "so obviously not of God", the "Word of God" is clearly that philosophy that enables them to undertake this work of selection.
And that philosophy is?
What Brian McLaren said - as SCK has linked.
quote:
And how is that philosophy justified?
By looking at the content and antiquity of the source documents of which we have copies.
Scripture does not present itself as a systematic legal or moral code, nor as a comprehensive historical view. So it is inappropriate to treat it as either of those. Which leaves the question of how we interpret texts as an issue of hermeneutics. A matter of interpretative principle. "How do we weigh scripture with scripture" becomes "what consistent principles can we apply to the weighing".
How is such "weighing" justified by the dogma that we should "sit under" scripture, not "rule over" it? Is the search for consistent hermeneutical principles a kind of presumption in itself?
In high church terms of course, that question does not exist. The Church is seen as both the custodian and the interpretative guardian of scripture in accordance with Apostolic Tradition. Scripture is subordinate to that guardianship.
In low church terms, the issue is more complex. I think we wrestle with the complexities of the text, taking into account both received wisdom and processes of reasoning.
What is clear to me, however, is that the old notion of "perspicuity" does not hold water. I don't think perspicuity is a biblical notion anyway. It was a means for some of the Reformers to break the power of the priesthood.
"You don't have to listen to them, you can read it for yourself!"
"But I'm not very good at that".
"Don't worry. God has made His Word clear to us all."
That sort of thing. Nonconformism still has some anticlerical suspicions.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
The "pick and choose" locution has always bothered me immensely. It is clearly manipulative and nothing else. If we substitute "use their reason and judgment," which is denotatively equivalent AFAICS, much of the desired effect simply vanishes.
The irony of your comment is not lost on me.
You make a big deal about a form of words, and then proceed to promote "reason and judgment". But you then fail to use your reason and judgment to address the point I actually made, including answering my two questions. (I am sure most people are big and ugly enough to understand what I am saying without getting hung up about the use of a phrase that perhaps falls short of the ideal.)
What were you saying about being 'manipulative' again?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You make a big deal about a form of words, and then proceed to promote "reason and judgment"... I am sure most people are big and ugly enough to understand what I am saying without getting hung up about the use of a phrase that perhaps falls short of the ideal.
'Pick and choose' is absolutely a perjorative term, EE. It implies bad faith on the one doing the 'picking and choosing', whereas tclune's alternative phrasing is much closer to being neutral and free of value judgement, IMO.
Your choice of phrase shows, I think, that you've begged the question as to whether it's ever justified to set aside certain parts of the Bible as being, to use your wording again, 'not of God'.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
'Pick and choose' is absolutely a perjorative term, EE. It implies bad faith on the one doing the 'picking and choosing', whereas tclune's alternative phrasing is much closer to being neutral and free of value judgement, IMO.
But the real test of proving that the one doing the selection is not acting in bad faith is to explain what his objectively valid philosophy is.
I would agree that "pick and choose" implies bad faith, but from the record of this thread and the comments of the person who has been selective in his reading of the Bible, my use of the phrase seems justified. I'll be very happy to admit that I have been prejudiced, if it can be shown that such people operate according to an objectively valid philosophy, which enables them to judge which bits of the Bible are "of God" and which are not.
It's no good picking at my phraseology if the substantive issue is not addressed. This failure only confirms me in my suspicions (or perhaps even prejudices, if that is really the case).
Barnabas62 has made an attempt, but only clarified the issue, not answered it. For example, it is possible to accept that the entirety of the Bible is "of God" while accepting that most of it can only be understood in its historical context.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If you want to launch a personal attack on me, EE, you know where Hell is.
I do not "pick and choose" in the manner you describe. I used to, when I was an evangelical. When I believed the Bible was the Word of God. Oh, not explicitly. I didn't even admit it to myself. I just avoided the nasty bits.
I don't go through the Bible saying "that bit's of God; that bit's not". I rather go through it asking myself "why did this person write this?" To me it's a collection of ideas about God, some useful, some - erm - less so.
You might do well to read some Borg; you might start to understand where I'm coming from. The point is that I am at least in this manner enabled to actually engage with the whole Bible, rather than, as I once did, pretending to myself that it doesn't have some bits that paint God in a very poor light.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I'll be very happy to admit that I have been prejudiced, if it can be shown that such people operate according to an objectively valid philosophy, which enables them to judge which bits of the Bible are "of God" and which are not.
It's no good picking at my phraseology if the substantive issue is not addressed. This failure only confirms me in my suspicions (or perhaps even prejudices, if that is really the case).
But I'm not sure why people would bother explaining their philosophy of Biblical interpretation to you, seeing as you've kind of flagged up that you doubt whether they have any such valid (in your view) philosophy. Why should people try to refute your suspicions / prejudices?
I think if you genuinely want to hear other people's Biblical interpretation philosophies, then say so and just be more careful with the language you use. Text-only communication is tricky; we can't use body language or tone of voice to clarify our intent or meaning! (Sorry to lecture...)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
But I'm not sure why people would bother explaining their philosophy of Biblical interpretation to you, seeing as you've kind of flagged up that you doubt whether they have any such valid (in your view) philosophy. Why should people try to refute your suspicions / prejudices?
Because it's a discussion board, in which I have, at least, had the decency to admit to my suspicions and possible prejudices? Do people generally not like engaging with honesty? Or is honesty always to be interpreted as insulting?
I am well aware that some people can use honesty as a way of camouflaging insulting behaviour, and if that is the case with me, then I apologise. But I would have thought that a thread which talks about "throwing the Bible at the wall", calling God "one sick puppy" and calling certain Christian 'arseholes' is one in which hypersensitivity is generally frowned upon.
That is why I find it rather ridiculous that my rather lame phrase "pick and choose" (by comparison with the above mentioned vitriol) has been so heavily censured.
I suppose you may hold me to a higher standard than certain other people, and therefore I can only thank you for the implied compliment.
quote:
I think if you genuinely want to hear other people's Biblical interpretation philosophies, then say so and just be more careful with the language you use.
I think that I am grown up enough to respond to people's misgivings and difficulties irrespective of the language they use. It's called 'real life'. I expect the same of other people. That is not to justify gratuitous insults, but I really do not think "pick and choose" is one such.
So spare the lecture. Or if you wish to lecture us about tone, then at least be fair and even-handed about it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would have thought that a thread which talks about "throwing the Bible at the wall", calling God "one sick puppy" and calling certain Christian 'arseholes' is one in which hypersensitivity is generally frowned upon.
That is why I find it rather ridiculous that my rather lame phrase "pick and choose" (by comparison with the above mentioned vitriol) has been so heavily censured.
The thing is, EE, with your 'pick and choose' comment you attacked the people you're trying to have a discussion with. You implied (quite possibly unintentionally) that you were never going to accept whatever argument they might have come up with. That's the problem, not the general use of robust language.
Anyway, I'll shut up about this now (hold me to this, please!). It's the kind of meta-discussion that everyone else probably finds a bit tedious...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Barnabas62 has made an attempt, but only clarified the issue, not answered it. For example, it is possible to accept that the entirety of the Bible is "of God" while accepting that most of it can only be understood in its historical context.
Yes, I think that is a perfectly valid position for a Christian to adopt in the first stage of an interpretative journey. It simply means asking the question "what did that mean then?" before asking the question "so what does it mean now?"
A simple example will suffice.
quote:
12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
What it meant then is that the archivist who recorded this story saw no difficulty in the Lord stopping the sun as Joshua commanded, since his fundamental cosmology involved the sun going round the earth. So for the archivist, he was recording an unlikely victory aided by a miraculous intervention.
What does it mean now? There is, shall we say, a range of possible answers to that question!
From
"This was a legend"
to
"At the word of Joshua, the Lord miraculously stopped time in the universe, except in the place of the battle".
But what you cannot say is that the description is literally true. The earth was rotating and orbiting then, just as it is now. It was giving the impression then that the sun was moving in a way that it was not, just as it does now. Is there any doubt about that?
Such examples can be multiplied, of course. Like the great fish in Jonah, for example.
Now the interpretative principles I use allow for the possibility that lots of the "salvation-history" of scripture is made up of legends and camp-fire stories told to confirm the belief that "God is for us". What was legend and what was in some sense historical is somewhat difficult to recover. But ISTM that the primary purpose was not to record the history of the event described but to teach about sovereignty of God and the God-given power of the chosen leaders.
Some folks would say I cannot say that sort of thing without denying that scripture is the Word of God. So I get criticised for "picking and choosing". Like Karl, I don't get that. I'm just looking at what is there and asking those "then" and "now" questions. I call that wrestling with the material.
What do you call it?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Forgive me, but, what scripture verse is being referred to in the OP. Any time I have tried to post something in on this Board, I am "politely" reminded to cite the verse I am referring to.
How come has this thread been allowed to stay in Kerygma as long as it has without reference to any verse in the OP, or for that matter in most, if not all, the subsequent replies?
This is a doctrinal issue, which, in my mind should be in purgatory.
That said, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America takes the position that the Bible contains the Word of God. The books are like the straw in the manger which holds the good news of the Christ child.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Forgive me, but, what scripture verse is being referred to in the OP. Any time I have tried to post something in on this Board, I am "politely" reminded to cite the verse I am referring to.
How come has this thread been allowed to stay in Kerygma as long as it has without reference to any verse in the OP, or for that matter in most, if not all, the subsequent replies?
Keryg is for discussion of the Bible as a whole, as well as specific passages. When someone wants to discuss a specific passage, they are asked to provide a link because some shippies do not always have a Bible handy.
Moo, Kerygmania host
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
We're still skirting round the issue somewhat here.
EE asks the right question about philosophy.
I don't think there's any doubt now that philosophy (especially as informed by worldview) impacts and underlies interpretation. We just can't do without it. Anthony Thiselton argued that point well back in 1980.
Philosophy (expressed often unconsciously in one's worldview) also impacts on Christian life and expression. For better or worse we have inherited the physical collection of words we call the Bible. Actually we had to inherit it; it could not be any other way because Christianity is about a message with a mission, it is not a private religion. We are required to present that message in the public sphere, to live a peculiar life in the public sphere, and to defend the message against all comers. It's a message that has its roots in the beginning – the gospel predates Jesus.
So although it's helpful to have a tradition of interpretation and a Spirit to guide the application of the interpretation, we are still faced with mission: the rest of the world is not convinced by personalised piety any more than by dogmatic assertion. It wants to see the evidence in support. That's a post-modern condition just as much as a modern and we fail our calling if we do not square up to that task.
The problem I have with developmentalism (or progression) in revelation is that it doesn't (or hasn't in any reading I've done) covered off the issue of validation (seeing the evidence). This issue was thrown up by the German existentialist philosopher, Martin Heidegger, a few decades ago. There are two types of development: one takes up what went before and absorbs it into the next step, and the other rejects what went before. Thomas Kuhn also captures this dichotomy in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where one can have 'normal' development – building on what goes before – or one can have paradigm shifts – a rejection of what went before in favour of a new way of looking at things.
Now many developmental approaches are in reality interpretive techniques of the second type: they will assert that some developments are rejections of what went before. What they don't do is present evidential arguments to demonstrate what philosophy (or worldview) is being used to determine the criteria for that type of development. Without that start, they can't possibly go on to demonstrate any validity for the interpretive approach they adopt. And with out that, it is not possible to validate the applications (significances) drawn to inform Christian life and belief today.
I've asked about this before on the Ship, but there hasn't been an answer here either. Perhaps there isn't one! I know it isn't easy to thrash out one's approach to life, the universe and everything, but if there's one thing that the post-modern philosophers have taught the world, it is that it's no longer possible to be lazy and hope to get away with assertion. One has to go much deeper.
And that is a challenge for Christian mission in the West, at least.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Now many developmental approaches are in reality interpretive techniques of the second type: they will assert that some developments are rejections of what went before. What they don't do is present evidential arguments to demonstrate what philosophy (or worldview) is being used to determine the criteria for that type of development. Without that start, they can't possibly go on to demonstrate any validity for the interpretive approach they adopt. And with out that, it is not possible to validate the applications (significances) drawn to inform Christian life and belief today.
Nigel M, what about the idea I mentioned earlier of progressive revelation with Jesus (visible image of the invisible God) as the apex of that revelation? I'm no philosopher and would be interested to see what you think, whether the idea stands up to philosophical scrutiny.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...what about the idea I mentioned earlier of progressive revelation with Jesus (visible image of the invisible God) as the apex of that revelation?
This fits well with the concept of narrative (or the 'story' idea you mentioned earlier, SCK), where what we have inherited is timeline, a history of events the sum of which adds up to a commentary on human life lived within a particular cultural milieu. This seems to me to be a strength of McLaren's approach, in that he takes seriously the way humans 'do' their history by telling the story of their struggle against an apparently unfair universe. We want things to be better, we think they ought to be better, so we struggle to explain the reason for the unfairness and seek to make things better.
In this approach the Christian story, built on its Jewish story heritage, continues the narrative plot line with its own set of peaks, its moments of foreground set off against background, and all the components of a good story (where 'story' is a metaphor for understanding this approach to communicating the history). In this Christian story I don't think it's illogical to see Jesus as a peak in a narrative on its way to a conclusion.
Of course for Christians the question goes deeper: Does this story of Jesus mandate a particular approach in interpretation? Does it impose rules on us that impact on our expectations of how we should live? This question becomes more acute if Jesus is seen as not just a peak in the narrative, but the apex, defining all that came before and comes after. I think the first generation of Christians struggled with this somewhat, because everything in their inherited timeline insisted that the supreme God of their universe was the apex. Jesus had to be set within that story and that's where the concept of 'representative' became useful (Jesus as image, Son, son, messiah...).
If Jesus does reflect the intentions and character of the supreme God, then in some way he becomes the rule or model for interpretation. What he mandates remains mandated for us; what he rejects remains rejected. In this case perhaps the word 'progressive' (and the concept behind it) is less useful than the word 'foundational.'
However, we can't escape the fact pointed out by Trudy Scrumptious earlier that Jesus is communicated by human writings and if these are mistaken then it's difficult to see how we can validly appropriate that rule. Thus we arrive at the issue about the record we've inherited. Even if Jesus is foundational, how do we proceed unless the record we've inherited is in some sense also foundational?
To date I've found that the only way one can proceed from this point in discussions with non-believers is to test each step of the Christian 'story.' It's best done, it seems, on the basis of overt assumptions, or logical steps (a decision tree helps). Setting things out this way permits others to identify where they answer differently and where discussion should take place. For example one could proceed as follows:
If there is a God ... which is the first logical branch in the decision tree demanding a Yes of No answer, 'No' being capable of explored further
and if that God communicates
Then it is reasonable to expect that God has communicated with the intention of being understood.
This would lead to a next series, and so on, until one came to the question of worldview and how best to deal with the fact that the biblical writers wrote with their cultural settings in the background and how that maps across to other settings. Cutting to the chase here, I think that although cultural settings have some differences, there is more than sufficient overlap by virtue of the commonality of human nature to make the transition without having to jump across a gap. Thus there are grounds for having confidence in those writings that have survived (by human intention – copied and disseminated across generations and culture) and in their subject.
This means (and I know I'm jumping across other gaps in argument here!) that when I find Jesus recorded as validating texts in the Christian OT then we have a mandate for seeing those passages as ruling interpretation and application across all human experience. I go further here, because I've come to see how deeply ingrained the Jewish scriptures were in the milieu of first century Israel – including with Jesus and his followers – that I have to conclude that Jesus accepted each and every passage in those scriptures as being God's communication to his creation. What he combatted was not a passage per se, but particular interpretations and applications he came across.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Correction -
Paragraph 7 would make more sense if it read:
If there is a God ... which is the first logical branch in the decision tree demanding a Yes or No answer, 'No' being capable of being explored further before moving on to:
and if that God communicates ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
However, we can't escape the fact pointed out by Trudy Scrumptious earlier that Jesus is communicated by human writings and if these are mistaken then it's difficult to see how we can validly appropriate that rule. Thus we arrive at the issue about the record we've inherited. Even if Jesus is foundational, how do we proceed unless the record we've inherited is in some sense also foundational?
Thanks for your reply, Nigel! On the above point, many Christians would, of course, take the NT accounts of Jesus as fully accurate. If the NT claims Jesus said or did something, then he did indeed say or do it. I know things aren't quite this simple for a few reasons, for example there isn't universal agreement between Christians as to the content of the canon.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
...when I find Jesus recorded as validating texts in the Christian OT then we have a mandate for seeing those passages as ruling interpretation and application across all human experience. I go further here, because I've come to see how deeply ingrained the Jewish scriptures were in the milieu of first century Israel – including with Jesus and his followers – that I have to conclude that Jesus accepted each and every passage in those scriptures as being God's communication to his creation. What he combatted was not a passage per se, but particular interpretations and applications he came across.
I like how you've phrased this. Jesus accepting 'each and every passage' in the Jewish scriptures doesn't mean he agrees with any particular interpretation (e.g. the literal reading which claims God did indeed command the Israelites to commit genocide).
IMO we can't duck the apparent contradiction between OT genocide (including, for that matter, that committed by God himself in the flood) and the NT picture of God 'not wanting anyone to perish'. For me, progressive revelation with Jesus as the apex is the best explanation I've come across so far.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Well, here is one Christian that does not take everything the Gospels said about what Jesus did as accurate. There are too many discrepancies between the Gospels. No, I understand each Gospel writer is relating something about Jesus in line with the writer's theme. The Gospels were never intended to be relating historical facts, rather they are interpretations of facts from the eyes of the writer.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Nigel M
On the philosophy point. I don't think all folks applying historical critical methods, including higher criticism share the same philosophical outlook. What has happened through time is that analytical methods have evolved for studying the texts. It is, for example, perfectly possible for scholars with or without faith to study texts and come to the same conclusions about them.
It seems more accurate to say that rejection of higher critical methods is commonly associated with specific religious outlooks. This observation does not just apply within Christianity.
Speaking personally, I don't belong to any specific philosophical 'family'. My positive attitudes to higher critical methods relate more to the effectiveness of the approach in uncovering meaning and significance.
[ 12. May 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Gospels were never intended to be relating historical facts, rather they are interpretations of facts from the eyes of the writer.
I think this is pretty much a given – writers write with intention, not in a static, designless environment. They have an aim, a direction of travel, and this is usually prompted by the existence of a gap somewhere, an issue that needs resolving. Otherwise there's little incentive to expend personal resource on a product. So each gospel writer (indeed, each biblical writer) came across a problem they recognise needed to be fixed; they were not content to live with it, so they mitigated the problem by writing.
This is the topic of import in communication theory (developed especially by Kathleen Callow). Communication has purpose (=import, intention).
The problem these writers were addressing may simply have been a gap in someone's knowledge, so the aim in that case was to impart information so that the reader is in a better place to take decisions based on a wider knowledge set (Informational import; Luke's intention, perhaps?). Or the writer may have been expressing information to change the state of things – directing action or commissioning support for action (Volitional import – Paul's intention in many passages). The final import is Expressive; where a writer's intention is to effect change by affecting his audience. This latter import has only recently been studied in any depth (recent decades, anyway); it uncovers the whole area of rhetoric in writing.
What I think you are getting at is not the aspect of intention or purpose in writing, but at the impact this has on confidence. How much confidence can anyone have in the veracity of anybody's communication if they always have an agenda?
Well, at a mundane level humans have had to live with this for, ooooh, as long as we have records of human existence. We get by, day by day, by accepting that knowledge is partial and apt to be misunderstood when set against a truth baseline. Consequently we make mistakes or are led astray and feel something of a fool later for being duped. But you can see how this state of affairs impacts on how we accept the messages in the bible. It's led plenty of commentators of the past generation of throw their hands up in despair and conclude that there can be no confidence – or insufficient confidence – to enable trust in what is read (and therefore in any application impacting on Christian life and belief). This has led to something of a crisis in biblical theology; Brevard Childs summarised the position quite well back in 1980. More on this below in response to B62's post.
I see this extreme lack of confidence as being misplaced. It also has a happy knack of latching onto a distorted understanding of what 'postmodernism' was all about – an easy prop for the afflicted. N. T. Wright addressed the issue of confidence in The New Testament and the People of God (chapter 4). Essentially it boils down to: Just because you're a gospel writer doesn't mean you are not telling the truth. In fact, being a specialist in a field is one reason for being taken seriously. We have more confidence in experts than we have in amateurs. Additionally, it is helpful to draw on the philosophy of knowledge and communication theory again here, invoking the finding that talk about objects external to ourselves should not be reduced to talk about subjective sense-data.
In other words, just because a writer has a point of view, or an agenda, does nothing to inform us whether he or she is telling it 'as it is.' They may well indeed be relating history. We have to go deeper, not back away.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think all folks applying historical critical methods, including higher criticism share the same philosophical outlook
Yes, I agree that people may be draw on different philosophies and yet arrive at similar conclusions. One can travel by different roads to the same destination. Where I fear the issue has been is in assuming that different starting points can automatically predetermine similar ending points.
The crisis in biblical theology I mentioned earlier has proved informative in this regard. The consequence of this crisis has been a wide-spread move away from the traditional historical-critical paradigm, not necessarily because it was asking the wrong questions, but because it was fated to come up with the wrong answers. Philosophically it was groundless. This isn't just an opinion, it's the general state of acceptance now both among those who grew up within that paradigm and came to reject it, and also among the newer generation of biblical theologians who are trying to find a new foundation.
A whole host of ways have been and are being tested in the attempt to find a way out of this. Two series come to mind that provide examples of this: the Overtures to Biblical Theology series [http://www.goodreads.com/series/62689-overtures-to-biblical-theology] and the Scripture and Hermeneutics series [http://www.librarything.com/series/Scripture+%2526+Hermeneutics].
So I guess my warning is: by all means read the impressive tomes that came out of the traditional historical-critical powerhouse that existed especially in Germany for the 150-years or so up to the 1960s, it will provoke all sorts of useful questions and subsequent areas of interest for research, but hold at extreme arms' length the conclusions the writers of those times came to. They need to be tested against more recent findings.
Just on the meaning and significance point: I find useful the distinction made by E. D. Hirsch many moons ago (Validity in Interpretation still to be helpful: Meaning is the authorial intention; Significance is the application of that meaning to any given situation. There have been plenty of debates over authorial intention, but I have found no adequate replacement to the principle still common today that the human author retains moral right of ownership to his or her work – including the interpretation of what was intended and what not. Everything else (significance) is words, to plagiarise a saying from earlier in this thread!
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Sorry - a couple of book hyperlinks were missed in that last post.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
When I was in homiletics class, the professor, a Methodist by origin, and no Bible thumping fundamentalist, instructed us to use historical criticism and have it inform our faith, but historical criticism is never to substitute for faith. The historical scholar, tied to principles of objectivity and neutrality, must for his enterprise, assume a secular outlook.
No one seriously thinks for example, that God directly orchestrated the sinking of the Titanic or the first world war. A historian who makes such a claim would be laughed out of the academy. Secular history, by definition, operates from Enlightenment presumptions. Both its advantages and pitfalls come from this epistemology. Secular history is beneficial because it is free from confessional commitments. I can read a good academic history of the English Civil War without worrying about it being a propaganda piece for either the Puritans or the Royalists. Not only that, but I can tell if something is propaganda or not.
But if you want to study Scripture from the perspective of faith, you do have to move beyond the historical method. For example, historians now say that the Exodus event was probably not of the large scale that the Bible records. Some historians maintain that there was no Exodus based on the lack of corroborating archaeological and literary evidence. But none of that makes a difference for the Christian who studies the Exodus as an allegory for liberation from the slavery of sin or liberation movements who study Exodus as an example of justice overcoming oppression.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Philosophically it was groundless. This isn't just an opinion, it's the general state of acceptance now both among those who grew up within that paradigm and came to reject it, and also among the newer generation of biblical theologians who are trying to find a new foundation.
What I find humorous in this is that philosophy recognized the bankruptcy of philosophy by the early 20th century. John Dewey's disciples virtually all left philopsophy out of a recognition of the aridness of the enterprise, and Wittgenstein became well-known for his notion that the only purpose of doing philosophy was to learn how to stop doing it. ISTM that you are looking to build a new foundation on sand..
--Tom Clune
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
To say there is no philosophy is itself a philosophical statement!
What I think you are referring to is the argument that one particular form of philosophy - one particular way of doing things (as Wittgenstein would have put it) - needs to be replaced by another. That's what has been going on.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
What I think you are referring to is the argument that one particular form of philosophy - one particular way of doing things (as Wittgenstein would have put it) - needs to be replaced by another. That's what has been going on.
No, this is simply false. The understanding was considerably more radical than that, although Wittgenstein could never bring himself to shut up.
To my mind, the real visionary on this was CS Pierce. His critique of Cartesianism was actually a critique on philosophy itself. His point was that we are really not very good at abstract thinking, and when we try to systematize our thoughts on metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc., we introduce error by that very enterprise. What we are good at is lots of small insights. As Pierce put it, any idea that is supported by a wealth of disparate facts and insights is vastly more reliable than any idea that emerges by a tortuous set of logical inferences from a seemingly innocuous premise of systematics. In Bertrand Russel's famous phrase, the real joy of philosophy is to start with innocuous premises and arrive at outrageous conclusions.
Now, you may want to say that thinking obout stuff is philosophy, and so we all do it. But that's not what philosophy really is -- it is systematizing that stuff using a particular set of tools and no others. Redefining "philosophy" to subsume, say, physics, is simply to make up your own meaning for words.
Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Then we are talking about two definitions of philosophy. Philosophy as a technique or set of tools is one thing, but I'm talking about deeper stuff - the worldview or belief systems that underlie the use of those tools. That's what I was on about earlier - it's about starting points, not the road. I agree with B62's point that anyone could in principle use the methods associated with historical-criticism. What needs thinking about, though, before anyone can validate the conclusions reached, is the deep stuff that drives a particular use of those tools and can determine outcomes in advance. Coming to terms with that is the first step. Tools (or method) follows.
And it surely is questionable whether Pierce's pragmatism, allied as it was with a scientific enquiry approach, could entirely hold in the field of hermeneutics. It certainly doesn't seem to have done so successfully in the field of biblical interpretation, whether practiced by literalistic approaches or some historical-critical methods.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Nigel M
I suspect the real argument lies elsewhere. The conservative argument, which I know you are not advancing, often goes something like this.
If, for example, application of historical critical methods leads to conclusions at variance with traditional beliefs - or even a range of conclusions which embrace both traditional and other beliefs as inherently possible - that is seen as an attack. How can such a thing be valid? Clearly there must be something wrong.
Stage 1 is to "check the arithmetic" i.e. go through the analysis produced by the historical-critical method and search for logical error, see if the analysis holds water. If (when) it does, then the conservative defence may move to Stage 2.
Under Stage 2 arguments, since the "arithmetic" cannot be shown to be false, then the "presuppositions" underlying the "arithmetic" must be in some way flawed. The whole process must somehow or other be affected by "philosophical presuppositions". Such as "miracles cannot happen", for example.
And I think that is how the "philosophical" dimension arises in this kind of debate. It is a questioning of the presuppositions of folks who are comfortable with historical-critical examination of sacred texts.
That's one of the reasons why I cited the "Sun stand still" OT text. If you want to see how seriously the inherent difficulties of this text were taken by those with conservative understandings of the inspiration of the Word of God, have a look at this 19th century commentary by Adam Clarke. Read the section dealing with Joshua 10:12. A stubborn defence of the text as a scripture fact; in some ways admirable in its perseverance. Yet there can be no doubt where the presupposition lies. It is with Adam Clarke, for whom a scripture fact is a scripture fact not to be contradicted. Even if one has to stand on one's head to save it.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
One certainly doesn't have to go far, B62, on the internet to come across excellent examples such as that!
What I would say, though, is presuppositions underlie other approaches, too; e.g., a Hegelian-influenced presupposition that the highest and purest form of religion must be that of faith, not works, led plenty of historical-critics to assert that Israel began with a faith-based religion, but degenerated after the Babylonian exile into one of ritual-works based on Torah. That was something that could not be supported by the evidence (archaeological, sociological, or linguistic), but it held sway for quite some time.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes, I agree, Nigel. The pilgrimage of the genuinely honest enquirer can be a difficult one. It is a good idea to look very carefully at all "glittery" theories!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Under Stage 2 arguments, since the "arithmetic" cannot be shown to be false, then the "presuppositions" underlying the "arithmetic" must be in some way flawed. The whole process must somehow or other be affected by "philosophical presuppositions". Such as "miracles cannot happen", for example.
And I think that is how the "philosophical" dimension arises in this kind of debate. It is a questioning of the presuppositions of folks who are comfortable with historical-critical examination of sacred texts.
CS Lewis put it rather well:
quote:
Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.
If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, still less can history do so. Many people think one can decide whether a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence 'according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry'. But the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible...
(Miracles, Chapter One. Emphasis mine.)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes but it simply is not true that all the people who use the methods of historical critical analysis of the Word of God (or Tradition) have philosophical presuppositions which rule out miracles.
I think you already know most of this, but for the sake of other readers of the thread, this article gives a reasonable overview.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Yes but it simply is not true that all the people who use the methods of historical critical analysis of the Word of God (or Tradition) have philosophical presuppositions which rule out miracles.
Which is not what Lewis was saying or implying.
We need to clarify our presuppositions before we tackle historical evidence, in order to avoid biased interpretations.
(By the way... I think that reading and interpreting Scripture in its historical context is absolutely essential, and I don't accept the "application" view of Bible interpretation, which tries to draw absolute lifestyle guidance from any part of the Bible without working its principles through the sieve of the socio-historical conditions in which they were originally established.)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think the findings of historical criticism are subject to peer review and other reviews. The associated methodologies are relatively independent of presuppositions, but of course the conclusions aren't.
It's not the same as peer review in the so-called "hard" sciences; the value of a finding or an interpretation might well be judged as "consistent with the facts" or "speculative" or "well-founded" etc. But the processes are open and so they cannot be used for propaganda purposes without comment.
Isn't that enough? On general grounds, I don't believe people should be compelled to publish their presuppositions along with their findings and conclusions. If those findings and conclusions are any good, they will gel with the understandings of people with many and various outlooks.
Thinking about the Synoptic problem and the primacy of Mark, for example. Or the different authorship strands in the Penteteuch.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical in Purgatory:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.
Could you please give me an example of a metaphysically relevant* truth claim that has no reference to or dependence on any philosophical presupposition?
* i.e. a claim that has some bearing on what we believe about the nature of reality. So an idea in the same epistemic category as, for example, London being a city on the river Thames, which was called Londinium by the Romans, doesn't count, because this really has no obvious bearing on anything metaphysical.
I've transferred this post from a tangent to a thread in Purgatory, feeling that it would be on balance better and fairer to reply here.
I've got a few ideas about how to reply to EE's question, but want to reflect a little before posting a reply. I'm busy this evening - my aim is to get round to a reply tomorrow.
It's a good question.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.
I see the Bible as the 'story of Jesus' and I am a follower of Jesus.
Works for me.
Well, except for the sneering dismissal of "nomadic stone-age goat herders" (presumably because they were Dumb and we are Smart!), and for perpetuating the myth that the Council of Nicea, at Constantine's instigation, set the canon of the NT. Hold on, I suppose that means the whole paragraph's bullshit!
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
And yet genocide is a phenomenon in human history which recurs again and again, which suggests that not every culture believes it to be inherently wrong. Your revulsion (and mine) is therefore culturally conditioned.
My question still remains : what hermeneutic allows us to point to a passage and say, in effect, that it doesn't belong in Scripture?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fr Weber; I really don't think my revulsion at the idea of genocide is mere cultural conditioning. I have this conviction that marching through cities putting everyone to the sword, down to babes in arms, is inherently wrong.
Sorry.
And yet genocide is a phenomenon in human history which recurs again and again, which suggests that not every culture believes it to be inherently wrong. Your revulsion (and mine) is therefore culturally conditioned.
My question still remains : what hermeneutic allows us to point to a passage and say, in effect, that it doesn't belong in Scripture?
That something keeps on happening does not make it any less wrong. Are you suggesting that it isn't inherently wrong; it's just our culture that thinks it is? Should we look at Rwanda and say "nothing wrong with what happened there; just our cultural conditioning"?
I never said it doesn't belong in Scripture. I just said that I don't see "God's Word" as a good way of describing something that contains things like this. If you like, I'd be more inclined to expect God to be "culturally conditioning" folk to reject genocide.
[ 21. May 2013, 16:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
The problem I have with this is--
"Did God become insensate, deaf and mute 2000 years ago when the Bible's LAST WRITER finished?"
I don't think so.
I don't think God stopped being Intelligent, Wise, Witty, Insightful and Tactful ... 2000 years ago.
Therefore, the Bible is merely the beginning of The Word As We Know It ... in my estimation.
And the Holy Spirit of Truth is what is to make up for lost time.
EEWC
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What Brian McLaren said - as SCK has linked.
quote:
[qb]And how is that philosophy justified?
"You don't have to listen to them, you can read it for yourself! Don't worry. God has made His Word clear to us all." That sort of thing. Nonconformism still has some anticlerical suspicions.
What we have not done is COMPARE what YHVH taught as Law and what Jesus taught as ETHICS against the backdrop of Annunaki [SECRET] culture, legalism and meta-physics.
That comparison says it all. [I hope I got the quote code correctly.]
When you compare Annunaki-Babylonian rules of hierarchy (top-down dictation, no questions asked) one realizes, this is not what Jesus was teaching.
It WAS however, what Paul was teaching, who was inserted into the 4th century canon at the same time Church Fathers removed the Gospel of Barnabas, the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas.
Unsettling accounts where the Church wanted to be undoubted Hierarchy.
If not for the Holy Spirit of Truth and the possibility of receiving Light in the privacy of one's own meditations, the Teachings of Jesus, which were anathema to 4th century church fathers, might have been lost completely.
[There's no way to edit or fix this if I got the quote codes wrong. Apologies up front.]
Emily
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on
:
Well, FWIW, I stay away from things extra-Biblical that claim inspiration. It has nothing to do with God having become mute, etc, and everything to do with the fact that we're (collectively and individually) about as sharp as a bowling ball, and have yet to digest the rich meal He's given us in Scripture to begin with.
There's a ton of outfits running around claiming inspiration for their extra-Biblical works, and there are a ton of Sola-Scriptura denominations, and other denoms, that have their own slant on how things should be done. Against all these claims I hold only the Scriptures as a measuring rod - it's similar to business, say what you want about we should do this for you or give you that, in the end everything is measured against the contract.
This position comes out of my own childhood problems and religious deception/manipulation. In His glorious word, I have exactly what I need, fixed, its integrity kept (I believe) by the power of the Spirit, so that I have a certain source for truth.
Plus, quite honestly, I've never encountered any information outside of the Bible that has much relevance to my life (aside from writers who discussed the Scriptures and their application).
I don't mean this to be hurtful, but this whole buisness of Nibru and the cabal of aliens and elites that run our earth doesn't mean much to me - I still have problems loving my neighbor as myself! And if aliens are out there, or if evil men are oppressing us with their hierarchies (nothing new there, aliens or not!) God can and will deal with them - it's sure no surprise to him.
Blessings,
Tom
edited to add: Cross posted with you. This was in response to your first post above.
[ 21. May 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Further to this.
There is in Kerygmania a very interesting illustration of how two sets of Christian scholars with very different presuppositions about Scripture and Tradition come to the same conclusion about the meaning of a key metaphysical text; John 1:1
Here is a link to the thread.
The argument is primarily a literary one, but you will see that working from different premises and publishing their workings, conservative evangelical scholars and scholars involved in the compilation of a new translation of the Eastern Orthodox New Testament come to an almost identical view of the meaning of the text translated as "and the Word was God".
The conevos come up with "What God was, the Word was" and the Orthodox come up with "the Word was (what) God (was)".
Their workings are published and open, they are based on a critical examination of the Koine, and they can be followed by any critical student of New Testament texts. As it happens, they both support the orthodox Christian understanding of the person of Christ better than the traditional translation. Here is a key post by me on that topic.
Both analyses show awareness of the need for critical appreciation (i.e. non-dogmatic) of the need for an accurate translation of this key scripture and how they went about it.
Presuppositions do not come into play in either the translation process or its application to the dogmatic significance of the text in understanding both the Trinity and the Person of Jesus.
An agnostic translator can follow the literary process of translation, can see the dogmatic significance, and agree the coherence of the revised English translation with the dogma, without ever agreeing the truth of the dogma. That agreement lies in the context of faith; the meaning of the text and its most effective translation into English is simply a matter of scholarship. Professionals of various presuppositions can appreciate the accuracy of the scholarship behind the detailed modern translation and its independence from dogma.
[ 21. May 2013, 17:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, FWIW, I stay away from things extra-Biblical that claim inspiration.
I don't, Tom. And here's why.
God has a Name--YHVH or Jehovah or Yahweh or Jehovih are its approximations.
There are OTHER BOOKS WITH HIS NAME APPENDED.
So I don't just automatically trash them: the
Oahspe, the Urantia Book both have God's NAME inscribed in them.
The Oahspe is completely untained by Babylonian hierarchy teachings, and the Urantia Book is SOLID HIERARCHY from front to back, but they both paint YHVH as "NOT a God who would have people stoned for premarital relations."
God in more recent inspirations has learned that, there is no way--no ethical way--to just get even; and culling people for their feelings doesn't work out in the long haul.
God YHVH is way past such vindictive and karmic behavior in these other inspired tomes.
It's worth giving some reading time and thought to, methinks.
Emily
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
I find also, in confronting experience and existence by principle and by coherence, the inspired work of Swedenborg is very helpful to keep Biblical personalities and quirks and ego out of the mix when we must confront the absolutes of God.
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on
:
Well, I don't automatically trash them, either, though I haven't read the particular works that you refer to (nor does my reading of Scripture lead me to stone people for pre-marital relations). But the work does have to stand on its own merits.
I have read a few of the gnostic works, and a few works such as the Protoevangel of James, that "didn't make the cut", found them indeed to be wanting. But as Solomon said, "of making books there is no end" and I have to draw a line somewhere, I just don't have time to read that much.
There used to be a good read on this site, I think by Stephen Tomkins, called "Unholy Writ". It takes a more tongue-in-cheek approach to some of the works in the genre I mentioned (not the ones that you did) Can't find it now, but it was a hoot!
I guess I don't get where you find the need to be concerned about hierarchy. LIke I said, I have trouble enough with those two primary commandments, love God & love my neighbor.
And it may be a mis-type on your part, but "God in more recent inspirations has learned..." if allowed to stand, is certainly wrong - perhaps we have learned ABOUT God, but certainly God has no need of learning, surely?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book.
The Course In Miracles is para-personal, getting into one's deepest thoughts as a textbook in psychiatry might. But that's not really personal either.
To me, the reason I pray to God [YHVH] alone, is because He's personal, as I'm personal, and that quality comes out of Bible stories.
Em
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I've read a variety of religious Books, and the Bible shows me peoples' experiences with a Personal God, that the others don't show me.
God is an impersonal Deity in all the other Books, including the Grande Sahib of the Sikhs, the Mary Baker Eddy SCIENCE & HEALTH, Swedenborg's Tome, the Oahspe, even the Urantia Book. f not, why not?
Emily, this board is for discussion of the Bible, not other religious books.
Moo, Kerygmania host
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
But the Bible isn't one book, with one viewpoint. It's lots of books, spanning generations and cultures, with a whole range of viewpoints (sometimes conflicting?).
So, there has to be a middle ground between full-out unquestioning acceptance of everything and dismissal as irrelevant.
Someone raised the question earlier of 'which Bible' too. For someone like me, who like Karl, is nervous about calling the Bible "the Word", (primarily because that's the Bible's own title for Jesus), and has a reasonably loose defininition of 'canon', that's not a big deal.
But if you're going to have an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, then you'd better be certain as to which books count. And the problem is, the arguments on both sides seem fairly convincing. So is (for example), the Prayer of Manassah the Word of God? If not, why not?
Oh, I'm well aware of the complexity of Scriptures. Having come from a tradition that does hold an ultra-mega high view of Scripture, I'm trying to work my way towards an understanding of how to still respect, value and learn from the Scriptures without seeing every word as divine dictation. I know it's not a simple "throw the baby out with the bathwater" business, but when I see people writing off the Scriptures as the ramblings of uneducated primitives, and then claiming that their faith is founded on Jesus alone -- the Jesus revealed IN the Scriptures -- I get a feeling of jarring cognitive dissonance.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would be interested in knowing how we tell the difference between which parts in the Bible are mere cultural conditioning and which parts are the Real Stuff. Is there a hermeneutic, beyond "this agrees with my politics and this doesn't," or "this offends my culturally-conditioned sense of right and wrong and this does not"?
I think we can make a good start by using what we know of Jesus' behaviour and attitudes as a plumb line. So, for a start; how well does ordering genocide fit with the NT accounts of Jesus?
The problem with using the NT accounts of Jesus’s character as the complete determinant of what God’s character is like is that when Jesus came to earth the first time at the incarnation, he came to offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to establish the New Covenant in his blood under which the blessings previously only available to the people of Israel could be offered to all the nations of the world (as promised to Abraham). His character displayed at this time is symbolised by a lamb, as recognised by John the Baptist at Jesus’s baptism – humble, meek, unthreatening.
But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will. Jesus’s teaching on this is recorded in the NT, but the only time when an aspect of this character was seen during his life on earth (as far as I can think of at the moment) was at the transfiguration.
The Old Testament is essential for a complete picture, because it points forward to both aspects: the character Jesus displayed at his first coming, and the character which will be seen on his return. The offering of blessing and covenant love to those who obeyed God’s commands, and the eventual destruction of those who oppose him and do evil. The execution of the Amalekites is an essential part of God’s revelation of himself, because it pre-figures the eternal destruction of all evil, and of those who oppose God, that will happen when Jesus returns at the second coming. The Book of Revelation also speaks of both aspects of the character of Jesus as lion and lamb (see ch.5 for example).
That’s just a very sketchy outline, and all that I have time for just now.
Speaking more generally on the overall theme of the thread, I have found that an understanding of the Bible as the word of God comes from accepting all of it in its entirety, and placing myself under its authority rather than placing myself in judgement over it. Then I found that the understanding I gained from studying it with this attitude formed such a coherent and united structure, that I have come to be convinced of its supernatural origins. This works the opposite way round to any other text, in which the first step is understanding, then followed by acceptance. I suspect that with the Bible as God’s word, acceptance of it and submission to it are prerequisites for understanding it – not the other way round.
So to go back to the first two posts in this thread, perhaps the ‘word of God’ is the comprehension generated in the mind of the reader by the words of the text. More of an experiential thing than something solely intrinsic to the text itself.
Angus
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
Once again Angus, You've said it so well that all I can do is ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You are aware that the "execution" of the Amalekites is meant to have included babes in arms? They're EVIL that must be DESTROYED?
Fuck that. Fuck that to Hell and back.
And that has to be the end for me with this fuckwitted concept of God the mass murderer, and I have no more time for it nor for defences of the utterly indefencible.
Gaa. Every time I start to think I want to get closer to God someone comes and paints him as someone I'd cosy up to Stalin before I'd go near with a bargepole.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Here's an old thread that wrestles with that question: "Ethic" Cleansing. Some interesting stuff. THe thread is still active if you want to post on it.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Pooks - you are too kind, but I appreciate the compliment.
Karl - I'll try to post a response on the thread that Mamacita has linked to.
Angus
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
--Tom Clune
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
tclune:
quote:
I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
OK, maybe so, but not the protestants I have mostly known.
If I give you my word, that relates to some promise, and yes, you could take the Bible as God's word to fulfil the promises. But most people would want to include much more factual content about God in the phrase "the word of God". E.g. the miracle stories of the Gospels (if not more), the statements about faith and grace etc.
I don't see this as included just under the idea of the word of God as the promise of God.
But I can see virtue in the idea, and will have a think.
(I know some people have a think before they post, but there you go!)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
I don't like the idea at all.
And i am uncomfortable to learn that a large church near me calls the Bible 'the words of Jesus'.
Seriously. Moses-like, he managed to dictate his own death. In Jesus' case, at least there was the resurrection, and maybe that body can use pens.
Meanwhile, Moses and David get the shaft.
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
You mean like this? I think that Protestantism would traditionally be quite comfortable with the reading you would place on the term.
Very comfortable.
As we sang at communion today:
quote:
O send Thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me,
That He may touch my eyes, and make me see:
Show me the truth concealed within Thy Word,
And in Thy Book revealed I see the Lord.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Copying posts from the closed "Word of God = Bible?" thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible." This suggests to me that equating the concept of "the word of God" with "the Bible" is itself un-Biblical. If you know a good book on this topic, I'd love to hear about it.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Al Eluia: Does anyone know of a good study of the formulas "The Word of God" or "The Word of the Lord" as they're actually used in Scripture? Just thinking about the passages I'm familiar with, it seems to me that these are never used to refer to "The Bible."
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's almost like the people who wrote the Scriptures didn't know that one day these would be canonized as 'The Bible'
I once dared to ask (elsewhere) if St Paul was aware that his letters would be considered on the spiritual level of the Torah. I was a little taken aback by the hostility with which my question was received.
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha, it seems to refer mainly to prophetic words, visions, or knowledge coming to people. In the New Testament, it refers mostly to the Hebrew Bible (esp. Mark and Matthew, with John throwing in a reference to the Psalms) and to the gospel (Luke-Acts, Paul).
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I wonder what they think the titles of the gospels are supposed to mean?
What titles are those?
--Tom Clune
Well obviously they didn't originally have titles, but presumably people referring to the entire Bible as the "words of Jesus" still refer to individual books as "Mark," "1 John," and so on, rather than "1 Jesus," "2 Jesus," and so on. Although more power to them if it's the latter...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Mark has a title. Its the first line of the text:
"The Good News of Jesus the Messiah the Son of God"
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
A.Pilgrim: But at Jesus’s second coming, the character that will be seen is that symbolised by a lion – mighty, all-powerful, triumphant; bringing judgement to all the people of the earth, the fulfillment of salvation to all his chosen people, and the destruction of evil and of all those who oppose his will.
If this is the Jesus that will come back, then as far as I'm concerned, He can stay right where He is.
Yes. That does sound like 'no more Mr nice guy' and 'forget the suffering servant mask'.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It surprises me how few folk find the "word of God"idea just odd. It isn't a usual English expression, and if you use, say, "the word of Anteater" it means my promise, as in "I give you my word".
Can anyone think of a better term?
Certainly God's promises are part of what is meant by the phrase "the Word of God" : see, e.g., Romans 9:4.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
forget the suffering servant mask'.
Nothing like a little Gnosticism inserted into a conversation about the nature of Jesus.
Anyway, as to the question of which parts of Scripture to take as authoritative about the character of God or to set aside -- like Gramps, I believe that Scripture is the cradle that holds the Christ. Lutherans are taught to read the entirety of Scripture through the lens of Christ. So to me the God who initiates genocide, "solves" the social problem of rape in a tribally acceptable way that nonetheless re-victimizes the victim on a personal level, ordains gender and social inequalities as part of the divine plan, etc. -- well, seen through the Christological lens those things seem "right strawy," and I don't feel compelled to consider them either prescriptive or authoritative as far as a glimpse into the mind of God.
(Although in the case of the rape victim forced to marry her attacker, it can be argued that the Levitical law was a step up from what may have been happening in surrounding cultures since it gave the victimized girl, now considered "spoiled goods" by her family and the community, the social protection of marriage, even if it was to the ******* who raped her, and gave him the financial burden of a wife, or another wife, and all the obligations to her clan -- to our eyes a hand-slap, but again perhaps more of a punishment than he'd have gotten in a neighboring culture. So if you try really hard I suppose you can see this now alarming bit of tribal justice as a tentative if primitive and flawed attempt to protect the victim in this case from further public shaming and thus an illustration of a people beginning to discern/model divine qualities of justice and compassion. Or you can write it off as another example of sinful human beings turning other human beings into commodities and treating serious injuries to person and spirit as contractual complications, and chalking their own encultured prejudices and preferences up to God.)
To answer the question I anticipate, about how does one read Scripture through a Christological lens without assuming factual or other inerrancy on the part of the NT writers: In the final analysis it takes a leap of faith. I don't have the theological burden of trying to reason through this paradox; it's not a "head" thing. Which puts me in the same position as the original folks who encountered the first disciples and their witness of their experience with Jesus. Who are these guys/gals that I should believe anything they say? But I do, to the extent that I'm willing to use their encounters with the one they consider God With Us as my interpretative guide for what I read in Scripture, including their own work.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0