Inerrantism and Its Alternatives. Also Implications

[TrueMyth]

Hello all you athiests, theists, seekers, agnostics, and superintelligent pandimensional hypergalactic beings!

I have encountered in another thread the question of Biblical inerrantism (or infallibility, or literalism) and what this means. Namely, I stated that I was not a Biblical inerrantist (which makes me not a fundy), and a fellow lover of truth pointed out to me that this made him/her wonder why I believed any of the Bible. How do I pick and choose? What is my criterion?

As a side issue to this, I would also like to explore what it means to be an inerrantist. What constitutes an error in the Biblical record? For example, can one be an inerrantist and still adhere to theistic evolution which took more than 7 (or 6, depending on who you ask) literal 24-hour days?

Any takers? :Cheeky:


--The answer is 42

[King Rat]

At the risk of being pithy, why go for the small stuff?

The utter lack of evidence for ghosts, demons, angels, talking asses, solar motels, flat earths, solid skys, 1000 year old men, giants, global floods, talking snakes, mighty morphin' power rangers, etc.; ought to be a few big red flags.

[Toto]

Well, what are your criteria? In that other thread, you indicated that the fact that Christians accepted difficult rules about sexual restraint but rejected rules on headcoverings indicated that they must have the Truth. I don't think this is a viable criterion. Most modern Christians also reject the commandment to observe the Sabbath and Keep it Holy, which in modern football loving cultures is probably more difficult that avoiding adultery.

Your move.

[TrueMyth]

Well, what are your criteria? In that other thread, you indicated that the fact that Christians accepted difficult rules about sexual restraint but rejected rules on headcoverings indicated that they must have the Truth. I don't think this is a viable criterion. Most modern Christians also reject the commandment to observe the Sabbath and Keep it Holy, which in modern football loving cultures is probably more difficult that avoiding adultery.

Your move.

Thank you very much for entering the discussion!

Actually, what I meant (I'm sorry if it came off differently) was not that their strictures being against their natural desires GUARANTEED they had Truth, but that this fact made it MORE PROBABLE that they had Truth. This is more or less identical to the Criterion of Dissimilarity used by the Jesus Seminar. It does not show the removal of ALL bias, but some (perhaps most) of it. I also was making a point solely about those specific prohibitions, not all Christian prohibitions in general.

What are my criteria for determining what might be an error? Oh, boy. Can I get back to you on that one? I need to formulate this more fully and think about it before I reply... (I should have an answer in a day, maybe less)

Sorry I haven't been more helpful-- I promise I will be soon!

[Toto]

Take your time. :)

[manimal2878]

What are my criteria for determining what might be an error? Oh, boy. Can I get back to you on that one? I need to formulate this more fully and think about it before I reply... (I should have an answer in a day, maybe less)




I'd be very interested to hear your criteria for making this Judgment. I belive the diffuculty with this answer is the reason many cling to the idea of inerrancy. Once there is one crack in the truth, you have to question all of it and that is just too scary and difficult for many who base everything in their lives on their religious beliefs, from voting, to tv shows, to music, to choice of friends, to well, everything...

There is a book though called "If grace is true" which delves into their thoughts on universalism. They give their basic ideas on inerrancy basically as: if it is not more compassionate and filled with love and forgiveness than his idea of what a perfect and loving person would be then he rejects it as being an error. He still believes in the resurrection but I guess that passes the love and forgiveness test.

Just some thoughts.

[TrueMyth]

At the risk of being pithy, why go for the small stuff?

The utter lack of evidence for ghosts, demons, angels, talking asses, solar motels, flat earths, solid skys, 1000 year old men, giants, global floods, talking snakes, mighty morphin' power rangers, etc.; ought to be a few big red flags.

Hello King Rat! Welcome to my attempt at a thread!

I'm a bit confused by your reply. You have a rather hodge-podge assortment of items here which all require different responses. Some I don't believe are found in the Bible, some are but are nearly impossible to find evidence for even assuming they existed, some are not accessible to sensory input, some I don't believe there is any evidence for b/c they are not meant to be literal events or things, and some I believe there is evidence for. For this reason, I will address what I believe to be the heart of your question:

It seems you believe the Bible is full of events, persons, places, and things, which don't exist and never did, and it also advances theories which have since been disproven. Given these errors, how can the Bible be trusted at all? (Am I right in my formulation?)

Let me make an analogy: science has advanced several theories throughout the ages regarding the nature of the world and the things in it. Some have been outrageous, some have been understandable but wrong, and some have not been proven wrong yet (Science exposes trends, not laws). However, we still have faith in its overall work and goal, do we not?

In everyday life, we trust sources of information based two major criteria: 1)their qualifications on the subject, and 2) their track record of truth overall. This relates to teh Bible in that I do not believe it was ever intended and rarely throughout history has it been used as a astronomy or zoology textbook. This is a creation for the most part of North American white fundamentalist Evangelicals, and that only in the past 100 years at most. Therefore, its qualifications as such are not something I care about. However, it does claim to be qualified to speak on the question of how human beings should live their life, and that is in what sense its truth is to be evaluated. Secondly, its track record of truth overall is trustworthy. Regarding how we are to live our lives, it has the most satisfactory answers (I understand this is a personal decision, influenced by many factors: you asked MY opinion, and I am giving it). If you are concerned by the number of errors the Bible might contain, I point first of all to the number of errors science has made, and second of all point out that now we are in the domain of particular issues, not inerrancy in general. I would be happy to discuss with you any particular issues you might have with the contents of the Bible, but this is not the thread for it.

I hope this helps you understand my position! Thanks again for your thoughts.

[manimal2878]

--The answer is 42

But what is the question to this answer...

[TrueMyth]

I'd be very interested to hear your criteria for making this Judgment. I belive the diffuculty with this answer is the reason many cling to the idea of inerrancy. Once there is one crack in the truth, you have to question all of it and that is just too scary and difficult for many who base everything in their lives on their religious beliefs, from voting, to tv shows, to music, to choice of friends, to well, everything...

Thanks for the tips!

Yes, I know. It can be scary to give up absolute certainty, and no sooner does one do so when the yawning maw of absolute relativism opens wide. However, I refuse to believe that these are the only two alternatives. I seek to forge a middle ground which acknowledges the sufficiency of the Bible for living our lives, but recognizes its cultural and human author limitations.

I'll let you know what success I have in coalescing my beliefs on this topic

[King Rat]

This relates to teh Bible in that I do not believe it was ever intended and rarely throughout history has it been used as a astronomy or zoology textbook.

It is good that you added a qualifier. Because that is pecisely what it was used for. It was the textbook for a lot longer than it wasn't. I'm sure Galileo would have some choice words about the use of the bible as textbook.

This is a creation for the most part of North American white fundamentalist Evangelicals, and that only in the past 100 years at most. Therefore, its qualifications as such are not something I care about. However, it does claim to be qualified to speak on the question of how human beings should live their life, and that is in what sense its truth is to be evaluated.

This is frightening. I see more wrong with these little things you are proposing than the big ones. As a moral standard, it, well, sucks. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, slavery, incest, genocide, generational curses, I'm not sure we are talking about the same bible.

[Chris Weimer]

But what is the question to this answer...
Hrm, 42, the same sacred number used to represent God striking down those who mock or curse him? How many children again were killed by the bear?

[Vinnie]

"""""""""For example, can one be an inerrantist and still adhere to theistic evolution which took more than 7 (or 6, depending on who you ask) literal 24-hour days?
""""""

On one level, sure but you must think God inspired Genesis to be an allegory or story teaching theological truths. Its kind of like a parable or allegory teaching theological truths. But of course ANYTHING can become non-literal in the Bible now. Its a slippery slope once you get on it.

Of course it falls apart when Jesus is seen referencing Adam and Eve (in the beginning God made them male and female) when arguing over interpretation of the law on divorce, Paul says in Adam all died (apparently Adam is a real historical person which is NOT consistent with theistic evolution) and in Christ all live. Abraham is called a man of faith, Moses is assumed historical abnd so is Noah and company throughout the NT in various spots.

So I don't think you can be an inerrancy advocate and accept theistic evolution. The "creation story is mere allegory" is simply ad hoc manuevering. Force-fitting of data when better interpretations are available. Namely that virtually every world culture has concocted a scientifically dubious creation story. Why is this one different or special?

[Vinnie]

""""""""""""I have encountered in another thread the question of Biblical inerrantism (or infallibility, or literalism) and what this means. Namely, I stated that I was not a Biblical inerrantist (which makes me not a fundy), and a fellow lover of truth pointed out to me that this made him/her wonder why I believed any of the Bible. How do I pick and choose? What is my criterion?"""""""""""""

Several criteria are used by qualitative inspiration advocates:

Jesus = God incarnate. If Jesus said it we can place extreme measures of confidence on it as we are in no poisition to become questioning our Lord and Savior on doctrinal issues.

Plurality = Any recurring themes in the bible must be accurate. A single passage on something is not that strong but anything occurring over and over should be treated as God's message to us.

That is about it as far as criteria for accuracy.

Criteria for error?

Violates modern science or known history or is contradictory or is inchoherent, looks archaic and primitve, is no longer meaningful, appears morally questionable (e.g. killing modern wiccans), etc.

But basically you will end up "picking and choosing" like everyone else. QI is grasping at straws. Its trying to intellectually keep what you should be dropping. Its a long and slow process.

You might as well just grant natural inspiration and say the Bible authors were inspired by God to write down stuff just as an artist is inspired by a mountain to paint it. This is granted the obvious fact that the Bible was penned by various humans and has all the earmarks of being a human written mosaic.

Vinnie

[manimal2878]

Hrm, 42, the same sacred number used to represent God striking down those who mock or curse him? How many children again were killed by the bear?

or maybe you need to read Douglas Adams.

...but that could be the reason he chose that number.

[Chris Weimer]

Most likely that is the reason, since the Bible is chock-full of 42s when God smites those who mock and curse him. I don't have the verses on hand, but there's at least two in the Apocalypse of John.

[TrueMyth]

Most likely that is the reason, since the Bible is chock-full of 42s when God smites those who mock and curse him. I don't have the verses on hand, but there's at least two in the Apocalypse of John.

42 months = 3.5 years = 1/2 of 7 years, which is a sacred number in numerous ancient cultures. It is referred to specifically regarding the Tribulation.

Actually, 40 is much more sacred. Days of the Flood, years the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, numerous dimensions in teh Tabernacle, etc.

[TrueMyth]

It is good that you added a qualifier. Because that is pecisely what it was used for. It was the textbook for a lot longer than it wasn't. I'm sure Galileo would have some choice words about the use of the bible as textbook.

This is frightening. I see more wrong with these little things you are proposing than the big ones. As a moral standard, it, well, sucks. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, slavery, incest, genocide, generational curses, I'm not sure we are talking about the same bible.

Thanks for the reply!

I would challenge both of your assertions. The Bible has very very rarely ever been used as a textbook in any sense we would recognize. It has been believed to contain truth, and scientific truth has been contained in this belief, but I have yet to find an instance wherein a group of Medieval (or any other time) students have sat around in a class room and opened their King James Version and tried to plot the movements of the stars from Psalms. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said, I have yet to find it.

As far as the Bible being a moral standard, I charge you that the Bible does not advocate slavery, incest, genocide, cursing anyone, or witch killing IN OUR TIME (important), despite how it has been used as a hammer in those situations. It does advocate for freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and the search for truth. This is definitely off topic, so I refer you a book I found very illuminating:

Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry, by Vincent Carroll and David Shiftlett (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893554155/internetinfidels)

In general, I would caution you not to see Pope Pius XII at the expense of Mother Teresa, and miss the Evangelical push to abolish slavery because you're looking too closely at the Crusades. Religion has been used as a horrible club throughout history, yes. But it also has worked great and incalculable good. The same could be said for government and patriotism.

[King Rat]

IN OUR TIME

I have no interest in a discussion with these arbitrary parameters. I'll leave it to the regular denizens of The Bible Funhouse.

[Vinnie]

""""""""As far as the Bible being a moral standard, I charge you that the Bible does not advocate slavery, incest, genocide, cursing anyone, or witch killing IN OUR TIME (important), """""""""

Some guy named Jesus whom your religion is ONLY founded off of claims --according to an anonymous gospel text written 60 years after the fact now bearing the title Matthew-- that he did not come to abolish the law. That every tiny dot of it is binding till ALL is fulfilled. Not to mention Jesus continually appealed to the OT. You can't just read the gospel of John and build your religion off of that. You actually have to read and study all the extant literature before making such claims.

The Bible says "suffer not a witch to live". All those "good" Christians got it right. They believed people were witches, they believed them to be evil and in league with the devil. They would cast spells, kill their children and do all sorts of bad things to their neighbors. You are supposed to kill such people right? I mean if a demon appeared out of the ground and started eating or hurting people we would slay it right?

The Bible, has countless versus supporting slavery. The Bible does not EVER ABOLISH SLAVERY. It regulates it. The closest it comes is that egalitarian saying from Paul but this same icon of morality is later telling slaves to obey your masters. If they were no longer really slaves he woul have said "walk off your plantation and start a new life". See, Paul made three distinctions: male/female, Jew/Gentile, Slave/Free. But as anyone who has read Crossan knows, Paul was inconsistent with his application of these. He took the Jew//Gentile thing to supreme court. He opposed Peter to his face over Jews eating with Gentiles and so on. But as for women, well they are told to be silent, to always obey their husbands. He can claim "spiritually" they are equal but in reality this distinction never filtered through in his writings. Furthermore, he could claim "slaves are free in Christ" but their "shackles" showed how "theoretical" this statement was. Paul never told slaves to just leave their masters, or to move on.

He made three distinctions but appears to have only taken one of them to the streets and actually endorsed the other two social practices (ala active participant).

Furthermore you mention "incest" like it some horrible crime. We have an evolutionary aversion to it because its not healthy for our offspring. Morality has little to do with it. The religious decided to codify this into a rule.

Not to mention your COMPLTELY arbitrary "in our time". Progressive revelation? Its obvious you have no concerns at actually understanding the meaning of these historical texts in the context they were written in. If you did you would employ the historical critical method rather than the eisegetically backreading of contemporary ideology (your own moral views and outlooks) onto the word of God. The word of God is supposed to stand as conscience and corrector for a Chritian like you but how can it when you have made it the word of TrueMyth. When you are free to change, ignore, reinterpret or say anything at any time is no longer binding or applicable why use the Bible? Just get a highlighter. Go through it and everything you agree with highlight. Then take all the highlighted passages and get a type writer and print them. Then you can assume the position of cult leader and/or God and have your own Bible.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

You can't just read the gospel of John and build your religion off of that.

Vinnie: Why not? Does a religious person have to follow the church's canon?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

Vinnie: Why not? Does a religious person have to follow the church's canon?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Because he said "the Bible is a moral standard" not "the Gospel of John is a moral standard." If you want to take one holy text and build a religion off of it, go ahead. I'd pick the gospel of Thomas myself and was even thinking of building a religion called Thomasine Panentheism off of it at one time. But the context of this thread is "biblical inspiration" and under Biblical inspiration The picture of Jesus in John cannot be accepted while simply ignoring the other gospels. Surely you agree with that.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Because he said "the Bible is a moral standard" not "the Gospel of John is a moral standard." If you want to take one holy text and build a religion off of it, go ahead. I'd pick the gospel of Thomas myself and was even thinking of building a religion called Thomasine Panentheism off of it at one time. But the context of this thread is "biblical inspiration" and under Biblical inspiration The picture of Jesus in John cannot be accepted while simply ignoring the other gospels. Surely you agree with that.

Vinnie

Sure, if someone claims to accept the whole Bible but "simply ignores" large swaths of it, there is a problem.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

Sure, if someone claims to accept the whole Bible but "simply ignores" large swaths of it, there is a problem.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

The term "Bible" itself already assumes a canonical dimension to the diverse works--an unjustifiable one, but its there none-the-less. My comment stems on the fact that Bible believing Christians have a tendency to accept the Jesus of John and ignore the finer points found in the gospels such as the one I mentioned. Though not explicit yet, we are going to end up with a clear case of this here and its inevitable since the outlooks are inconsistent to begin with. But then again I am not the one making statements "for the whole Bible" such as "the whole bible doesn't support slavery" and this means John, Job, Isaiah, Genesis and so on. When you mention the "Bible" you are speaking for all the works collectively so it does not good to ignore some and accept others or make silly claims like "that was binding yesterday but my cult leader who instills secret nowledge learned in prayer that is not found in the text said it isn't today". He/she issued the charge, he/she has to deal with the consequences.

Vinnie

[Toto]

. . .
As far as the Bible being a moral standard, I charge you that the Bible does not advocate slavery, incest, genocide, cursing anyone, or witch killing IN OUR TIME (important), despite how it has been used as a hammer in those situations. It does advocate for freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and the search for truth. This is definitely off topic, so I refer you a book I found very illuminating:

. . . .

Could you point out the verses in the Bible that advocate freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and/or the search for truth?

Feel free to start a new thread.

[TrueMyth]

Hello all! Sorry I'm a bit behind. My fiancee just came over to visit this week.

What are my criteria for determining the veracity of something in the Bible? I've thought about this a lot, and here is the closest I can get to an answer:

Use your God-given reason.

Obvious, I know, but perhaps not. I mentioned earlier that once you let one chink in the armor of absolute certainty, it seems dizzyingly hard to avoid absolute relativism. For this reason, I believe many Christians simply give up on either the Bible or the religion when their (usually fundamentalist) absolute certainty is shaken. This is not the correct approach-- the Bible itself begs us to "test and approve" all things: Rom 12:2 (By the way, Toto, this is a verse for intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth).

Having been vague, let me now be specific.

Vinnie's suggestions are entirely right, and I suspect he is much more learned in Biblical criticism than I am, so I offer his ideas as not mine, but endorsed by me.

*****Jesus = God incarnate. If Jesus said it we can place extreme measures of confidence on it as we are in no poisition to become questioning our Lord and Savior on doctrinal issues.

Plurality = Any recurring themes in the bible must be accurate. A single passage on something is not that strong but anything occurring over and over should be treated as God's message to us. *****

I would also add the effect of God's revelation throughout history. This is myriad and complex, but consider general revelation (through Nature and the world in general) and special revelation (the Bible and tradition/church authority) and personal revelation (Here's where it really gets tricky)

As much as I like to stay in the domain of rational thought and calculating logic, and as safe as it is there, I have been told by God that I need to learn to venture out into the dangerous and frightening waters of the individual work of the Holy Spirit in each person's life, even when I radically disagree with thier claims on this score. Keep in mind, I am not stating that personal intuition (via the Holy Spirit) is infallible, b/c that would be radically logically unsound. Rather, I am stating that I must conclude that while X is certainly not what the Bible reveals to me as right, perhaps God is speaking to so-and-so differently than He is to me. Oswald Chambers stated, "Never make a principle out of your own experience-- let God be as creative with other people as He is with you."

Regarding criteria of error, I defer again to Vinnie's excellent formulations:
*****Violates modern science or known history or is contradictory or is inchoherent, looks archaic and primitve, is no longer meaningful, appears morally questionable (e.g. killing modern wiccans), etc.*****

Although, I would challenge the "looks archaic and primitive" one-- let's not be chronological snobs. The more important point is "no longer meaningful"

Overall, let me state my position on the Bible: it itself states that "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" 2 Tim. 3:16. This tells me that the Bible is meant to be used as, and is useful for: teaching (in the ancient sense, was extremely holistic), rebuking (something one friend does to another), correcting (which I interpret as doctrine, but in a negative sense only-- basically, stating not what God is, but what He is not), and training in righteousness (living life well and as God created us for). I believe that it might contain errors, but they are not of any of the above kinds. Regarding how the Bible was written, I believe that God did not inspire word for word what the authors were to write; rather, He acted much as He does in our lives today: He "oversaw" the writing of the Scriptures, guiding gently and whispering, suggesting. If there are errors in the Bible, He has no problem with them being there, for reasons which I (and anyone else) are in no epistemological position to challenge. I believe that there are few total errors in the Bible, and in all it is the final word in matters mentioned above, and trustworthy overall on other matters, much the same way as any other well-attested to ancient text might be.

This is probably clear as mud, and not any help at all. You've all given me a lot to think about: thanks! :)

[Toto]

Hello all! Sorry I'm a bit behind. My fiancee just came over to visit this week.

OK, that's understandable <wink wink>

What are my criteria for determining the veracity of something in the Bible? I've thought about this a lot, and here is the closest I can get to an answer:

Use your God-given reason.

Good start!

Obvious, I know, but perhaps not. I mentioned earlier that once you let one chink in the armor of absolute certainty, it seems dizzyingly hard to avoid absolute relativism. For this reason, I believe many Christians simply give up on either the Bible or the religion when their (usually fundamentalist) absolute certainty is shaken. This is not the correct approach-- the Bible itself begs us to "test and approve" all things: Rom 12:2 (By the way, Toto, this is a verse for intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth).

Romans 12

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Having been vague, let me now be specific.

Vinnie's suggestions are entirely right, and I suspect he is much more learned in Biblical criticism than I am, so I offer his ideas as not mine, but endorsed by me.

<snip>


Vinnie is quite learned in Biblical Criticism. He learned enough to become an atheist.

I would also add the effect of God's revelation throughout history. This is myriad and complex, but consider general revelation (through Nature and the world in general) and special revelation (the Bible and tradition/church authority) and personal revelation (Here's where it really gets tricky)

As much as I like to stay in the domain of rational thought and calculating logic, and as safe as it is there, I have been told by God that I need to learn to venture out into the dangerous and frightening waters of the individual work of the Holy Spirit in each person's life, even when I radically disagree with thier claims on this score. Keep in mind, I am not stating that personal intuition (via the Holy Spirit) is infallible, b/c that would be radically logically unsound. Rather, I am stating that I must conclude that while X is certainly not what the Bible reveals to me as right, perhaps God is speaking to so-and-so differently than He is to me. Oswald Chambers stated, "Never make a principle out of your own experience-- let God be as creative with other people as He is with you."

This is actually quite nice. It makes your view of the Bible part of your personal religious practice. But it becomes a very individual practice. Is God's plan for me that I be an atheist?

. . .

Overall, let me state my position on the Bible: it itself states that "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" 2 Tim. 3:16. This tells me that the Bible is meant to be used as, and is useful for: teaching (in the ancient sense, was extremely holistic), rebuking (something one friend does to another), correcting (which I interpret as doctrine, but in a negative sense only-- basically, stating not what God is, but what He is not), and training in righteousness (living life well and as God created us for). I believe that it might contain errors, but they are not of any of the above kinds. Regarding how the Bible was written, I believe that God did not inspire word for word what the authors were to write; rather, He acted much as He does in our lives today: He "oversaw" the writing of the Scriptures, guiding gently and whispering, suggesting. If there are errors in the Bible, He has no problem with them being there, for reasons which I (and anyone else) are in no epistemological position to challenge. I believe that there are few total errors in the Bible, and in all it is the final word in matters mentioned above, and trustworthy overall on other matters, much the same way as any other well-attested to ancient text might be.

This is probably clear as mud, and not any help at all. You've all given me a lot to think about: thanks! :)

Here is the most charitable interpretation of Biblical inspiration that I have come accross, which you might want to ponder: Fundamentalism (http://www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file=News&report=SingleArticle&ArticleID=0025) by Rabbi Linda Bertenthal (part of a panel discussion at a recent conference in Los Angeles on Theocracy):

All the faiths represented on this panel, of course, have their share of fundamentalists. I have to confess, though, that it is intellectually hard for me to understand how fundamentalists can arise from religion based on a text like the Bible.

If read the Bible carefully and deeply, we are immediately aware from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that there are all sorts of internal discrepancies:

• In Genesis 1, we have creation by speech, and both subject matter and literary style are “orderly, coherent, … beautifully choreographed� (Robert Alter) while in Genesis 2, we have a tale of the physical molding of creation that is “earthy, tangled, and baffling� (Robert Alter)

• Genesis 1:21 tells us “all winged fowl� were created on the fifth day, before humans were created, while Genesis 2:19 states that “all fowl of the heavens� were formed after the first human was created.

By juxtaposing two contradictory stories that cannot be fully harmonized, the biblical author guarantees that no one reading can be 100% correct or true to every word of the text. By deliberately starting the Bible with the conundrum created by the juxtaposition of these two irreconcilable stories, the author teaches us much about the nature of the scriptures and humanity:

• That scripture is not a straightforward presentation of literal truth, but is rather a multi-vocal and multi-faceted series of metaphors;

• That each reader is required to wrestle the text for small pieces of truth that can be reconciled with our own lives;

• That to confuse our own small pieces of truth with the whole unknowable truth is at best arrogant and perhaps idolatrous.

Taking such a scripture as a whole seriously, instead of lightly taking pieces of scripture literally, is or should be inoculation against religious fundamentalism.

[TrueMyth]

This is actually quite nice. It makes your view of the Bible part of your personal religious practice. But it becomes a very individual practice. Is God's plan for me that I be an atheist?

:) Yes, my religious practice is very individualized. This is one of many reasons I don't attempt to shove my religion down others' throats. I get onto forums like this to compete in the "arena of ideas", and to "test and approve" (by the way, did you have a problem with that verse? I'm confused why you posted it, but it's nice to have it there for all to see! :) ). For one thing, I would be very afraid that I was shoving MY interpretation of God down their throats, while denying them their own personal interpretation of God. Very bad form. For another, I find that on the whole, I am a complete tool. I've got the freakin' Titanic in my eye, so why should I go after anything in anyone else's, whether it be a speck or a log? I also have a tendency to be very self-satisfied and think that it was me who showed someone a truth, not God. Bad idea-- run away.

Can I make universal statemtents, realizing that my religious practice is very individualized? Of course. I just can't believe that I can't be wrong. I leave the final judging to God, and suggest what I THINK that will be here on earth. If I'm wrong, so much the better. God knows better than me anyway. :)

[TrueMyth]

Toto: Thanks so much for the link, by the way! Don't worry-- inerrantists (which is necessary, but not sufficient for fundamentalism) have tried to reconcile each and every one of those potential contradictions. I have seen huge encyclopedias on Christian book shelves dedicated to the subject.

I found it particularly interesting that she mentioned idolatry as part of a literalist interpretation. When I was growing up in the inerrantist camp, I felt it to be odd that we revered the physical book of the Bible so much, and wondered which version was really inerrant and inspired: KJV? NIV? NLT? The Message? ASB? (etc, etc). John Milton sure thought that a literalist interpretion was idolatry, and that was a common theme during the Reformation. Good stuff.

[TrueMyth]

The Bible says "suffer not a witch to live". All those "good" Christians got it right. They believed people were witches, they believed them to be evil and in league with the devil. They would cast spells, kill their children and do all sorts of bad things to their neighbors. You are supposed to kill such people right? I mean if a demon appeared out of the ground and started eating or hurting people we would slay it right?

You know, maybe you're right.

The Bible, has countless versus supporting slavery. The Bible does not EVER ABOLISH SLAVERY. It regulates it. The closest it comes is that egalitarian saying from Paul but this same icon of morality is later telling slaves to obey your masters. If they were no longer really slaves he woul have said "walk off your plantation and start a new life". See, Paul made three distinctions: male/female, Jew/Gentile, Slave/Free. But as anyone who has read Crossan knows, Paul was inconsistent with his application of these. He took the Jew//Gentile thing to supreme court. He opposed Peter to his face over Jews eating with Gentiles and so on. But as for women, well they are told to be silent, to always obey their husbands. He can claim "spiritually" they are equal but in reality this distinction never filtered through in his writings. Furthermore, he could claim "slaves are free in Christ" but their "shackles" showed how "theoretical" this statement was. Paul never told slaves to just leave their masters, or to move on.

He made three distinctions but appears to have only taken one of them to the streets and actually endorsed the other two social practices (ala active participant).

Keep in mind that I did not say that the Bible abolished slavery, but rather that people under the inspiration of the Biblical commands abolished it. I also do not believe the Bible supports slavery. It is interesting that Paul has a lot to say about women and men and slaves and masters, all dealing with suboordination and submission and all that. However, he invokes the created order with regard to men and women, but not with slaves and masters. It seems Paul thought that it was built into the fabric of the world and the natural way of things for women to be subordinate to men (whatever that might mean-- I'll leave that off for the time being), but that this was not the case for slaves and masters. In fact, he refers to the created order AGAINST slavery, in the verse you provided above. I like your word: "regulated". There are numerous instances wherein a situation which is less than ideal is regualted and/or allowed-- divorce and slavery are two of them. Paul realized the reality of his culture and decided to work within it as much as he could, while making the distinction that all are equal in God's sight and in his creation

Not to mention your COMPLTELY arbitrary "in our time". Progressive revelation? Its obvious you have no concerns at actually understanding the meaning of these historical texts in the context they were written in. If you did you would employ the historical critical method rather than the eisegetically backreading of contemporary ideology (your own moral views and outlooks) onto the word of God. The word of God is supposed to stand as conscience and corrector for a Chritian like you but how can it when you have made it the word of TrueMyth. When you are free to change, ignore, reinterpret or say anything at any time is no longer binding or applicable why use the Bible? Just get a highlighter. Go through it and everything you agree with highlight. Then take all the highlighted passages and get a type writer and print them. Then you can assume the position of cult leader and/or God and have your own Bible.

Perhaps you're right. I might be doing this. Let me look some more.

Thank you very much!

[TrueMyth]

Could you point out the verses in the Bible that advocate freedom of expression, basic human rights, intelligent thought, and/or the search for truth?

Feel free to start a new thread.

As you have requested, I direct you to a new thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2617278#post2617278

I look forward to hearing from you!