Cards on the table: 1) I read the Bible -- not as much as I should, I'm sure, but still pretty regularly. Moreover, I get paid to talk about the Bible with folks all across the country and have written a popular book to help people read the Bible with more confidence and enjoyment. So, you could say, I'm a pretty big fan of the good book. 2) I was a little shocked to discover that three in ten Americans read the Bible literally. That is, about a third of the American populace takes everything the Bible says at face value, reading as they would a history or science textbook. 3) I don't read the Bible this way, and can't imagine doing so. Here are four reasons why:
1) Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant.
That's right. At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy). "Inerrant" itself is not a word found in the Bible or even known to Christian theologians for most of history. Rather, the word was coined in the middle of the 19th century as a defensive counter measure to the increased popularity of reading the Bible as one would other historical documents and the discovery of manifold internal inconsistencies and external inaccuracies.
The signature verse most literalists point to is 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." But one can confess that Scripture is inspired by God without resorting to claims that it contains no factual errors. We normally use the language of inspiration in just this way, describing a painting, a performance of Chopin, or even a good lecture as inspired. What binds the various and sundry texts found in the Bible together may be precisely that they are all inspired by the authors' experience of the living God. There is no hint that the authors of the Bible imagined that what they were writing was somehow supernaturally guaranteed to be factually accurate. Rather, biblical authors wrote in order to be persuasive, hoping that by reading their witness you would come to believe as they did (see John 20:30-31).
2) Reading the Bible literally distorts its witness.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Jerusalem Temple in the days immediately preceding his crucifixion. In the Gospel of John, he does this near the beginning of his ministry, two years before his death. Similarly, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the day Jesus is crucified is named as the Passover, while in John it is the Day of Preparation; that is, the day before Passover. Inconsistencies like this are part of what undermines claims to inerrancy of not just the gospels but also many other books in the Bible.
But if the primary intention of the biblical authors was not to record history -- in the post-Enlightenment sense we take for granted today -- but instead to confess faith, then these differences are not troubling inconsistencies to be reconciled but rather helpful clues to understanding the confession of the author. So rather than ask who got it right, we might instead wonder why John describes these events differently than the other Evangelists. As it turns out, both of these examples stem from John's theological claim that Jesus is the new Passover lamb. For this reason, once he begins his ministry there is no need for Temple sacrifice, and he is crucified on the same day -- indeed, at the exact hour -- at which the Passover lambs were sacrificed on the Day of Preparation.
You can attempt to reconcile these and other discrepancies in the biblical witness, of course, and literalists have published books almost as long as the Bible attempting to do just that. In the case of the different timeframes for the cleansing of the Temple, for instance, one might suggest that Jesus did this twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and then again, for good measure, two years later. But far from "rescuing" the gospels, such an effort distorts their distinct confession of faith by rendering an account of Jesus' life that none of the canonical accounts offers.
3) Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally.
We tend to think of anything that is labeled "conservative" as being older and more traditional. Oddly enough, however, the doctrine of inerrancy that literalists aim to conserve is only about a century and a half old. Not only did many of the Christian Church's brightest theologians not subscribe to anything like inerrancy, many adamantly opposed such a notion. For instance, St. Augustine -- rarely described as a liberal -- lived for many years at the margins of the church. An impediment to his conversation was precisely the notion that Christians took literally stories like that of Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale. It was not until Ambrose, bishop of Milan, introduced Augustine to allegorical interpretation -- that is, that stories can point metaphorically to spiritual realities rather than historical facts -- that Augustine could contemplate taking the Bible (and those who read it!) seriously.
The point isn't that pre-modern Christians approached the Bible with the same historically conscious skepticism of the Bible's factual and scientific veracity that modern interpreters possess. Earlier Christians -- along with almost everyone else who lived prior to the advent of modernity -- simply didn't imagine that for something to be true it had to be factually accurate, a concern only advanced after the Enlightenment. Hence, four gospels that diverged at different points, far from troubling earlier Christians, was instead seen as a faithful and fitting recognition that God's truth as revealed in Jesus was too large to be contained by only one perspective. Flattening the biblical witness to conform to a reductionist understanding of truth only limits the power of Scripture. As Karl Barth, arguably the twentieth century's greatest theologian, once said, "I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally."
4) Reading the Bible literally undermines a chief confession of the Bible about God.
Read the Bible even for a little while and you'll soon realize that most of the major characters are, shall we say, less than ideal. Abraham passes his wife off as his sister -- twice! -- in order to save his skin. Moses is a murderer. David sleeps around. Peter denies Jesus three times. Whatever their accomplishments, most of the "heroes of the faith" are complicated persons with feet of clay. And that's the point: the God of the Bible regularly uses ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things.
Why, then, treat the Bible itself differently? Rather than imagine that the Bible was also written by ordinary, fallible people, inerrantists have made the Bible an other-wordly, supernatural document that runs contrary to the biblical affirmation that God chooses ordinary vessels -- "jars of clay," the Apostle Paul calls them -- to bear an extraordinary message. In fact, literalists unwittingly ascribe to the Bible the status of being "fully human and fully divine" that is normally reserved only for Jesus.
So why, then, would so many people read the Bible literally? Perhaps that's the subject for another post. For now, I'd be interested in your experience with the Bible and sense of its nature and authority.
Matthew L. Skinner: Matthew 20:1-16: Justice Comes In The Evening
Also there are many explicit times when the Bible claims it is inerrant though the word itself is not in the biblical text (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Luke 1:3-4) and throughout the old and new testaments there are hundreds (literally!) of implicit statements backing up its inerrancy ("The LORD said", "It it written", Jesus' many "Truly, truly I say to you..." ("Verily, Verily" in the KJV).
Quickly to point (2) - it is fashionable these days to separate faith and evidence or faith and reason, but, the Bible never does that itself. It gives evidence for faith over and over again (e.g. John 20:30-31, John 14:11). Faith is a reasoned trust - not simply wishing.
Last point - although the author hints at dealing with this in his first paragraph, he really never defines what he means by "literally". I take the Bible literally - meaning I take it as it was intended based on genre, history, and culture. When Jesus says he's "the light" I don't take that to mean that he is a candle or a light bulb. Common sense can often go a long way when reading the bible. I went to weather.com this morning for my town and it says "Sunrise: 6:53 am". The sun moves? Do I take that literally? Is weather.com in error?
Because the bible is not the man and the man is not the bible. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ- you would not say HE was a liar- but you would say he always spoke the truth. Jesus said in prayer to his Father-- "sanctify them by means of the truth, your word is truth". (John 17:17). The very candor of the bible writers shows that what is written in its pages is not glossy idolized history - but brute honest truth. Frankly- saying that the imperfection of the man proves the imperfection of the bible is a God dishonoring statement. Over and over all credit for the bible goes to God himself--Isaiah 22;15, 2 Samuel 23:1,2, 2 Peter 1: 20,21.
So instead of approaching the bible in a negative way, as through the eyes of a higher critic, approach it in a positive way-- that it is just as it claims to be-- Gods word of salvation to mankind. You will THEN experience what the bible says about itself-- that "it is the word of God, that it exerts power and is able to discern intentions of the heart " (Hebrews 4:12) This is vitally important in our day, since the bible is a book of prophecy as well-- and it's fulfillment can be seen in our day.
The apostle Paul wrote at 2 Thess. 2:7--about the mystery of lawlessness ....and how the apostles were acting as a restraint (against apostasy) for a period of time, that it would explode after they were gone. At Matthew 13: 24-30 Jesus spoke of the wheat and the weeds-Jesus said the devil would sow "weeds" (imitation Christians) right in among the wheat (genuine Christians). 1 Timothy 4:1-3 show they are 'inspired utterances of demons' -(they forbid marriage and command certain foods not to eaten). 1 Thessalonians 2: 3-12 further expounds on this apostasy.
Religious debates in the middle of the 2nd century produced many "theological voices" causing disagreements and irreparable divisions over Christian doctrine. So called 'church fathers' arose between the 2nd and 5th centuries C.E. (even though scripture explicitly showed to call no one your father (as a religious leader) on earth). Doctrines were established- that had little to do with the scriptures and were greatly influenced by tradition and pagan teachings. Constantine was a champion of this movement - as a pagan -ordering a minority of Bishops to convene a council at Nicaea. Eventually the pagan doctrine of the trinity was established.
The point is-- what the majority of these false Christians taught and believed is NOT from the bible- but of other sources. The scriptures are the final authority - not these men.
a. The money changers being driven out of the temple happened twice-- The first being early in Jesus' ministry (John 2:13-17) and the second being nearer to the close of his ministry (Mark 11:15-18).
b. The day of Jesus' death--Regarding the morning of Jesus' trial and appearance before Pilate, which was in the morning period of Nisan 14 (the Passover day having begun the evening before), John 19:14 says: "Now it was preparation 'OF' the passover-(Not 'FOR' the passover as some translations so render the verse) suggesting that the passover had not yet been celebrated. The Gospel accounts explicitly show that that Jesus and the apostles had celebrated the passover the night before (Matt. 26: 18-20, Mark 14: 14-17, and Luke 22:15). The day of Jesus' trial and death could be viewed as the "preparation OF the passover" in the sense that it was the preparation for the seven day Festival of Unfermented Cakes that began the next day. Because of their closeness on the calander, the entire festival itself was often included in the term "Passover".
You call these accounts 'discrepancies'. You said (in essence) 'the primary intention of the biblical authors was not to record history, but instead to confess faith....".
First of all, the bibles author is God, not these men. As was stated in point 1.- these men were 'scribes' (secretaries). Any 'discrepancy' is according to critics- not the inspired bible itself.
1. The bible claims what the bible claims. The discussion you mention of whether the bible is inerrant is just a diversion. What does this philosophy specifically mean? Instead of coining this new phrase-- which developed over time, the bible should be taken for what it says it is.
For instance, yes, 2 Timothy 3:16 says 'ALL scripture is 'inspired of God' and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, and for setting things straight... The term 'inspired of God' in the bible is translated from the compound Greek word the-o'pneu-stos, meaning, literally, "God breathed" or "breathed by God".
The word inspiration you use to describe inspiration in connection with a "painting or performance of Chopin" is similar, but not the same-- it also coming from the Greek idea of 'breathing life' -- the difference, of course, being the scriptures are inspired from a particular source---God himself.
You talk about the 'authors of the bible"--as if they were the men who wrote it of their own accord. God is given the title of author of the bible. 2 Peter 1:21 shows how men were "borne along by holy spirit". The men who wrote the bible were his scribes or secretaries --allowing them, at times, to express the divine thoughts in there own way -but guided by holy spirit. Hence the bible calls itself 'Holy' -- that is--clean or pure in word or act.
why does the bible call a bat a bird?
in advance forgive me if I generalize too loosely here:
The current systems of classifications of life forms has gone through an evolutionary process of development. From Aristotle (who classified animals by method of reproduction)---to professor Conrad Von Gesner-(-who because of exploration into the 'new world', animals never seen before needed description and classification and were done based on binomial morphology)...to Carolus Linnaeus (who introduced the method of nomenclature, still used today to formulate the scientific name of every species codified in the first rules and laws of nomenclature. The higher taxonomy of Linnaeus of the animal kingdom is still more or less recognizable, (although not used quite in the same groups used by Linnaeus). Animal classification has gone through and is still going through, changes.
The bible (written in Hebrew) applied the Hebrew term ('ohph), derived from the verb "fly", applied to all winged or flying creatures (Genesis 1: 20-22) which seems to represent the rhythmical beating of wings on air and its displacement thereby. This term applied to all birds, the bat, and winged insects. So-- in conclusion-- the classification of animals written in ancient Hebrew- classified winged creatures into one category. Modern science keeps changing the classification
Faith is not an issue of human calculations, not grasped by human intellect or senses. Faith relates to the unseen and supernatural.
Rutherford and Geiger's research was not to discredit or disprove anything. They were on a journey (Star Trekish-like) to identify something not plausible or perceptible to the human grasp, just like biblical faith.
The Bible is also like 'nuclear physics. God put His omnipotence and omniscience into it's very composition. It holds the very nature of God, His dna. This Power is creative, alive and transformational.
The knowledge that Rutherford and Geiger possessed was life-altering power. The knowledge of the Divine that faith possesses is also life-altering power. It is literary, historical and supernatural.
I would not be able to discredit Rutherford or Geiger by reading their findings. would approach it open minded in discovery form so the 'authors' (compared to the Holy Spirit in this regard) who could guide me (which is the Holy Spirit's role) into relating to something invisible (ie. supernatural).
If I am correct, the words on the pages between the pieces of leather hold far more power and potential than a mere calculated, intellectual approach will see. Like Rutherford and Geiger, it takes faith. Bishop Freddie Steel - LifeInChicago.org
IF that was so easily seen, then why did Greek philosophers teach that the source of river water was not rain, but seawater that somehow flowed under the earth to the tops of the mountains becoming fresh spring water?
1. the order of creation in the bible IS compatible with scientific belief. The light IS mentioned first. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the "heavens" and the earth. The heavens consist of stars- which are luminous bodies that emit .. light.. hmmm. Then is mentioned a primitive earth enshrouded in clouds of heavy gases and water-- which would leave it in darkness. Then it mentions that light came to be: the light had not reached earths surface until this point possibly because of the thick clouds.
2. the earth hangs on nothing-- the earth remains in orbit in space primarily because of gravity and centrifugal force, which is.... invisible to human eyes, therefore looks as if it is just hanging on nothing. But how did the writer of the genesis account know this? The bible also refers to the circle of the earth. Pythagoras theorized that the earth was a sphere when many thought the earth was flat. Isaiah wrote of the earth being a circle 2 centuries before Pythagoras.
"At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy)."
Then why does it permeate our justice system, legal system, politics, money, education, and workplace? There is reason to be angry and stubborn about our positions since we have actually lost ground in the battle against the religious assault on our own lives. ie.. creationism, homosexuality, marriage, politics etc...
1. What it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted. (Jeremiah 51: 11, 12 and 38.
Neither can it be contradicted about what it says about people such as:
2. Egyptian King Shishak (1 Kings 14:25. 2 Chronicles 12:2).
3. Assyrians Tilgath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2 Kings 15:29; 16:7; 18:13).
4. the Roman Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Luke 2:1, 3:1, and Acts 18:2).
5. Romans such as Felix, Pilate and Festus (Acts 4:27; 23:26, 24:27).
-----to name a few.
1. Describing the Earths progressive order of preparation for human habitation (Genesis 1:1-31)-a beginning, then a a primitive earth enshrouded in heavy gases and water, then light, then an expanse or atmosphere, then large areas of dry land, then land plants, then sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse and seasons beginning, then sea creatures and flying creatures, then wild and tame beasts, mammals and then man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. (The odds that the writer of genesis just 'guessed' this order is 1 in 3.638.800).
2. speaking of the earth as spherical and hanging on nothing (Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22).
3. classifying the hare as a chewer of the cud, (Leviticus 11:6).
4. Instructions on germs and hygiene (Numbers 19:11-22, Deuteronomy 23: 12-14.
5. The earths hydrologic cycle- or water cycle. (Ecclesiastes 1:7).
to name a few.
You say :"The odds that the writer of genesis just 'guessed' this order is 1 in 3.638.800"
This would be MIRACULOUS if it were true, however the order is wrong.
Probability of a wrong guess, 3,638,799 in 3,638,800
Religion has come out on the wrong side of science for a long time, yet people still argue the validity of scripture as science. It is not. Galileo, Newton, etc.. ring a bell.
response
1. The order is wrong, you mention a primitive earth before light, this is just not true
2. the earth does not hang, it is in constant motion
3. the hare is not a ruminent, nor a chewer of cud
4. I'll give you this one, cleanliness has been shown to make people feel better since they could feel
5. Ecclesiastes 1:7 Rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows out again to the sea.
This is not science it is poetry. Meteorologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation. Either way whether it is science or poetry it is easily seen in the world around us, even 4000 yrs ago.
If these are the best arguments you can find for science in the bible then surely the bible is not a book of science.
How can you have land plants before the sun? I thought plants needed light to grow.
http://intrinsicgratification.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-testament-jesus-this-thing-is-huge.html
Do they have something better to offer? Do they have the solution to what ails mankind? Do they have any answers that make sense. It is OBVIOUS to most people that so- called great thinkers and researches are getting nowhere, because in order to make changes, you have to change the inner person. To do this scientifically, politically or any other man-made way would be nice but i believe that will never happen, because you have to change the very essence of a person. Everyone is different, with different ideas. I happen to believe in Godly wisdom and believe it is superior to wisdom of mankind. I am not interested in fighting about it or pushing it down anyones throat -- it is just my belief. Now-- is it the critics intent to save me from myself by trying to ridicule my beliefs?? why would they want to do that?? And, as i asked before, do they have something better to offer?
Well, I'd hate to break it to you like this but either the entire bible is the word of god or the whole thing is pretty much meaningless. I think that in this day and age we pretty much know which is the case.
Psalm 137: 9
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Leviticus 25:44
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.
Slavery, infanticide, sexism and rape.
How can you both believe in this and be a decent human being?