tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36219318.post672458868898228395..comments2023-11-05T01:57:07.162-07:00Comments on Jesus Drives an SUV: The Relevance of the Old Testament Law: A ResponseSixth Estatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04192110046214949228noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36219318.post-58848747825234577652008-04-23T19:57:00.000-07:002008-04-23T19:57:00.000-07:00Toby,I would welcome further comments; I freely ad...Toby,<BR/><BR/>I would welcome further comments; I freely admit my knowledge of historical setting, context, etc. is somewhat limited.<BR/><BR/>I respect your faith in the Bible but ultimately in my own life I've found it unhelpful. My experience has also led me to believe that most Christian groups, among both the liberals of whom you speak <I>and</I> those who profess to see the entire Bible as inerrant and God-breathed, actually engage in various methods of downplaying those sections which they dislike. I agree that doing this is inconsistent which is why I've tried to avoid it. This is why I've noted, in this commentary, several sections I liked, but have been (or have tried to be) fairly hesitant about deciding that one section is somehow more divinely inspired than another.<BR/><BR/>To me, reading the Bible is not about accepting that the entirety of the book is inspired and inerrant - something I can't accept because of the weight of "laws" which I refuse to believe are divinely inspired, and which for that matter very few Christians today actually bother to uphold; and also because of various "historical" stories and myths which I simply do not believe actually happened.<BR/><BR/>However, I also don't believe in going through the Bible and selecting out only the sections I happen to like and then suggesting that only these sections are divinely inspired. I agree that's a fairly inconsistent approach, but at the same time, I would challenge you to examine your own approach to the Bible. In my experience much the same thing is often done, though less explicitly, under the guise of harmonization, "proper" interpretation of Hebrew or Greek phrases, etc., all with the convenient aim of justifying views already held by the person doing the interpreting.<BR/><BR/>I didn't really have a well-formed theological or epistemological perspective on the Bible when I started this project and I still don't, which probably detracts somewhat from the strength and consistency of my writing, which I accept.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, however, what I do believe is that the parts of the Bible I have read so far were written by human beings to describe and explain how they related to the divine. Some of these sections, in my opinion, betray the power and interests of the writers more than others, which does make it particularly tempting to criticize them - the priesthood elitism of Numbers, for example, the militarism of Joshua, the basic propaganda function of Ruth (which starts as a story of a convert but ultimately takes on a propagandistic pro-David flavour in the final verses).<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that what is said in those parts of the Bible is totally irrelevant - after all, I do consider myself a Christian, and thus am attempting to relate to and understand the same divine figure, if separated by several thousand years and the separation of Christianity from Judaism. It does mean, however, that for the moment I see the Bible as human writings about the divine, subject to most or all of the usual flaws of human writing and the tranmission of that writing through all-too-flawed and variant manuscripts.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, of course, if I reject the Bible as the rule of faith, I suppose I'm wandering dangerously far towards implicitly claiming direct revelation as a basis for at least some of my beliefs. This is a problem, though not, I think, because it is not "objective." I am not particularly concerned about objectivity because I do not believe real objectivity is possible, let alone essential, in matters of faith.<BR/><BR/>At some point I will perhaps develop a more coherent position. At the moment it's unsatisfyingly incomplete.Sixth Estatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04192110046214949228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36219318.post-69843656488257042982008-04-20T07:05:00.000-07:002008-04-20T07:05:00.000-07:00Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is ver...Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the <A HREF="http://aluguel-de-computadores.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Aluguel de Computadores</A>, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://aluguel-de-computadores.blogspot.com. A hug.<A HREF="8758102420" REL="nofollow"></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36219318.post-10835507545375968622008-04-19T10:52:00.000-07:002008-04-19T10:52:00.000-07:00Interesting comment; however, the real issue (theo...Interesting comment; however, the real issue (theologically speaking) of making the Bible inerrant truth is that when it is found to contradict (to be untrue) we need to justify these errors and finally when we find that we cannot we must either admit that there is no God or that the Bible is not, in fact, inerrant. Clearly, both of these options are contradictory to the worldview of inerrancy. Of course there is the third option in which we lie to ourselves and create intricate paradigms to fit the disparate parts together.<BR/> <BR/>Moreover, historically speaking, the idea of Biblical inerrancy is relatively new within Christian thought. I would recommend reading George Huntston Williams' The Radical Reformation. It is long but worth reading. I could suggest others. It would be wise for all Christians to have a strong background in Christian history as well as theology and textual analysis. Too bad the Holy Spirit doesn't provide this information on a need to know basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36219318.post-53498893919324681182008-04-19T10:13:00.000-07:002008-04-19T10:13:00.000-07:00Thanks for the response. I think your observations...Thanks for the response. I think your observations are reasonable given a point of view that the Biblical text is not inerrant or inspired in the "traditional" (for lack of a better word) sense. There are quibbles here and there that I would have about historical setting, literary context, etc., but the main objections that you have would remain.<BR/><BR/>I readily admit that my observations/perspective flow from a worldview that holds the Bible as the foundation of my epistemology. I begin with the assumption that the Bible is true/right/inerrant etc., and then proceed interpretively from there.<BR/><BR/>For me that means I am forced to have to wrestle with the text in a different way from one (such as yourself) for whom the Bible is a book that is no more or less true than any other. If there is a difficult passage, then I have to wrestle with it in order to find a better understanding, or I have to learn to live with a truth-claim that may sound crazy to other people outside of my belief system. Either way, my goal is to follow God through what I believe is His Word. I'm certain that there's a whole lot of interpretive screwing up along the way, but that's what I'm shooting for.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I would say that there are a great many people who are professing Christians who don't see the Bible the way I do. (That fact doesn't stop them from being Christians in my opinion, by the way.) They would go to the Old Testament in much the same way you do, and take the things they believe to be good advice and make the argument that the other parts must not be inspired, or must represent God's capitulation to these "primitive" people, etc.<BR/><BR/>My interpretive goal is to NOT do that, primarily because I believe it's inconsistent, and puts on back on the same epistemological footing at secularists. (If we Christians think we've heard from God, why back down from that?) Anyway, this whole epistemology thing is a big deal to me. I'm interested in the basis of our knowing as much as I am the conclusions of our thinking. I have come to believe that the Bible provides the only sane beginning point for knowing in this world that is objective (in the sense that it exists outside of any person's consciousness). Someone may have God speak directly to them, but that's not an objective thing in the way I'm trying to use it here.<BR/><BR/>Whew, I didn't mean to post so long, but here I am! Let me skip to the end:<BR/><BR/>The Bible is waaaayyyyy too big for anybody to be an expert on the whole thing. I don't claim any of my particular interpretations are the last word. I do think that they make sense from an intellectually honest inerrantist's perspective. I'd love, with your permission, to continue to comment on your blog with regard to specific interpretive issues regarding the Bible. Some of your readings of the OT might have a different twist with a little extra bit of info.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for the response.<BR/><BR/>-tobTobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06417006200595992615noreply@blogger.com