Malleability & Disagreement & The WOG

Originally posted by CalJust
It is not supposed to be divisive or argumentative, but a simple fact of reality, driving us towards humility rather than confrontation.

I did not sense that you intended to be divisive or argumentative although you will undoubtedly be aware that...

[1] saying "if the Bible were actually the verbally inspired Word of God [...] it would be clear for all to understand and agree" would be seen as 'argumentative' ~ to say the least! ~ by many Christians, and

[2] the phenomenon that you have mentioned ~ its lack of clarity and consistency whilst purporting to be the "verbally inspired Word of God", empowers any or all Christians to declare their own righteousness and rightness, regardless of what others think ~ and this can and is very divisive in many parts of Christendom, and always has been.

Originally posted by FMF
I did not sense that you intended to be divisive or argumentative although you will undoubtedly be aware that...

[1] saying "if the Bible were actually the verbally inspired Word of God [...] it would be clear for all to understand and agree" would be seen as 'argumentative' ~ to say the least! ~ by many Christians, and

[2] the phenomenon that you have me ...[text shortened]... ers think ~ and this can and is very divisive in many parts of Christendom, and always has been.

Well, I agree with you that anything and everything can be "divisive and argumentative", especially on this forum!

However, when I referred to something as being a fact (or words to that effect, I don't recall exactly) it meant that anybody who at some stage or other changed his or her opinion about interpretations of the Bible (as RJH admitted he did) CANNOT then say that whatever it is he believes now is absolute truth, simply because of the fact that the possibility of his coming to another pov cannot be ruled out.

Imho, THAT is a fact, and not subject to argument or discussion.

Originally posted by CalJust
So, in summary, the Bible was written by many different wise men over many centuries, each doing the best he could, with the best of intentions and to the best of their knowledge at the time. We have a lot to learn from it, but it is not necessarily the sum total of all possible knowledge - and it says so itself, that further knowledge would come.

This still seems pretty tenuous for something that is supposed to be communication from a divine being intended for the whole of mankind.

I am no longer a Christian because I no longer subscribe to the product of "the best of intentions" of so called "wise men" and their tribal folk tales set in antiquity.

In short, I could not credibly see it as a revelation from God. If it is "the Word of God" why is it not aimed at people like me and billions of others who find it unconvincing ~ or not as convincing as the beliefs they already have? 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
In short, I could not credibly see it as a revelation from God. If it is "the Word of God" why is it not aimed at people like me and billions of others who find it unconvincing ~ or not as convincing as the beliefs they already have? 🙂

Well, exactly. There is a huge difference between " a revelation from God" and "the Word of God".

The latter always sounds like verbal inspiration, which I already told you I do not believe it is.

However, the former is all around us: in nature for example, and even in wise words from other Faiths, such as Sufi mystics.

This is where many Christians get off the bus, but that is entirely their choice, and their right.

It seems you did that too, only on the other side of the bus! 🙂

Originally posted by CalJust
However, "revelation from God" is all around us: in nature for example, and even in wise words from other Faiths, such as Sufi mystics.

Be that as it may, but there is absolutely nothing around us that indicates the divinity of Christ.

Originally posted by FMF
Be that as it may, but there is absolutely nothing around us that indicates the divinity of Christ.

Now you are changing the subject from the general to the specific, which opens up a whole new discussion.

I would be prepared to discuss this subject with somebody who shares my basic frame of reference, where this subject would be one small building block that remains to be put in place.

Certainly not with somebody whose views are already well known and to whom this would be a "fun exercise" in debating!

No offence!

Originally posted by CalJust
Now you are changing the subject from the general to the specific, which opens up a whole new discussion.

I was just responding to something very specific that you brought up. How am I changing the subject? 😉

Originally posted by FMF
I was just responding to something very specific that you brought up. How am I changing the subject? 😉

We were discussing the reliability of the Bible (You called it the WoG) and the disagreements about interpretation.

From that general subject, I would say that the divinity of Christ is a very specific item, for which there are various interpretations and disagreements among scholars.

You brought up the divinity of Christ, I did not. And you linked it somehow to my general statement that nature (and other faiths) can contribute to divine revelation.

Of course, I did NOT imply that every facet of doctrine can be deduced from nature! That would be ridiculous.

Originally posted by CalJust
We were discussing the reliability of the Bible (You called it the WoG) and the disagreements about interpretation.

From that general subject, I would say that the divinity of Christ is a very specific item, for which there are various interpretations and disagreements among scholars.

You brought up the divinity of Christ, I did not. And you linked it ...[text shortened]... did NOT imply that every facet of doctrine can be deduced from nature! That would be ridiculous.

I don't think the purported divinity of Christ is "a very specific item" at all; I think it is about as broad an item as one can get when one is trying to sum up the meaning of or the foundation of Christianity. But I take your point; it's not what you want to talk about. Fair enough. 🙂

Originally posted by CalJust
Rereading my post, there seems to me to be another point that needs clarification.

From FMF's OP it could be deduced that I was saying that either the Bible was not inspired, or even that there is no God. Maybe this is why Suzy reacted so strongly.

Of course, neither of these is my point.

Clearly, the Bible cannot have been verbally, literally, insp ...[text shortened]... sum total of all possible knowledge - and it says so itself, that further knowledge would come.

Clearly, the Bible cannot have been verbally, literally, inspired...

Why not? You seem to be basing this observation on your own personal experience. My personal experience (as a child) could lead me into making the same observation.

But this doesn't explain how Biblical patriarchs such as Moses and Abraham and Noah, the prophets, the disciple John, the apostle Paul, etc. etc. were inspired by what they (verbally/literally) heard. Were they mistaken about what they heard, or who they were hearing it from... were they lying? If you believe they were mistaken or lying, or crazy and hearing voices, then why should anyone take this religion called Christianity seriously?

BTW, I did see an explanation of this at the end of your post. But my point has more to do with the Bible itself, and not so much with anyones particular point of view. Points of view (from my point of view) do nothing to verify or take away from Biblical content.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Clearly, the Bible cannot have been verbally, literally, inspired...

But this doesn't explain how Biblical patriarchs such as Moses and Abraham and Noah, the prophets, the disciple John, the apostle Paul, etc. etc. were inspired by what they (verbally/literally) heard. Were they mistaken about what they heard, or who they were hearing it from... were they lying? .[/b]

You clearly do not know how the Bible was written.

Neither Moses, nor Abraham, nor Noah wrote anything down.

Most scholars agree that Genesis was written around 500BC, during the time of the Babylonian captivity. At that time they wrote down the stories that had been carried forward from generation to generation, their own cultural heritage", you might call it. They also "borrowed" from the Babylonian stories at that time.

Being myths and stories in no way means that they have no value and should not be taken seriously. The value of myths in society is another subject altogether.

As far as literalness is concerned, have you ever wondered who wrote down the words that are recorded literally, but which nobody else heard at the time - for example, when God spoke to Moses overlooking Canaan, but then he died immediately afterwards? We know that Jesus never wrote anything down, (and his uneducated fishermen disciples certainly carried no notebooks) so how do we know what the devil said to him in the desert? Because he must have told them, or they suspected it. But what we do know, is that the gospels were written between 50 and 70 AD, maybe as late as 100, so certainly not immediately recorded in a diary, but written down later from memory.

There are too many other examples to write down here, an obvious one maybe the various accounts in the gospels of the same event (such as the resurrection) with conflicting details and different chronologies. But these stories would all be consistent with eye witnesses, or early hearers of the accounts, writing it down from memory.

Does this mean we should not take it seriously? Of course not! As Richard Rohr says, there are so many different levels of interpretation of the Bible, the literal one being the most superficial and dangerous.

Originally posted by CalJust
You clearly do not know how the Bible was written.

Neither Moses, nor Abraham, nor Noah wrote anything down.

Most scholars agree that Genesis was written around 500BC, during the time of the Babylonian captivity. At that time they wrote down the stories that had been carried forward from generation to generation, their own cultural heritage", you might ...[text shortened]... levels of interpretation of the Bible, the literal one being the most superficial and dangerous.

Did Moses Write Genesis?

Not only is there abundant biblical witness that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Moses was fully qualified to write the Pentateuch. He received an Egyptian royal education (Acts 7:22) and was an eyewitness to the events recorded in Exodus to Deuteronomy, which contain many references or allusions to Egyptian names of places, people, and gods, as well as Egyptian words, idioms, and cultural factors.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/

What is the documentary hypothesis?

This is the liberal/critical view which denies that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy. It teaches that various anonymous authors compiled these five books (plus other portions of the Old Testament) from centuries of oral tradition, up to 900 years after Moses lived (if, in this view, he even existed).

The idea of multiple authorship of these books was first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753. However, the foremost exponent was Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who ‘restated the Documentary Hypothesis … in terms of the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical circles at the time’.

The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.

http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis

When Did Moses Write, or Compile, the Book of Genesis?

We conclude, therefore that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis since Scripture attributes the writing to him. But we cannot be certain as to the exact time he wrote. The Bible seems to argue for a 1445 B.C. date for the Exodus but there is no way we can be sure on this question.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_678.cfm

Originally posted by CalJust
You clearly do not know how the Bible was written.

Neither Moses, nor Abraham, nor Noah wrote anything down.

Most scholars agree that Genesis was written around 500BC, during the time of the Babylonian captivity. At that time they wrote down the stories that had been carried forward from generation to generation, their own cultural heritage", you might ...[text shortened]... levels of interpretation of the Bible, the literal one being the most superficial and dangerous.

Most people did not write down the stories, the stories were mostly passed along by word of mouth... so there is no way most scholars could know exactly when a story originated. And it's a mistake to assume these stories significantly changed over time, because people back then were more inclined to relate the stories forward as they were told... conversations here at RHP is evidence of how stories today are often passed along with very little regard for content.

I think it's a bit self serving to say no could know what God said to someone if we start off assuming God never says anything to anyone. Of course no one could ever know about something God might have said to Moses if God never speaks to anyone. The logic of saying no one could know because no one has ever heard God speak is internally consistent with believing God has never talked to anyone. But if God had talked to Moses, then why automatically assume God never told anyone else about it?

The main point I was trying to get across has to do with internal consistency. It's when people start picking and choosing what to believe (and not believe) that internal inconsistencies will appear to show up. Most people who delight in pointing out contradictions in the Bible are usually the same ones who pick and choose what they want to believe... for them interpretation of Bible passages is up for grabs, and almost anything can mean something else.

Originally posted by FMF
To what degree does the malleability of scripture and the resulting profound disagreements between its interpreters undermine claims that it is the "Word of God"?

I think it undermines it quite a lot but not because of the difference of opinion per se, more for the partisan, entrenched dogma, denominational factions and ultimately the religious hatred which enevitably ensues.

Consider this forum for example and the various Christian "factions" that have developed around certain points of doctrine; and how those certain points of doctrine hold those with the same belief together is a sort of "feet of clay" alliance against other posters with differing beliefs of those doctrines, irrespective of the sometimes hateful things those in their particular camp will say.

I refer (somewhat lazily, because there are other examples) to RJHinds notoriously telling me I (another Christian) "deserved to burn on hell" because I rejected the doctrine of eternal burning in hell".

Originally posted by lemon lime

The main point I was trying to get across has to do with internal consistency. It's when people start picking and choosing what to believe (and not believe) that internal inconsistencies will appear to show up. Most people who delight in pointing out contradictions in the Bible are usually the same ones who pick and choose what they want to believe ...[text shortened]... m interpretation of Bible passages is up for grabs, and almost anything can mean something else.[/b]

If that is your main point, I will gladly respond to it, because internal consistency is exactly why we should read the Bible carefully and critically.

It is always funny to me that when people like you refer to others "picking and chosing what to believe" and "delight in pointing out contradictions" there always seems to be malice and foul motives attached.

Seems to me that when contradictions ARE pointed out, you would rather shoot the messenger than show how they are not contradictions.

I certainly do NOT "delight in pointing out, etc etc". I do it since it is a reality to be recognised and dealt with. I also do NOT "pick and chose" etc but also, with diligence and care sort the critical from the spurious.

Take a look how Jesus interpreted the Bible (the only scriptures he had, i.e. the OT). Although these scriptures are full of hate and gore passages, he never ever quoted from them. Never does he quote Numbers and Leviticus. Even in the longest scripture that he quotes (from Isaiah) where he says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me to bring ... release from the captives and sight to the blind ( I'm sure you know the one) he STOPS SHORT at the last line, which continues: " and the Day of Vengenace of our God". Check it out yrself. Because his God was a Father, and that was internally consistent with the rest of the Bible, not those verses of the Law which his opponents chose.

So yes, Jesus also picked and chose what he believed in. I merely follow his example.