I am very excited today to have a guest blogger taking the reins.
Marla Taviano (@marlataviano) is a lady whose blog I have been following for some time now and whose writing I very much enjoy.
She is wife to Gabe (@godsmac), mother of 3 beautiful girls and the author of 4 books. She and her family are currently doing research for a new book, for which they have to visit 52 zoos in 52 weeks. I’ve been following their progress and it’s quite amazing what God is doing as they attempt to achieve that goal.
Marla has kindly agreed to be ou guest blogger this week and I am very honored to be able to introduce her to some of you. If, after reading her article, you want to read more by her, just pop on over to her blog at www.marlataviano.com
So, make yourself some smores and toast some marshmallows because I give you:
So What Should We Do with the Bible – by Marla Taviano
Earlier this week on my blog, I took a little break from writing about our 52 Zoos Adventure and ventured into an arena I’ve avoided since Inauguration Day—politics.
Eager commenters immediately began chiming in, and somewhere, somehow, the responses shifted from President Obama and party lines to matters of faith.
Lots of questions raised. Here’s a smattering: Is the Bible absolute truth, a book of fairy tales, or some happy medium? Are Christians really being “persecuted” as some of them claim, or are those just the extremists—crazies that need to be silenced? Is there such a thing as sin, or are we all free to choose our own moral code as long as we don’t hurt others? Why are Christians so adamant about using the word “relationship”—what the heck is wrong with the word “religion?”
Great questions. Tough answers. You’re more than welcome to join the conversation here. I don’t reckon we’ll have solved all our differences anytime soon.
When Peter asked me awhile back to be a guest on his blog, for the life of me, I couldn’t think of a compelling topic. Then, during the course of this week’s conversation, God dropped one in my lap.
His Word.
A great place to start since everyone and his brother has an opinion about the Bible. For our purposes here, I’m going to divide them into three camps.
Camp #1—Those who believe that the whole thing is hogwash, a bunch of ludicrous fairy tales, an insult to intelligent people across the globe.
Camp #2—Those who believe that the Bible is a book to be cut and pasted like a Word document. Embrace the parts you like, take comfort from the happy passages, use certain verses to prove points, make allegories out of the impossible scenarios, and throw out the rest.
Camp #3—Those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of the only true God (2 Timothy 3:16)—written by humans, yes, but humans who were filled with the Holy Spirit and given the words by God Himself. Oh, and they take it literally—they think the stuff in the Bible actually applies to us in 2009. Living and active, they call it (Hebrews 4:12).
So, who lives in these camps?
Well, Camp #1 is generally where the atheists hang out. Some people who live there believe in a higher being, but he/she/it certainly had nothing to do with the piece of trash called the Bible. The world would be a better place if we could eradicate the blasted thing for good.
Camp #3 is inhabited by those who call themselves believers, followers of Christ, sinners saved by grace—you get the idea. But people in the other camps tend to call them by different names—right-wing fundamentalists, narrow-minded Bible-thumpers, intolerant bigots, and a host of other monikers that aren’t for the squeamish.
And Camp #2, oddly enough, is comprised of a nice little mixture of people. Agnostics. Catholics. Buddhists. Baptists. Preachers. Professors. Democrats. Republicans. People who embrace all faiths. People who go to the same church every Sunday. People who don’t really care.
Given a minute to address each camp, what would I say?
Well, frankly, there’s not a whole lot to say to Camp #3. That’s where I live, and it’s pretty cut-and-dry (not to be confused with cut-and-paste). We believe the Bible. Period. The fact that we use a period instead of an ellipsis (dot dot dot) or a series of parentheses (filled with clauses) is what irks people in the other camps. Periods symbolize closed-mindedness, intolerance, absolutes. We should use open-ended sentences… Or at the very least, punctuate with question marks.
And Camp #1? I do have a word for my friends who live there. A question actually. Why do you think it is, Campers, that the Bible is so violently opposed and despised by those in your establishment? If it’s just a bunch of silly fictional stories, I really don’t get all the seething, vitriolic, profanity-laced commentary about it plastered all over the internet (and everywhere else).
What’s the big deal?
So, a bunch of loony Christians believe a book that couldn’t possibly be true. Just chuckle at them and move on. There are a lot of kooks out there—why single out the Christians? Why waste your precious time and energy being livid at a passel of backward folks who’ve confused God with Grimm?
Leave them to their un-enlightenment. Sit down, lean back, put your arms above your head, and bask in your intellectual superiority.
That’s what I’d do.
And now, for Camp #2. Ah, I could write a book to Camp #2. But Peter asked me to keep it under 2,000 words.
I considered making some tired analogy like, “When you buy a piece of furniture unassembled, what’s wrong with discarding the instructions, putting it together however you’d like, and leaving out the pieces you ‘disagree’ with?”
Or, “Can you pick and choose which parts of your business contract you’re going to adhere to, which parts of your marriage vows you’re going to keep, or which…” Oh, wait. We do that all the time.
For those of you in Camp #2 who call yourselves Christians, I’ll pull a C.S. Lewis and say it’s all or nothing, baby. Well, he didn’t say that exactly, but he did say this (paraphrased): “Jesus said he was God. Either he really is, or he’s a liar. Or a lunatic. But a nice, harmless spiritual guide? Impossible.”
If I lie to you about one thing, everything else I’ve ever said is called into question (Girl Who Cried Wolf). If one thing in the Bible is false, we can’t be expected to trust in any of it. If you’re going to discredit part of it, you have to discredit it all.
I’m sending this document to Peter with the understanding that he’ll post it whole and untouched. If he cuts and pastes, adds his own thoughts and deletes some of mine, he’s compromised the entire thing. You have no way of knowing my original intent. The whole thing is nullified.
Oh, I could ramble twice as long, but I’ve about overstayed my welcome. So I’d like to invite all of you (regardless of your camp affiliation) to join me for a little chat around the campfire next week over at my place
You bring your unique insight and experiences; I’ll provide the marshmallows (minus the fluff).
In the meantime, feel free to share with the rest of us a little snippet of life in Your Camp (especially if you feel I’ve misrepresented it).
Thanks for having me, Peter! Have a great weekend, friends!
———
Thank you Marla, I hope you can come back and guest-post for us again some time.
In the mean time, whatever camp you’re in, you can visit Marla in her camp at: www.marlataviano.com
Nice start on a complicated subject, Marla. But putting people in a small number of “camps” always risks over-generalizing. For example, I suppose “gun to my head” I’d say I am in Camp #3. I believe the message of the Bible.
BUT…I cringe a little when I hear that I must believe it “literally.” For example, I don’t think the world was created in six days 6000 years ago. I think there is a lot of “fudged” history in the OT (and by fudged, I don’t mean “lies,” I mean that the writers/compilers were more concerned with telling a theological story than with newspaper-style “facts.” I could go on.
My point is that there is a growing number of evangelicals who don’t buy that you have to insist on some kind of strict “inerrancy” to “believe” the Bible. For me, the important thing is that the Bible points me to Christ, who is the True and Ultimate revelation of God.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mark! I respectfully disagree that we can truly “believe” the Bible without insisting on its inerrancy.
I know that’s a trend among evangelicals right now (and this will sound over-dramatic), but I believe with all my heart that they are making the biggest mistake of their lives.
I’m interested to know which parts of the OT you think are “fudged.”
Mar, I think that is a really great point about how there are just somethings in the Bible that have been exaggerated. Forgive me, I am by no means up on my Bible Readings. It has been years since I have heard them religiously. But I do recall there being an entire lineage of Jesus’ family tree, stating that some of these people have lived for years well past our life expectancy today, let alone theirs. I really just think that boils down to the fact that the calendar was different. Plain and Simple. However, I do think that there are a lot of points in the Bible that should not be overlooked just because things like time aren’t realistic.
Congrats on being a guest blogger Marla!
Hi, Lindsay. Thanks for your comment. Here’s my take–just because it seems unbelievable that people lived that long doesn’t mean they didn’t. It can’t be disproved.
We should read through the Bible together as one big Taviano family. Care to help me get everyone on board? 😉 (can you imagine that happening??)
Haha No, not at all! I feel like there would be so much chaos just everywhere! There are so many people! It makes my immediate family look small!
Welcome to Rediscovering the Church Mark and Lindsay (and anyone else who’s new here).
Glad to have you visiting. Thanks for joining the conversation!
Peter, what’s up with the freaky-looking avatars? 😉
Is that better, Marla?
Sorry, I forgot that the Avatar’s were on freaky mode. 🙂
You’re badly mischaracterizing Camp #2, and your hostility surprises me. While there are a few people out there who believe in the Bible As Salad Bar, more people would describe Camp #2 more fairly as this:
The Bible is the revealed truth of God, given to human beings through other human beings, speaking both literal and symbolically to the human heart, and therefore parts are best interpreted in the symbolic fashion in which they were initially written. It is a given that there are contradictions within the Biblical text itself which could not be the case if the Bible were literally inerrant, but these do not need to be justified to one another because the truth of the Bible is a greater overarching truth that doesn’t fully depend on the limits of human language and human understanding.
That’s where proper interpretation of the scriptures comes in.
And even CS Lewis didn’t say we had to believe every word of the Bible was the literal truth as written.
Thanks for your comment, Jane. I wasn’t trying to be hostile.
Which contradictions in the Bible stand out most to you?
Little pointless contradictions like the discrepancy in the names of Esau’s wives. Things like that look for all the world like a copy-paste error. 🙂 Clearly they don’t affect the full truth of the Gospel’s message any more than it would affect my husband’s love for me if he mistakenly wrote that our anniversary was August 1st instead of August 11th. Right?
God gave Jesus into human hands, and God also gave the Bible into human hands to be written and transmitted, and in order for us to hold Divine Truth, it needed to be fit into a form that human hands and human minds could hold. Rather than leaving us with a document that would confuse and frustrate us, God gave it to us on our level, in an emotional, literal and symbolic language that resonates in the human heart so that we keep ringing like a bell after hearing and holding it.
Like a parent explaining something to a child at the child’s level so the child will understand. There’s eternity for us to get to know God and plumb the depths of his mysteries. There’s nothing more loving than that.
Jane, perhaps you can still claim “inerrancy”, because by that term you mean “the Bible says exactly what God wanted it to say”.
Thank you for your clarification, Jane. I should’ve said in my post that I do believe much of the Bible was written symbolically. We are to take literally the parts that the original authors intended to be taken that way.
I’ll have to do more research on Mr. Esau and Basemath et. al. 🙂
My 6-year-old daughter turns 7 tomorrow, and we’re making b-day plans today. It kills me to leave this conversation, but I’ll be back in a few hours.
At which point it becomes a matter of interpretation, which is exactly what Camp 2 advocates. That we read each section and each story in the spirit it was meant to be read in.
Marla,
Can you give book, chapter and verse on when the author whould have intended for the story to be taken symbolically?
This is actually a very astute point. The hardcore inerrant/infallible/inspired camp is forced to try to dance around this little discrepancies with strained attempts to explain them. The right way to look at it is to admit these discrepancies exist, then build an understanding of inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration that accommodates the obvious. Otherwise you’re like the evolutionist who at some point has to wave a magic wand and say “then, somehow, through random chance over billions and billions of years, something we don’t understand happens that makes one species turn into another and makes our worldview viable”.
Some Christians would like their theology to be black and white. In reality it’s mostly gray and it’s only the stories we tell ourselves that make one shade of gray look black and another look white.
If I was going to add anything to the list it would be Paul’s statements that he’s actually not speaking the “word of the Lord” in a couple passages. He’s actually going out of his way to make it clear to us that while most of what he says is “the Word of God”, here are a couple passages that are “the Word of Paul”. He couldn’t say it any more clearly. But in order to keep our blacks black and our whites white we have to say, “Yes, but since he wrote it in the Bible God magically turns it into the Word of God” which not only is a stretch but violates another principle of conservative Bible interpretation which is to let the clear, literal meaning of the text be heard.
And by the way I would put people like me who hold the above position in camp 3. It’s only the others in camp 3 that would put us in camp 2. 🙂
Good article and good comments. Thanks!
Craig,
I think you’ve misunderstood Paul’s intent. He wasn’t saying “this is not from God…it is only my opinion.” He was indicating that He had no word from Jesus on the issue. The bottom line is that Paul was an apostle, and therefore whatever he writes is authoritative. That is actually a better understanding of inerrancy, IMO.
If we were going with Jane’s definition of Camp #2, then I would probably be classified into this category, but if we are going off of Marla’s definition, then I’m closer to Camp #3. You guys are starting to make this confusing ; )
Mark and Lindsay, I would tell you that you need to understand some basic literary points to be able to accurately read and understand scripture beyond the general message of Salvation by Grace alone through Faith in Jesus Christ. The first of these basics is that the Bible is made up of multiple books and each is written in a different style and context as well as with a different purpose and audience. Each book must be understood within those parameters.
Mark, the creation story is very specific and details that the six days were literal days (evening and morning). So, you either accept that an almighty God can and did create all of creation in six literal days or you undermine the entire belief in GOD. So while at first glance you may think this a minor point it is anything but and is a foundation to the entire book of Genesis and the Bible itself. If you want scientific and detailed analysis of this point, you should check out the Institute for Creation Research and the Back to Genesis websites.
Lindsay, one thing to understand about any biblical geneology is that most of them are not absolutely complete but rather point to the important individuals within that geneology. This does not mean they are inaccurate, but rather that we cannot calculate exact times for the number of years between one person and another by calculating the years of each individual mentioned between them in a geneology. HOWEVER, when looking at the ages listed for the individuals in Genesis, you must remember that several things were different then than now. First, Adam and Eve were created perfect and the life span of a perfect person is unknown. Think of it, no defects, no diseases, no deterioration from cellular degeneration. When sin entered the world this changed and the defects and disease began to enter the world for the first time. Just as in a copy of a copy of a copy begins to break down the perfection of the original, generations of marriage and more and more imperfections being introduced to the gene pool has shortened the life span of humans. However, beyond that, from Creation to the Noahic Flood, the atmosphere and environment of earth was much different. There was a protective layer around the earth to protect all creation from the harmful effects of the sun. After the flood this protective layer was gone and so those harmful rays were able to penetrate the atmosphere and shorten our life spans. Only in recent years have humans begun to reverse this trend through artificial means. There are other factors as well that account for the age differences, however those are the primary factors. Again, if you want more detailed and scientific explanations, check out Institute for Creation Research and the Back to Genesis websites.
To the larger point it is important that as Christians we accurately read scripture. The Bible is GOD’s word and He was there throughout history. Science is Man’s word and at best man is flawed and at worst an instrument of evil to attack God. So as Christians, we must examine all human knowledge in light of where it comes from. I hope this helps.
Tim, the two creation accounts don’t agree with one another. That alone gives us permission to look at them as allegorical.
They’re very clear on the point that GOD and GOD ALONE made creation and made it good and made it for a purpose. But in the two accounts, the order in which the items are made is different, and there are other inconsistencies. It’s clearly a pair of stories, one taking a cosmological view of God as the King of Creation and the other taking a humanist view of God as the father and guide of humanity.
Believing they’re illustrative descriptions written for people who would understand them and wouldn’t understand, for example, mitochondrion, doesn’t undermine the entire foundation of Genesis. In actuality, understanding them as a paired set of stories which illustrate God as both Almighty and intimately involved gives us a deeper understanding of God than if we treat it as a cookbook.
Jane, two accounts of creation? Please explain.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
They’re two different accounts of creation, back to back, and they differ in the order of creation and the mechanism. In Genesis 1, you have creation via separation and fiat (“Let there be light”) and in Genesis 2 you have creation via action: the Lord plants, forms, builds, etc. The birds, fish, plants etc are all formed in different order between the two. The second has no count of days. The second has man created first and woman after; the first has man and woman created simultaneously.
Genesis 1 shows God as the Cosmological Creator, and Genesis 2 shows God as involved in an intimate way with His creation.
They both tell us important things about God, creation, and human nature. But they’re not the same story, and they each have things that are vital to teach us.
Jane,
You clearly misunderstand a basic point of literary reading and interpretation. The first and second chapters of Genesis use a standard tool of writing which is to explain an event and then give additional detail assuming that the reader understands the additional detail in light of the facts presented previously. They are not two separate accounts of creation competing with one another. Chapter one gives a factual description of creation. Chapter 2 simply gives points of importance within the context of the facts of chapter one. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. Ch 2 has no count of days because it is not a factual account of creation but rather a further explanation of a particular point within the context of the factual explanation previously given. Ch 1 does not state that Man and Woman were created at the same time, but merely that they were created on the same day. Ch 2 merely gives further explanation of the details of the creation of humanity. Humanity being the culmination of creation, God gives greater detail about our creation and our relationship with one another as well as with God. It is clearly a standard literary tool and provides no contradiction.
Tim, I can read. There is no misunderstanding. They’re two separate stories placed back to back.
Tim,
A belief that the creation story is mythological does not necessarily undermine a belief in God, nor does it erode the truthfulness of Scripture. Furthermore, the interpretational conclusion that the six days of creation are meant to be understood as literal days, does not require that the story be read as what we would call “literal history” (ie. it does not require that the universe was actually created in six days).
Hi Marla! I thought I’d chime in here and say that I think there’s a Camp #2.9ish. Much of the discussion boils down to how one wants to define “inerrant” and “take it literal”.
I’ll address the latter first. Did you know there are more statements in the NT that say “greet with a kiss” than there are condemning homosexuality? Yet I don’t see many fundies puckering up; even the most vehement “literalists” pick and choose what to obey literally methinks. The question is simply how to do so wisely and as (I believe) God intended. I recommend the book “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals” on the matter.
As for the definition of “inerrant”, I’ll give an analogy of sorts: I’d claim that “The Lord of the Rings” is inerrant, in that it tells the truth (about heroism, beauty, the nature of power, etc). Of course the events depicted are utter fiction, but it’s much more “true” than say the film “Titanic”, which was less fictional, but completely false in what it tells us about life.
I say all this not to imply that I think that some of the Bible is fiction in the traditional sense of “did this happen as described” (though I have niggling doubts at times), but to illustrate how there’s much more of a continuum of positions possible than your post describes.
very good points for discussion- thanks!
I would be careful not to make the inerrancy of scripture a demarcation of orthodoxy, since the Bible doesn’t claim itself to be inerrant.
I disagree with the presumption that if the Bible is false in part, then it is false in the whole.
Finally, the whole issue depends on what you mean by the word “inerrancy”
I too find myself in Camp #3. I would encourage any Catholic Christians who find themselves in Camp #2 to read
Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture in the Catholic Catechism. God Bless.
The Bible doesn’t refer to itself as inerrant, infallible, etc. It makes me uncomfortable to attach labels to it that it refuses to give itself. It’s useful for teaching, correction, etc. Yes. Inspired by God, yes. But I don’t believe that “inspired by God” means that God actually wrote the Bible, or somehow told select authors what to say. But what I really love about it is just that it’s an amazing record of people’s interaction with God, written by people who were basically in way over their head with this whole God thing, just trying to figure it out like the rest of us.
Wonderful post, Marla. But what did I expect? I am touched daily by your writing and insight.
I’m with you all the way in Camp #3, Marla! And I don’t think you were off AT ALL on your “generalizations.” Rather, I think you were spot on.
To those people that point out “discrepancies” in Scripture, I say have some faith! If God Himself said it was His inerrant Word, BELIEVE HIM! That’s what faith is all about! Regardless of what the skeptics and literature “experts” say.
Great post, Marla – I think you hit it right on the head. But, of course, I’m camped in #3 with you. 🙂
Sorry for the delay in approving your comments guys, I’ve been out doing some ministry.
I love the discussion that’s going on… let’s keep it going.
You go to the pool to celebrate your daughter’s 7th birthday and miss a big party on Pastor Peter’s blog. 🙂
Thanks for all the feedback, guys. Very thought-provoking.
I will say this. I’m a 33-year-old gal who’s been following Jesus for lots and lots of years, but I’ll be the first to admit that I have so much more to learn, a long way to go toward maturity.
If there’s one thing that we can all agree is NOT inerrant, it’s my words and opinions. For anything I got right, God gets all the glory. For anything I got wrong, I take full credit.
I so want to have a teachable spirit. But I don’t want to be so open-minded my brains fall out. Always looking for the balance.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Marla,
I didn’t realize you were so young! 4 books under your belt and the fifth on its way and you’re only 33.
You make me feel old – and like I’ve wasted a whole lot of time 🙂
I’ve enjoyed the conversation on the blog today. Thanks for starting it and for directing a whole bunch of people my way!
I believe that I am in Camp #3, however as Marla says there are some parts of the Bible that are intended to be symbolic, but as with anything written, everyone can interpret it differently. For example I wholeheartedly believe that we should be worshipping on and keeping Holy the Sabbath day (Saturday) as God told us in the ten commandments. I have studied this extensively and I really believe this is the truth, however, I know many of you here will disagree with me. This is because will interpret the Bible subjectively rather than objectively
Because there is no way that we can put the symbolic and the literal into seperate boxes that everyone will agree upon, I think it is important that you always ask God to show you the truth! I know that if I have read something in the Bible telling me what I should or shouldn’t be doing, and I try to explain it away as something symbolic, I will feel nothing but guilt (I believe the Holy Spirit working) until I do what God intends for me to do. For example, with regards to the Sabbath day issue, if I have broken the Sabbath in the past, I felt incredibly distant from God and I have such a sense that what I am doing is wrong.
So my response; if you want to follow God, really look to him and ask him to show what he wants you to see in the Bible. And I don’t think that means we should try to change the meaning of parts of the Bible, because we don’t think it is possible for our God or because it doesn’t fit in with the way we live out lives. Forget what you want and give God a chance to show you what He wants.
Well, the discussion got way down the road before I could come back to it. I’ll just contribute a few points, since several people above gave responses very close to what I would have given to Marla’s challenge back to me.
1. Marla, you can insist all you want that the only choice is black and white (we either have to accept literal inerrancy or we “don’t believe the Bible”) but there are a growing number of us who have found that just doesn’t hold water. Once I stopped trying to plug every leak in the Bible like the little Dutch boy at the dike, I found that I was freed up to concentrate on its message, the truth that it teaches me about Jesus Christ as the true revelation of God.
2. Someone above proposed ICR and Answers in Genesis as “proof” that young earth, six day creationism could be defended scientifically. Been there, done that, found them seriously wanting. They don’t do science at all, and have been well exposed as being very selective in their “facts.”
3. One of the major reasons many of us have begun looking for alternatives to literalist inerrancy is we have seen how it has destroyed the faith of so many around us. Once young people get outside their church bubble and start to study and find out that the Bible just doesn’t work as a modern history and science textbook, knowing no other alternative, they end up rejecting the Bible and the God it presents. And please don’t refer us to all the harmonizations and complicated “explanations” for the contradictions and inaccuracies in the text. We already know them, and we’ve found them unconvincing.
4. Sadder still, insisting on inerrancy is a huge exercise in missing the point. Opening up to the reality that God chose to give his revelation not in the form of a modern history or science textbook (or some kind of theological FAQ, which many seem to think it is), but rather through very variegated human authors and cultures, reveals a theological richness that can otherwise be overlooked.
For example, Samuel-Kings vs. Chronicles. The compiler(s) of the books of Samuel-Kings often give very different accounts of the same event than the compilers of the Chronicles. Example: in 2 Sam 7:16 Nathan says to David,
“Your house and your king will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.”
Chronicles, reporting the exact same conversation, has Nathan’s words as follows (1 Chron 17:14):
“I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.” (Emphasis added in both quotations).
The literal inerrantist has a problem here. What exactly did Nathan say? The two statements, while close, are not at all the same. One emphasizes David’s lineage and kingship, the other God’s. The inerrantist must resort to contorted and frankly, silly, explanations for how Nathan could have made both statements. And in so doing s/he misses the point.
The better question would be: Why do we have two largely overlapping accounts of the same period of Israel’s history (especially since the contradictions between the two cause us so many headaches!)? The answer is that the two collections were compiled at different times for very different purposes. Samuel-Kings was probably compiled while the monarchy was still in existence, so its purpose is to support the (literal) Davidic lineage as the proper rulers of God’s people. The Chronicles were set down much later, probably during and after the Babylonian exile, and were recorded to deal with a very serious question: if God’s promise was to the Davidic line, what do we do now that that line has been broken (i.e., there is no longer a descendant of David on a throne in Jerusalem)? Chronicles wants to emphasize that God’s promise has not been broken; it will be fulfilled in a higher way, because the kingship of Israel is not ultimately human but of God. Hence the two very different accounts of Nathan’s prophecy.
So which is “true”? Both…and neither! That question is one that would only be asked by those of us who are the product of modernity and the Enlightenment. The ancients didn’t view the recording of history the way we do. We insist it isn’t history (or even “true”) unless all the facts are just as they happened, like a carefully reported newspaper story. In the ancient world, history accounts were more about telling a story with a purpose. That doesn’t mean they weren’t ever based in facts or actual events, just that the writers weren’t as concerned with literalism as we are. So if we can enter into the ancient mindset in our reading of biblical narratives, we can uncover the theological richness that gets buried if we spend all our energy trying to defend a literalism that was never intended in the first place and that doesn’t stand up to careful scrutiny.
So how can the Samuel-Kings & Chronicles accounts both be “true”? Because the important theological teaching for Christians is that the Messiah, the one who would indeed rule forever, was to be both in the line of David (literally) and from God, not man.
Finally, anyone who is interested in an approach to the Bible that takes modern scholarship and biblical criticism seriously while at the same time maintaining that the Bible is God’s word, given to us exactly as he intended to, I highly recommend Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by former Westminster Theological Seminary professor Peter Enns. You can also find tons of useful resources on his web site at http://peterennsonline.com.
Bottom line: you can be a faithful Bible reader and believer without having to stick your head in the sand and turn your brains off.
Mark, you raise a very good point (several, in fact.)
I’ve wondered many times if lines like the above (“If there’s one untrue thing in the Bible then the whole thing is untrue!”) actually destroy the faith of those who find contradictions in the Bible.
That very hard line sounds a lot like an atheist attack on the Bible rather than anything else. “Well, if XYZ is in the Bible, and it’s not true, then the whole thing is false!” Right? “There are two angels at the tomb in one account and only one in another account, so the whole Bible is false.”
I might as well say, “Well, my grammar school math book says that pi is equal to 22/7, and therefore all of math is wrong and I won’t file my income taxes.” 🙂 But no one does that.
I have to admit, Jane, that your atheist comment stung a bit. Then I visited your blog and saw that your tagline is “sarcasm served up daily” and that you label yourself a smart-alec. I guess that’s just how you roll.
I appreciate all the points you brought up, but I have a BIG problem with the “Two Accounts of Creation” theory. I’m interested to know where you learned that.
I know I’m not Jane, but I just wanted to comment on the “two accounts of creation” theory. I went to a small, Baptist university and they taught this theory in my Old Testament class. Ruffled quite a few feathers, to say the least. I was neither convinced nor impressed. For the life of me I couldn’t understand why Scripture had to be viewed under the lense of literature and why it had to conform to traditional story structure. I tend to agree with Tim Alley’s comment and explanation of the subject.
I wasn’t being sarcastic with the atheist comment; I’ve heard similar things from atheists in the past, usually with a smug tone. “There are contradictions in the Bible, therefore God doesn’t exist.” If you google “contradictions in the Bible” you will find several pages of that nature by atheist writers who are using things like the Esau’s wives thing or the different number of angels at the tomb to say the whole Bible is a fraud.
If we tell our children that, and the enemies of our faith tell them that, and then they find apparent or real contradictions in the Biblical text, what will they decide? That kind of scorched-earth approach does seem to be faith-destroying.
The two accounts of creation study has shown up in several places I’ve read. Off the top of my head, there’s a VERY detailed comparison in Gary Rendsburg’s “The Book of Genesis” course from The Teaching Company, and I know it was mentioned as early as in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.
Thanks, Mark. I’ve got a lot to think about. Like I said, I’m the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers. But, as far as I know, my brain is still turned on. I’ll double-check though.
Read through the comments, and had to jump in and remark on what Mark was saying when he suggested in his second point that “One of the major reasons many of us have begun looking for alternatives to literalist inerrancy is we have seen how it has destroyed the faith of so many around us.”
When we start looking at the faith of other sinful human people and stating that the Bible can’t be literal just because of how their faith is lived out, we’re starting to play some dangerous games.
We’re talking about human beings, not robots. Free will is HUGE when you start looking at the inerrancy of scripture and try to match it with how it plays out in a sinful world. Look at some of the scholars that have fallen in sin, after spending years and lots of money to go to seminary to gain a better understanding of God to share with others.
God is so much “OTHER” than us, that sometimes we just can’t take being human I guess. The Word that God has given us does not depend on how much like God we can become. If that were the case, why would He have bothered? If that’s our view, then I’m sure we wouldn’t be in awe when we look at the heavens and admire the Creator. We might see a star falling and think He isn’t in control. Or that we think the sky would have looked better if that one little star would have stayed in place.
Enough of the nitpicking and trying to shove God in a box I say. His Word was given to us so that He can be glorified through us, and that our lives can better resemble Christ’s while here. Some parts were written through interpretation by humans in the culture they were in, and some weren’t up for their interpretation. I believe God would have allowed those that He had write it fudge a little if He wanted them to. No matter how much we nitpick, we start “thinking” that we’re making God smaller and more recognizable. Not possible, many have tried.
Gabe,
With all due respect, I’ve read your comment over several times and still can’t understand clearly what your point is.
I *think* (but am not sure) that your comment in your second paragraph is implying that I have given up on literalist inerrancy because some people “lack faith.” That is not at all what I was saying. My observation was NOT that we should abandon inerrancy because it takes too much “faith.” I was pointing out that telling people there are no scientific/historical inaccuracies, no contradictions in the Bible sets them up for a big fall when they are exposed to data not filtered by churches and pseudo-scientific Christian organizations and find out it just isn’t so. My protest is that saying the Bible can only be God’s word if it was written in the same way we would write a modern history or science textbook is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous: when people find out that isn’t true, many fall away from the faith.
Instead of accusing me of “shoving God in a box,” why don’t you deal with the data? Why don’t you respond to my example (I’ve got plenty more where that came from. My experience in similar debates online is that inerrantists never will deal with the actual data. When pressed, they retreat into pious doctrinal statements, or imply they have “faith” and I don’t.
I’ve been watching and monitoring the comments on this post and I have three things to say:
1) I would love to add some amazing wisdom, but I’m not sure I have any and I’m not going to wade into a discussion without really having deep convictions and the ability to prove my point.
2) Thank you for keeping it all fairly civil. It’s a great discussion and I hope it continues in the same vein.
3) I am just so thankful that even though some of us may disagree with each other on some of these things, we are still all saved. God is so graceful and merciful that we don’t have to have perfect theology to be saved, salvation is a free gift to those who hear and believe. Ironing out some of these points as we learn and grow is good but I thank God that we have that shared bond of being part of God’s family as we discuss and try to understand the deeper things of God.
Feel free to keep the conversation going, I think it is useful and important!
I second number 3 whole heartedly.
The Bible is inerrant. Our interpretation of when poetic symbolism is used and when a literal interpretation is necessary isn’t. It is Jesus who saves, not our interpretations. THANK GOD! Because there have been so many splits over interpretations over the last 2,000 years, who’d be safe?
I have a question on the inerrancy question. The question is, is scripture inerrant (i.e. without flaw) in our English translations or only in the original written text? Is the Bible as originally written God’s Word or the words of man trying to describe what was impressed upon them by God or simply the descriptions of God by flawed men.
I believe that, in this point Peter is correct, that if we teach in our churches and schools and tell our children that the NIV or KJV or Living Bible or any other “translation” or “version” is inerrant, we do them a GREAT disservice. Inevitably, any translation or version of scripture will over time become less than accurate to the readers due to changes in human society and therefore the understanding in connotations of words. However, the contradictions and “errors” in our english translations, will in a vast majority of situations be eliminated through a proper understanding of who the passages were being written to, what their purpose in being written was, the culture of the time and meaning of the words being used to the writer and the readers. Therefore, I would say before one begins to attack or discredit the inerrancy of scripture or the accuracy of the accounts of scripture it would be useful to understand the original text and not just an english version of the original text.
We take our own enlightenment very seriously… so we enter into debates about things like creation, inerrancy and proper biblical interpretation…
We split hairs over questions like “Did God create the universe in 6 days?” but we neglect the real issue:
Has our intellect and our reliance on human wisdom brought us to a place of doubt about whether or not God COULD create the universe in 6 days?
If we believe that He COULD, but we hesitate to believe that He DID… why?
Are we embarrassed by that kind of faith? Do we fear that naturalists, humanists and atheists will sneer at our foolishness?
Or do we think that we’re really that smart?
Just wondering?
Nicely worded Tim.
I personally do believe in the six day creation, but that’s less important to me than believing that the six-day creation was POSSIBLE for God.
Thanks for chiming in!