There's quite a bit for me to think about in this one. I tend to agree with the overall thought, although I find myself somewhere between that very liberal Catholic view and my very strict protestant upbringing.

Good post.

Hmmmm....

I agree and disagree.

I like to point out a few things when discussing the Bible:
1) The Bible is not God. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at how many people act like this book is all there is to God.
2) No tool can be perfect when not employed in its proper purpose. What is the main purpose of the Bible? To introduce the fallen to God. As such, the Old Testament can be seen not as a series of attempts by God to establish a covenant with Man, but Man, through repeated lessons, slowly coming to understand who God is, and part of the process is to learn who He is not, i.e., He does not occupy a single point in place and time as is implied in the Garden of Eden story, and He is not merely a Lawgiver who gives rules we cannot follow in order to punish any variation.

The main problem I have with the way you describe the Bible is that the result is probably too subective. It is possible I misunderstand you, but it seems as if someone using your thought process could conclude that perhaps Jesus never even said most of the things the Bible says He did. When you cite the physical "impossibility" of the Flood by looking at what is accepted science, you probably would also be forced to conclude that Jesus never rose from the dead. That would be a gross error for a Christian to make. Additionally, I would point out there is little evidence now of a great Flood...and yet, most cultures have a flood myth, and there are many areas that show evidence of being submerged... My point being that at one point, archeologists scoffed at the story regarding Jericho, because their investigations show the city was razed at a time some 500 years differently (whether earlier or later, I don't remember), but as archeological science improved, the time frame for the destruction of Jericho in the Bible is seeming more and more accurate.

Anyway, there are some things that are stated clearly in the Bible, and one does not serve their soul by using their heart to justify ignoring major precepts of the New Testament. Not that anything you said here implies you are...but I could see where someone could use your approach and decide that, say, embezzling $1 million can be okay if you are only taking it from rich stockowners who won't miss it and you plan to give half to charity.
So my overall guiding attitude has been: when I find my inclinations in conflict with what the Bible says, I start first with the assumption that perhaps my wisdom isn't yet enough to understand what the Bible is asking of me, and until I can resolve that conflict, it would be better to do what the Bible says.
The reason that is my guiding principle is because as Paul says, "Now I understand incompletely...."
We are certainly children at the feet of God, and even as aged, wise adults, we cannot fully understand all the things He knows are good for us. As a parent, I give my children all sorts of restrictions, and it is because I understand life more completely than they do. Even if they don't understand the reason for the rules I give them, it is to instill discipline, teach certain precepts, establish good habits, and play the percentages on avoiding lasting harm (no, jumping on the bed holding scissors doesn't mean someone will get hurt, but I doubt there are many parents who will allow the child to do it).

So, yeah, maybe not everything in the Bible is written with God's own hand, perfect and infallible even to the font and type. But if you believe He is omnipotent, I think you can and should assume that He was able to ensure there were no glaring, soul-threatening errors. Thus, if He says "Don't do this!" in the Bible, even if you don't understand why, it's probably best to just not do it.

That's the way I see it, anyway. Obviously, no one is required to agree.

I recently found a humorous and informative internet article defining "fundamentalism." While I still do not know how to make it come out as hyper-linked in the comments section, I will still post the cut and paste address here: http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/library/defining-fundies.html.

I would say that I am an "inerrrantist" not a fundamentalist. I think that if you googled it, you find that there are respected scientists who have proven that there is evidence a global flood.

I have always been taught that the genome is actually less complex over time, not more. Diversity is lost due to defect and lethal "mistakes" the same way that, say,
inbreeding in Amish communities represent loss of total genetic diversity (variation). (Sorry, that was as creative as I could get, and it has been discussed as a problem for that small, PA community). So, the two that were taken were more genetically complex than animals today. An insignificant thought: I think it is said that God brought the animals to Noah.

I would also say that yes, there is something lost in translation from Greek- a complex and far more precise language than English- and Hebrew. That "something" is the precision that leads to correct exegesis. When one uses a Greek and/or Hebrew Lexicon to properly exegete a text, one sees the more precise interpretation. The modern translations (except for the paraphrased versions) do correctly translate as far as the English language allows (i.e. we may have one word for something and in Greek there are several denoting the degree).

I think there are some Catholics who interpret literally and some who do not? One of my closest friends here is Catholic and she believes in the inerrancy of the scripture (literally). So, is it more a personal belief rather than a sectarian thing? Perhaps she is not like most Catholics?

I admit that I, too, question why it's o.k. to say homosexuality is wrong, but then disregard the passages that say one may stone disobedient children. I think it's interesting that people use the argument that we accept the Ten Commandments because "Jesus summed them up for us in the New Testament" as an excuse that we are free from all the other laws in the Old Testament, but they keep going back to the homosexuality one and not all of the others. I am not saying that God approves or disapproves of it, I am just saying that I have lately questioned the methods of deciding which OT laws are now applicable and which ones are not.

Well stated, SJ.

Well, I don't think we are really free from the Old Testament.
We are free from it as a method of gaining salvation, yes.
In fact, if you read the New Testament from beginning to end, you see that there is some debate as to how the Gentiles should behave, that they shouldn't be held under Jewish Law, because Jewish Law is for the Jews, nor are the Jews released from it upon becoming Christians.
And from the very first, Gentile Christians are told to refrain from sexual impurity/debauchery. The New Testament then very clearly says homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, so one need not search in the Old Testament among rules about burning witches and stoning adulteresses to find clear injunctions against homosexual behavior. But I digress. By the end of the Epistles, the 10 Commandments are pretty much all reinstated, not as a way to gain Eternal Life, but as Good Ways for Christians to Live While Waiting For the Judgment. I can't remember the exact words, but it includes prohibitions from sexual debauchery, theft, dishonesty, violence from anger, etc. and anything that would cause someone else to fall into temptation.
That last one is probably the most difficult restriction of all, no?
But again, it is all from the viewpoint of trying to live a life that will impact positively on both you and your neighbor, not an attempt to codify prerequisites for salvation.

People, people, I can settle this with 4 words. I'll let you guess what they are.

(hint: The first three are "There is no")

:)

Nathan, Rae: Maybe the flood was a bad example, but the point still stands. There are many inconsistencies in the Bible.

Nathan: "but it seems as if someone using your thought process could conclude that perhaps Jesus never even said most of the things the Bible says He did." Unfortunately, you do not misunderstand me. It is possible that any non-fundamentalist could conclude any number of things from the Bible. This is a very real slippery slope. Either you take the stance that every literal word of the Bible is true, which leads you to the conundrum that Z first posted about, or you allow for subjective interpretation, in which case you run the risk of misinterpretation. Toward the end of my post I alluded to some of the means that the Catholic church uses to try to prevent this, but I left that discussion for a later time because of the length of my post.

nathan: "I find my inclinations in conflict with what the Bible says, I start first with the assumption that perhaps my wisdom isn't yet enough to understand." I didn't go into detail about the Catholic concept of the informed conscience, but your statement is very similar to it. I would agree with you that this is the best approach.

Rae: "I think there are some Catholics who interpret literally and some who do not?" There are some Catholics who interpret the Bible literally but they are not following the church's teachings on the subject. I could (and may) write an extremely long post concerning just how poorly that average Catholic understands the teachings of their own church. It is a well-known problem with my chosen faith.

Z: "between that very liberal Catholic view and my very strict protestant upbringing." It probably amazes non-Christians to hear Catholics called "liberal"! Of course, it is 100% true...

Andy: I'll bite. Is the last word "RavingAtheist"?

Very interesting post.

I disagree, obviously, with the concept of papal infallibility, but the general baptist tradition of biblical exegesis is somewhat similar (priesthood of the believer being the antithesis of catholic doctrine).

On other points:
The gospel of John was, IIRC, written for the average *gentile,* not just the average Roman. The first chapter - the "logos" chapter - hearkens to greek philosophical concepts, not roman.

See above re: the flood. It's very difficult to say there is *absolutely no* evidence for any sort of flood, sort of like saying there are *no* weapons of mass destruction. I'm not saying it was or wasn't, just that the statement is very absolutist from a historical perspective.

The traditional innerantist position is that the bible is completely without error in the autographs which don't exist any longer. So that's kind of a cop-out. Even with that, scholars estimate that less than 5 percent of the biblical passages have errors, were appended by later scribes, or contain conflicting accounts that cannot be reconciled. And none of those are areas of major doctrine (even a couple that are have passages that mirror the thinking in other passages - I think here of the place in 1 John (?) where it talks about the trinity).

Andy: Trolling will get you nowhere.

Bryan: Just out of curiousity, what is your understanding of Papal infallability?

Bryan: "Even with that, scholars estimate that less than 5 percent of the biblical passages have errors, were appended by later scribes, or contain conflicting accounts that cannot be reconciled." I have two thoughts on this. First, it doesn't really matter how small the percentage is. Any inaccuracy forces subjectivity. There are also events depicted in the Old Testament that may not be historical at all, but merely metaphorical/allegorical. Jonah living for three days in the belly of a fish comes to mind. Creation is another one. If we presume that the creation story is an allegory for evolution and not a literal depiction of events then we have subjectivity. It really is unavoidable.

My second thought concerns the final two contexts that I mentioned. The Gospels were written just under 2000 years ago and the Old Testament is even older than that. You may choose to believe that this has no meaning, but there are billions of Christians (literally) who would argue that it does. If we accept the humanity of Jesus then we have to believe that he was living fully in his time. His literal message was specific to the time and place in which he lived. We cannot look to the Bible for an answer to nuclear proliferation, for example, because Jesus knew nothing about nuclear weapons. We can look to Scripture try to apply Jesus' teachings to nuclear proliferation, but now we are back to subjective interpretation.

Stump, as to your question re: papal infallibility, if I understand correctly, it refers to when the pope speaks ex cathedra - from the seat (?) - on matters of doctrine, not to everything the pope says. But - and again, correct me if I'm wrong - it ascribes infallibility to these pronouncements and places them on the same level of doctrine as the bible and the various creedal documents. At one time, I did extensive reading on the subject, but I've slept several times since then.

This is contrasted by the concept of soul competency or priesthood of the believer as held by baptists and other protestant denominations (don't ask me to name which ones) which says that every believer comes to the scriptures - through the holy spirit - capable of properly interpreting the scripture without the help of a patriarch.

There are also events depicted in the Old Testament that may not be historical at all, but merely metaphorical/allegorical. Jonah living for three days in the belly of a fish comes to mind. Creation is another one. If we presume that the creation story is an allegory for evolution and not a literal depiction of events then we have subjectivity. It really is unavoidable.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "may or may not be." Sure, anyone who reads the bible is going to read it subjectively. So what do you want, existentialism? "It is what I think it is"? I can't square that with Christian teaching.

Second,

Re: the errors. It does matter what percentage there is, because those who want to discredit the bible like to point out that the scriptures are "full of errors," when such is not the case. Archaeology and corroborating evidence from other civilizations have backed up substantial amounts of the biblical record. I don't know how transcription errors qualifies the entire document as "subjective." I don't agree with the assertion.

I would quarrel with the assertion that "billions" of Christians would argue that the time and place of writing have "no meaning," especially since I never made that assertion. You are putting words into my mouth.

Also, I never raised the issue of Jesus' humanity, or whether he lived fully in his time. I believe he was fully man (and fully God) and lived fully as a man.

But I think you would do well to read through his words again. There is quite a good deal of what the gospels report that are somewhat, how can I put this, "outside of time and place." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." "love one another as I have loved you." "I am the way, the truth and the light, no man comes to the father except through me."

Those are not *time-conditioned* statements. True, Jesus said what he said, and it is up to us to apply that to our lives. But there *is* a meaning that is *apart* from what our subjective interpretation is. We cannot ignore it. Well, we can, but our lives will be impoverished because of it.

I am reminded of the pastor who commented one time about a bumper sticker that read: "Jesus is the answer." To which he said, "No, Jesus isn't *the* answer. It really depends on the question. If the question is 'how much is that head of lettuce?' the 'Jesus' isn't the answer."

Simplistic interpretation and application are definitely to be avoided. But there are *huge* swaths of our lives that Jesus does address. Do you really think *nuclear proliferation* is *that* essential to the everyday lives of most people? I don't. But I do think that seeking truth, living in love, and doing good unto others are things that are *important* to people in their everyday lives *above and outside of the time/space constraints* of when Jesus said what he said.

I would conclude with this question: The founders of the U.S. wrote over 200 years ago, "We hold these truths that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Now, Thomas Jefferson was a man who lived fully in his time. The Declaration of Independence was specific to the time and place in which he lived. We cannot look to that document for answers to nuclear proliferation, for example, because Thomas Jefferson knew nothing about nuclear proliferation.

So, do I then disregard the message of the Declaration of Independence?

So, Bryan, did I need to edit anything? ;)

I am not a traditional inerrantist (correct spelling). So; therefore, I cop-out of copping out.

SJ: perhaps she is a fundamentalist Catholic- is there such a thing?

Interestingly enough, I really couldn't care less if someone believes in a literal flood or a literal creation. I mean what it comes down to for me is: are you a graceful, forgiving, humble, merciful, and loving* Christian (this term is inclusive of both Catholics and Protestants)? Yes? Great! Because if you think that all the biblical stories are literal/figurative and are an ass, then no one cares much what you have to say anyway.

*Not perfectly graceful, forgiving, humble, merciful, and loving, but obviously striving to be.

Bryan: Your understanding of Papal infallability is very close to the mark. The reason that I asked you about this is that many people mistake that doctrine to mean that the Pope is infallable, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I was just curious about your understanding because so many misunderstand it. The simple answer is that Papal infallable allows certain matters of faith (and only faith, nothing else) can be "taught infallably" (which is not quite the same as actually being infallable). It also places certain restrictions on when something can actully be declared to be infallably taught. The main criteria is the the entire college of bishops hold the same belief (not that they are told that it is doctrine but that they actually believe it unreservedly with no dissent). To my knowledge, Papal infallability has only been used twice and both issues deal with Mary. Papal infallability could not be used, say, to fashion church policy on homosexuality because this is not a matter of faith.

Bryan: "every believer comes to the scriptures - through the holy spirit - capable of properly interpreting the scripture without the help of a patriarch." This sentiment is no different than the Catholic doctrine of the informed conscience. This is a topic that I alluded to at the end of my initial post but did not go into detail. The Catholic church does not teach (at least since Vatican II) that that church heirarchy is necessary for an understanding of the scriptures. I may have to expand on this in another post.

Bryan: "Sure, anyone who reads the bible is going to read it subjectively." This is precisely my point. In an earlier post Z made the following comment: "One of the things that fundamentalists like to ask is why people like me pick and choose what to believe in the bible. My answer is that we all do that to an extent, and if they were to be truly consistent, then they would need to lead a very different lifestyle." The Bible simply cannot be taken literally down to every last word. There must be some level of subjectivity involved. The second that we enter into subjective interpretation we start down a slippery slope that can lead to a lot of problems. You assert that a small percentage of errors should not qualify the entire Bible as subjective but in so doing you are being subjective. You use the term "major" doctrine in one of your posts. "Major" is subjective. To the Catholic church the Eucharist is "major" doctrine but not all denominations would agree. The problem that we, as Christians, have is determining just how subjectively the Bible can be interpreted. The Catholic view is considered a very liberal one, to be sure, but even the most fundamental Christian is still being subjective to some level. Just how subjective one can be is, unfirtunately, a matter of subjectivity.

Bryan: "There is quite a good deal of what the gospels report that are somewhat, how can I put this, 'outside of time and place.'" I never said that Jesus' words were not "outside of time and place" nor did I say that they are "time-conditioned." What I said was that "His literal message was specific to the time and place in which he lived." You use as an example "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is perfect. How do you want others to do unto you? How does Zombyboy want others to do unto him? What about me? What about Osama bin Laden? Awfully subjective, isn't it? Even is we assume that certain acts are universal, such as "no one wants to be killed," we are still being subjective (and a recent news story from Germany illustrates the dangers of making certain assumptions). The concept of "do unto others..." is timeless and generic, the application is not. This is where the question "What does this ask of me?" become so important. In order to follow this seemingly specific and objective instruction me must examine the meaning with respect to ourselves individually. In answer to your question regarding the Declaration of Independence, I do not believe that we should disregard its message any more than I believe that we should disregard the Bible. My entire post was about following the Bible, not disregarding it.

Cool discussion!
A few other points: I'm with Rae, I think. In that inconsistencies and problems in the Old Testament stories are much less problematic than perceived inconsistencies in New Testament doctrine.
The slippery slope problem is very real. If you look at even merely an article of speech like "a" and wonder if it actually should have been a "the" but was mistaken due to a translation error, then you should seriously consider whether you can even believe the testimonies that Jesus rose again from the dead. If/Once you doubt that, I think your faith is dead. Which is not what you are saying here, obviously.

But that is the basic problem, isn't it? Were the writers of the Gospel telling the Truth? And I mean beyond merely the Truth as they saw/observed/understood it at the time, was it actually God's Message to Humankind?
Did Paul actually see Our Lord? Were his pronouncements God's Word?

If they were, then you should believe what Paul says about God, what the Gospel writers say about God, and what God says about Himself through their words.

...but at what level of accuracy, right? [grin]

Well, God says He is all-powerful, constrained only by the limitations He places on Himself; thus, He can force us to be holy, but our choosing to follow His Will is much more pleasing (in the same manner, I can force food down my child's throat, and I can force them to stay in bed at 4pm if I want to...but it is much more pleasing when they learn discipline enough to eat what we give them at dinner and lie down for bed without a fight).

So is it correct or full of crap? I can only try to corroborate through independent sources. What sources might those be...?

Well, we have more complete and mutually agreeing copies of the Bible (preserved mostly by Muslims!) than we do the writings of Plato and Socrates. As I alluded, many of the historical "errors" from the Old Testament are being demonstrated to be true as technology improves. In fact, if looked at merely as a historical document, the Bible is far more accurate and useful than any other historical document in the world, I think I read somewhere. Other historical works are distorted by being forced to pay homage to the Kings whose lives are recorded, but the Bible remains remarkably free of such distortions, and the Bible has been used innumerable times as a guide to find other historical locations and to confirm other historical documents.
So it is technically one of the most reliable documents we have.

(An interesting technical error: from what I've read, The Pharisees were not the opponent of Jesus that Matthew makes them out to be, that they actually didn't become a major theological power until after Jesus' resurrection. Matthew makes them out to be such bad guys because he was mainly battling against them, and so he was apparently framing his account in terms that Jews of that day would understand)

Anyway, the second corroboration, and one much stronger, is the corroboration of the heart.

In my opinion, there is no other work that so aptly, succinctly, and accuracy describes the duality of man: sinful yet hopeful; evil yet striving to be holy; selfish with generous inclinations. Additionally, the more I follow the precepts of the Bible, the more peace I have in my heart, and the more smoothly my personal relationships proceed. The overwhelming majority of the troubles in my life stem from when my actions are counter to the Word of God as taught by the apostles.

Thus, the most succinct way to describe my attitude toward the Bible is simply: a willing suspension of disbelief. Yeah, maybe the Bible isn't perfectly inspired, inerrent, and accurate. You'd probably be better off betting that it is flawed. But my heart tells me God is Faithful, will not lead us astray, and has the power to prevent us from being led astray. The most important teachings of the Bible (the ones by which we can be condemned or saved) are spelled out multiple times for clarity. The disagreements between the various sects/denominations are minor and do not prevent me from worshipping Him at any church (so I choose my church by style of worship).

And so, I don't have to try to reconcile the Bible to my intellect; I am confident it will be rectified fully when I am with Him in Heaven. After all, the Bible even says that the wise and intelligent are confounded, that the simple Truth of God is stumbling block for the clever.

Anyway, that's just me.

Beautifully stated, Nathan. Very beautifully stated.

Yes, very nicely stated.

"And so, I don't have to try to reconcile the Bible to my intellect; I am confident it will be rectified fully when I am with Him in Heaven. After all, the Bible even says that the wise and intelligent are confounded, that the simple Truth of God is stumbling block for the clever."

Wow- I have to third the compliments, Nathan. May I have permission to copy and paste it to just, you know, have around?

May I also quote one of the most talented singer/songwriters that has ever lived (I think that your post elaborates very well what he states in this song)?

"Let mercy lead. Let love be the strength of your legs. And in every footprint that you leave, there'll be a drop of grace. If we can reach beyond the wisdom of this age, into the foolishness of God, that foolishness will save those who belive, although their foolish hearts may break they will find peace and I'll meet you in that place where Mercy leads." Let Mercy Lead, Rich Mullins

Rae,
There is no copyright on anything I spout. Yet.

Here's hoping there one day will be.

Actually, Nathan, by virtue of your having committed the words to a somewhat "permanent" form, you've already *got* copyright. You just don't have it officially *recognized* by the government. Copyright exists the moment a work is created.

SJ, I'm afraid the gulf between your vision of "subjectivity" and mine is too vast to bridge in the comments on this post. I believe you're confusing "interpretation" with "application," but this discussion could go on ad nauseum, and, frankly, I've got *way* too many other things on my plate right now, things that involve me getting grades, getting paid, and keeping my family together.

Bryan: I agree with you that the gulf between our approaches to the Bible is vast. It's also, unfortunately, one of the reasons that there is more than one denomination of Christianity. I can certainly respect your decision to focus your energies elsewhere.

I must agree that is exactly why there is more than one denomination. It used to bother me greatly until I heard a very good simile for all the denominations (those that agree with the trinity I would consider to be of true faith [this exculdes Oneness Pentacostal and Apostolic, specifically]): Although it comes in many flavors, ice-cream is still ice-cream. Some has more air, some less (the more palatable in my itty bitty opinion). Different people have different tastes and preferences, but most don't call anything less than ice-cream ice-cream (frozen yogurt and custard, while delicious, is not ice-cream).

A bit understated and perhaps even juvenile, but analogically accurate.

Therefore, although it really doesn't matter, I can accept a Catholic or a Protestant faith as real and as truth. I, on the other hand, reject a faith that rejects the deity of Christ as truth. I have several friends that are more modalists than trinitarians and it causes great discussions, but I have a difficult time accepting their faith as being the same as mine.

I think that it helps me to understand the place of the different denominations (see my definition above of true Christian denomination) as opposed to rejecting them as completely wrong or well-intentioned but misguided (the view of many of the Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ).

Bryan,

It would be trolling if my intent was only to stir up trouble, rather than actually make a little atheist joke on the blog of a friend of mine (zomby).

Stumpjumper had a beautiful come back to what I said - my advice to you is to lighten up a bit.