Archive for the 'bible' Category

Riddle me this, Batman

Published
by
Ken
on October 4, 2007
in But what about this verse?, bible and biblical interpretation
. 0 Comments

I came across something in the Gospels that I’ve never noticed before. There is apparent(?) disagreement between the stories of the Roman centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant as told in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.

In Matthew, the centurion talks to Jesus directly and asks him to heal his servant. Jesus agrees to come to the centurion’s house but the centurion says that Jesus must only say the word and the servant will be healed.

In Luke, the centurion sends some Jewish elders to ask Jesus to come to the centurion’s house. Then, as Jesus approaches, the centurion sends some friends to tell Jesus that he must only say the word. Luke 7:7 explicitly states that the centurion did not talk to Jesus directly since the friends relay the following message to Jesus: “for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You …”

What’s up with that? How are these two accounts reconciled?

Just a thought … on God as author

Published
by
Ken
on August 24, 2007
in bible, biblical interpretation, god, just a thought ... and religious pluralism
. 1 Comment

Getting back to an old post of mine, let’s assume:

  1. The Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be
  2. God is omniscient
  3. God had/has perfect foreknowledge

What does this mean?

I think it’s an obvious fact that there are many, many different interpretations of the Bible. Whether you think any particular interpretation is right or wrong does not change the fact that it exists and someone believes it. But God, in his perfect foreknowledge and omniscience must have known that each interpretation that exists would exist. God knew that we’d be confused. And yet the Bible is exactly as he wanted it to be. Now, I’m not talking about a few fringe ideas that go against an overwhelming consensus. If you’re reading, say, The Scarlett Letter in every high school (which still reads this book) I would guess that there would be a lot of agreement on meaning and interpretation with, perhaps, a few radical ideas. Not so with the Bible!

God may be just but he doesn’t seem quite fair. He gives us this book, knowing that some of us will interpret it differently and then (according to some) punishes us when we do. Kinda like the ol’ apple in the garden, heh? Isn’t that entrapment?

So, God must have had a purpose for the ambiguity, the confusion causing verbiage. Was it to test us? Was it to weed out some of us? What possible reason could there be? Furthermore, how can any of us even pretend to have the “right” answer? So many options, so many ideas, so many opinions and the one that appeals to me just happens to be the one and only correct interpretation?

But, hey … just a thought.

Ok, ok, we get it already! Let’s move on.

Published
by
Ken
on June 14, 2007
in But what about this verse?, bible, biblical interpretation, god's law, homosexuality and judging others
. 4 Comments

Kim Fabricius wrote a post on “The Real Sin of Sodom” and as you would expect got a lot of “feedback.” Kim’s stance is that Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. In a quick read of the comments, “dh” is the most vocal and repetitive and holds the stance that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality plus a bunch of other stuff.

To quote Shakespeare, “The [commenter] doth protest too much, methinks.” But that’s neither here nor there.

What I do want to say is, “Ok, ok, we get it already! God does/doesn’t hate homosexuals and Jesus does/doesn’t hate homosexuals and Paul, Peter, Jude did/didn’t condemn all homosexual behavior and all homosexuals are/aren’t going to hell. We get it. Let’s move on to something else now.” Why is everyone condemning/defending homosexuality when it’s been done to death? Let’s agree to disagree and let the sign-in book at the pearly gates decide who the winner is. Besides, there are so many more un-maligned groups just waiting to be pounced upon. (Hopefully poor grammarians are not among them.) Let’s look at the verses touted as anti-homosexual to see who we should be condemning/defending next.

I Corinthians 6 says “… neither effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.” But there are a bunch of people in the ellipses that need to be straightened out. The fornicators and adulterers, for example. These two groups are actually mentioned before the homosexuals and the hermeneutic I’m using says that order is important. So let’s persecute these guys for a while now. Everyone put your “Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve” signs and posters and bumper stickers and banners and whatever into your PODS unit for a while and make up new ones that say “Abstinence is good for the soul” and “If you can’t keep it in your pants get married.” Then loiter outside singles clubs and raves where you know all kinds of unseemly acts of coitus are about to taking place. While you’re at it, start making up signs that say: “Stay married even if he beats you” because you know the divorce rate will go up because all these “kids” are getting married just to get some. We also have any Christian who goes to court. These bastards are mentioned even before the fornicators so you know it’s important.

Then, of course, there’s Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.” But we’re not doing that anymore. Let’s look around at some of the other verses from chapters 11, 12, 19, and 20. We should, instead, be persecuting anyone without a beard, anyone who eats rabbit or pork or lobster or mussels or crabs, anyone not circumcised, anyone picking up grapes that have fallen onto the ground in a vineyard, anyone wearing cotton blends, anyone having intercourse with a women while she is menstruating, and anyone harming a foreigner. That’s quite the list so we’ve got some sign-making to do. I’ll hang out by the barbershops and you take the restaurants and together we’ll whip this country back into shape.

But, if you really, really want to keep harping on the homosexuals, I’ve found a real easy way to pick them out in a crowd. Romans 1:38-32 says:

And just as they (i.e. the homosexuals, both men and women) did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

So, you see, all homosexuals (at least the ones Paul says are going straight to hell) are greedy, murdering, deceitful, malicious, slandering, parental disobeying, untrustworthy, unloving, sons of bitches who heartily approve of everyone who murders, deceives, slanders, disobeys, etc.. They shouldn’t be too hard to spot!

The greatest of these is charity

Published
by
Ken
on June 3, 2007
in bible
. 0 Comments

I ran across Mark Burgess’ blog today and found this excellent post. Here are some excerpts:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (King James Bible, John Chapter 14, Verse 6)

This particular verse is the mainstay of the fundamentalist evangelical movement. It basically says that all you have to do is believe in Christ, establish a personal relationship with him, and accept his as your savior, and you’re saved.

This conveniently allows you to go through life ignoring everything else that Jesus taught regarding the importance of loving others.

. . .

-And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Corinthians 13, Verse 13)

The Greek word “agape” is usually translated as “love” in newer translations of the Bible, whereas the King James version translates it as “charity”. Translating agape as love means that you can “love” your neighbor without doing anything… whereas “charity” clearly communicates the imperative of action.

Some excellent, well articulated thoughts, Mark. Thank you.

“The Bible is exactly as God wanted it to be” ???

Published
by
Ken
on June 2, 2007
in bible, biblical interpretation and god
. 1 Comment

I just read an interesting post over at the Confessing Evangelical about the Bible being “exactly as God wanted it to be.” I’m not sure what it all means. My first impression is that it’s all semantics — don’t call errors errors but use another, more euphemistic term. But I also feel that there’s more to it than I’m appreciating at the moment. I hope to be able to comment on it after it’s stewed on my back burner for a while.

Just a thought … on selective irrelevance

Published
by
Ken
on February 28, 2007
in belief, bible, biblical interpretation, just a thought ... and truth
. 2 Comments

Different aspects of Christianity are handled differently. Some are considered “well defined” by the Bible. Some are “assumed true” even though we cannot fully comprehend them. Some are “tolerated” as paradoxical since both the one and the other hands are found in the Scriptures. And some are left as “things not to be asked” or “ill-posed” questions.

Topics such as the Trinity, Baptism, the existence of Evil are debated between Christian and non-Christian but also between Christian and “Christian”. Some Christians even go so far as to claim that certain beliefs about these topics are “wrong enough” as to bring the holder’s status as a “true Christian” into question. But everyone points to Scripture as the basis of their belief so it really comes down to interpretation.

I’ve read elsewhere and been taught that it is hermeneutically correct (and, indeed, necessary) to not base any doctrine or theological stance on certain Scriptures that put forth an idea which is opposed, and more voluminously so, elsewhere. So, there are “orphaned” verses, so to speak, that are not part of any doctrine, dogma, theology, etc. Well, at least “mainstream” doctrine, dogma, theology — however that is defined.

If these verses are to be ignored and treated as irrelevant to any disucssion then why are they part of the Scriptures? Remember that we are talking about the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Are they artifacts of a dead-end plot point? Are they remnants of God’s first draft of theology — a first draft that didn’t quite “work”? Or, are they glimpses of alternate “theologies” which are valid but other than the “popular” ones touted by our theologeans.

Might these alternate theologies mesh better with world views other than our own, Western Christian view? And if they do, might that not lend some credence to them? And if that be the case, can we really dismiss then as “wrong”?

Just a thought …

More thoughts (by other people) on inerrancy

Published
by
Ken
on February 21, 2007
in bible
. 0 Comments

Bruce makes an excellent point:

The early Church over several hundred years, canonized the Bible. We accept their judgment as to what is the inerrant Bible. How do we know that their judgment is correct? Why do most Evangelicals accept their judgment on the canon of Scripture, yet totally reject dozens of other truths they taught. How do we decide what to accept or reject? Is the Pope the final authority? Is John MacArthur the final authority? Or perhaps you and I are?

Just a thought … on literal symbolism

Published
by
Ken
on February 21, 2007
in bible, biblical interpretation and just a thought ...
. 0 Comments

Just a thought …

What would you say to someone who insisted that Moby Dick was really about a literal ship captain and a literal white whale? Or to someone who insisted that The Scarlet Letter was really about a literal woman and a literal affair she had with a literal pastor? Or to someone who insisted that The Bible was about a literal …

Like I said … just a thought

Thoughts on inerrancy

Published
by
Ken
on February 21, 2007
in bible, jesus and truth
. 1 Comment

These are some “stream-of-consciousness” thoughts on what it means for the Bible to be inerrant. So please take them as that — spontaneous ideas and questions that have not been fully thought out. As always … comments are solicited.

Does inerrant mean true? Absolutely true? True absolutely?

Does inerrant mean historically accurate, precise?

Does inerrant mean that Jesus really said the words attributed to him in the gospels? Does inerrant apply to the words spoken by Jesus — i.e. Jesus really said the words and the words he said are also inerrant?

If so, then Jesus’ parables are inerrant even though the events they depict did not actually occur. The story of “The Prodigal Son” is inerrant even though said son never existed.

So, the parables are inerrant in that their symbolism is accurate, true?

But back to true. If the entire Bible is inerrant then the entire Bible is true. But is the entire Bible equally true? If we are talking absolute truth then yes, the entire Bible would be equally true because absolute is absolute, no?

If the entire Bible is absolute truth then we seem to have a slight problem. Absolute truth does not change — otherwise it’s not absolute. One absolute truth cannot alter, modify, negate, replace another absolute truth. Therefore, we are bound by every absolutely true verse and therefore by the Old Testament Law and by the New Testament teachings. Absolute truth is not applicable based on social situations or time period or any other restriction. If this verse does not apply to me today then this verse cannot be absolute truth, i.e. truth without condition.

So, is the Bible, then conditional truth? This verse is true under these conditions, for these people, at these times, under these social situations?

But if it’s conditionally true, then isn’t it conditionally inerrant?

You call sitting for three days and nights under a tree being sincere???

Published
by
Ken
on January 31, 2007
in bible, christian fundamentalism, faith, god, hell, jesus, josh mcdowell and religion
. 0 Comments

Ok, where was I? Oh, that’s right … in the middle of a magic trick. How do you let God be 100% just and at the same time don’t let him condemn people who could never have heard about Jesus? Easy as pie. Simply say along with Josh McDowell: “No one will be condemned for not ever hearing of Jesus Christ” [Answers to Tough Questions, p. 121]. Cool! So, everyone who doesn’t hear will be in heaven, right? Uh … no. In the next sentence, McDowell says, “That person will be condemned for violating his own moral standard.” Hmmm. I have two problems with this.

First, “his own moral standard?” I thought everything depended on violating God’s Law. Or not believing in Jesus Christ. What does a person’s moral standard have to do with anything? Talk about a sliding scale. So, a totally immoral person will get into Heaven while a very moral — although not infallible — person won’t?

Second, even though this sounds like “they” have a chance this is really only another rationalization. If everyone is a sinner at birth then, by definition, no one will be able to live up to any moral standard worthy of being called a moral standard.

So far, “they” don’t have much of a chance. But, a few pages earlier McDowell says,

“Although the Scriptures never explicitly teach that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, we do believe it infers this. We do believe that every person will have an opportunity to repent, and that God will not exclude anyone because he happened to be born at the wrong place and at the wrong time.” (Emphasis mine)

Ah, despite the inference status of this statement, this does sound a little more optimistic. If everyone has an opportunity to repent, then those in Hell really do make the choice. Does he quote chapter and verse to back up this belief? Well, the next sentence quotes John 7:17

If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

I didn’t really get what the New American Standard Bible (quoted above) was trying to say so I looked at a couple other versions and here is the New International Version:

If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

All the other more “common language” versions seemed to agree that Jesus was talking about someone who is hearing or has heard the teachings of Jesus. And I don’t see how anyone could hear his teachings without hearing about Jesus. So, how does this back up the inference? It sounds to me like just another rationalization to make Christians feel good about their all-loving God.

Even though there is no teaching to back up this inference, there is an example in Acts 10 which may set some precedent for it. Cornelius was a very religious man who prayed to God and asked God to reveal himself to him. God sent an angel and told Cornelius to send for the Apostle Peter who came and preached Jesus Christ and Cornelius was saved. This is all very good, but if people were constantly knocking on Christians’ doors saying “God told so-and-so to send for you. Please come preach Jesus to him,” don’t you think we’d hear about it?

But this doesn’t stop some Christians from continuing to believe it. They are so sure that if anyone is sincere enough that God will reveal himself to her so she can be saved. This means that Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha), for example, was not sincere enough in his search. The seven years he spent learning from every different type of teacher he could find was not sincere enough. Being close to death from starvation and sitting for three days and three nights (sound a little familiar??) under a bodhi tree was not sincere enough. Obviously not because God would have sent someone to preach to him if he was sincere.

Kind of makes you wonder if anyone has a chance.

But now I want to return to a thought I mentioned in the last post. If the fate of all the souls in the world depend on hearing about Jesus, doesn’t this put the fate of all these souls on the hands of every Christian? Obviously yes, but you’ll have to stay tuned to see what else I have to say about it …