God Did Not Write the Bible

[Lux]

I've been passing around this article in every opportunity I get to Christians I meet online and in person. If any of you has the time to read it, I'd like to hear your opinions on the article. (Criticism is welcome.)

If any of you knows of an article that's similar or that you think is better, which underscores the "Don't take the Bible *literally*" notion written by a Christian who believes Jesus is divine, preferably written not in a scathing way, but in a gently-nudging way ... I'd appreciate it if you shared it with me.

God Did Not Write the Bible… by Kathy Vestal
https://www.redletterchristians.org/god-did-not-write-the-bible/

 

[wil]

Looks like she may have studied with Bart Ehrman in NC...

A lot would benefit from reading ...

 

[Thomas]

This is where Europe and the US part company.

I'm pretty sure that most Christians in Europe (and I may be out of date on that, as US churches are making massive investments in promoting their churches the UK, and perhaps in Europe, but maybe not, as English is not the first language there) have no idea what the author is banging on about, or why ... it's a non-issue here.

Having said that, in trying to get a handle on the issue, I picked the terms 'infallible' and 'inerrant' as key ideas upon which the author builds her thesis. She and I are of the same mind, it seems to me the words mean whatever the user wants them to mean, and when discussing Scripture, the terms are all but meaningless if not qualified to explain precisely what is being said.

So I looked up 'what Christian denominations believe in an inerrant/infallible Bible', went to wiki, and to my surprise found this:

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture" held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

The quote from Dei Verbum I accept, but I do not see he Bible is infallible or inerrant in every word, but infallible with regard to man working his salvation. And might I add I did my BA Div. at a fiercely traditional school, and our course director did away with the inerrant/infallible down to the last iota argument at the get go when we looked at Dei Verbum.

Having said that, I see on the Catholic Culture.org site a defence of the inerrant/infallible debate – go figure ...

In closing, the author finishes with the impassioned:

the main message is so consistent and rich. God is sovereign. Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. And the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the lives of God’s people.

Sentiments with which I wholeheartedly agree, but the problem is, the affirmations that 1) God is Sovereign, 2) Jesus is Saviour/Redeemer and 3) that the Holy Spirit is alive and well is not proven by her argument (actually, there is no argument), and also that there are many who would claim that 3 especially, and 2 quite possibly, are errors in the transmission and reception of the text and are the same order of error that the author accepts as error ...

The problem is then (and Wil and I have tussled over this without resolution), if the Bible is as full of errors as she believes – and I'm not disputing that – on what basis does she believe what she does believe?

I'm not saying she can't, I'm saying she has not shown how. She has voiced the problem, but offered no real solution. If I had a problem she's made it worse, not better. (But then she's a Baptist, so ya-boo, f'nar and ... and other such mature, adult, erudite expressions )

+++

In response to Lux, take a look at The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

Or us catlicks can get into it over Dei Verbum?

 

[Lux]

Looks like she may have studied with Bart Ehrman in NC...

A lot would benefit from reading ...

Is Bart Ehrman an agnostic or atheist? I saw a few YouTube clips of him debating. He does well and quite convincing when the subject is the historical Jesus. But one time when he debated with Dinesh D'Souza (if my memory serves me right) about the problem of evil, I thought Ehrman's argument was rather built on his emotion and bitterness that suffering exists in the world, not so much dispassionate analysis of the reality of the world.

 

[Lux]

This is where Europe and the US part company.

I'm pretty sure that most Christians in Europe (and I may be out of date on that, as US churches are making massive investments in promoting their churches the UK, and perhaps in Europe, but maybe not, as English is not the first language there) have no idea what the author is banging on about, or why ... it's a non-issue here.

Having said that, in trying to get a handle on the issue, I picked the terms 'infallible' and 'inerrant' as key ideas upon which the author builds her thesis. She and I are of the same mind, it seems to me the words mean whatever the user wants them to mean, and when discussing Scripture, the terms are all but meaningless if not qualified to explain precisely what is being said.

So I looked up 'what Christian denominations believe in an inerrant/infallible Bible', went to wiki, and to my surprise found this:

The quote from Dei Verbum I accept, but I do not see he Bible is infallible or inerrant in every word, but infallible with regard to man working his salvation. And might I add I did my BA Div. at a fiercely traditional school, and our course director did away with the inerrant/infallible down to the last iota argument at the get go when we looked at Dei Verbum.

Having said that, I see on the Catholic Culture.org site a defence of the inerrant/infallible debate – go figure ...

In closing, the author finishes with the impassioned:

Sentiments with which I wholeheartedly agree, but the problem is, the affirmations that 1) God is Sovereign, 2) Jesus is Saviour/Redeemer and 3) that the Holy Spirit is alive and well is not proven by her argument (actually, there is no argument), and also that there are many who would claim that 3 especially, and 2 quite possibly, are errors in the transmission and reception of the text and are the same order of error that the author accepts as error ...

The problem is then (and Wil and I have tussled over this without resolution), if the Bible is as full of errors as she believes – and I'm not disputing that – on what basis does she believe what she does believe?

I'm not saying she can't, I'm saying she has not shown how. She has voiced the problem, but offered no real solution. If I had a problem she's made it worse, not better. (But then she's a Baptist, so ya-boo, f'nar and ... and other such mature, adult, erudite expressions )

+++

In response to Lux, take a look at The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

Or us catlicks can get into it over Dei Verbum?

So, in a nutshell, you agree with this author, Vestal, on her claim of the imperfection of the Bible (due to the authors being all humans, and not the divine) and considering the whole content of the books to be entirely Word of God is a mistake; that's not how one should read the Bible ... Am I getting this right?

But what her argument lacks is "why the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, perfectly sufficient for our salvation, and why Jesus is God Himself, if you don't trust the reliability of what's written" ... is that what you're saying?

I'll take a look at the link you presented. I really appreciate you pointing me to good material to read. There are numerous articles on the Internet, I often have a hard time deciding where to start. Suggestions from a person who has expertise in the field really help. Thanks!!

Riiiiiiiight ...'Baptists' are the root of all things wrong about Christianity in America, eh? But I tell you there are many lovable Baptists. They may not be right about theology but some of them have a really good sense of humor and I enjoy a clip like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4S_WnDSzpY

 

[wil]

Our literalists here stateside aren't all Protestants, pketby o Catholics in there, but mostly Protestants I'd say.

Bart dedinetely atheist... Dr of divinity, born again who lost it when he went from literalist to realizing, no, moses didn't weep when he had to write his own funeral.

It is an issue when you have that rug pulled out from under you...and then there is Bishop Spong...same thing literal upbringing but discovered something different in bible history class . it didn't destroy his faith...it enhanced it...he fell in love with the poetry, searching for the deeper mystery, mysticism, metaphors, allegory, metaphysics, and enjoy the mythology as it blends with the teachings.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lux —

So, in a nutshell, you agree with this author, Vestal, on her claim of the imperfection of the Bible (due to the authors being all humans, and not the divine) and considering the whole content of the books to be entirely Word of God is a mistake; that's not how one should read the Bible ... Am I getting this right?

As one of our tutors said, 'what if at the feeding of the five thousand, there were only four thousand, seven hundred and eighty two there?'

So the content of the Bible is gold standard, whilst the actual literal detail might be sketchy round the edges.

And you have to read it as a compilations of texts. There's myths of origins, there's law codes, there's poetry, there's 'history' (as people did history in those days, not as we do it now), maybe not 'history' but 'epic tales' of a nation's emergence. There's eye witness testimony, there's prophecy, there's a collection of good advice. There's counsel ... all different genres of text.

But what her argument lacks is "why the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, perfectly sufficient for our salvation, and why Jesus is God Himself, if you don't trust the reliability of what's written" ... is that what you're saying?

Yes. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying there's no formula or scheme in her article for someone to take away and work with. Pretty hard to do in a column, I know.

As for errors ... if you look on the web, it seems that if you collated all the errors, that book would be bigger than the Bible! And the number of people who evidently don't understand what they read, or don't take context into account, but are infallibly convinced it's wrong ... staggering.

Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" is a sound theological reader.

I was only joshing when I knock other denominations. The heavyweight Bible scholars we read on my course were not Calick! C.H. Dodd is a top kiddie, and a Prod. N.T. Wright gave me my most inspiring reading on St Paul, and he's Anglican. Sheed mentioned above is a darn good Catholic theologian.

The issue is 'populist' v 'scholarly' and this seems highlighted in America. The key factor is book sales. The populist is 'sensational' where the scholarly is 'serious'. Sheed seemed to manage it.

 

[Lux]

Our literalists here stateside aren't all Protestants, pketby o Catholics in there, but mostly Protestants I'd say.

Bart dedinetely atheist... Dr of divinity, born again who lost it when he went from literalist to realizing, no, moses didn't weep when he had to write his own funeral.

Oh that was another thing I was wondering ... Are the Catholics in Europe different from American Catholics? They all follow the same teachings of the Church and they're not allowed to develop their own theologies without the Church's sanction ... is what I'd assume tho ...
(Perhaps this is a question I should rather ask Thomas?)

It is an issue when you have that rug pulled out from under you...and then there is Bishop Spong...same thing literal upbringing but discovered something different in bible historyclass . it didn't destroy his faith...it enhanced it...he fell in love with the poetry, searching for the deeper mystery, mysticism, metaphors, allegory, metaphysics, and enjoy the mythology as it blends with the teachings.

Sounds like he's someone I should read ... Do you have any recommendations among his books?

 

[Lux]

Hi Lux —

As one of our tutors said, 'what if at the feeding of the five thousand, there were only four thousand, seven hundred and eighty two there?'

So the content of the Bible is gold standard, whilst the actual literal detail might be sketchy round the edges.

I'm dying to know ... Do you believe all the miracles in the New Testament actually happened (I mean the fine details aside) ... ??

And you have to read it as a compilations of texts. There's myths of origins, there's law codes, there's poetry, there's 'history' (as people did history in those days, not as we do it now), maybe not 'history' but 'epic tales' of a nation's emergence. There's eye witness testimony, there's prophecy, there's a collection of good advice. There's counsel ... all different genres of text.

Yeah I understand. But there're various interpretations ... a lot of times I don't know which ones to employ ... Is there a Catholic version of an amplified Bible?

Yes. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying there's no formula or scheme in her article for someone to take away and work with. Pretty hard to do in a column, I know.

As for errors ... if you look on the web, it seems that if you collated all the errors, that book would be bigger than the Bible! And the number of people who evidently don't understand what they read, or don't take context into account, but are infallibly convinced it's wrong ... staggering.

Just to make sure one thing ... Do you not disagree with all (or most) of the discrepancies/inconsistencies in the Bible Vestal lists in her article and her reasons why?
If there's anything that you think she got wrong, by all means, point it out.

Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" is a sound theological reader.

I was only joshing when I knock other denominations. The heavyweight Bible scholars we read on my course were not Calick! C.H. Dodd is a top kiddie, and a Prod. N.T. Wright gave me my most inspiring reading on St Paul, and he's Anglican. Sheed mentioned above is a darn good Catholic theologian.

The issue is 'populist' v 'scholarly' and this seems highlighted in America. The key factor is book sales. The populist is 'sensational' where the scholarly is 'serious'. Sheed seemed to manage it.

Oh I know you were joshing of course, I was joshing you too (Thanks for expanding my vocabulary ... "f'nar" ... I had to look it up ... you are so lettered! )
I'll look into those scholars/theologians you mentioned.

Oh, what are the main differences between Catholics and Anglicans? Are they Protestants (anything to do with Luther's teachings?) ... When CS Lewis finally converted to Christianity, he chose Anglicanism ... I'm kinda curious why he chose to be an Anglican ...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Riiiiiiiight ...'Baptists' are the root of all things wrong about Christianity in America, eh? But I tell you there are many lovable Baptists. They may not be right about theology but some of them have a really good sense of humor and I enjoy a clip like this one.

There are many lovable Baptists. Even more loving Baptists. They are not the root of all things wrong about Christianity in America.

They are one of several sects in this country that have been actively the most strident that their version of Christianity is the only one. They believe it is not only their right, but their responsibility to force everyone else to believe as they do. With so many (indeed almost all at this point) state governors being radicalized republican Christians, we are seeing a plethora of religious laws being written into secular state constitutions.

 

[Thomas]

Are the Catholics in Europe different from American Catholics? They all follow the same teachings of the Church and they're not allowed to develop their own theologies without the Church's sanction ... is what I'd assume tho ...
(Perhaps this is a question I should rather ask Thomas?)

Well I'd say it seems 'yes'. American Christians generally, so I would assume Catholics also, 'politicise' the Bible in that they bring their Americanism to the text.

There are whole movements in the US: Rapture, Creationism, ID for example, that are almost non-existent in Europe. The Rapture is a case in point: never heard anything about it in Europe.

And the theological 'movements' in the US, the Jesus Seminar's 'historical Jesus', Spong's 'liberal Jesus', Matthew Fox's 'Creation-centred spirituality', say more about late-20th century white, liberal idealism than anything else.

On the other hand, there are sound theologians in all denominations, they tend to be less sensational, less strident, and so less heard.

Cardinal Avery Dulles, for one, on theology as a discipline.
F. J. Sheed on basic dogmatics.
W Norris Clarke is exceptional on Catholic metaphysics and the philosophy of 'the person'
...and there's more ...

 

[Thomas]

Do you believe all the miracles in the New Testament actually happened (I mean the fine details aside) ... ??

Yes. It all fits within my thesis of 'realised symbol' or 'actualised myth'.

Yeah I understand. But there're various interpretations ... a lot of times I don't know which ones to employ ... Is there a Catholic version of an amplified Bible?

Well, there's loads of commentaries ...

Oh, what are the main differences between Catholics and Anglicans?

That the head of state is the head of the church. Basically Anglicanism came about when Henry VIII broke with Rome because he wanted a divorce. There are later theological distinctions ...

Are they Protestants (anything to do with Luther's teachings?) ...

Henry VIII died, and the Duke of Norfolk (I think) became the protector of the young king Edward, aged 9 and already dying of syphilis inherited from his father. Norfolk was a follower of the Reformed movement in Europe and so pushed Henry' Anglo-Catholicism into Protestantism. So we have High Church (all the bells and smells, quite Catholic) and Low Church (quite Protestant).

When CS Lewis finally converted to Christianity, he chose Anglicanism ... I'm kinda curious why he chose to be an Anglican ...

I really don't know.

Re Vestal's article:

When I was a child my Sunday School teachers used to say that God whispered the words of the Bible, and someone wrote them down.

Yes, because you were a child. It was assumed you'd grow up and review childhood beliefs. It's amazing:
How many don't.
How many assume that what we believe is what they remember from childhood.

God inspired the writers of the Bible, but author it, God did not.

Yep. Dei Verbum says the same.

I have heard many Christians proclaim emphatically that the Scripture needs no interpretation, that it speaks for itself.

Yes, it's a handy 'get out of jail' kinda clause. It's not true, of course. Even the Bible says it needs qualified interpretation.

Today’s Christian culture has become extremely political and polarized within itself. Despite Jesus’ repeated emphasis on the unity of the believers, we seem to have an inate need to divide ourselves.

Yes, and liberals love reinforcing that polarisation! I find liberals quite 'them and us' when it comes to talking about 'dogmatic' or 'organised religion'. As ever, I wonder what 'a disorganised religion' or a religion that says 'believe what you like' actually achieves in the world.

In my opinion the many discrepancies in the Bible serve to reinforce its validity, not detract from it.

Really we're on a no-win scenario here. If there are discrepancies, I'm told that shows we can't believe it. However, if all the accounts are word perfect, I'm told it's a fit-up and therefore we can't believe it. Actually I'm told we can't believe it any way, because any testimony is flawed and full of error, so we have carte blanche to believe and reject what we like!

Oh, and ...

For example, it was not widely accepted at the time of Biblical writing that the earth was round.

Really. Are you sure? Where does it say that? I rather think the closer truth is that a) the Greeks had proved the earth was round (as had philosophers in other parts of the word, I seem to recall) and that b) the man in the street didn't really have an opinion on the matter.

The 'flat earth' theory! That Columbus might sail off the edge, for example, is a modern fabrication. Columbus knew the earth was round, what he didn't know was exactly how far away the next landfall would be, or whether they'd all die before they got there. Angels on the head of a pin is another one ...

This story appears twice, once in 2 Samuel 24 and again in 1 Chronicles 21.

Not a discrepancy if you understand Hebrew theology. However, I've seen the 'discrepancy' dismissed on the grounds that the Bible is inerrant, so really you takes your choice. As ever, I put more weight on informed commentary than prejudicial opinion.

Two discrepancies between the two stories: 1) One version (2 Sam.) says The Lord incited David to take the census. The other (1 Chron.) says Satan incited him.

Satan is an instrument of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, so no discrepancy there.

2 Sam. numbers the men of Israel as 800,000 and the men of Judah as 500,000. 1 Chron. numbers the men of Israel as 1,100,000 and the men of Judah as 470,000.

In philosophy there is a distinction between 'material truth' and 'formal truth'. That is, there were two armies (formal truth) of which the numbers were (material truth). The material might well be wrong, but that does not make the formal truth wrong ...

Two pieces of data:
'Love thy neighbour' Jesus Christ.
'Never give a sucker an even break' W.C. Fields.

Which is more likely? The Fields one, as we have hard evidence, the movie of that name. The love thy neighbour thing is attributed to a bloke who some say might not even have existed. So safer to go with the latter than the former ... you wouldn't want to build a philosophy round a fantasy ...

Happy Christmas

 

[wil]

And THIS!

When I was a child my Sunday School teachers used to say that God whispered the words of the Bible, and someone wrote them down.
Yes, because you were a child. It was assumed you'd grow up and review childhood beliefs. It's amazing:
How many don't.

That! Is the crux of the bisquit. In writing, math, science, we don't teach BS first and then truth later. HUGE downfall of instruction... teach truth all the time...not.that Adam and Eve actually walked in the garden, but the meaning in he story.. provide the groundwork to be expanded upon.

Thomas Anglican? Not Catholic? How did I miss this? Isn't Anglican over here called Episcopalian? Referred to by my Catholic friends stateside as Catholic lite.

So we have High Church (all the bells and smells, quite Catholic) and Low Church (quite Protestant).

I think I see that.... One difference over here is whoever wants to take communion can...but in the Catholic service they make it plain it is only for their own.

(I don't know at all what high church and low church means)

 

[wil]

↑
Do you believe all the miracles in the New Testament actually happened (I mean the fine details aside) ... ??

Yes. It all fits within my thesis of 'realised symbol' or 'actualised myth'.

Thomas....expound upon this realised symbol and actualized myth if you would.

Lux a good Doing start is Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism...

 

[wil]

Dang autocorrect and no editing... Spong start, not Doing.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I kinda like Doing.

 

[wil]

I am partial to Being.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Would you consider Boing?

 

[wil]

Tis the season

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas Anglican? Not Catholic? How did I miss this?

He wasn't saying that, he is Catholic.