Religion
How do Women and Animals fit into the bible? Why do Evil and Viruses exist?
How big was the Flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other Religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does Purgatory exist?
Section Four of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions focuses on The Bible we Read.
45. No Further Word from God today? How far is God still speaking today? Why was the Bible, not added to as time went on?
This is a question I can understand. If God is omniscient then why isn't he still speaking to us today? Why isn't he continuing to teach us more things? Why isn't he making an active effort to reveal more of his teachings?
Richard Bewes answers these questions by explaining that God's teachings culminated within Jesus. Christ, as a figure, contains all of the knowledge that God ever intended to reveal to us. Christ is still alive and active today helping to guide us and carry out God's will. Further, the bible itself is intended to be cyclical. Genesis begins with the Garden of Eden and Revelation ends in another garden paradise. Creation begins and ends in the same place. There is nothing more to add. Bewes concludes that whilst there is nothing more to reveal, there is plenty more to learn.
I actually quite like this argument as it promotes the idea of personal ownership. It encourages to think freely and independently, rather than waiting for God to reveal more knowledge to us. Also the idea of more revelation completely invalidates the notion of Christ being a divine, perfect figure.
46. What about the errors? I get discouraged by people more knowledgeable than I am, who insist that the Bible is full of contradictions. How can I answer them?
Bewes' answer to this question is threefold. Firstly, he argues that we have to deal with them humbly. it would be inconceivable that we could read the bible without encountering difficulties. However, Bewes argues that any difficultly we have emerges from our own misunderstanding, not the bible itself. As the bible is the word of God, it has to be our understanding that's the problem.
I think that any atheist or non-believer would find this viewpoint extremely condescending. I find it patronising. When you're deeply confused about something, nothing is more frustrating or insulting than being told that problem completely lies with you. Sometimes that is true, but other times, it isn't.
Secondly, Bewes argues that we should overcome any difficulties by consulting with others. We should all join church and Bible study groups to discuss the meaning of scripture. This argument actually makes senses. We understand a lot of things through the help of others. Methodism was borne out of this exact thought process.
Lastly, Bewes argues that we should allow ourselves time to understand Bible difficulties. Rather than fretting over a problem, every day of every week, we can file it away in our minds and return to it later, perhaps when we have learnt more.
Whilst this is seemingly obvious and rather simplistic, it is still logical. First impressions aren't always right and it's easy to let our emotions control our judgement. Returning to a problem with clear eyes and a fresh mind can go a long way to solving it.
When it comes to contradictions in the bible, we always need to remember the historical context. Things weren't transcribed as they happened. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc didn't spend their time writing down every single event that occurred. Rather, these stories existed in oral tradition for decades until they were transcribed. And, of course, as is hat happens in oral stories, details change, characters are omitted, events embellished. And the scribes themselves may have their own agendas. They could be altering things for their own reasons. Also the bible underwent numerous translations before finally being recorded in English. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, whilst the New Testament was in Greek. Many of Paul's letters are set in modern-day Greece. From here, Jerome, in the fifth century, translated the bible into Latin, before it was translated into English by John Wycliffe and given a further translation by William Tynedale, whose work led to the publication of the King James version. Naturally, details would have been lost in translation and the bible that I am currently reading, the New International Youth Version, regularly acknowledge Hebrew words, of which there is no direct translation.
49. Only 'Containing' God's word? Is the bible, in itself, the Word of God, or does it only contain God's word, as some maintain?
Bewes' simple answer to this is that the bible is definitively the Word of God. If we humans say that it only contains the Word of God, we are saying that we are superior to God. It is solely up to us what qualifies as God's word and what doesn't.
Bewes elaborates by posting that such an idea is of 'limited inerrancy:'
"on this view the Bible is said to be true and without error on matters of salvation and theology - but that if it strays into the field of science or history, then it becomes unreliable."
Bewes continues by arguing that theology, science and history are interrelated. We can't disentangle them at all. If we try to "place our own arbitrary limits on God's Word, then it degenerates into the world of humans." To me it sounds like he is saying that by rationalising the Word of God into human terms, we are invalidating it; we are removing it from its pedestal and bringing it down to the lowly level of humans. When put like this, a definite air of superiority around the Bible is emerging and I don't think that any atheists would agree with the idea that theology and science are interlinked. Rather they seem like conflicting ideas that could never coalesce.
His second argument introduces the notion of 'Literalistic Inerrancy.' He asserts that
"at times, readers of the Bible - in a proper submission to the whole of Scripture - mistakenly apply an artificial Literalism to every statement. Difficulties occur when fail to recognise when the language is figurative, visionary or poetic. Confusion can also arise if we insist that twenty-first century standards of computerised precision be applied, for example, to the numbers in the Bible, or to its chronology, - if its human authors were plainly not intending this."
Although my Christian friend Naomi say thats the Bible should be taken literally and she takes it literally, I do not believe this. Whilst a lot of the Bible records the history of the Israelites, some of which did happen, a lot of it is also prophecies and Wisdom: the books of Psalms, Proverbs and the Major and Minor Prophets. The language used here is abstract and is not meant to be taken literally:
Bewes' last argument explains his idea of 'Original Inerrancy,' which is essentially the idea that a text means what its original author meant. It returns to the idea of different authors having different reasons for writing their texts. Bewes asks "did the original authors intend - at times - to give round numbers rather than precise figures?" Bewes then points to Numbers 25: 9
"but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000"
and 1 Corinthians 10:8
"we should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty three thousand of them died."
Bewes poses the second question of whether the biblical "authors intend[ed] to select the events and persons included in their books? If so then certain chronological or historical omissions should not concern us - for bible history is necessarily selective, interpreted history - with a specific purpose in view."
This specific purpose is the most thing to remember when reading the bible. When the biblical authors were compiling these books, they had an agenda in mind: converting people into Christians. The Israelites were heavily prosecuted from being enslaved in Egypt to having the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires destroy Israel and Judea. The authors Ezra and Nehemiah were writing for the Israelites who were living in Babylonian exile, and strove to remind them of their shared history, to prevent them being assimilated into the Babylonian culture. Jump forward to the New Testament, and Judea is now a Roman province. The purposes of authors like the Gospels and Paul the Apostle was again to remind the Israelites of where they came from and to convert them into Christians, again to prevent their cultural assimilation. Paul goes so far as to say that the Gentiles don't have to follow every single rule, as long as they feel the love of God in their hearts. These authors were writing for specific purposes: to convert as many as possible into Christians, and thus embellished, exaggerated and omitted stories as they pleased, to ensure their goal would be completed.
As always, I am not an expert. My thoughts and reasonings are not infallible and so I welcome challenges, comments and criticisms. Just keep it mature, intelligent and respectful.
No comments:
Post a Comment