Inspiration

[grampawombat]

My library on theology is now over 20 years old, reflecting the last time I was a student. Nonetheless, the following female authors are still relevant: Dorothee Soelle, Marjorie Suchocki, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary Daly, Beverly Harrison, Carol Robb, and Nelle Morton.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

It would be nice if more women were posting on this board.

 

It seems like there are more women on the Facebook site than on here, but my theory is that most of us women are just way to busy to post often.

 

Janet

[Mike]

It seems like there are more women on the Facebook site than on here, but my theory is that most of us women are just way to busy to post often.

 

Janet

 

Are you saying we men have too much time on our hands?

[irreverance]

Ugh, I feel like I'm late to an ongoing conversation. Nevertheless, I'm barging in with my 2c.

 

 

When confronted with the issue of “allscripture is God-breathed,” I generally avoid dealing directly withthe passage and instead drag our its referent. When that text waswritten, it referred to what we think of as the Greek translation ofthe Jewish Bible, the Septuagint (or a variation of it). The closestwe have to that would be the official Roman Catholic version of theBible. Of course we need to keep in mind that one of the reasonsthat Rabbinic Judaism rejected the what we call the Apocrypha asnon-authoritative was because they were trying to distance themselvesidentity-wise from this new group who followed Jesus (who placed aheavy emphasis on those texts). (Yes, it's not that the Catholics“added” texts; but rather later Protestants “removed” thembased off of the errant logic/understanding of Jerome.) So, if oneis to make me believe that one actually believes that statementliterally, they need to say that the official Roman Catholic versionof the Bible (which is the divinely inspired one as testified to bythe text) is the “real” ™ Bible, and that the KJV is merely ashadow of the Truth, if not an outright corruption.

 

No, it's not the most pastoral thing todo. The goal is to inject authoritative information into theirthinking that challenges the omniscience of their spiritual“daddy-figure” (who is often the narrow, control-orientedpastor). Perhaps it is only by challenging the authority of “daddy”in a rational, you-can-do-it-yourself way can we help people todevelop the strength and confidence to develop into “adulthood”(for those who are interested in developmental psychology). Thecrisis dueling authorities brings is indeed painful and frightening,but growing pains at any age aren't necessary meant to be fun.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Are you saying we men have too much time on our hands?

 

 

Sorry! That WAS pretty sexist

[jenny]

I truly have concluded that no matter whether it is inerrant or not is beside the point...because we will never know for sure. I say this because I believe where much of the confusion/problems come from is how we read and interpret scripture in the first place. #1 It is apparent to me that most people that read or study scripture do so in a compartmentalized manner. They take a part of it and try to read and study and interpret it all by itself...when all of scripture (O & NT's) goes together and mean something as a whole. Meaning we have to consider all of scripture before any of it is read or interpretted.

We have to ask and answer these types of questions first:

a) What was the overall, basic reason (or reasons) behind the existance of the OT?

What was the reason for creating the NT?

c) If the OT was a precursor to the NT, then is the OT obsolete?

d) What does the NT say that answers the dilemas of the OT?

e) As Christians, are there any concepts/truths in the NT that trumps the ones of the OT?

 

I believe that the OT was God's way of showing us the basics of ~ *Creation, *Do's and Don'ts, *God's capabilities and power *Stories of humanity and wisdom *AND Most of all, to show us that rules do not make us better/righteous. Humans do not respond well to demands and rules. (Notice that right after the 10 Commandments were given, instead of the people having a celebration, they had an orgy and errected an idol) That an imperfect people cannot obey a perfect law. That rules just bring out the worst in us. That as we try and "be good", then all we are doing is focusing on self and it's a vicious cycle anyway...because we would never be perfect enough to earn enough points to inherit the priceless gift of salvation and eternal life. That salvation has little to do with our own accomplishments (as in the OT), but all to do with Jesus' accomplishment on the cross for each and every one of us. That it all has to do with God coming toward us,...instead of us trying and trying to be acceptable to God and following impossible rules from a far off God who made blanket rules for everyone.

 

The NT is the answer to the OT...A picture of God's true desire for us...We are not to try and follow a set of rules anylonger...they just make us self-focused, arrogant when we do have success or feel like failures if we don't, and make behavior the most important thing (as in the OT). NOW LOVE is the focus...meaning that we are to look the totally opposite direction. That we now are to be people focused, not rule focused. In so doing, because "love hurts no one", destructive habits, hate, "unrighteous" behaviors and etc. begin to dissolve because you cannot do both loving and missing the mark at the very same time....oil and water do not mix. In THIS way, love reigns, instead of rules...everyone is taken care of on a personal level. Galatians is great...and of course the example of how Christ lived His life. As well as the other books...

 

The one thing I believe that is most important to remember...is that in the NT, love and grace TRUMP any percieved rules! We now HAVE to see all scripture thru the MAIN reason for Christ and the NT...We are accepted and have a PERSONAL relationship with God by grace, and love is ALL we are abliged to do! It is like we take these, grace and love, and hold them in front of our face and read everything in scripture thru these 2 windows.

 

 

 

The NT was given, written to tell us of Christ who was sent to make things different then the OT for us. Different to the point of being upside-down different! That righteousness doesn't come from how we behave...it comes from God and then we show that love to others which then also benefits us. It is a circle...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version)

 

16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

Fundamentalist point to II Timothy as proof that everything written in our present day bible was put there directly by God. It is believed that God “inspired” designated writers to record His words and instruction.

 

In reality, that particular scripture is open to a number of legitimate interpretations. One of the questions that must be asked is what does “all” mean. The New Testament had not been written yet, so how does the NT fit into the picture. If God breathed it then it would certainly qualify as scripture, but II Timothy doesn’t identify what writing is, and is not, God breathed. Since God didn’t identify exactly which words He breathed we are left to figured that out on our own.

 

Those that believe the bible is completely inerrant and inspired generally view the bible as a Devine instruction manual. I had a long affiliation with a group that held this view. Legalism is the predictable result when the bible becomes an object of worship rather than a source of information.

 

Once these questions entered my mind I was motivated to find some answers. I began to research how the bible came into existence. That convinced me that there was no possible way our present day bible could possibly be either fully inerrant or inspired. I still believe the bible contains the words of God, but I’m also convinced that it also contains allegories, parables, myths, folklore, cultural bias, as well as the opinions of the various authors. We are left today to determine what is and is not inspired, which is a rather daunting task.

 

Once I discarded the idea that every word in the bible was put there directly by God I had to admit that I saw a lot of inconsistency, contradictions, and conflicting teaching in scripture which isn’t reassuring.

 

If God is God, and He is Holy and perfect, how can he exhibit human traits of anger, jealously, and vindictiveness? How can he tell His creation not to be jealous if He admits to being a jealous God? How can He burn up poor old Nadab and Abihu and then tell His creation that it’s wrong to murder?

 

I’ve come to the personal conclusion that He didn’t. I think ancient cultures did a lot of bad things and then justified their actions by saying God told them to do it. Like Flip Wilson said, “The Devil made me do it.”

 

In some ways my revised view of the bible is comforting and in some ways it’s down right terrifying. How can I ever be certain which words in the bible were put there by God and which ones are nothing more than the views and opinions of the writer?

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"you cannot do both loving and missing the mark at the very same time....oil and water do not mix. In THIS way, love reigns, instead of rules...everyone is taken care of on a personal level. "

 

Beautifully put, Jenny! I'm glad you posted this.

 

Janet

[Javelin]

The book “Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally” by Marcus J. Borg was referred to me in another thread.

 

I read it this weekend in fact I read it twice. What I got out of it was Borg’s belief that scripture should generally be read and understood in a metaphorical context, with some noted exceptions. Borg is an academic so I wasn’t surprised that he possesses agnostic beliefs and views.

 

I was struck by his premise that scripture does not have to be factually correct to be true. One of the examples he used to support this view was the creation story found in Genesis. He notes facts presented in the story are not true, but the story itself is true because it confirms that God is the creator.

 

I’m still mulling over many of the concepts he presents. Biblical literalism remains a touchy subject for me. The bible seems clearly to be allegorical or metaphorical in a number of instances, but I think there is a place for literal interpretation as well.

 

Borg dismisses the various biblical references to miracles as myths. However, if God is God and Jesus is who he said he was then I don’t think the referenced miracles can be so easily categorized as hyperbole.

 

Religion and the supernatural are closely linked. Religion without miracles strikes me as leaning too much towards intellectual elitism. If God is God then He is certainly not bound by our earthly laws of physics.

 

I liked many of Borg’s thoughts, but I’m not ready to buy into his entire package. Apparently I’ve retained more of my fundamentalist beliefs than I thought, or at least I'm not ready to fully abandon that ship right now.

[rivanna]

Javelin,

 

I was surprised that Borg’s book gave you the impression of being agnostic – was there a specific part that made you think that?

 

His writing does reflect openness to other faiths-- “we can say Jesus is, for us as Christians, the decisive disclosure of God, without saying, He is the only one.” But he has given his heart to Jesus as much as anyone. Borg defines the Christian life as “entering into a relationship with the risen living Christ, and living out that relationship, being transformed by it.”

 

You’re right that he doesn’t go along with the miracles in most cases, but he does affirm that Jesus was a healer who performed many amazing cures. I don’t always agree with Borg on rejecting the supernatural. To me there is no problem with taking some parts of the bible literally and others as metaphor. If reading scripture puts you in touch with your deepest feelings, makes you aware of God’s presence, love, grace, comfort - then you’re reading it the way it’s intended. But since I don’t know what it feels like to grow up in a fundamentalist family / church, that mixture of fact and myth may be the most difficult thing to accept– I don’t know. Maybe others can be more helpful.

[Mike]

Hi Javelin,

 

Admittedly Borg does have a target audience, and it seems to be those who already have problems with the supernatural and/or literal readings of the bible. He is unlikely to convince those of another persuasion, but to my understanding that is not exactly his aim. He does not want to rule out the supernatural for those to whom that is important, but he tries to provide a framework in which such questions are not primary. As such I have appreciated his suggestions since they take a lot of emphasize and, well, pressure off being forced to accept things in the bible literally, and I feel that they do have merit, even if not being systematic or airtight. Christianity is true to being called a 'faith' either way.

 

I suggested earlier too (I don't mean to be redundant or pushy, but I'm not sure if you saw it), that you may be interested in the writings of N.T. Wright, if you're not already acquainted with him. Particularly his book on biblical authority called 'The Last Word'; it's a small readable volume. You may feel that his approach to Christianity more closely aligns with your own sensibilities, and he's very intelligent and scholarly, and prolific.

 

Anyway,

Peace to you,

Mike

[Javelin]

I truly have concluded that no matter whether it is inerrant or not is beside the point...because we will never know for sure. I say this because I believe where much of the confusion/problems come from is how we read and interpret scripture in the first place. #1 It is apparent to me that most people that read or study scripture do so in a compartmentalized manner. They take a part of it and try to read and study and interpret it all by itself...when all of scripture (O & NT's) goes together and mean something as a whole. Meaning we have to consider all of scripture before any of it is read or interpretted.

We have to ask and answer these types of questions first:

a) What was the overall, basic reason (or reasons) behind the existance of the OT?

What was the reason for creating the NT?

c) If the OT was a precursor to the NT, then is the OT obsolete?

d) What does the NT say that answers the dilemas of the OT?

e) As Christians, are there any concepts/truths in the NT that trumps the ones of the OT?

 

I believe that the OT was God's way of showing us the basics of ~ *Creation, *Do's and Don'ts, *God's capabilities and power *Stories of humanity and wisdom *AND Most of all, to show us that rules do not make us better/righteous. Humans do not respond well to demands and rules. (Notice that right after the 10 Commandments were given, instead of the people having a celebration, they had an orgy and errected an idol) That an imperfect people cannot obey a perfect law. That rules just bring out the worst in us. That as we try and "be good", then all we are doing is focusing on self and it's a vicious cycle anyway...because we would never be perfect enough to earn enough points to inherit the priceless gift of salvation and eternal life. That salvation has little to do with our own accomplishments (as in the OT), but all to do with Jesus' accomplishment on the cross for each and every one of us. That it all has to do with God coming toward us,...instead of us trying and trying to be acceptable to God and following impossible rules from a far off God who made blanket rules for everyone.

 

The NT is the answer to the OT...A picture of God's true desire for us...We are not to try and follow a set of rules anylonger...they just make us self-focused, arrogant when we do have success or feel like failures if we don't, and make behavior the most important thing (as in the OT). NOW LOVE is the focus...meaning that we are to look the totally opposite direction. That we now are to be people focused, not rule focused. In so doing, because "love hurts no one", destructive habits, hate, "unrighteous" behaviors and etc. begin to dissolve because you cannot do both loving and missing the mark at the very same time....oil and water do not mix. In THIS way, love reigns, instead of rules...everyone is taken care of on a personal level. Galatians is great...and of course the example of how Christ lived His life. As well as the other books...

 

The one thing I believe that is most important to remember...is that in the NT, love and grace TRUMP any percieved rules! We now HAVE to see all scripture thru the MAIN reason for Christ and the NT...We are accepted and have a PERSONAL relationship with God by grace, and love is ALL we are abliged to do! It is like we take these, grace and love, and hold them in front of our face and read everything in scripture thru these 2 windows.

 

 

 

The NT was given, written to tell us of Christ who was sent to make things different then the OT for us. Different to the point of being upside-down different! That righteousness doesn't come from how we behave...it comes from God and then we show that love to others which then also benefits us. It is a circle...

 

Since I’m in a theological quandary, at this point in my life, I’m not in a position to express an opinion about anything outside my own biblical beliefs and perceptions. The religious group I associated with for most of my life believed, or at least taught, that every word in scripture was literally true and accurate because God personally placed it there. That kind of thinking invariably leads to rampant legalism and a teaching that justification is obtained by grace thought faith but retained by works. It also leads to some very uncertain, unhappy, and legalistic believers.

 

The evidence, at least in my mind, simply will not support such a conclusion. Religion, justification, and salvation were clear black and white issues as far as I was concerned for most of my adult life. That began unraveling for me about ten years ago. Getting that theological toothpaste back into the tube has proven to be daunting task.

 

I can accept that much of the bible, especially the OT, contains allegories, parables, metaphors, and even myths. Borg, in his book that I referenced in another post, makes a convincing case for that scenario. Personally, I think he relies too much on metaphors as the basis for his textual criticism.

 

In my mind the bible is more than a collection of parables. I can buy into Borg’s premise that truth can exist even if the facts are faulty. I can see a place for biblical literalism and absolute truth too though. In fact I see it as a necessity, at least for me. If Jesus wasn’t who He said He was, and all the recorded miracles were myths, then I don’t see how God fits in the picture.

 

I still working on my theological puzzle. It seems I either have too many pieces, the wrong pieces, or I've lost some important pieces. In any case, the picture isn't clear yet.

[Javelin]

Rivanna I’ll get back to you and Mike. I don’t have time to respond right now. I’ve read both of your post and I’m intrigued by your thoughts. Mike, I am familiar with NT Wright. I have not read the specific book you’ve referenced though, but I’ve got it on my list. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.

[Mike]

Hi Javelin,

 

I'd very quickly like to offer some thoughts on what you said here.

 

Borg dismisses the various biblical references to miracles as myths. However, if God is God and Jesus is who he said he was then I don’t think the referenced miracles can be so easily categorized as hyperbole.

 

Religion and the supernatural are closely linked. Religion without miracles strikes me as leaning too much towards intellectual elitism. If God is God then He is certainly not bound by our earthly laws of physics.

 

I would start not from what we do or do not know, but from what can be known in principle. To me no matter what case a person makes for or against biblical literalism, or historical factuality, one is never going to prove or know for sure about the biblical events. To me even the early Christians did not have this knowledge about the events reported in the bible. Its only verification was in the Spirit, in their experience of the risen Christ, not in a scientific analysis of its historical veracity. Therefore in this sense they did not know 'about' the resurrection, but they knew it as a living reality in their own lives. And that is what the church has hung onto ever since - Christ as a living reality to be known (as opposed to 'known about'), a reality that is often detected in the artful iconography, stained glass, and also literature, presenting a Jesus who rises from the depths. This is a Jesus who is not merely a figure of the past, who then is powerless, but who is a reality in the now, the present moment, in participation in his life, death, and resurrection.

 

This is why I appreciate Borg, because he takes the emphasis off the knowing 'about' the events and directs our focus to knowing, that is, intimacy, with their meaning. He leaves room for miracles and the supernatural, but leaves that up to personal discretion. Myself, I am open to miracles, even to the resurrection, but my focus is not primarily questioning historical facts. Borg is certainly not novel in his communication of these ideas. He is in fact more a communicator than an original thinker. The understanding or perspective he presents is in its essence ancient (in the contemplative tradition), though the packaging is innovative.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

 

I read it this weekend in fact I read it twice. What I got out of it was Borg’s belief that scripture should generally be read and understood in a metaphorical context, with some noted exceptions. Borg is an academic so I wasn’t surprised that he possesses agnostic beliefs and views.

In his book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, Borg identifies himself as a panentheist, which is the belief that the universe is both equal with but also exists in God.

 

 

Borg dismisses the various biblical references to miracles as myths. However, if God is God and Jesus is who he said he was then I don’t think the referenced miracles can be so easily categorized as hyperbole.

 

Religion and the supernatural are closely linked. Religion without miracles strikes me as leaning too much towards intellectual elitism. If God is God then He is certainly not bound by our earthly laws of physics.

 

 

I don't think Borg means they should be dismissed and he holds no grudges against Christians who believe in the miracles. His point is that whether the stories about the miracles are true, there is more to the accounts than just whether or not they're factual. I like how he points out that all Christians agree that the parable of the prodigal son doesn't have to be a literal story to have value to it, but focusing on whether or not the parable of the prodigal son is a real story misses the point of what the parable is about. The parable of the prodigal son is not about whether the story is literally true but what does it mean which I personally think is the most important aspect.

[jenny]

I also agree that it is really not vital whether the stories or a lot of the content is true or not. The parables were just as powerful no matter what. I think that we have to look at truth differently as well. That it can come from anywhere...from around any corner...from anyone because it is a spiritual thing. If it was a concrete thing, then how could it feed us spiritually? Also, The OT was very hung up on do's and don'ts...on the concrete. On the carnal and being punitive. BUT if it was working so well, then why did God give us the NT? THERE HAS to be a big difference in the two and what God expected to accomplish when the NT came into being. So being hung up on what parts of scripture is true can get a person quite stuck I think. IF anything...it is the Spiritual Essence of scripture that is the true part...the part that we come to understand as we are in tune with God by sitting on God's lap, next to the heart and loving as Jesus did. Which are the true spiritual things, aren't they?!

 

Also, the Word without the Spirit can kill. "The Word kills, the Spirit gives life." So it is really not the word that is the culprit...it is the one handling it. I think there are a number of reasons that the conservatives handle the Word in the way they do...and it is quite biblical for a small, few of people to be truely getting it (narrow is the way)! Because the truth of scripture is Spiritually discerned, there will be fewer then we think truly handling it with care.

 

That small few will probably be individuals, over here and over there or in patches...it probably won't be a huge group that will be all living it. It is just TOO EASY to be self-focused and rule-oriented for many to shake that off for the real thing. Have you read, "The Healing of Spiritual Abuse" by Ken Blue? Very good coming from a person about 18-20 yrs ago or so, when things were different. He has some very interesting perspectives to glean from.

 

 

 

In his book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, Borg identifies himself as a panentheist, which is the belief that the universe is both equal with but also exists in God.

 

 

I don't think Borg means they should be dismissed and he holds no grudges against Christians who believe in the miracles. His point is that whether the stories about the miracles are true, there is more to the accounts than just whether or not they're factual. I like how he points out that all Christians agree that the parable of the prodigal son doesn't have to be a literal story to have value to it, but focusing on whether or not the parable of the prodigal son is a real story misses the point of what the parable is about. The parable of the prodigal son is not about whether the story is literally true but what does it mean which I personally think is the most important aspect.

[minsocal]

Pantheism is a concept that could have found its way into the Bible almost as easily as other ancient views. For some, the idea of an immaterial and wholly static God isolated from Creation simply leads to contradictions. In Genesis we find God looking at various stages of Creation and seeing it "was good" after the fact. Later, we find God rather fond of walking in the Garden of Eden ... and so on.

 

With a limited pantheism we get the potential of retaining the image of "walking humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8) without having to deal with the dualisms of material-immaterial, dual substances, mind-body, etc. Current views of pantheism in Progressive Christianity may be due to the line of influence from Spinoza to Whitehead and then to Process Theology. I am on my third read of Process and Reality by Whitehead and find his insights very compelling. Although Whithead inverts many traditional concepts, he does so without loosing a strong relationship to God in his metaphysics.

 

It would take a lot of space to outline Whithead's theories. I will pose this question: How can there be a remote and immutable God that is also capable of Love when love is the language of change, growth, and transformation?

[Javelin]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. My faith is a work in progress as I continue my transition out of fundamentalism and that unique way of thinking. I’m currently focused on the NT section of Borg’s commentary. I haven’t found anything in his thoughts that I strongly disagree with. Several of you have clarified a couple of his perspectives that initially struck me as being agnostic. I have a better handle on his overall perceptions now.

[jenny]

I am not quite sure of your posed question...but I'll say this. I still believe what the bible says, and it makes sense to me anyway, that God is Love. That God doesn't just love...or likes to love...but God is Love. To me a true God would be the antithesis of disconnection/indifference. Meaning that God has at least a desire to be connected to human beings...because love's very nature is to connect. But love is also non-tyrannical...so it doesn't push itself in any sense. However, I am still trying to shake off some of the teachings of the conservative church, and some of the things that are still remaining...but I figure that having been in the CC for so long, some of the teachings are glued to me and will never let me go. One of those teachings is that God is in control of everything and there are no/absolutely no coincidences! I question this, not that I think that God is not capable of taking control, but I think that the nature of life is to make our own decisions and mistakes with God involved only to keep things and people from blowing themselves up, or intervining only at particular times for very specific reasons. Most of my 52 yrs has been difficult...and it is hard for me to believe that an in-control God would allow it to keep going like this. So its either that or our lives are a mix of both God's hand and our own decisions. But then I see children born in extreme poverty and have no chance, and they didn't even have an opportunity to make any decisions. The CC would either attribute these things to the devil, sin or personal "firey trials"...or would avoid talking about anything that would intimidate their faith. Hmmmmmm....

 

 

Pantheism is a concept that could have found its way into the Bible almost as easily as other ancient views. For some, the idea of an immaterial and wholly static God isolated from Creation simply leads to contradictions. In Genesis we find God looking at various stages of Creation and seeing it "was good" after the fact. Later, we find God rather fond of walking in the Garden of Eden ... and so on.

 

With a limited pantheism we get the potential of retaining the image of "walking humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8) without having to deal with the dualisms of material-immaterial, dual substances, mind-body, etc. Current views of pantheism in Progressive Christianity may be due to the line of influence from Spinoza to Whitehead and then to Process Theology. I am on my third read of Process and Reality by Whitehead and find his insights very compelling. Although Whithead inverts many traditional concepts, he does so without loosing a strong relationship to God in his metaphysics.

 

It would take a lot of space to outline Whithead's theories. I will pose this question: How can there be a remote and immutable God that is also capable of Love when love is the language of change, growth, and transformation?

[Mike]

This topic has stirred my interested a bit in the question of the bible and inspiration. N.T. Wright, in his book The Last Word, argues that the 'scriptural authority' is shorthand for God's authority working through scripture. He then suggests a more narrative-based approach to the bible, in which the function of the bible, or how God is using the bible, is to engage people in this story by becoming informed by it and even participating personally in it. God's word or communication is then, as I understand him, something that is delegated through scripture. Wright has presuppositions I do not share, so I don't follow him everywhere he goes. Still I think it is a valuable perspective or middle-way approach.

 

Then I dug out a book I hadn't read before called 'Opening the Bible' by Thomas Merton, which is an introductory essay on the bible, a very small volume less than 100 pages and pamphlet in size, so as a full-size book it would probably be no more than 30 pages. I think it's a really great little book that comes from a modern (mid-60s) contemplative Christian view. He touches upon some of themes that Wright discusses too but offers a much different emphasis in terms of what the biblical narrative and the Christian interpretation of it means from perhaps a more ontological and mystical point of view.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[jenny]

Mike, Is it hard to get a copy of the little book you were referring to? Where might I find it? This morning on my way to work I was even thinking about this...as it came up on another site I am regular at going to...about the bible being inherant. Well, even tho I used to pretty much take peoples word about it and the things they said about it made some sense at the time, I believe now that because the bible was written by fairly ordinary people...meaning they were not perfect or divine...that the bible cannot be inherant. That it is accurate quite enough to inspire and advise and lead, but that we have to take into account that people like us passed it on. Now I also realize that just like in many cultures, where father told son and then on and on the story went down the line that many passed-on stories were very well preserved this way. So it is quite possible for a large portion of what the writers meant in scripture is intact. All-in-all, I think the essence of what God wanted us to know is there...what do you think?

This topic has stirred my interested a bit in the question of the bible and inspiration. N.T. Wright, in his book The Last Word, argues that the 'scriptural authority' is shorthand for God's authority working through scripture. He then suggests a more narrative-based approach to the bible, in which the function of the bible, or how God is using the bible, is to engage people in this story by becoming informed by it and even participating personally in it. God's word or communication is then, as I understand him, something that is delegated through scripture. Wright has presuppositions I do not share, so I don't follow him everywhere he goes. Still I think it is a valuable perspective or middle-way approach.

 

Then I dug out a book I hadn't read before called 'Opening the Bible' by Thomas Merton, which is an introductory essay on the bible, a very small volume less than 100 pages and pamphlet in size, so as a full-size book it would probably be no more than 30 pages. I think it's a really great little book that comes from a modern (mid-60s) contemplative Christian view. He touches upon some of themes that Wright discusses too but offers a much different emphasis in terms of what the biblical narrative and the Christian interpretation of it means from perhaps a more ontological and mystical point of view.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[minsocal]

I am not quite sure of your posed question...but I'll say this. I still believe what the bible says, and it makes sense to me anyway, that God is Love. That God doesn't just love...or likes to love...but God is Love. To me a true God would be the antithesis of disconnection/indifference. Meaning that God has at least a desire to be connected to human beings...because love's very nature is to connect. But love is also non-tyrannical...so it doesn't push itself in any sense. However, I am still trying to shake off some of the teachings of the conservative church, and some of the things that are still remaining...but I figure that having been in the CC for so long, some of the teachings are glued to me and will never let me go. One of those teachings is that God is in control of everything and there are no/absolutely no coincidences! I question this, not that I think that God is not capable of taking control, but I think that the nature of life is to make our own decisions and mistakes with God involved only to keep things and people from blowing themselves up, or intervining only at particular times for very specific reasons. Most of my 52 yrs has been difficult...and it is hard for me to believe that an in-control God would allow it to keep going like this. So its either that or our lives are a mix of both God's hand and our own decisions. But then I see children born in extreme poverty and have no chance, and they didn't even have an opportunity to make any decisions. The CC would either attribute these things to the devil, sin or personal "firey trials"...or would avoid talking about anything that would intimidate their faith. Hmmmmmm....

 

Thank you for your comments. You have captured what Whitehead calls the "consequent nature of God" very well. Sometimes our spiritual journeys overlap those of others and we find that we are not so alone anyhow.

[Mike]

Mike, Is it hard to get a copy of the little book you were referring to? Where might I find it? This morning on my way to work I was even thinking about this...as it came up on another site I am regular at going to...about the bible being inherant. Well, even tho I used to pretty much take peoples word about it and the things they said about it made some sense at the time, I believe now that because the bible was written by fairly ordinary people...meaning they were not perfect or divine...that the bible cannot be inherant. That it is accurate quite enough to inspire and advise and lead, but that we have to take into account that people like us passed it on. Now I also realize that just like in many cultures, where father told son and then on and on the story went down the line that many passed-on stories were very well preserved this way. So it is quite possible for a large portion of what the writers meant in scripture is intact. All-in-all, I think the essence of what God wanted us to know is there...what do you think?

 

Hi Jenny,

 

Merton's book is available on Amazon for 10 dollars, or less if bought used from one of their third-party sellers. The late Fr. Merton's appeal to me in this book is no doubt greater because I was already familiar with him and his ideas. And I find Christianity most personally meaningful to me in the contemplative/mystical tradition.

 

Merton's focus in his writings is largely centered upon personal identity, who and what we truly are ontologically or ultimately, in our inmost self. And in this book he never really defines God except, one might say, as an ineffable Presence springing from the depths of reality. His take on the bible and its function and meaning are drawn from how it transforms one's sense of identity. He says 'the basic claim made by the Bible for the word of God is not so much that it is to be blindly accepted because of God's authority, but that it is recognized by its transforming and liberating power.' He also says

 

The word of God is now not only event but person, and the entire meaning and content of the Bible is to be found, say the Apostles, not in the message about Christ but in an encounter with Christ, who is at once person and word of God and who lives as the Risen Lord. The fulness of the Bible is, then (for Christians), the personal encounter with Christ Jesus in which one recognizes him as "the one who is sent"...He contains in himself all the questions and all the answers, all the hope and all the meanings, all the problems and all the solutions. To become utterly committed to this person and to share in the event which is his coming, his death, and his resurrection is to find the meaning of existence, not by figuring it out but by living it as he did.

 

One way to look at this is that the scripture's role cannot be divorced from its role within and identification with the church, and the way that the Spirit has used and can use it in the community. If the Spirit of Christ can be encountered in the liberating gospel of a new creation, then the scripture is efficacious, in this understanding.

 

If one is concerned about the question of preservation of the actual texts, I have little doubt that the books we have now are more or less reliably close to the ones that first appeared (at least in their finished forms as scripture). But the textual dependability gives way to greater factors. We don't actually know who wrote the books we have, or how many people were involved in their editing and such. On top of this we must also recognize that the biblical books, apart from any textual considerations, have a function and meaning greatly interpreted and reshaped through tradition. Our biblical canon tells its own story and has its own meaning apart from any individual book; Genesis to Revelation collectively tell a Christian story of creation, fall, re-creation. So the question is not so much on textual disputations, to me, as it is on the role which the scripture plays in bringing people into the story of Christ. If it is Christ, and his 'story' or life, that is the Word or Wisdom of God, then that is the scripture's function in the church and the way in which it channels God's authority - to direct people to becoming one body in Christ. As in Ephesians 4 - putting away an old identity rooted in delusion and deceit and coming in contact with the our inmost authentic self, that is, with the 'life of God' at the heart of reality.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

If one is concerned about the question of preservation of the actual texts, I have little doubt that the books we have now are more or less reliably close to the ones that first appeared (at least in their finished forms as scripture). But the textual dependability gives way to greater factors. We don't actually know who wrote the books we have, or how many people were involved in their editing and such. On top of this we must also recognize that the biblical books, apart from any textual considerations, have a function and meaning greatly interpreted and reshaped through tradition.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

I'm still a newbie to biblical scholarship, but from what I've read on the subject of textual manuscripts, scholars are still counting the alterations in the manuscripts and there's more changes in the manuscripts than there are words in the NT. Most of the changes are insignificant errors like typos and grammar errors and that sort of thing, but there are some instances where a scribe rewrote the words of Jesus and rewrote the words in a way where it gives Jesus a completely different personality. Like there was one instance in a passage of Mark's gospel where Jesus was healing someone and most manuscripts and English translations translate it so that it says Jesus felt compassion when he saw the sick man, but some manuscripts say Jesus became angry. While it's not a major change to theology, it does give a slightly different impression of Jesus' personality. Other changes are more major like how the last half of Mark chapter 16 is missing in the earliest manuscripts of Mark and the last chapter of John is also missing. There are other passages that were added in later like the story of Jesus and the adulteress woman and verses that were added in 1 John to add support to the Trinity doctrine, but without the original manuscripts, we might never know how many changes were made over the years. For anyone interested in the preservation of the NT manuscripts, a really good book I would recommend is Bart D Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Also, the earliest manuscript of the bible, the Codex Sinaiticus is available in English online: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[rivanna]

Mike said Wright suggests a more narrative-based approach to the bible, in which the function …is to engage people in this story by participating personally in it. and quoting Merton - the entire meaning and content of the Bible is to be found not in the message about Christ, but in a personal encounter with Christ.

 

These ideas ring true for me. It relates to why Jesus never wrote his teachings down. The history, narratives, poems and letters were preserved because they generated an emotional/spiritual response that was individual but also tended to unify the group. Im not a bible scholar and havent studied original texts/ changes. To me it seems that trying to make a sharp distinction between God-given authority and the writing of mere mortals, is to deny one of the bibles essential messages -- that we are made in Gods image, His/Her children, we share in Gods creative and compassionate nature and have the capacity to be at one with God (in our better moments at least). Ultimately, to have faith in God is to have faith in ourselves.

 

The past few days I've read some chapters I hadnt looked at in years Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. They each made a powerful impression on me partly for the themes of the later prophets, and partly for the sheer poetry and visual images. Maybe it would help to focus on particular parts of the bible.

[Mike]

I'm still a newbie to biblical scholarship, but from what I've read on the subject of textual manuscripts, scholars are still counting the alterations in the manuscripts and there's more changes in the manuscripts than there are words in the NT. Most of the changes are insignificant errors like typos and grammar errors and that sort of thing, but there are some instances where a scribe rewrote the words of Jesus and rewrote the words in a way where it gives Jesus a completely different personality. Like there was one instance in a passage of Mark's gospel where Jesus was healing someone and most manuscripts and English translations translate it so that it says Jesus felt compassion when he saw the sick man, but some manuscripts say Jesus became angry. While it's not a major change to theology, it does give a slightly different impression of Jesus' personality. Other changes are more major like how the last half of Mark chapter 16 is missing in the earliest manuscripts of Mark and the last chapter of John is also missing. There are other passages that were added in later like the story of Jesus and the adulteress woman and verses that were added in 1 John to add support to the Trinity doctrine, but without the original manuscripts, we might never know how many changes were made over the years. For anyone interested in the preservation of the NT manuscripts, a really good book I would recommend is Bart D Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Also, the earliest manuscript of the bible, the Codex Sinaiticus is available in English online: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

 

It seems to me that there is enough confidence in the books themselves for scholars to debate the meaning and intent of the original authors, whether the author of Mark or Paul's authentic epistles. I'm a newbie in scholarship too - a situation I predict to be permanent since my interest in all the particulars of textual criticism is simply not that deep. But the impression I have gotten from various sources is that in the New Testament, though there are many variations, the vast majority of them are dismissible, as you have noted. I usually encounter a number like 5% of the variations are substantial, which in itself is a possibly disturbing number for those who may be overtly concerned with the literal word. I'm not, as the details of this or that have little effect on me. I am more interested in theory, in teaching, and in immediate practice. Plus there is so much more to scripture, or for that matter any sacred text, than textual-critical considerations. One can easily get lost in endless details. The devil is in the details, right? And scripture itself says not to give the devil a foothold

 

I'm aware that some people believe that the New Testament was radically and drastically edited and changed, consciously and almost conspiratorially. But I'm not sure if there is much positive evidence to justify this conclusion. Whether one accepts that theory may depend more on one's presuppositions about history than about the texts themselves. I may be wrong however, I'm talking about things I have absolutely no expertise in. I do not entirely discount the possibility, but then again, it is not so important to me anyway. Of course this all applies to the New Testament; the Hebrew bible is something else entirely.

 

Peace to you,

Mike