Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

TGC: Making Sense of Scriptures "Inconsistency"


Zguy28

Recommended Posts

Making Sense of Scripture’s “Inconsistency”
July 9, 2012

 

By Tim Keller

 

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency

 

This is a charge that gets thrown around quite often, especially lately with the SCOTUS decision and on here.
 

 

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” Most often I hear, “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?”

 

I don’t expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is that I've had a few Bible teachers in my life tell me the exact opposite especially in terms of tattoos and stuff like that

Inconsistency within the religion itself is the issue...or maybe I just got taught by a bunch of idiots

Herein lies the problem. With multi-denominationalism combined with American individualism everyone becomes their own Pope...their own arbiter of truth. People hate when I tell them that their interpretation of a passage is not legitimate because the text cannot mean today, what it didn't mean when it was written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herein lies the problem. With multi-denominationalism combined with American individualism everyone becomes their own Pope...their own arbiter of truth. People hate when I tell them that their interpretation of a passage is not legitimate because the text cannot mean today, what it didn't mean when it was written.

Who gets to decide what it means?

Lots of room for interpretation. I mean, my dad would speak very absolutely in ways i don't agree with, and would send most of es into rage (mock and real).

He's convinced that his truth is for real. And he has plenty of bible scholars to back him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gets to decide what it means?

Lots of room for interpretation. I mean, my dad would speak very absolutely in ways i don't agree with, and would send most of es into rage (mock and real).

He's convinced that his truth is for real. And he has plenty of bible scholars to back him.

Who gets to decide?

That's the rub. This is one place where I look to the authorities, i.e. the scholars who are in the field of study. And specifically those who specialize in the author, time period, socio-historic environment for the book/text in question.

 

There is marginal room for interpretation, less than you'd think. Too often scripture gets treated like abstract art and it isn't. There are only so many meanings that a passage/text can have and from that limited set only so many implications. This is why we have rivers of thought in theology that follow fairly predictable paths along which we can easily place various theologians.

 

What is annoying is when someone pulls out a text and proclaims a meaning of the passage that simply cannot be supported by the texts themselves, i.e. reincarnation (there is ZERO credible evidence in ANY of the areas of study that lend toward reincarnation in First Century-prior Judeo-Christian thought and tradition. Yet, when it is trotted out and soundly refuted then the person almost predictably proclaims "well that's what it means to me!"

 

So yes, there is flexibility. But the flexibility is not absolute in all places at all times, lest we make an absurdity out of the the texts themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herein lies the problem. With multi-denominationalism combined with American individualism everyone becomes their own Pope...their own arbiter of truth. People hate when I tell them that their interpretation of a passage is not legitimate because the text cannot mean today, what it didn't mean when it was written.

The author does determine the meaning of the text. That's what I was taught in hermeneutics 101 at Southeastern Baptist also.

 

The complement to this is that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

 

While the meaning is derived from the author, not the reader, their is always application to our lives.

I'll just leave this here....

 

An Incredible Interactive Chart of Biblical Contradictions

 

 

Why so angry? ;)

 

All kidding aside, while I may not agree with a strict literalist's approach to bible interpretation like atheists, that is a very cool visual piece of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author does determine the meaning of the text. That's what I was taught in hermeneutics 101 at Southeastern Baptist also.

 

The complement to this is that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

 

While the meaning is derived from the author, not the reader, their is always application to our lives

Exactly, author determines meaning. The problem is that there exists a line of thought called "Reader Response" which crudely affirms that the reader determines meaning, which is asinine.

As for the "inspiration of scripture" well too many times Fundamentalists take the approach that scripture was dictated to the authors rather than God inspiring the authors to write the truth from their own minds.

 

It's funny though because the atheists and the "Bible is full of contradiction" people more often than not end up attacking the Fundamentalist hermeneutic and interpretation of scripture, and when confronted with a more mainstream hermeneutic they're left disarmed because all of their objections are based on the Fundamentalist approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "inspiration of scripture" well too many times Fundamentalists take the approach that scripture was dictated to the authors rather than God inspiring the authors to write the truth from their own minds.

What's the difference really? Does it open it up for accepting / admitting mistakes / errors / wrongs?

And to all, my questions on this topic will all be very genuine and not the typical nerve jabbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference really? Does it open it up for accepting / admitting mistakes / errors / wrongs?

And to all, my questions on this topic will all be very genuine and not the typical nerve jabbers.

The difference is this:

Dictation:

God: "Paul, write this exactly."

Paul: "Ok, God go..."

 

Inspiration:

God: "Deliver to my people the truths I have revealed in your life and heart."

Paul: "Ok, do you mind if I tell them about my time as a persecutor?"

God: "If you think that will help."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not angry. And I'm not exactly an atheist or an absolute believer. I accept that there may well be a higher power that set the universe in motion and I want to believe that this god provied for us a guide for us to live by so that we can meet him at the end of this life's journey.

What I have no faith in is mankind's ability to understand gods message and put it all down on paper with 100% accuracy. If you are going to believe in divine inspiration why not believe any number of contemporary preachers who claim God speaks to them with all kinds of conflicting messages?

Questions remain, like why deliver the message to one small group and tell the rest of mankind that they are out of luck if they live in a jungle and have never heard of Christ or the bible. Seems like a crappy thing to do for a god. Since the beginning of the human race, how many millions of souls have gone to hell because God never gave them a chance?

If I beleive in anything, it is the teaching of Jesus who even if he was not actually the son of God (he called himself the son of man) provided us with the best guide to being good humans that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is this:

Dictation:

God: "Paul, write this exactly."

Paul: "Ok, God go..."

Inspiration:

God: "Deliver to my people the truths I have revealed in your life and heart."

Paul: "Ok, do you mind if I tell them about my time as a persecutor?"

God: "If you think that will help."

But Pauls past is so crucial to the story i don't think anyone could tell the story without including it. It's the ultimate conversion / redemption story.

That's not really what I'm getting at. I know the difference in the process...I'm talking about what is the difference in the meaning now?

If it's dictation or inspiration, how does that affect interpretation? Does inspiration allow us to say paul, or Matthew, or any of the NT authors could've written things that weren't the will of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one grasps what the Bible is about as a whole, you find that it tells one continuous story. Many who attack the Bible do so ignorantly. God's Word is for God's people. It's not meant for unbelievers. Without your heart and mind being transformed by the Holy Spirit, you WILL find no use for it. Here's more food for thought on the "inconsistency" issue: http://crossexamined.org/cherry-picking-the-bible-are-christians-expected-to-follow-the-levitical-laws/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many who attack the Bible do so ignorantly. God's Word is for God's people. It's not meant for unbelievers.

 

No offense, but you can say that about any group of followers who believe without question.

 

Be it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

 

or:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

And if you were a Christian, it's not meant to be exclusionary to "god's people".  But stuff like this makes these threads great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one grasps what the Bible is about as a whole, you find that it tells one continuous story. Many who attack the Bible do so ignorantly. God's Word is for God's people. It's not meant for unbelievers. Without your heart and mind being transformed by the Holy Spirit, you WILL find no use for it. Here's more food for thought on the "inconsistency" issue: http://crossexamined.org/cherry-picking-the-bible-are-christians-expected-to-follow-the-levitical-laws/

That's an extremely exclusionary thing to say.

 

I'm not christian but I've certainly read the bible and found good lessons and parables in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an extremely exclusionary thing to say.

 

I'm not christian but I've certainly read the bible and found good lessons and parables in it.

"inclusion" is a fantasy. Exclusion is reality. Even the "includers" exclude the exclusionists by necessity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but you can say that about any group of followers who believe without question.

 

Be it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

 

or:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

 

Things can be comparable or even the exact same on some levels, but that does not make them equals.

 

And if you were a Christian, it's not meant to be exclusionary to "god's people".  But stuff like this makes these threads great.

 

That's mighty judgmental of a man's faith, especially from a self-proclaimed apostate. The bible is God's word to the nations no doubt, and I don't think that's what he meant. What he meant, I hope, is what the bible itself says, that it can't be fully understood by those who are what it calls "spiritually dead" AKA without the Spirit of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not angry. And I'm not exactly an atheist or an absolute believer. I accept that there may well be a higher power that set the universe in motion and I want to believe that this god provied for us a guide for us to live by so that we can meet him at the end of this life's journey.

 

 

I was just joking about "angry". :) So you are a deist at best, or a hopeful agnostic. What if that guide was His Son Jesus and the bible?

 

Mike, I know from your posts that you are a seeker of truth. Wouldn't you be disappointed if I knew the truth and hid it from you and everyone else?

 

If you are interested in truth, I suggest a book to you called "Reinventing Jesus". It makes a positive case for Christianity. Even if you give it a skeptical reading, it will be worth your time I think.

What I have no faith in is mankind's ability to understand gods message and put it all down on paper with 100% accuracy. If you are going to believe in divine inspiration why not believe any number of contemporary preachers who claim God speaks to them with all kinds of conflicting messages?

 

 

Then you agree with the bible. Left to his own discernment, man is unable to understand God's message. As to preachers, well, that could be a long discussion about Scripture canon, revelation, and apostles etc. I can point you at some good resources if you want.

 

Questions remain, like why deliver the message to one small group and tell the rest of mankind that they are out of luck if they live in a jungle and have never heard of Christ or the bible. Seems like a crappy thing to do for a god. Since the beginning of the human race, how many millions of souls have gone to hell because God never gave them a chance?

 

Why indeed. I wouldn't exactly call Christianity a small group, or Israel. The early church may have been small, but it didn't stay that way. If people have gone to Hell, it was based on their own sins and conscience. God is a just god. We all stand before Him someday and the judgment will be just. Nobody will go to Hell unjustly.

 

If I beleive in anything, it is the teaching of Jesus who even if he was not actually the son of God (he called himself the son of man) provided us with the best guide to being good humans that I know of.

 

Do you know why he called himself "Son of Man"?

 

Not only does it reflect Jesus' full humanity (just as Son of God reflects his full divinity), but it also is an allusion he used in reference to the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in the Old Testament.

 

13 “I saw in the night visions,

and behold, with the clouds of heaven

there came one like a son of man,

and he came to the Ancient of Days

and was presented before him.

14  And to him was given dominion

and glory and a kingdom,

that all peoples, nations, and languages

should serve him;

his dominion is an everlasting dominion,

which shall not pass away,

and his kingdom one

that shall not be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...