Posted on 11/04/2007 10:59:08 AM PST by real saxophonist
Writers on biblical literalism should consider implications
Guest Commentary
November 4, 2007
On both the Faith and Opinion pages over the past several months, self-described fundamentalists/evangelicals have written letters and articles belittling those who don't interpret the Bible literally.
Such literalists should know that even the devil can quote scripture (Matthew 4:5-6; Luke 4:9-11). Whether literalist or not, any discussion of the biblical material involves interpretation.
Originally, Scripture was circulated orally and even those with the best memories made mistakes in transmission. Eventually, when scribes wrote down verses, they, too, made errors and corrections. Male humans, even inspired ones, were not perfect or without error in transmitting what they heard and believed to be important. Furthermore, the Bible didn't just drop down from heaven with its 66 books intact. Scholars had to piece together scrolls and fragments of writings over a period of time. In fact, it took some 811 years before assembling what we today call the Bible. The Law of Moses, the first five books of Hebrew scripture, was canonized around 444 BCE. The 27 books we call the canon of the New Testament or Christian Scripture weren't mentioned as such until 367 CE by Bishop Athanasius.
There is more to the story. Jesus died in 30 CE but the first writing we have in the New Testament didn't occur until 20 years later when Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians in 50 CE. And another 20 years passed until Mark wrote the first gospel in 70 CE. It's no wonder, then, that the various authors of letters and gospels in the New Testament differ in their accounts of what Jesus said and did. And these accounts were affected by the intended audience, the historical or regional context, the memory of the writer, and his theological interpretation and biases. Ask yourself if you can recall perfectly, without a single error, what a prominent individual said and did on a daily basis 20 or 40 years ago. Would your words be literally or only approximately true?
In addition, it must be mentioned that the Bible contains various forms of literary expression. It's more like reading a newspaper than a novel by a single author, wherein the language varies as we move from the sports section to the comics to the fashion to the editorial pages. So in the Bible we find stories, poetry, history, non-factual "history," genealogies, parables, and apocalyptic literature. Because of the breadth of expression in these several forms of writing, it simply isn't possible to interpret every word literally. Words are used as metaphors, similes, allegories, archtypes, figurative, and symbolic expressions.
These various kinds of writings and forms of word usage don't necessarily invalidate truth claims or the meaningfulness of the Bible, but they certainly call into question interpretations called "literal." World renowned author and Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan cites the need to understand the metaphorical use of language in the Bible when he remarks humorously, "Just because John's gospel describes Jesus as the Lamb of God, doesn't mean we gather at Christmas time and sing 'Mary had a little lamb!' "
And biblical scholar Marcus Borg asks, "Do snakes ever talk?," referring, of course, to the talking snake in Genesis 3. To insist on a literal interpretation of these verses makes a mockery of universal human knowledge and experience and actually misinterprets the real meaning of both the humanity of Jesus (he wasn't a lamb!) and the overall import of Genesis 3.
Bibliolatry is worship of the Bible. The Christian life isn't about worshiping words in the Bible. Rather, it seems to me it's about entering into a relationship with that to which the Bible and the Christian tradition point, namely, love of God, neighbor, and self. Jesus said this is the greatest and first commandment that summarizes or embodies all the others. Talk about fundamentals!
The Rev. Steve Brown is pastor at Family of Christ Presbyterian Church in Greeley.
He doesn't say the Bible is a "living" document and he doesn't imply disharmony within the Bible.
I don't see any factual error.
Your shot.
He denies that Elohim wrote the Word and keeps His Word.
Which is why I asked for opinions of those more studied in such subjects than I.
This is standard Protestant hermeneutics. Dogmatic churches don’t have a problem.
The good reverend conflates taking the Bible "literaly" with taking the Bible "seriously." Of which he does neither.
No sale.
Jesus is a jokester...He didn’t mean anything He said...
What's a "More Light" Church?
Opening our church to everyone
After a series of discussions and congregational meetings, our congregation almost unanimously voted to become a "More Light" Presbyterian Church on April 6, 1997. This is a voluntary decision to align ourselves with other "More Light" Presbyterian Churches who value the inclusion of all people into membership and office within the Presbyterian Church (USA), regardless of sexual orientation.
A "More Light Church" seeks to follow the risen Christ, and to make the Church a true community of hospitality. We believe in the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
For additional information, please go to the following website:
http://www.mlp.org/
Googling “More Light Presbyterian” was interesting. Why did they think that was necessary? Wouldn’t the Presbyterian USA mean the same thing?
Me too.
I consciously read BCE as 'Before (the) Christian Era' and CE as (the) 'Christian Era'.
But I always think "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" (“in the year of our Lord”)
Romans 1:20-22
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Where do you disagree with him?
The Rev. Steve Brown is pastor at Family of Christ Presbyterian Church in Greeley.
I'm guessing PCUSA.
And another 20 years passed until Mark wrote the first gospel in 70 CE.
And we know this...how?
n addition, it must be mentioned that the Bible contains various forms of literary expression. It's more like reading a newspaper than a novel by a single author, wherein the language varies as we move from the sports section to the comics to the fashion to the editorial pages. So in the Bible we find stories, poetry, history, non-factual "history," genealogies, parables, and apocalyptic literature.
Well and good, up until he gets to the "non-factual 'history'" part. Nobody (except possibly the unhinged fringe of dispensationalism) thinks that it should all be read like an engineering specification.
These various kinds of writings and forms of word usage don't necessarily invalidate truth claims or the meaningfulness of the Bible, but they certainly call into question interpretations called "literal.
Vern Poythress has a good discussion of "Literal Interpretation" here.
1 Corinthians 2:13-15
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[a] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
But going to the More Light Presbyterians site gave me a (needed) rude awakening.
A couple of minutes later I found further enlightenment at the Relifious Archives Network.
OY VEY!!
I learned from this "reprint in More Light Update, February 1987"
that "David Bailey Sindt (1940-1986), founder of the major Presbyterian lesbian and gay organization" was a internationally famous gay horticulturist before he got his Masters of Divinty.
Thank you for the heads up.
.. .....crawling back under my rock,
skeptoid
The first and main objection which I have is that he doesn't affirm that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If he did that, then I would know he was a Christian. His statement that because of the time between the death of Jesus (note: no reference to the Resurrection) and the writing of the New Testament texts, the author's would have suffered from memory lapses.
It's no wonder, then, that the various authors of letters and gospels in the New Testament differ in their accounts of what Jesus said and did.
This is very problematic. Definitely getting into "Jesus Seminar" turf here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.