A frequent question about the Bible, books such as Genesis and Exodus in particular, is whether they aren't just mythology; tale tails to explain a distant past that no one has experienced.
There have been historical studies done of the Bible, and it certainly has history in it that has been verified. That still doesn't allow one to logically conclude that it is all true.
Like historical novels, why can't clever men record history but also introduce fictional characters? In this case, God, the devil, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.
Are there also fictional places, such as Sodom and Gomorrah?
Can men discern the truth about the Bible, separate fact from fiction, history from fantasy? Should men either accept it all, or reject it all?
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is a very good question. I've heard the slippery slope argument- that if you don't believe it all, then you are playing God- picking what you believe and don't.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that the Bible was written for mainly a spiritual purpose- so to not "believe" something happened literally as the Bible says it did doesn't necessarily mean that you are rejecting it. You are just accepting that some things are beyond our comprehension.
But- that still leaves the question of- what should we believe? And even if we believe it, what should we take as "truth".
I tend to have a problem with accepting something on faith and calling it a "truth"- or saying that I think something is "the truth". Without fully understanding something and being able to "prove" it scientifically, there isn't much that we really can call "truth" in my view. Of course, then you get into the argument- what can we prove? If we are in a "Matrix"-type environment, then our perceptions are our reality and nothing we perceive is truth.
But, at some point we have to assume some things- we can't sit around and try to figure out the paradox of knowledge of existence. I personally feel the need to assume a few things: that we are all here for a purpose- that the Universe is not a purposeless entity. I have to assume that my perceptions are real in "my dimension". In other words, my perceptions may be very different than what is "really" happening as viewed from God's perspective. Sort of like throwing a ball inside a speeding car. The flight of the ball will look different to the person in the car versus the person on the side of the road.
Getting into what to assume as far as religion goes- that's a harder one (my definition of religion in this context has to do with one's belief on how the Universe started, what started it, what will happen when I die, my relationship with the Creator, what things are important while I am alive, etc.).
I could assume it is exactly as it says in the Bible. I could assume it is much more complicated and only a sliver of what it really is like is in the Bible. I could assume that nothing in the Bible is real. Lately I have been thinking that the Bible is a good start for me- but that it might not be enough. Since God seems to have given me many more things than just the Bible to learn from, maybe it is "necessary, but not sufficient"- to coin a philosophical phrase I've learned recently.
In other words, to get closer to "the truth" it is necessary to use the Bible- but you also have to use other things as well (other religious texts, logic, science, history, experience, etc.).
So, maybe the Bible has authority on a certain sliver of "the truth"- and for that "sliver" it has the ultimate authority- it is "the truth". But, if it is not sufficient- then it isn't the end of our journey in search of the truth. Jesus' challenge to us would seem to be to look past the scriptures and view them in the context of where they fit into the universe. That's what he seemed to be saying to the Sadducees.
Does the Bible have authority? Is it the actual word of God? The more I study the more I believe the answer is yes. It amazes me that a collection of 66 books written over the course several thousand years by at least 66 different authors all maintain the same theme. God's characteristics and His teachings do not change. I think a little more and a little more is revealed as time goes on. Then, additional proof for me to its authority is that EVERY single story that is told is as relevant now as it was then. The fact that this text can stand the test of time and still speak to us, points to God.
ReplyDeleteYou speak of dimensions and time in your comment. God has no limits He is everywhere at all times. Only He could know what would be relevant and only He could direct the authors to capture in writing what they captured.
It also seems that when we set out to disprove something in the Bible, we only find the archeological proof that it did happen, did exist.
I'm personally a little more skeptical about "common themes" being "proof". All of the James Bond novels seem to contain the same themes- and that doesn't make them any more non-fictional than if they were inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteRelevance seems personal (to me), in other words, the New Testament may seem relevant to some, while others may find the entire Bible relevant. I personally see many instances of the Old Testament as not being relevant today- and that is okay as I believe Jesus established a new doctrine. But, others would disagree with me. Are they wrong? I think so- but that doesn't sound too "factual" to me- just because that is my interpretation.
I, personally, don't see that relevance over time would naturally lead to God. It might- but that's a little hard for me to follow, personally (not saying you are wrong, just not sure if that is something people would universally agree on).
The God being omnipresent comment is interesting. Usually when we try to follow universal absolutes like that they don't always mesh with a logical understanding of their doctrine. So- if He is capable of anything- is it possible that He didn't have anything to do with some of the books of the Bible- but that that doesn't make Him or His message any less relevant? Or are we saying it "has to be that way and cannot be any other way?" That seems to be setting limits to God- and saying that we understand everything about Him.
And as for finding proof- that seems to go against faith for me. If we can prove it all, why do we need faith (assuming we are able to keep proving more things, etc.)?
I guess I'm trying to come at all this from the standpoint of someone who doesn't accept the Bible as factual. It is very easy to talk to a Believer and say "such and such is a fact- because the Bible says so". But, much harder would be to try and convince someone by using the underlying principles and the logic behind them. Simply saying that a common theme, relevance over time, and continuing archeological proof proves there is a God wouldn't convince many, I'm afraid- and I'm not sure it should if we are being critical thinkers.
RC, first off, thanks for the site. This is my first visit, and I'm always happy to find a site where discussion and/or discourse can occur without personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteAs one who has also recently had the IN discussion in school, I would whole-heartedly agree with you in your recent self-reflection that the Bible is not enough. However, I don't think "enough" will come from history, geology, or any other intellectual function. The truth is to be found in YOUR HEART. God is not about religion; He's about relationship. I'm a fairly new believer, but what I've found, no post-modernisitic, naturalistic intellectualist could ever take away. I've spent much of my time trying to "defend" faith from the high-minded elite and what I'm realizing more and more is that that's not the answer. The intellectual elite won't listen because to cede that the Bible is true is to cede the "power capital" they have over those who are not as intellectually blessed. The truth is found in your heart, in your relationship with your Creator. The Bible is provided to allow His church to speak to each other, to coach each other, to build each other up, in a common language. Thus, I choose to believe that God has given us His Word as He wants us to have it - I don't understand it all (see Leviticus, Revelation, many prophets), I don't like it all (most of the Old Testament), but I'm buying it all because I have a relationship with the One who produced it. And if I'm wrong, if Genesis is meant to be an allegory and the earth really is 4 billion years old, if a fossil record with three-legged cows and winged pigs and all the other multitude of dead things we should be finding if we came from the primordial ooze appear, then I'll say "oops, missed that" and continue to worship. Because the truth of my God is found in my relationship with Him...
I look forward to future visits. Take care...
That's an interesting point- "your heart". I probably neglected talking about "the soul"- but I assume that is what you are talking about, and, if so, a very important one. There probably is a connection (if you are a Believer you believe there is one from the Bible) between our souls and God (Creator, Universe, power, whatever). Can't prove it, but I definitely think there is a reason and a difference between us and other life on this planet. We're the only ones that I know of who can ask "why" questions (and I'd argue "how" too, but that's another subject).
ReplyDeleteConscience might be a part of this "soul" or "heart"- as you put it. Bottom line is that there does seem to be something there, to me. And there are times when I am pondering something and a little voice inside tells me "ahem- you know the answer". That "force" seems to drive me to do a little more, pick up that peice of trash even though it wasn't mine, not be satisfied with a shallow knowledge, and to seek self-improvement. I'd like to think that is the relationship that you speak of- and that I can gain knowledge through that venue too- I think that is a reasonable point.
Where I might differ with you is the nature of the soul (or "heart"). I think the soul may be connected to the "intellectual function"- or the intellect. In otherwords, we like to separate things and classify them as different and wholly one thing- but I think my intellect is influenced by my soul and vice versa. I think that is probably for a reason: the universe was God's creation (from my viewpoint, although I don't understand exactly how that happened) and thus we shouldn't discount things that come out of it (intellect, science, measurements, data, etc.). On the other hand, we also have to be cognizant that from our vantage point we could be missing out on a lot of fundamental knowledge that causes us to be unable to come to any reasonable, final, conclusions about a lot of things.
As for Genesis- I don't discount it, I just leave it open to the possibility that God may have both created the world in "6 days" AND over a period of billions of years. If I don't believe that that is a possibility, then I'd have to conclude that God is not omnipotent- He would be bounded by an English and literal translation of the Bible and our current understanding of mathematics.
But- you have a great point about the truth being the relationship. And I think that is a key that I am still trying to understand fully- the important part is the relationship.
Thanks and welcome! You've given me some more things to ponder.
I am in agreement with the points you made about the connection b/w intellect and our heart/soul and about time. There's no doubt that God gave us brains in order for us to use them. I have no doubt that He wants us to be curious about our world, to explore it and to attempt, in our finite minds, to understand the mysteries. But here's where I think the "overly intellectual" get lost: He wants us to do it within the framework of Him. I picture a PowerPoint slide with you and me and everything that we can do and learn and affect inside a bubble... and then surrounding that bubble is HIS bubble. As long as we can admit our knowledge is finite and that it's OK not to know everything, then I think that frees us up to use our minds to ponder everything about our world. I'll point out two things in the Bible that leads me to toward my conclusion that we should be "heart/soul-led". First, we use the term "hard-headed" all the time for those who are stubborn and won't listen. We would certainly use that term for Pharoah when Moses showed him the plethora of miraculous signs and yet Pharoah still wouldn't let the Jews go (Book of Exodus). But God the Bible doesn't say Pharoah was hard-headed, he says he was hard-hearted. This is what I think non-believers are today; they don't want to let their way of life go, so they're hard-hearted toward God. The second biblical point on this is in Roman 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Nowhere in there does it say "and understand" anything. I grew up in a house with two college professors (one who was an agnostic physics teacher) so it was hard for me to come to terms that my intellect was not enough. But there is great peace in that... And it's great knowing that, while I believe the Bible to be true, it's not the driver - that heart-to-heart relationship is the driver.
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned time and Genesis. I think you're spot on. What is time to God? Can we even comprehend time in His eyes? (good meta-questions) That's why I don't get hung up on it. There's alot of time and resources and energy spent on the battle between 4 billion and 6-10,000 years, and in the end, we'll never really know.
On relationship, I definitely think you've got part of it. That "still small voice" that nudges you to do those little "good" things or to stay away from the little "bad" things or that scolds you when you do slip and do the bad things, I have no doubt that's the Holy Spirit working in you. I'll go a step further - I think God has a great sense of humor. There are things that happen in a day that I just shake my head and smile at because, somehow, I can just feel His presence in it. I think if your heart is open and receptive and positive, you will find Him often. And THAT is MY truth...
I've got more on what that relationship has done for me and my perspective on life if you want to hear... I just didn't want to get too far off of your blog topic. And I don't mean to be "anonymous" either - it's just the easiest way to post...
That is a great metaphor of the bubbles. I totally agree with that- and think it makes tons of sense. It would lead me to be comfortable with not knowing everything- anxious to use all of my God-given talents to explore to get closer to "full knowledge"- but with the assumption that while here on Earth I am incapable of knowing everything. Good one!
ReplyDelete