Apart from such gems as, ‘if you tell people they are descended from monkeys, how can you expect them behave like anything other than monkeys’ and “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites, you should only get aids and die (Thank you Michael Savage)” Christian fundamentalists do have one thing right: the literal truth of their scripture.
First of all, let me say that I don’t believe that either the New or Old Testament bears complete literal truth. Not even close; that is my own persuasion. When I say that the fundamentalist understanding of the Bible as literal truth is ‘right,’ I mean that fundamentalists correctly grasp the fact that any other method of interpretation of scripture undermines the ultimate authority of the Canon as a source of truth and morality. Let me explain:
A quick history lesson: To be a Christian means, among other things (see, but please do not be limited to, the first paragraph for some other wonderful Christian platforms), accepting the Bible as written by men divinely inspired and as God’s revelation of himself to man, a perfect treasure of divine instruction (I gleaned this particular bit of theology from the Baptist Faith and message). That is, the Bible is the source of all truth and the entire content of the Bible is true ***(If you in fact call your self a Christian but do not believe the above statement, feel free to stop reading here and turn on the 700 Club since what I am about to continue rambling on about has no importance for you whatsoever.)*** Seriously, stop reading now if you think that, this will just waste your time.
Now, allegorical and metaphorical interpretation of scripture enter stage left. These modern approaches claim that many stories and parables in the Bible are not in themselves literally true but they serve to illustrate a larger truth. This analysis of scripture is popular in more liberal Christian communities who see and feel the conflict between science, reason and Biblical history. The stories of Jonah and the whale, the ark and the fall of Jericho all score in the lowest percentile on the plausibility test, so many liberal Christians choose to interpret these legends as allegorical; keyword choose.
The fact that Christians are choosing which biblical records to believe (virgin birth, water to wine, resurrection) and which stories are myth points to a source of truth outside of the revealed word of God. As far as I know a biblical writer never preceded a chapter with both a genealogy and a disclaimer that the following material, while based on actual events, is mostly fictional. To pick and choose what verses are true and what are not places the power of discerning truth in human reason, not the revealed word of God. Thus, a certain verse or commandment is not true because it is in the Bible, it is true because it’s in the bible and someone decided that it wasn’t allegory.
Consequently, Christians who do not read the Bible as literal truth lose the privilege to cite the Bible authoritatively. They cannot defend the validity of any claim because it is the ‘word of God.’ Using reason to choose which of God’s revelations are ultimately true and which only bear allegorical truth tacitly permits a source of truth outside of and independent of God: human reason. Thus, the claims that Jesus is the Son of God, messiah and savior of humankind must also be proved independently of scripture because someone could, just as easily as the story of the ark, dismiss the Gospels as allegorical as well.
A quick example (but only one example) to illuminate this point (don't get hung up on this example, the real argument stands alone.) Acts 1:18 of the New Testament claims regarding Judas's death, "he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." Really? No not really! If you had read further to verse 19 you would know that, "This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that this field is called in their language Hakeldama, that is, The Field of Blood." This is just an explanatory narrative and it has nothing to do with the central truths of Jesus or God!
Although that position may calm the stomachs of hemophobic Christians, it vastly undermines their ability to lay claim on scriptural authority to equally implausible Christian positions (when considered rationally and objectively) such as Jesus is son of God, was born of a Virgin, died and was later resurrected. In those cases, who’s not to say, Clearly Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin! Have you ever even watched the discovery channel? And the resurrection? Come on, people don’t just come back to life!
OKC's Sam Presti is an overrated draft savant
5 weeks ago
3 comments:
What is the Bible? It is a collection of long genealogies, ancient stories, and directives on how we are to live. It has been called the word of God for the people of God. It is the most detailed “biography” of the man named Jesus.
Who is a Christian? A Christian is not someone who says, “I live in direct accordance with the Bible” but one who strives to live in the way of Christ.
With this interpretation, the Bible takes on a different purpose. It is no longer the irrefutable instructions for life but a record of people’s ancient stories and the acts of Jesus. Because Jesus is not living today, Christians must look to the Bible to see how he acted. The parables describe his teachings, his acts and miracles are reported, and readers become familiar with Jesus as he lived on earth.
We have to understand that for a long time, the Bible was kept alive only in the oral tradition. When it was finally recorded, who knows if every inspired word was remembered perfectly? When it was translated, the original jargon was altered. We have to understand then, that the importance is not the words, but the message. Knowing this, the interpretation becomes much looser. We have not been told that every word in the Bible is true but we have been told we are to believe its message.
I choose to call myself a Christian not because I take the Bible literally but because I follow the way of Christ. I can look to the Bible to see how he lived and can model my actions after his. I do not claim to be right, but at least with the Bible as my guide I can be consistent.
I agree that the main thing to take away from reading the bible is not the words, but the message.
English translators had to make thousands of decisions on how to interpret Hebrew scripture. Just to site some specific examples, the word virgin in Hebrew originally meant, a women who becomes pregnant after having intercourse for the first time. So do i believe that God was born from a virgin? yes, or no it doesn't make me less of a Christian. My Christian faith is not based on specific words, its based on my belief that Jesus is the one who gave his life to save me from my sins (my Christian faith does not falter if i question or doubt how Jesus was concieved).
Also, the word Adam in Hebrew originally meant humanity, not a single person but a human race. so if i don't believe that God created only one man and one women in the beginning, does that mean my whole Christian faith falls apart?
In my opinion the bible is very open-ended in its interpretation of words, but its message stays constant. A very simple verse can be interpreted into many ways. "love your neighbor as yourself." pretty simple, but so many questions arise from that statement in Leviticus. What does it mean to love? what is your neighbor? Is it all of humanity or the one that just lives next door to you? Literally in English it means to love only the person who lives next to you? but i interpret it as loving everyone.
they're are so many passages in the bible that need to be interpreted. In order to live it out and not just talk about it, people have to make decisions on what it means to them, personally. And just because one person decides to love only his next door neighbor and one person decides to love everyone on earth, the main point is to love, neither of them are more or less a Christian person.
I agree that to be a Christian who interprets the whole Bible as the literal truth strengthens one’s ability to authoritatively quote scripture. However, you point out in the third paragraph that “to be a Christian means, among other things, […] accepting the Bible as written by men divinely inspired.” So, you do recognize that the description of a Christian—a person who believes that “the Bible is the source of all truth and the entire content of the Bible is true”—is incomplete. And, in my opinion it’s a stretch to say that this definition is central to making someone a Christian. I found eight entries in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary for the noun “Christian” and surprisingly, none even mentioned the Bible. The most inclusive definition seemed to be, “one who lives according to the life and teachings of Jesus.”
Of course, the place we go to find out about the life and teachings of Jesus is the Bible. And here’s where your argument makes a lot of sense to me. How are individuals equipped to separate myth from reality, metaphor from literal truth? Your final appeal that people who do not interpret the Bible literally should refrain from calling themselves Christians is only valid if you limit the definition to the one you describe.
Post a Comment