This was originally written in response to the question What is the Theme of the Christian Bible? here.

I think the Bible is a collection of literature that happened to end up inside the same set of covers. What makes most sense to me at this moment is that at the time of the Babylonian Captivity the Israelites became conscious of themselves as a people with a history. As a remnent reestablished at Jerusalem the learned among them, in Babylon and Jerusalem, decided to dig up the folklore and write it down before it was lost to posterity forever. They probably learned the hard way that in order to retain their identity they had to have a written history and law and heroes like the Babylonians had. So we get a Hebrew creation myth, Adam and Eve, Noah and family, Abraham and the other Patriarchs, the Chosen People, etc. All of this explains the Israelites.

This is how and why the Old Testament was written, in my opinion, to explain how and why the Israelites and their God originated. Thus, it's a collection of literature about ONE PEOPLE ONLY, not about God's Special People per se. Other people were the special people of their own gods. At that time, it was believed that every geographical place had its own unique god, and that this god had jurisdiction over its own geographical place. There is evidence of this in the Bible itself if only we understand what we read. However, this idea reeks of polytheism and is therefore unacceptable to monotheism and Christianity; for this reason those references are explained away. So it appears to me.

That is the story for what we call the Old Testament. As fate would have it, the most powerful ancestor of Western society, i.e. Constantine, adopted one version of that religion perhaps a thousand years later. The Sacred Text was updated (New Testament was canonized) and closed (more or less; it keeps getting opened and closed time and again). These two collections of sacred literature have come down to us as the Holy Bible. The religion is known today as Christianity and is at the moment the most powerful religion in the world politically.

Christianity will say the theme of the Bible is salvation through Jesus Christ. But I've seen Christianity read the Bible in so many different ways--and all of them make sense because none of them can follow one rule only due to the terrible inconsistencies of the biblical text itself--that I conclude you can make the Bible have any theme you want it to have. Once you choose what you want the Bible to say, you can make the rest of it line up to agree with your favourite message.

The parts that don't agree, or simply make no sense, you can always relegate to "God's mysterious ways," or "faith makes no sense." The all-time stop-gap answer is "So far as the heaven is above the earth, so much higher are God's thoughts than our thoughts and God's ways than our ways." In other words, "God's ways are past finding out." Yes, there truly is no end of biblical passages to quote to prove that it's okay for the Bible to make no sense. I think I've heard them all yet new ones always keep popping up.

Finally I just decided that if an answer existed to my questions God would have allowed me to find it by now. Since I have not yet found an answer--and Jesus said "He who seeks will find"--there must be no answer. In my OT course I got the impression that the Bible was probably written by religious leaders for political reasons. And that is probably the reason for many religious rules and customs to the present day. I don't know how we can ever hope to get at the real root of the problem because religious people daren't look at it--the stakes are too high, and ex-religious people are likely too biased (hurt and angry from being victimized in some way or another) to look at it objectively. People who have never been religious often don't understand the depth of religious feeling, conviction, and obligation. Thus it is difficult for either the religious or ex-religious people to trust that the never-been-religious people really understand the implications of what they are doing.

"Christianity will say the theme of the Bible is salvation through Jesus Christ. But I've seen Christianity read the Bible in so many different ways--and all of them make sense because none of them can follow one rule only due to the terrible inconsistencies of the biblical text itself--that I conclude you can make the Bible have any theme you want it to have."


It is true that some Christians read the Bible literally, but in my experience very few read it 'literally' literally ( if you see what I mean!).

For example: I have yet to meet someone who, when reading Jesus' warning about the camel passing through the eye of a needle, believes that it is possible for this to happen. Again, when Jesus tells his followers that they must 'hate' their families, it is not logical to accept this at face value. It is only by looking at how that word is used in the Jewish idiom that one can begin to understand what Jesus is saying here. There are hundreds of other examples.

So I think one must read intelligently and in context (cultural, social, and historical). This may render many of the 'terrible inconsistencies' more consistent.

Marti

You might want to check out some of the sources listed on the Index of Sources under CONTRADICTIONS IN SACRED TEXTS.

About camels passing through the eye of a needle, I've heard plausible explanations that could be literally true, though I don't know if they are. There's one story that claims there was a low and narrow gate to the city that was known as the Eye of the Needle. It would allow a camel to pass through, but its load would have to be removed so it could squeeze through. This is taken by some Christians as an analogy for how Christians must surrender all for Jesus if they wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes, there was an actual narrow gate known as the 'Needle's Eye'.

The analogy as I read it is that our human 'baggage' is anything that is (to us) more important than God.

Different things for different people - for one it might be wealth, for another intelligence/learning, for someone else it might be 'good works'.

I think that this is an example of Jesus' humor, of which there is much in the Gospels - a play on words. His audience would know about the 'Needle's Eye Gate' and would get the message immediately.

I did read some of the stuff re 'Contradictions in Sacred Texts', as you suggested. Frankly, I would be amazed, and worried, if there were no contradictions in the text. It was written by men, in a specific culture, at a specific time in history.
The contradictions, I think, give the Bible 'the ring of Truth'


Marti[/sub]

Don't know why that {/sub} thing appeared, or what it means.

???

I don't know. Must be something in the code you happened to pick up.



That's an interesting take on it. I was raised with the teaching that everything that is in the Bible is true and that there can be nothing false that is in the Bible. In other words, if it's in the Bible it has to be true. If the Bible said "Pride goeth before a fall," if someone fell according to our understanding of what constituted a spiritual fall, then it was understood that that person must have been proud.

Lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life--those were the things we were warned against in every sermon. We were given to understand that anyone who drove a car subscribed to the pride of life to some extent. Driver's license was forbidden in our faith community; we used horse and buggy transportation to remain separate from the world. This was one means used to deny the lust of the flesh and pride of life. (You can see more about my background in the Stories section in A Bit About Me.)

I have a question. If you think the contradictions give the Bible a "ring of Truth," what do you make of the teaching that many Christians hold about the Bible being the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? They think God inspired humans to write the Bible in such a way that, even though they did not understand what they were writing, later science would prove it to be correct. I understand you to confess that it did not work out this way and that science and the Bible do not necessarily agree. However, creationists and ID people go to great lengths to prove that the Bible is scientifically, historically, and geologically accurate.

I think they have to do this because of the teaching that God inspired the Bible and God cannot have inspired an errant Bible. I take it you don't buy into this. But you profess the Bible to have a ring of truth. In what way do you think the Bible is true if it contains contradictions? In my mind, contradiction equals error of logic which translates into untruth or falsehood, no matter whether sacred or secular matters.

I was a Christian for fifty years and have a number of years of formal training in theology so I think I know something on the matter. What you say agrees sort of with what my professors say but mostly I find it confusing. And confusing is what Christianity has mostly been for me. It makes claims that confuse me because in my mind the logic does not hang together. Jesus said to use the talents one is given. He harshly condemned the man who hid his talent. I understand this to mean that, since I am given a sharp intellect, it is my responsibility to develop and use this intellect to critique the Bible and theology for accuracy, and to apply theology to life appropriately and consistently.

But there are too many inconsistencies between theology and logic to allow me to do this. This forced my deconversion. I had to choose between lying and deconverting. And believe me, the social costs were so high that lying would have been the easier choice had I not cared about personal integrity and peace of conscience. I have to live with myself 24 hours a day. Socials happen several times a year. I chose deconversion come what may. Somehow, the price went up after the decision was made but I don't regret my decision. But now you say that the very inconsistencies that forced my deconversion are the ring of truth itself??? Can you explain? Thank you.

That's an interesting take on it. I was raised with the teaching that everything that is in the Bible is true and that there can be nothing false that is in the Bible. In other words, if it's in the Bible it has to be true. If the Bible said "Pride goeth before a fall," if someone fell according to our understanding of what constituted a spiritual fall, then it was understood that that person must have been proud.

I think that 'literalism' is no way to discover truth. In the example you gave - can you see that lots of things might 'go before a fall' - not only pride? Fundamentalism/literalism limits the imagination - one's ability io see beyond the words on the page. In other wurds, 'the letter of the law' holds sway over God's Grace in Christ., and that is, indeed, a great shame.

I have a question. If you think the contradictions give the Bible a "ring of Truth," what do you make of the teaching that many Christians hold about the Bible being the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God? They think God inspired humans to write the Bible in such a way that, even though they did not understand what they were writing, later science would prove it to be correct.

No, as I think I said (?) I am not a 'fundamentalist' in the sense that I think you use the term here on this forum. Science and the Bible? I am a scientist, and personally I have no problem with reconciling my work and my faith - but then I do not read the Bible literally. .

But you profess the Bible to have a ring of truth. In what way do you think the Bible is true if it contains contradictions? In my mind, contradiction equals error of logic which translates into untruth or falsehood, no matter whether sacred or secular matters.

And in my mind, contradiction does not necessarily equate to errors of logic. The Bible is not one book - there are 66 books there, some written by poets, some by social commentators, some by prophets - well, I'm sure you get the idea. The Bible contains the Word of God. In and of itself, it is not the Word of God. Do you see the difference?

I was a Christian for fifty years and have a number of years of formal training in theology so I think I know something on the matter.

I'm sure you do.

What you say agrees sort of with what my professors say but mostly I find it confusing. And confusing is what Christianity has mostly been for me. It makes claims that confuse me because in my mind the logic does not hang together.

Is it meant to be logical, I wonder? Are not the most meaningful relationships illogical? Is the most sublime music, poetry, art - 'logical'? It seems to me to be a very restricted method when deciding on whether something holds meaning for us. Is logic the highest pinnacle of understanding for you? Does logic = truth? Something to think about, perhaps.


Marti

Thank you for an indepth reply. There are some points I would like to address.



It appears that you think fundamentalism and literalism necessarily go together. They don't. Fundamentalists do not take all Scripture passages literally. For example, to my knowledge, none of their women have menstruation huts, none of them stone their children for talking back or otherwise displaying rebellion, the list goes on.

I should add that the horse and buggy Mennonite community out of which I come is considered by many scholars not to be fundamentalist. I think that, though it has been strongly influenced by fundamentalism, it belongs to a tradition much older than fundamentalism--possibly to 17th century Pietism. The way my people view life, pride is the root of all evil, and "pride goeth before a fall" constitutes the basis for a comprehensive world view.

Obviously, I disagree with their view of life just as much as I disagree with yours. My point is that "pride goeth before a fall" can constitute a comprehensive world view. It requires a specific interpretation of "pride," an interpretation with which you may well disagree, but that does not change the fact that it does provide the basis for a comprehensive world view for a certain portion of the human population over time and across geography. I would have to do a lot more research to know for sure how many other Amish and Mennonite communities across North America hold this view.



First, I do not think you or I are in a position to stand in judgment of their world view or understanding of God and God's grace in Christ. As for God's grace in Christ. If one considers that they work out of a feudal mindset, it automatically follows that they see God as the manor lord whose favour must be won via pleas for mercy. In that system, any human decency the manor lord condescended to show to his serfs must be repaid with the equivalent of worship, laud, and praise if they hoped for boons and favours (grace) in the future. Dig up some novels of the Germanic peoples written in the 1200s-1500s. Compare the language of the serfs to their lords with the language of traditional orthodox Christian hymns. That God condescends to accept lowly, sinful humanity upon confession of faith in the shed blood of Christ and repentance of sin is understood as God's grace in Christ.



"Scientist" can mean many things to many people. I know you do not identify as a fundamentalist Christian. I don't think it matters to this discussion what religious position you hold. My question to you is: What do you mean when you say the contradictions of the Bible give it a ring of truth? Most of the rest of my post was "filler" to explain why I am asking the question.

For example, when you say the contradictions of the Bible give it a ring of truth, you are saying that you need the Bible to be true. That is very similar to the belief held by many Christians that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God. You claim to be different from them, yet to me you seem to be very similar. Can you explain how you differ? I contrast your obvious need for the Bible to be true with other Christians who are very genuine and devout in their faith but who have no problem whatsoever confessing the blatant errors in the Bible. For them, the Bible is but one testimony among several that God has left for himself. That is what I meant by "what is your take" on the "infallible, inerrant, inspired" teaching.



I fail to see the relevance of your last question. I think we are talking about contradictions in the Bible and how they give it a ring of truth. It appears like you are throwing logic out the window. Without logic, I don't think one can identify contradictions. I think that nullifies your statement that contradictions give the Bible a ring of truth. What do you think? How do you identify contradictions if not on the basis of logic?



I think you have derailed the question.

It appears that you think fundamentalism and literalism necessarily go together. They don't. Fundamentalists do not take all Scripture passages literally. For example, to my knowledge, none of their women have menstruation huts, none of them stone their children for talking back or otherwise displaying rebellion, the list goes on.

No, I am aware that the two do not necessarily go together. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I did.

I should add that the horse and buggy Mennonite community out of which I come is considered by many scholars not to be fundamentalist. I think that, though it has been strongly influenced by fundamentalism, it belongs to a tradition much older than fundamentalism--possibly to 17th century Pietism. The way my people view life, pride is the root of all evil, and "pride goeth before a fall" constitutes the basis for a comprehensive world view.

Obviously, I disagree with their view of life just as much as I disagree with yours.


Can you explain what it is about my 'view of life' that you disagree with?


First, I do not think you or I are in a position to stand in judgment of their world view or understanding of God and God's grace in Christ. As for God's grace in Christ. If one considers that they work out of a feudal mindset, it automatically follows that they see God as the manor lord whose favour must be won via pleas for mercy. In that system, any human decency the manor lord condescended to show to his serfs must be repaid with the equivalent of worship, laud, and praise if they hoped for boons and favours (grace) in the future. Dig up some novels of the Germanic peoples written in the 1200s-1500s. Compare the language of the serfs to their lords with the language of traditional orthodox Christian hymns. That God condescends to accept lowly, sinful humanity upon confession of faith in the shed blood of Christ and repentance of sin is understood as God's grace in Christ

I'm not sure who 'they' are here (as in 'they work out of a feudal mindset') ?


"Scientist" can mean many things to many people.

It sure can, but to me it means an exciting and engrossing way of earning a living.

What do you mean when you say the contradictions of the Bible give it a ring of truth?

I thought I had answered this question. I'll try to be more clear - I find truth in the Bible, but I don't believe that every word of the Bible is true. I don't believe that the world was created in 6 days. I do believe that God created the world. I don't believe that women must not speak in church. I do believe that women make excellent pastors. I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. And so on ...

For example, when you say the contradictions of the Bible give it a ring of truth, you are saying that you need the Bible to be true.

No. I don't need the Bible to be true, but I do need the One the Bible speaks of - Christ, The Word, Logos - to be true, and, in my experience, He is.

That is very similar to the belief held by many Christians that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God. You claim to be different from them, yet to me you seem to be very similar.

See above.

It has just occured to me that perhaps you are misunderstanding the expression 'the ring of truth'
I mean 'ring' as in 'sound' rather than 'circle'. Just thought I'd better make that clear.


Marti

I will answer with your later statement. You say: No. I don't need the Bible to be true, but I do need the One the Bible speaks of - Christ, The Word, Logos - to be true, and, in my experience, He is.

As you know, that is fundamentally different from my view. First and foremost, I see no evidence of the One of whom the Bible speaks. Removing all divinities and/or deities from one's world view radically changes one's view of life and eternity. This agrees with the testimonies of the exChristians I have seen on exChristian.net, so I know it's not a unique experience with me.



The quote I was responding to referred to the view of God's grace and the letter of the law as understood by the horse and buggy community out of which I came, so "they" refers to them.



The same could be said of construction work, of farming, of pretty much any work humans have ever done. It tells me nothing about the type of scientist you are. For example, what field do you specialize in? What is the name of the institution for which you work? Is it a Christian Church operated school or secular university? If you were a Harvard prof you would hardly have time for these forums. Perhaps you have no more than a high school education but you report sightings of certain meteors to your local science club. It is good to know you enjoy what you are doing and that you get paid for it. I wish all of us were that lucky.



I understand that you mean the Bible sounds more believable if there are inconsistencies in it. What about this. I tell the police that I saw Car A crash into Car B at the Main Intersection at 7:00 am yesterday morning. My landlady reports that at a quarter to nine she had seen me go to the bathroom in my bathrobe. Another neighbour attests to bringing me home from a late night party the night before at three o'clock in the morning. My room mate testifies that at ten minutes after seven I had been sound asleep in my bed. I stick to my story that I saw the car crash at 7:00 am. Given that the inconsistencies in my story are no where near as bad as the ones in the Bible, I guess you would say my story is believable because of the inconsistencies. You say there are things far more important than logic, so my story must be true--that kind of thing. This is totally beyond my comprehension and I need more explanation than you have yet provided in order to know why you think the Bible is more believable just because it contains inconsistencies.

Perhaps you adhere to the belief that the Bible must be given special status and is exempt from scientific scrutiny when it comes the study of ancient texts? Do you agree that higher biblical criticism is a good thing or a bad thing?

I came across a post by HanSolo in exChristian's discussion on Noah's Flood that discusses a unifying theme of the Bible. I'll copy it below:

I'm looking for my last post on Message to Christians thread. Has it been deleted? Last time you deleted one of my posts you informed me.

If it's been moved somewhere else it would be courteous to let me know.

Marti

Marti, I moved the thread, along with your post (nothing deleted), to here. I sent you a pm just now. I guess I should have left a "shadow" so you could find it. I apologize for this over-sight.

There are ways to find your posts in case you ever want to look something up.

1. Click on your name or on your profile. In each member's profile there is a link for all of that person's posts. This will automatically bring up your last post. If you click on it, I think you will be taken to the thread so you can post.

2. On the Forum index page at the top right-hand corner (depending which theme you are using) there are three links for new posts:

• View posts since last visit
• View your posts
• View unanswered posts

Click the one you want.

3. There is also a search engine for the forums. I have not used it enough to know for sure how it works but there are instructions with it. Click on the word "Search" and it will open up.

I hope this is helpful.