Tentativity and The Bible

Creationists presume Biblical inerrancy and/or completeness and certainty. Scientists recognize the value of tentativity. Which is a better method for understanding the nature of the Bible (and, as an aside, the world around us)?What fundamentalists call "The Bible" has many of the earmarks of having been a work in progress, even though it is now considered by them frozen in completed form, which either stands together or falls together as one monolithic whole.Is examining the Bible in scientific terms (i.e., determining its origins, previous sources, history of formation, superfluous accretions, implied missing bits, and so on) somehow considered verboten and/or sacrilegious? Paul himself said (in 1 Thessalonians 5:21):

quote:

---

Test all things, hold fast what is good.

---

"Testing all things" is the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Why should any aspect of the Bible itself be exempt?

Thread copied here from the Tentativity and The Bible thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

It shouldn't be exempt. I think that one good reason is that neither Jesus nor Paul understood the then Hebrew Scriptures to be exempt.For example Jesus said this when asked about divorce in Mark 4.

quote:

---

4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.

---

Jesus doesn't say that God said this, but that "Moses said this", and then He goes back before that to Genesis to show what it was that God wanted.In Matthew 19 Jesus reaffirms what He had said earlier.

quote:

---

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

---

He is saying that Moses got it wrong. It is obvious that Jesus saw these Scriptures as being written by men not God.in Matthew 5 he puts it this way.

quote:

---

31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

---

In this quote in referring to the Scriptures he merely says that "it has been said".Jesus did not understand the Scriptures to be read as the literal Word of God. He used His reason, His wisdom and the Holy Spirit in the "Testing of All Things".Paul did the same. In addition to your quote Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 6:

quote:

---

12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

---

Paul is essentially repudiating such things as the food laws and saying that we have to determine what is beneficial to us.Paul writes this in Romans 2:

quote:

---

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

---

Our righteousness with God is not based on keeping a set of laws, it is based on our hearts. Do we love selfishly or unselfishly? Is our joy found in self gratification or is it found by bringing and finding joy in others. Is it all about me or is it about God's good creation?The fundamentalists who insist that the Bible is to be understood as coming word for word from God are modern day Pharisees that pervert the message of God.Yes, I believe that there is judgement but it is based on our where our heart is, not based on a total denial of our gifts of reason and wisdom and accepting a literal version of the Bible giving us a God who tells us to love our enemy but also that it is fine to slaughter his whole community.

I decided I wanted to add to what I posted previously as there seems to be a dearth of fundamentalists and/or so called Biblical literalists on this forum.In talking about how we understand the Bible I think it is most often the OT that gets misunderstood by fundamentalists but it is true of the NT as well.I remember walking into a fundamentalist church one time when I was working out of town and being asked by the Pastor if I was saved. This whole thing of being saved, meaning am I going to heaven or not, completely misconstrues the Gospel message. If this is the fundamental aim of Christianity it would mean that the basic goal of the whole faith is self centred. It becomes how do I avoid hell and get to heaven. The Gospel message is about love for others and opposed to self love so the whole basis of fundamentalism is flawed from the outset.Here is a passage from Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians chap 4.

quote:

---

1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court ; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted ; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior ? What do you have that you did not receive ? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

---

The Bible says that we are not to judge each other or even ourselves. We are to let God figure that out, yet the fundamentalists ignore that part of the Bible because it does not conform to their idiosyncratic version of Christianity.Again, as this passage points out, we are not judged on our religious beliefs, but on the condition of our hearts. That is the message of the Gospel - it is not the message that the fundamentalists preach with their twisting of the meaning of John 3:16 IMHO.

quote:

---

Is examining the Bible in scientific terms (i.e., determining its origins, previous sources, history of formation, superfluous accretions, implied missing bits, and so on) somehow considered verboten and/or sacrilegious?

---

Verboten is prohibited by dictate and sacrilege is a gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing. Biblical criticism by Christian theologians has been around since the early 18th century. According to Paul Johnson in A History of the Jews, Page 101. From what is written in the Bible, examining the Bible is not actually verboten or sacrilegious. That’s not to say that people don’t deem it verboten or sacrilegious when faced with questions they can’t answer or their way of life feels threatened.Science evolves. Religion also evolves. The written word is stuck in time whether it is a religious book or article, science book or article, laws, constitutions, etc.The United States Constitution is stuck in time, but changes are made to accommodate an evolving society through amendments.When new discoveries are made in science, the old articles or books are not rewritten; but new articles and books are written whether arguing against old results or paradigms, building on them, or correcting them. Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."Even the scientific world doesn’t change so quickly.
Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated MavericksThe Bible is stuck in time, but religion still evolves. Religions had to change or become extinct. Even within the pages of the Christian Bible we can see change. The Jews had the Oral Law to help make sense of the written word. Christians had their early writings that helped develop the religion. Books continue to be written to help believers understand how to apply the lessons of the Bible to every day life.

quote:

---

"Testing all things" is the very foundation of scientific inquiry. Why should any aspect of the Bible itself be exempt?

---

We know that science evolves and we know that religion evolves. People don’t usually change until they want to or have to. Stages of Change ModelThe Bible isn’t exempt, but some believers have had their beliefs all their life and change can be difficult. We have no way of knowing how changing one aspect of their belief impacts their life. Only they know and, for many, religion is a big part of their social life. Odds are a person won’t change until they are ready to change or are forced to change.Conclusion: I don’t see that the writers of the Christian Bible manuscripts deemed their writings to be above examination. Biblical criticism is not verboten or sacrilegious, but those who are unprepared or unwilling to change will probably try to dissuade inquiry. From what I’ve read, I conclude that the decision to accept new information; whether one is a scientist, clergy, or layperson, depends on how acceptance of that information will impact one’s life. There’s more to it than just accepting facts and each individual believer is a unique constellation of beliefs.

What is known as "higher criticism" certainly has been around for a few centuries, and yet has been continually and widely condemned by the religious right as "irreverence" at best, and downright evil at worst. I suppose the concept of having a given text "stuck in time" is predominately a result of the comparatively recent invention of the printing press (Gutenberg, c.1440). This was not necessarily the case for ancient Biblical manuscripts; even given the alleged scrupulous methods of copying by the various copyists, the redactors often managed to get some things (not originally there) inserted over the centuries (be it mistakenly or deliberately). In other words, one could say that the collection of extant manuscripts themselves were very much a "work in progress"; and thus in a sense "living documents". These are the very types of things which higher criticism has (so far) discovered. It's too bad that the religious right chooses to deny this sort of thing, preferring a mythical "dead unchanging text" which almost certainly didn't exist as such in those times. Exactly; why should modern Christianity limit itself so? It didn't at first. Such writings didn't abruptly cease with John's Revelation; there are scads more surviving texts of those genera (gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc.) produced during the same time or during the following centuries. That "formal doctrine of inerrancy", being a conservative reaction to that very critical scrutiny (as practiced by the scientific revolution), of course.

quote:

---

What is known as "higher criticism" certainly has been around for a few centuries, and yet has been continually and widely condemned by the religious right as "irreverence" at best, and downright evil at worst.

---

That’s why I said that people tend to deem it verboten or sacrilegious when faced with questions they can’t answer or their way of life feels threatened. Religious leaders have power, some also have money. Organized religion is big business.The same type of thing happens in science circles, although the tactics may differ to dissuade close examination. Science is big business.

quote:

---

It's too bad that the religious right chooses to deny this sort of thing, preferring a mythical "dead unchanging text" which almost certainly didn't exist as such in those times.

---

Again, IMO, it is more the leadership that is unwilling to change for fear of losing their careers, power, etc.

quote:

---

Exactly; why should modern Christianity limit itself so? It didn't at first. Such writings didn't abruptly cease with John's Revelation; there are scads more surviving texts of those genera (gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc.) produced during the same time or during the following centuries.

---

I’m not sure what you mean by limited. The Bible is the foundation, but I think I can safely say that most Christians have not read the Bible through completely as a book. There is no shortage of religious writings concerning Christianity, past and present. The leadership reads these writings (or should), not necessarily the layperson. Scientists read scientific writings, not necessarily the layperson. Today the layperson has more access to the writings of the early church fathers and scientific writings, but I would say most are not inclined to read them. They aren’t really essential to daily living. How-to and Self-help books are big sellers. Christian book stores are full of them. The people are listening to the preacher or designated teacher.

quote:

---

That "formal doctrine of inerrancy", being a conservative reaction to that very critical scrutiny (as practiced by the scientific revolution), of course.

---

Again, I feel it was more of a leadership reaction. The sheep follow the shepherd usually. (People also leave churches when they don’t buy into what the preacher is selling.) Past religious conflicts.Conclusion: Religion is a business, just like science. That doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of sincerity with the least end not involving money or power.Religious writings didn’t stop and religious leaders probably had access to the ancient writings. Today the layperson has more access to Christian writings past and present, but probably hasn’t even read the entire Bible, let alone bother with other ancient writings. Biblical criticism is very time consuming. I feel the majority listen to the preacher. They don’t necessarily read the whole Bible.If their religious leadership or training has put the fear that questioning is "verboten", then they probably won't question until they feel the need for change. Probably when it adversely affects their lifestyle. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

That most Christians have not read their own Bible (with the exception of the occasional highlighted verse which may have been used as the core subject of a sermon) is probably a given. However, my contention is that viewing what most Christians call "the Bible" (be it the 66 or 73 version) as if it were a single book is precisely part of the problem. In spite of the usual claims made on its behalf, it clearly isn't; what little unification that is present is very much a result of various selection processes. Being sandwiched between a single pair of book covers doesn't change that; FCOL, codexes didn't even exist until up to the 1st century AD.Personally, I have considered reading "the Bible" immensely enjoyable and enlightening simply by seeing it as what it truly is: a mixture; an anthology of cultural stories, some genuine attempts at history, religious polemics and exhortations, a smattering of philosophy, creative poetry, speculative fiction, and so on. That others prefer to view it as nothing more than a glorified self-help book is, unfortunately, their loss. Is most of what is considered "the Bible" truly essential to daily living, even for a typical Christian??? I would say not. The huge swaths of "the Bible" which are systematically ignored by those who live according to self-help literature is still there, of course, but just tagging along for the ride. For that matter, I myself possess several "New-Testament-Only Bibles" collected over the years, and even a couple of versions of which contain nothing more than the Gospel of John(!) (containing crossreferences to a tiny handful of pre-highlighted verses, intended by the publisher to be read in a specific order whilst ignoring everything else).That which is essential to daily living may be seen to have value, but not necessarily to the exclusion of everything else that make daily living worth living in the first place. I don't doubt that at all; sheep-shearing has always been big business.

quote:

---

However, my contention is that viewing what most Christians call "the Bible" (be it the 66 or 73 version) as if it were a single book is precisely part of the problem.

---

Since we're pretty much in agreement concerning the reality of the Bible, you need to be more specific as to the "problem" you see.IMO, Christians do understand that the Bible is a compilation of books by various authors (don't necessarily agree on who the authors are though), but the more conservative Christians view it as manuscripts written by authors who were inspired by the same muse, God, and therefore this compilation has a consistent message throughout or builds to an ultimate message.Dogma and tradition have helped to sew together the feeling of one book. IMO, the writings are interpreted to fit the needs of the religion. But that's what religion does. What's the problem you see?From what I've read, scientific studies can also be interpreted differently by scientists.What exactly is the problem you see?

Some Christian believe that the Bible are God's words written by men. God's words is of course inerrant and infallible. But men make mistakes. Although God is inerrant and infallible, men are not. I believe that men can make mistakes in the writing, transmitting, translating and interpreting God's words. But remember that the Bible is God's words. So it is much higher then mere human ratio.Is science infallible? No, practically all great scientists and philosophers of science of the 20 and 21 century agree that science can never bring us to absolute truth.
The Bible being God's word is much higher then any scientific theory and any human philosophy. At least for believers.So if one study the Bible in a scientific way, one degrade the Bible to be mere human theory or philosophy. So I am against "Higher Criticism".But I'm open to "Lower Criticism". Of course we must endeavour to get the best copy and the best translation of the Bible. If possible free from human error.

Hi StanleyWelcome to EvC. Good to have you aboard. I'm wondering what you mean by the Bible being "God's word". Does that mean to you that there is no human input and that it is essentially dictated by God, or do you allow for the idea that as humans are involved in its writing, editing and compilation that there can be human errors in its content?

Because the Bible is not a human book.
Science searches and seeks for what God has already created.
Sometimes making mistakes, and in the case of the 'billions of years thing' completely misleading millions like in Europe where i grew up, where the majority of people believe strongly is this lie, which leads to immorality and a full bent to sin!
http://www.bible-tube.com/eglise-adventiste-du-7-eme-jour.phpEdited by Admin, : Disable the link.

I would just like to point out one thing here. Implied missing bits. Have you ever heard of low-context culture, high-context culture? (No, I’ve not been on this forum long, but the format is wreaking havoc on my eyes. This is no insult. I have read through many of the posts, but I don’t find anything of interest, yet)(This is related, but not exactly on the topic, High-versus low-Context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures talking about current cultures of which I am describing)Israel was a high-context culture. These implied missing bits are actually assumed to be common knowledge to the reader.This article explains the issue, from a Christian’s point of view http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.htmlOn a side note, I am a creationist.Edited by LimpSpider, : On second thoughts, it looks like I just prefaced the thing. I will write up a more detailed reason.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : First link (very long) had problems. Also tweaked other formatting a bit (more blank lines).

Sorry for the delay.High-context: A culture where information is widely shared. It’s when the group is of greater importance than the individual. Information is common to all. For a modern day example, think about those born in the 80-90’s in the UK area. Most would have heard of Mr. Bean. Those familiar with it, as in part of the group, would understand any imitation of Atkinson’s humour.Or maybe another different type of example. The phrase Skeleton in the closet. One does not need to cite a literary expert for the person one is speaking to to understand.Low-context: The non-fiction books we see around us now are all low-context. They all have many references, which, by the way, many people do not follow up on. The author has to reference his/her views because otherwise few people would understand him. (Or have to take his word for it)If there is anything I haven’t explained or is not clear, please bring it up.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.

And the intended reader was Israel, not you. That's exactly why the Bible should not be taken literally. It should be taken in the context in which it was meant.If you understand that, why are you a creationist?(Welcome aboard. We have a shortage of creationists here - they tend to wear out fast. I hope you're more robust than the average one. )