Guest post by Exrelayman
If the Bible were God’s word:
1. It would be perfectly engrossing. You would love reading it.
2. It would be perfectly clear. There would not be any disagreement anywhere about the meaning of any verse or passage.
3. It would be perfectly persuasive. People of any other faith would convert immediately upon reading this clear and persuasive message.
4. It would perfectly distributed to all the cultures of the world simultaneously, in their own language.
5. It would be perfectly indestructible. Neither years nor flood nor flame could mar or destroy it.
6. It would be perfectly original and accurate in all that it says.
In brief, it would be a perfect revelation proceeding from a perfect God.
And what do we observe in the real world:
1a. Very hard to force yourself to slog through it. Most who profess Christianity don’t struggle through all the begats and directions for making temple garments. Very inferior to myriads of mere human novelists.
2a. Earnest disagreement about what it actually says has led to thousands of differing denominations. Not so clear then.
3a. It needs a bit of help. Pastors must spend Sundays being persuasive. Persuasive hymns and apologetics are needed. Heaven and hell must be dangled as carrot and stick to evince coercion through hope and fear rather than clear evidential persuasion.
4a. Given at one part of the world, the gospels especially through unknown biased writers at unknown places and times.
5a. As susceptible to decay and destruction as any other book.
6a. Sadly imitative, many other dying and resurrecting savior gods from surrounding cultures preceded the Christ story. The Old Testament stories largely derive from antecedent cultures also. Flatly in conflict with what science has discovered about the age of the Earth and the evolution of life upon it. Flatly contradictory with its own self in numerous places.
At each expectation of what the revelation of a perfect and powerful God would be like, the Bible fails. Now these expectations are admittedly subjective, so that each one of them might be arguable. But cumulatively they become, at least as I see it, irresistable. Thus the verdict that it is not a divine document, but is shown by its own nature to be the product of ignorant and superstitious men writing in ignorant and superstitious times.
It’s a shame that they make such claims for the Bible. As literature, it is a great book.
But they have to say that it is inerrant, and perfect, and inspired, and literal, and all that stuff.
But the worst part of all is that they insist that if you don’t believe you go to hell. That’s what renders the book practically non-usable.
Here’s an idea. Say God speaks to the whole world, not that hard, Matthew 3:17, just louder. Another idea: John 3:16 written in contrails on the sky, daily turning to a different language, living and dead, Linear A, Linear B. Or the quadratic equation, Here’s the numeric foundation of the universe, read it and rejoice. I would sincerely weep with joy.
” It would be perfectly original and accurate in all that it says.”
To piggyback off of this, it would also present new information to humans that they did not know before. In reality, the Bible offers no new information, but rather reflects the ignorance of its Bronze Age authors.
Great article!
I love the explanations given for why it does not matter that God has not spoken to us in over 2000 years: God is the same as yesterday, today and tomorrow. That still does not explain what he said yesterday because it seems to be a bunch of contradictory statements.
Suppose it is in some sense both, Ex. Have you considered this possibility?
Also, I want to ask, Ex if you have had opportunity to read and study the various mystery cults which reference rising and dying gods? Are you able to discern any significant differences between these and the Biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Years ago, Dr. Bruce Metzger, a N.T. scholar from Princeton had addressed this issue in great depth. I think he wrote a thesis.
“Suppose it is in some sense both”. Of course I have considered the possibility (this continual ‘have you considered the possibility?’ query is insulting and condescending, though you clearly don’t mean to be). Here’s the beauty of it – it gives the apologist wiggle room. Sh/he can excuse the fact of all the tons of silly, cruel, and contradictory parts with ‘oh, God used man (an imperfect instrument) to record his word. That gets God off the hook, very convenient, especially when the complete absence of any empirical evidence for there even being a god is what we find upon observing the world around us. Same for the usage of ‘fully human, fully god’ – mysteries beyond our ken. If it is beyond my ken, then it is useless for convincing me of anything.
“Significant differences”. Holy cow! That old chestnut! There are significant differences between ‘Perry Mason’ and ‘Murders at the Rue Morgue’, between ‘Pepsi’ and ‘Coke’, between the ‘Wright Flyer’ and a ’747′. Would a reasonable person say that the latter owes nothing to the former because there are ‘significant differences’? In addition to this, we observe the techniques of midrash and reversal all over both the old and new testaments. A few examples: Eden reverses the role of the snake in the earlier Sumerian legend, Moses modifies the story of the infant Sargon set adrift, the 10 commandments on a stone tablet (which disappeared conveniently, just like some famous gold plates) altered the code of Hammurabi being wrote on a stone stele – there is much more. In light of all this, the cry ‘it is unique because it is not clone like identical’ is, to me, a ludicrous and desperate apologetic.
Yes, Metzger, a scholar from princeton, wrote an apologetic thesis. How many hundreds, if not thousands of apologetic theses are there? Why are the needed? Hint: points 2 and 3 of the original post.
In the mainline seminaries, Ex, they would look at this differently. It is more like a discussion among scholars with various points of view to come to truth or to understand different perspectives.
It is common knowledge, for example, of the similarities between Genesis one and the Gilgamesh Epic..
But, I think the idea that the Christian faith has simply and arbitrarily borrowed elements from the mystery religions has been largely discredited by most scholars. I’m sure there are some hold outs. I think Bob Price is one of them.
And, you’re right my comments were not meant to be condescending at all. It often does seem, though, that folks want to go in one direction or the other.
Either the Bible is nothing more than a collection of outdated and irrelevant myths written by ignorant folks in the Bronze Age which needs to be largely relegated to the dusty back bookshelf, or it’s a holy book verbally dictated by God in the King James vernacular dropped from Heaven, an absolute authority on every topic from modern day science to diet and exercise.
For me, and most people in the mainline denominations, truth lies in between these extremes.
“But, I think the idea that the Christian faith has simply and arbitrarily borrowed elements from the mystery religions has been largely discredited by most scholars.”
Of course it has. Where do you think most Biblical scholars come from? How many must sign conformance to credal statements to even retain their positions? How about Koranic scholars? They are equally adept at deflecting all criticisms of the Koran.
But, Ex, it’s not just orthodox Christian scholars who dispute this, but people like Dr. Bart Ehrman who makes no claim at all to even be a Christian believer.
I don’t support all of his conclusions, but Ehrman is truly a brilliant man, Ex, whose scholarship it not to be taken lightly.
Hey, Ex, I’m not just putting your post down. There is a lot of good food for thought there, but I can’t fully agree, and do see things differently.
Rebecca.
P.S. I’ll be away until Tuesday or so.
Grace,
When did you start reading Ehrman? Last I knew you hadn’t read any of his books?
If you think Ehrman completely dismisses outside source material being used in the writing of the Bible…well ya might want to actually read the guy.
Bruce, I’m just thinking specifically of his opinion of the influence of the mystery religions, the cults that involved dying and rising gods, and their supposed influence on the rise of the Christian faith, the story of Jesus. I’ve been able to read transcripts of debates and discussions concerning this on the net. Also, I believe he addresses this whole issue in his recent book, “Did Jesus Exist, ” which I am dying to read. Think you are right. It would be good to read more of Ehrman.
How are you feeling about the whole topic? Do you agree with Ehrman or Price? Probably will not be able to comment until Tues. I definitely agree that there was some outside source material used in the writing of the Scripture, Q for example.
Oh, Bruce, are we talking past each other again? Hope not.
As I thought, you haven’t read his books. 3 years, asking you to do this, and here we are, you appealing to Ehrman without actually reading him.
I side with Ehrman on the historicity of Jesus. A historical figure, yes, but not God, not divine, not anything other than a man who lived and died.
Bruce, I’ve read one book by Ehrman in it’s entirety awhile back called, “Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code,” and have had a chance to look through “Jesus Interrupted.” But, you’re right, I haven’t read a great deal of his stuff, and really need to.
I have a stack of stuff I’m always looking at, and can easily get side tracked.
Well, this seemed as relevant a place to update you (Bruce) on my progressing departure from fundamentalism. Last Thursday, I called my pastor and let him know why I haven’t been in “my pew” for several Sunday’s. I let him know that I had been reading material “outside of the bible” in an effort to reconcile uneasiness I was having in the areas of the (1) bible’s explanation of creation and its conflict with science and Dr. Prothero’s very informative you tube lectures on geology, paleontology, and evolution; (2) Bart Ehrman’s scholarly evidence and explanation about human’s influencing biblical text down to the foundational doctrine of whether Jesus was merely human (adoptionism) or both fully human and divine (anti-adoptionism which ultimately won out). I let him know that I was no longer content with being shown a supportive verse or cross reference in the bible itself, but wanted to let orthodox Christianity – at least in my mind – stand or fall in light of the evidence outside the bible. We discussed things further and he related how during his attendance at a somewhat liberal seminary doubts were cast on parts of the veracity of biblical text, but they worked through them. He recommended a few books by Christian apologists to me and I thanked him. But in truth I’m familiar with those evangelical authors and their arguments are lacking in light of the facts. Back on topic, I did mention that I was struggling greatly for some time with the concept of the trinity and how even when Christians speak they say “God and Jesus are ….” clearly poly-theistic, at least from my Jewish upbringing. Additionally, I told him I’m not going to revert back to Judiasm, but I find it very telling how even conservative and reformed Jewish rabbis are not uniform in their understanding of whether or not there is an afterlife or not. And I was and am a bit uncomfortable (having been raised on the OT) as to the absolute certainty with which Evangelicals “camp” on heaven and hell and an afterlife, when the truth is the Jewish religion (except the orthodox) of which Jesus was part, are not so outspoken in that area. My pastor and I had a very cordial conversation and we spoke of my family’s ongoing belief and my desire to not weaken their faith – hence I’m not out their to convince them to become a progressive Christian or anything. But.. and than thak you for letting me ramble… I’m reaching the conclusion that maybe (and sadly) … THE THINGS WERE LIABLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE, THEY AIN’T NECESSARILY SO.
Hey Gary, thanks for sharing your story.
It is good that you could have a cordial discussion with your pastor. Often those kind of conversations turn ugly.
Ah yes, the Trinity. I came to the conclusion that the Bible is a progressive record that moves from polytheism to monotheism back to polytheism. I encourage people to read Genesis without importing Trinitarian theology into the text. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Genesis speaks of multiple Gods and not the monotheistic, Trinitarian God of Christians.
Bruce