DBT

A form of defence that some christians use in regard to the more unpalatable verses in the bible is to claim that they are being taken out of context;

Thoughts?

Joeman

It's a tough defense.

Context is ultimately determined by our knowledge about the world from 2000 years ago, but we don't know for sure.

The problem is - nobody knows what the context actually is.

The context is completely up for interpretation, which is based on a person's presupposition, knowledge, and opinion. For example, secular scholars would say Judaism was originally polytheistic based on evidence available. Christian scholars would say Judaism was monotheistic from the very beginning (because the bible says so), and they strive to gather evidence to support their view after they already made up their mind.

Anyways, when Christians say versus are taken out of context, I think they really mean it. The problem is just that context is a *relative* thing. It varies between individuals.

Avatar

Well, he has a point. For example:

1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

The SAB lists it as:

Jesus has white hair, eyes of fire, feet of brass, and has a sword sticking out of his mouth.

And:

2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that particular passage was following the long tradition of epic poetry when descibing its hero. So there is something of a point. However, there are plenty of other absurdities that can't be as easily explained away such as:

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." After this God "said in his heart" that he'd never do it again because "man's heart is evil from his youth." So God killed all living things (6:5) because humans are evil, and then promises not to do it again (8:21) because humans are evil. The mind of God is a frightening thing. 8:20-21

God tells the Israelites to smear some blood on their doors. That way when he's going around killing Egyptian children, he'll remember not to kill their children too. He probably said to himself when he saw the blood, "Oh yeah, I remember now. I not supposed to kill the children in this house."

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. He did this to show the world how much God hates figs.

If you do "not doubt in your heart" you can cast a mountain into the sea (or kill a fig tree, or whatever).

Jesus thanks God that only the ignorant and foolish will listen to him. Luke: 10:21

The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

DanBZ

If they say a verse is being taken out of context, force them to interpret it. When they do, challenge THEM.

Doug Shaver

Against some skeptics' claims, it is a valid defense. Typically, though, an apologist who argues from context is just parroting something he or she read or was told by their pastor or other mentor.

To defend a claim that some scriptural passage means something other than what a plain reading would suggest, the apologist must be more specific than just to say "It's out of context." Just what context are they referring to, and just how does it logically imply that the passage means what the apologist wants it to mean?

Joan of Bark

"Taken out of context" usually means "I don't know how to explain the statement, so I'm going to use a vague counter-argument".

I agree that when someone says this, reply with "okay, so put it in context for me, and back up your statement with scripture." Odds are, they won't know what to say.

Sven

It's also funny that sometimes the context makes the problem worse for inerrantist.

WishboneDawn

There's a huge range of opinion within the christian community and it's wrong to represent them as having one opinion like that. Conservative christian scholars may agree with your assessment, Liberal christian scholars are much more in line with the secular ones.

Luci

All of the above posters gave brilliant explanations.

It can also be interpreted as contrary to what they believe, and thus incorrect. Keep in mind christians ALWAYS have the answer, as they know the truth, the light and the way. They believe atheists are ripe for the picking as we either don't know anything about Christianity, or have insufficient info and therefore the need to proselytize and evangelize.

Berthold

Just where is the "context" of verses that are incompatible with economic survival ("See the birds under the sky..." etc.) and were therefore not obeyed by any significant Christian community or institutionalized church?

Well, a plausible theory is that the historical Jesus was an end-time prophet (several more things in this vein can be found in the NT), whose community had to adapt when the end of the world refused to come. No priest would admit such a thing, but somehow they have to deal with it.