Dr Rick

The Bible may have been written by people who believed that they had divine inspiration or communication. It is also plausible that it may have been written by people that had other than divine motives, and/or may have had what they wrote distorted as the text was revised and re-interpreted through the centuries.

No matter what the case, the Bible we read today seems to be an unsatisfactory guide to how we should live, and it is not historically accurate. While none of us can be certain, it seems likely that if the gospels and scripture had been the products of divine intervention, it wouldn't have far-fetched references to unicorns, talking serpents, demonic possessions, and a world-wide flood. To assert that that the Bible was divinely inspired and accurate when it was first written raises the question as to why a god would give "his word" to humanity only to subsequently allow it to be distorted and misinterpreted through the centuries.

The problem is that many people, particularly in the US, reject the sciences in favor of Biblical explanations and consider its rules regarding such things as homosexuality, contraception, circumcision, or even blood transfusions valid substitutes for reason and civil discourse.

Rick

doc58

Thanks for your reply.

I will check out your website.

Because of my past, I cannot see where the Bible has much use if it is not wholly true in the literal, DTS sense. And now, because I see that it obviously isn't, I can't figure out its worth, except as a man made book that has contributed to an incredible amount of history, both good and bad.

You strongly believe the DTS guys are narrow minded. I know a bunch of them. The ones I know don't believe they are narrow-minded in a negative sense. They sincerely believe that they are correct and that God has shown them his truths as they have studied and prayed. They don't see themselves as unwilling to accept Gods grace to not have a lateral perspective or open mind. In fact, every time one preaches, they always pray, "Lord, speak through me, take me out of the equation..." and they are sincere.
They would believe you have been deceived and left the true path and are in apostasy.

It seems to me that God, if He is there, didn't do a very good job with all of this. I think it would be appropriate for him to send a yearly biblical update addressing religious concerns of the preceding year. Sort of like World Book encyclopedia did when I was a kid. Maybe he could write one and cause a copy to fall from the sky and land simultaneously in every persons hands. Maybe the first one could say, "Hey all you DTS guys, stop the verbal plenary, dispensational nonsense. Its not true. Read Metacrcoks website, everything he says is correct." Tongue in cheek but you get my point.

Metacrock

Meta =>Mabey it's time to expand your horizons. try some Keirkegaard for example.


That's what I'm saying. I said that. If you find one mistake the whole belief system will crumble. Not so with my belief system because I didn't put all my eggs in one basket. I have a living relationship with God that depends upon the Holy Spirit, not upon my hermeneutics.


Meta => But they don't believe that in a revalatory sense. They believe it through faith in their hermeutics.



They would believe you have been deceived and left the true path and are in apostasy.



Meta => I told you I went to Perkins. That ought to make it abundantly clear that I don't care what they think.






Meta => So you are saying that it all has to be cramed into one book, and if it isn't, then you can't believe it? You can't just live life and learn as you go along in a living relationship with God, you have to have all the answered distilled into little formula and out there like a car owner looking up the info about how to change the battery or something?

I can't stand that. I would be an atheist still if I had to do it that way.

malookiemaloo

I appreciate the point you are making re the Bible but it is not for the creature to dictate or complain to the Creator about His mode of communication!!

I do not disagree with your last paragraph.


m

Dr Rick

My point is not to complain or dictate to anyone; I completely agree with you that this would be wrong if the bible was an attempt at communication by "the Creator."

My point is that the Bible, with all its errors, inaccuracies, and depictions of atrocities, was likely not to have been an attempt at communication by "the Creator."

Rick

Metacrock

I think your loss of faith is the prefect evidence that the verbal pleanry thing is wrong! It just sets people up to fall by giving them absurd expecatations and too much uncessary bagage.


there's no reason why God has to write a memo (the Bible). That's reformation bagage. But because you were trained to see it that way, that's the only way you can see it.

rather than that top down view, try a model that is inside to outside. God communicates in the interiror life, in the religious experinces of the redactors, then all their redactions are influenced by their experince of the Divine.

That means, however, the Bible is creature of the chruch and the chruch is a creature of the mission of Christ, not the other way around, which is how fundagelicals have it.

fundie view: Bible => Christ => Chruch => believer.

my view: Chirst => christ's mission => church => Bible => believer.

doc58

Meta,

There are 100's of websites all with different views.

On what basis should a seeker value your views more highly than anyone elses such as John Pipers or the myriad of others?

Metacrock

Meta => WEll you shouldn't. But you should expand your horizons by coming to understand the scholarship of the liberal tadtion. I think the liberals have much better scholars. I don't endorce all their views. I still beleive that Jesus was the son of God, I believe in the atonement and resurrection. But I think the liberals have it all over the conservatives on how to do textual criticism.


There were some conservative textual critics an archaeologists and scholars who were great, but even those (like Bruce, Albright, Ramsy ect) are not really that conservative when you consider their views on redaction and issues like that.

So taking the liberal scholarship I asked myself, "what kind of theolgoical view point could put together the liberal scholarhsip and yet still hang on to a core of belief?" I think that's what I've done and it's the best appraoch.

It's the best becasue it's more honest in terms of Biblical textual problems, and yet maintains an orientation of faith.


For my view on inspiration, I turn to someone who, in comparision with the liberals in general is very conservative. That would be Avary Dulles, who was appointed to postion of Cardinal by JPII in the last few years. He's conservative enough to be a Cardinal. Yet is book on inspiration, when compared with DTS is obviously way too liberal for them. The books is called Models of Revlation and it's a must read as far I'm concerned.

there are believing scholars who are too liberal for the DTS crowd but very Godli and believing when compared with people like Spong and Crosson. They include Bill Famer, William S. Babcock, Billy Abraham (all at Perkins--all friends). And others.

So my advice would be to read more, come to undestand what liberal theology and textual critiicism is about. But hold to the core of the faith becasue there's no reason to give that up. Seek a deeper personal experince of God.

lpetrich

malookiemaloo:
The Bible is patriarchial but that is not necessarily the same as being sexiest.

Bull feces.

Against what standard are you judging the Bible? ...

Pure ethical relativism.

Under the Principle of Accommodation, God speaks to us in a manner and uses symbols thatwe can understand.

An omnipotent being would have no trouble making even the most arcane theories comprehensible.

Slavery, which is as old as the hills, is used as a figure for someone's devotion to God.

Very bad taste in metaphors. Sort of like saying that the Song of Solomon really describes one's love for god or whatever.

Take the example of a man who was to marry a woman he raped. This was the ultimate deterrent against rape (the resulting black mark on a woman's record being a poison pill)...

I don't see how that is the case, because that seems to me to be an endorsement of "marriage by capture".

Finally, Christianitry did more for the liberation of woman than any movement either before or after. No male or female before god-all one in Christ Jesus. Do you realise how revolutionary that was when first proclaimed?

However, that alleged insight was not followed up on; women were told to shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them, and Jesus Christ had not had several female apostles.

Also, Plato had proposed that his ideal city would have female as well as male philosopher-rulers.

lpetrich

malookiemaloo:
All I was saying was that the Bible is not a revolutionary manifesto.

Thank you for contradicting yourself -- reread where you claimed that the Bible is some superfeminist tract.

I know what you are saying re the levitical rules but I think we have a tendency to judge them by our own stsndards and western culture 2000 years on. If they made sense in the middle east back then, what's the problem?

Pure ethical relativism.