That seems reasonable. But just as you imply that you have a consistent “rationale” that allows you to ‘know’ that all texts in the Bible’s collection are equally true and valid, I’d assume that those unconvinced of your reasons for knowing that assume that they too are consistent in applying the rationales to all texts that appear reasonable to them.
With most religions excepted, very few arenas of thought assume that everything written on it within a particular collection need be equally valid and not subject to other external (and even internal) criterion of evaluation. So given the diversity of viewpoints collected in the Bible, those who suggest that they reasonably ‘know’ that this assumption should be embraced, would seem to need to meet a high bar.
I don’t so much disagree with either of you… BUT that’s NOT what I’m alluding to… I think you, Bob, know exactly what I’m talking about (I can go and find plenty of quotes though I shouldn’t need to).
Plenty of times on this forum a biblical text has been put forward to show a given reality only for someone to debunk said text as invalid or irrelevant based purely on the basis that said text does not agree with some presupposition they hold as more important, i.e., their presupposition is correct, the text however becomes wrong, mistaken and or mistranslated etc, etc… followed then by their own litany of lax interpretation.
Example: a text will say something to the affect… “God said… yada yada” the authenticity of which will then be called into serious question and all manner of excuses given as to why NOT to believe what is actually there in black and white IN THE TEXT.
So I’m not talking about arguments around interpretation etc, surely we all understand that? I’m referring to plain evidence of the text where the text clearly saysthus and so but someone will contend and claim no it doesn’t — even though it’s right there in the TEXT.
I find arguing about what a text says, and doubting that what it says is true, to be are two different things. I too dislike someone arguing that their view reflects the Bible, but then dismissing contrary texts, unless they admit up front that they don’t believe the whole Bible is binding upon their beliefs (as e.g. Paidion or LLC has). For I love taking texts seriously and debating what they really mean, even though I’m not an inerrantist.
But I question that those here who typically consider a given text not binding on their view think their only basis is that it doesn’t agree with their own preferred belief. As I suggested, they have “rationales” (external and internal concerning the narrative) that cause them to think that it is justified to give a particular text supremacy as more valid than another. The retort to their view must engage their rationales, not simply complaining that they are not giving equal authority to every text.
My own impression is that a more conservative view of the Bible as universally binding causes one to be invested in having every text agree with one’s paradigms and views, while those who admit that they don’t find all views in the Bible to be correct, should be more objective and able to admit when it says things that conflict with their own beliefs.
But qaz, the debate I see there is not whether the text says that God ordered such genocides. I think it obviously does, even while I question whether it is true or moral.
Regarding "God’s" instructions to exterminate the Amalekites, we read,
1 Samuel 15:1,3 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. … Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
Agreed! The text clearly says—that Samuel says—that God says—to kill babies. Yet nevertheless, here we are, broaching the question of whether or not“the human author of the text wrongly attributed the genocide to God.” But alas, maybe we are all guilty (with the exception of Davo) of doing something we shouldn’t dare to do?
I try to be consistent: I always challenge any biblical text which indicates that God is not the loving Father I know—that God would “kill, steal, and destroy” people. I do this by striving to properly distinguish between God and Satan (as spelled out by Jesus in John 10:10), and by recognizing that, like many believers today, the prophets, in their ignorance, sometimes failed to make this distinction in their writings—misattributing evil to God.
I would further argue that all of us subjectively apply filters, perhaps even in the face of explicit Bible verses that appear contrary to our viewpoint. (And after all, don’t we regularly play “Bible verse ping pong” with each other here?)
For example, my suggested “airtight” John 10:10 hermeneutic tool is nonsense to Davo, because ultimately, he doesn’t believe, as I do, that the devil even exists, and that he is “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4), an evil person for whom the whole cosmos lies in his power (1 John 5:19).
To use his words, I would argue that Davo dismisses the “plain evidence of the text where the text clearly saysthus and so…and claim[s] no it doesn’t.” Further, that he himself sometimes “introduc[es] rationales for discounting, dismissing, denying and destroying texts, as is well evidenced, demonstrated and practiced on this board by some.”
As one example, Davo refutes (what to me is) the plain meaning of texts about the very existence of the devil–texts which to me seem uncontroversial, like the following:
Matthew 4:8-11 (NIV. Cf. Luke 4:5-8)
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
I don’t question the pot’s right, for example, to dismiss the devil, but it shouldn’t so blithely call the kettle black.
OK. There are some, who “allegedly” …have the gift of hearing, the voice of God. One is a Roman Catholic priest, I have spent many years with…he “allegedly” has the gifts of healing and hearing the voice of God. And I attended many, of his healing masses - and fell down from his touch. So if he (or the prophets / apostles) …hears God speaking…how “exactly” is he - or they - applying “filters”…so to speak?
HFPZ, by “filters” I guess I mean presuppositions or paradigms, whether true or false.
Regarding the supernatural, for example,
one filter may be that only God can do supernatural things, like speak to people, or heal people
another filter is that there is nothing supernatural, only natural
another filter is that God does supernatural things, but that there is also a devil who can do miraculous things, and we truly need help from the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all truth (John 16:13), in order to successfully distinguish between God and the satanic when something supernatural occurs
This is usually pretty easy. Take the “alleged” miraculous healing and sacred places, of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Well, if these things increase one’s faith in Christ, the church, etc…If it’s the devil, then he is doing “a terrible job”…Usually it boils down, to WHOM one gives the credit to. If one points the finger, to God as the doer…and they don’t advertise, charge admission or sell tickets…again, the devil is doing a poor job…of keeping folks, from turning to God. The Devil’s job, is to get people to abandon Christianity… or for non-Christian settings, getting them to abandon faith in God, living an ethical life, etc.
So lets say we’ve correctly interpreted the bible through finding all errors in translation and bias etc - does the bible still progress in increasing the knowledge of Truth?
Yes, do our interpretations of the rules of the NT change and do we need to go outside of the bible to help complete those ideas. Hope I clarified that a bit…
What are YOU trying to prove by your assertions??? I have never argued that the NT writings are “more kosher” that those of the OT. My argument is that JESUS revealed the Father as He truly is—both by word and by living example as the Son of God, the exact expression of God’s essence.
.
Since I am a Christian, I believe what the Anointed Jesus, my Lord taught. Since He taught the character of God to be quite different from the ways in which Moses and some of the prophets depicted Him, I hold to Jesus’ description of God’s character.
Yes, my “evidence” concerning God’s character is what I choose to believe, for I choose to believe my Lord and Saviour, the anointed Jesus.
The weight of evidence from many previous posts demonstrates you dismiss as abhorrent many OT texts you deem as contrary to a view you form from the NT and thereby claim such OT texts to be false. However, you have yet to show for example how you justify or how you know the likes of… “God is love” to a true reflection of reality as per what the writer of 1John writes, i.e., what’s your evidence the writer of 1John was any more clued into what he testifies THAN any other biblical writer? IOW… why aren’t you consistent in applying your imposed arbitrary rule elsewhere?
Just for the record… I believe the writer’s claim… but I do so because I accept the entirety of Scripture, not in terms of inerrancy, but simply as true. And where I find a text may cut across a certain belief I hold I find it much more consistent to challenge or change my belief THAN claim a troubling TEXT to be in error, or that the one recording such to be deceived or just plain wrong — that for me would be an arrogance I couldn’t come at in passing judgment against scripture… plenty of non-believers do, I can’t.
Where does your very high view of scripture come from, davo? Do you give the same weight to, say, Old Testament stories such as Balaam’s ass as you do to , say, Jesus walking on water? I actually mean that as a serious question, not as a taunt.
You’ve made a choice to understand the Bible in a certain way, I respect that, but I’m wondering why the choices of others might not be valid as well?
At a guess, probably my evangelical past… although I’m no longer an evangelical I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah I do… do I think donkeys and serpents literally talk? nah, but that doesn’t mean I reject the accounts as false, i.e., I’m smart enough to take into consideration literary style and or effect etc, all stuff I’ve shared previously.
IF the likes of Moses and other biblical writers were hit-and-miss then the whole jolly lot must be… IF one is going to be honest and consistent. IMO… this notion that some parts of the bible are kosher while other parts are crap is beyond my belief — but that’s me.
Much of the metaphorical vs literal ideas are a true conundrum, and it will be so for a long time me thinks. Until we as a society, can take a view of religion and work with it, the religion will be marginal, and that is a shame. Religions have a place, but they are not doing themselves service by being exclusive. I will stop there, that should raise all sorts of flak.
I believe God is love because things like my experience and reasoning confirm it (i.e. I use Wesley’s 4 fold source and the internal work of the Spirit to choose my beliefs; not simply because John wrote it).
You appear to believe it is superior to know things simply based on accepting external claims (here particular books). But how do I (or you) "know" that this collection of writings is to be entirely accepted? And how do you then know that the God represented as celebrating genocide is reality? How do you know it is arrogance to disbelieve that?
I.e. You may feel Paidion or my way of choosing what we think we know is inadequate to assure “knowing,” but I can’t see that the same questions and difficulties are escaped by your own way of ‘knowing.’ Declaring an external source as your way of never being in error hardly seems to escape a subjective route to ‘knowing.’
Thanks, that’s fair, and appears to mean that our personal observation and reason comes to differing conclusions on what kind of collection the Bible is. I don’t find it to be one that must be seen as never to be critically evaluated or accepted as entirely correct. Indeed, I sympathize with OT scholar Peter Enns’ reading that the Bible’s nature is to keep urging us to question it and evaluate what takes precedence ("How the BibleActually Works").
On what the Bible displays on genocide, do you doubt that it often portrays God as urging the slaughter of whole peoples including infants, and then has songs rejoicing in such vanquishment of those on land God wants Israel to have, and condemnation for any who fall short of carrying out such divine pograms? A week ago, my church’s studies on Judges hit the Song of Deborah. You may call it arrogant, but many of us gagged chapter by chapter, and did not find this to be the God we experience.
