Hello Tachion,
Quote:
|
There are a lot of problems with the Bible when it comes what God is or will/won't do. It appears to be pointless to use the bible to figure it out since it is all over the map. For example here is a little opposite of what you think the bible says:
|
First, to be fair, your critique is not all together without merit.
However, from my point of view I suppose it is in large measure dependent upon your presuppositions and the approach you make, and what underlies what you believe. For the sake of discussion may we say your point of view determines both how you see and understand a matter.
In the case of the Bible, Biblical truth, Biblical consistency, etc., I think it's fair to say you don't share my point of view, and you don't have to. I can recognize some validity in what you say from your point of view, and I trust you will be able to allow me the same kindness and latitude.
However, we engage each other in this discussion from that point of view, which is what [I suppose] makes the discussion interesting, if we find any interest in it.
So I will try to give you several initial responses from my point of view.
First, I agree that one can run the risk of abusing Biblical truth. That is, I have certainly seen a fair share of people using the Bible to support what they believed, even though I didn't believe that was what the Bible taught.
They were either reading into the Biblical text, simply imposing their own belief / definitions on to a text, altering the text to fit their belief, or lifting a verse out of context in order to prove their point. All of these are wrong and can prove quite harmful, especially in presenting what God will / won't ~ can / can't do.
In point of fact, these are quite often the very things the psuedo-Christian cults do.
It can also make it APPEAR pointless to use the Bible to figure it out, especially if it APPEARS Biblical truth is "all over the map" and in opposition to Itself.
As I happen to belief truth is that which is self-consistent, I would have a hard time ascribing to the Bible if I didn't believe it to be the most self-consistent Book in man's possession.
It has been my experience that most of the apparent contradictions in the Bible are simply that: apparent, not real. Perceived, and can be so for the variety of reasons I've already mentioned.
One of the cornerstones of hermenuetics -- at least that which I was taught -- was context. The context of the verse to the paragraph / passage it is in, to the chapter it is in, to the book, and to the testament. Sort of like concentric circles. Certainly if you life a verse out of it's context, you lose meaning.
If we see a man push his wife, we might conclude many things. But how shall we know what is true? The context of the push. If he's pushing her off a cliff, that context paints one picture. If he's pushing her out of the way of a falling object, that context paints a different picture. I don't suppose that's a great analogy, but I hope it helps explain the thought.
For example, you quote Lev. 26:22, "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." in asking if God is about love or not? It's a popular notion God is about love, and not one which I would tend to disagree. Then you bring up this terrible statement, from God to His own people, no less! Certainly doesn't sound loving!
But what is the context? Trying to be brief while presenting an accurate picture, it appears that this chapter is set in a larger context of God exhorting His children to obedience, and in fact He makes certain promises of blessings and benefits, if ~ Leviticus 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
After exhorting them to obey, with a statement of some of the blessings to follow, He also issues a warning ~ Leviticus 26:14 ¶ But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;
And v.22, which you quote, comes as part of this exhortation and warning.
Now, again, some might still react, "Why that's quite stern of God, and still doesn't present Him as loving." Certainly, we could not simply leave the picture with such bare bones. There would be several other considerations to bring into the picture, including and not limited to -- the real nature of God, His Holiness, the purpose of His law, the nature of His people, the benefits His people had already received, the treatment the people had already given God, etc. etc. etc..
We might still come to a place where we debate whether the totality of the context argues that God is truly loving or not here. But surely we would not wish to argue the point by only examining a fraction of the picture?
And so it is often the case with verses taken out of context.
Some other points to bear in mind when trying to understand, interpret and explain the Bible are language and custom. Because we are dealing with a translation -- and even a good one -- you will never find a 1:1 convergence of meaning. There will ALWAYS be some interpretation necessary, and therefore we may need to dig underneath the Word. I will say in most instances a good and trustworthy English version can stand on it's own, but I recognize we may sometimes need help.
For example, you reference Matthew 10:28 with respect to "fearing" God in comparison / contrast to "loving" Him as well as citiing the fact that "there is no fear in love." All fine well and good. But let's begin with the first verse in the trio. Part of the difficulty here seems to be with our understanding of what "fear" is and means. While /phobeo/ most often carries some connotation to "fearing" it can also legitimately mean "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" and in fact even in a good English lexicon [Random House / Webster's electronic College Dictionary] one definition of the "noun" is "reverential awe, esp. toward God" and of the verb transitive "to have reverential awe of."
A simple, better, expanded understanding of what the word means immediately begins to clarify the apparent contradiction.
The fact that we are separated by hundreds and thousands of years from the people, places and events of the Bible -- not to mention in quite a different culture from the Bible -- can cause problems in understanding. A quick check of your examples didn't really fit this point, so allow me a quick suggestion of one.
The Bible proclaims Jesus to be the virgin born son of Mary. That is to say, Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost. This also implies Mary was not yet married to Joseph, since pre-marital sex was not a normal practice amongst God fearing Jews. However, in the first Gospel account of His birth, the Bible says --
Matthew 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was ESPOUSED to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her HUSBAND, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, WAS MINDED TO PUT HER AWAY PRIVILY.
How could Joseph be Mary's husband if [a] Mary was still only "espoused" to him, and [b] they had not yet "come together" -- literally, consumated the marriage? Further, if Joseph was considering "putting her away" -- ie: divorcing Mary -- how could he if he wasn't her husband?
Dr. Henry Morris explains it well -- "According to Jewish law AT THE TIME, the espousal was almost equivalent to marriage, except for the consummation, and could be dissolved only by a legal divorce. Infidelity during that period on the part of the bride might even be punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:23,24). Joseph, however, was a "just man" (Matthew 1:19), who loved Mary and was unwilling to have her humiliated even by a public divorce."
I emphasize "at the time" in his remarks, because that supports the point I'm making. There are many kinds of "context" to consider to rightly understand, interpret, explain and apply God's Word. Linguistic, historical, social, legal, and the larger contexts of the various settings the verse is in [passage, chapter, book, testament].
Does that makes sense?
Another facet of my point of view is that I am convinced that the Bible represents the mind of God as He has revealed it to man. Now, that revelation includes some explanation concerning the nature and character of God.
Based on that understanding, I'm not surprised if I don't fully understand everything in the Word. I have a finite mind and limited understanding, and even though God has done an excellent job of trying to communicate with me, that doesn't mean everything is crystal clear to me over night. Or even over a life time of study.
But the fact that the Word does reveal all I need to know about God's character and nature, I can begin to understand various portions of God's Word, according to this understanding, especially as I develop that understanding through careful study of and comparison of the Scriptures.
There is an incident recorded in the Gospels when some who opposed Jesus came to Him and tried to tempt Him, test Him and by somewhat of a less than honest questioning "catch Him" and His response to them was ~ Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
When we fail to understand God's Word according to the nature and character of God as revealed therein, then we err, since we have failed to learn the Scriptures, and the power of God.
Finally, I also believe that the Bible is a Spiritually inspired book. Therefore, one must possess the Spirit of God to truly be able to appreciate and understand much of it. As the Bible says ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Now please do not take this as a personal assault on you. I do not mean it as such. I am simply trying to give you my point of view. But my point of view and understanding is, that if a person is not "born again" and thus does not possess the Spirit of God they can not fully appreciate the Word of God. That is in essence what I believe 1 Cor. 2:14 teaches.
Does that mean a person who does not claim to be born again can't understand anything about the Bible? Not at all. In fact, I think many times the problems people have with the Bible is not that they don't understand it, but that they do. To quote Mark Twain, "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
So, for example, many people today understand that the Bible claims God created the world in 6 literal days, but they can't reconcile that to their understanding of the world, and so reject the claims of the Bible.
Likewise, a person might see that the Bible says ~ Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; ~ and they will understand "all" means "all" but then they will try to reason somehow that doesn't apply to them, that somehow they are the exception to "all."
It's funny, but I can't tell you how many times, when I have simply quoted that verse to someone, and even offered to show it to them directly in my Bible, their response is, "Well, that's YOUR interpretation!" Yet I can't for the life of me figure out what I interpreted...
So based on my understanding of Biblical truth, I believe some things in the Bible can not be fully understood nor appreciated if you haven't been "spiritualized" or "made alive" or "born again" by the Holy Spirit.
I mean no disrespect to you, nor do I mean to presume on you. But I do believe much of what I have responded would take into account much of the apparent contradictions you raised.
Now, to be honest, you raised a whole lot of verses, and in many cases it does seem you lifted them out of context, and I frankly don't think it's worth while to go chasing a lot of bunnies down bunny trails. Whether it was intentional or not, the net effect of such a demonstration of verses is quite overwhelming, and I'm do not believe it is helpful to a productive discussion, if you truly wish to understand the issue.
You are certainly free to disagree.
However, I do not mean for that to imply that I am unwilling to specifically address what you have shared. I would simply ask this.
If you can at least see that my point of view may have some validity, and if you might allow that the way you went about demonstrating your point of apparent contradictions in the Bible was a bit over board, I would be happy to have you submit one specific set of apparently contradictory statements in the Bible. I promise I'll do my best to give you my honest understanding of how they harmonize. I can't promise you'll like my answer, nor agree. Of course, part of that depends on what you proffer as an example to study. But I simply want you to know I'm willing to try to engage this discussion further, if you would like to do so.
And perhaps we can both come to a better understanding of the point of view the other holds, in time.
My best to you, sir.