Believing without Understanding

Via The Ministry of Progressive Christianity on Facebook. Can you think of examples of this being the case? To me, it immediately calls to mind two issues. One is the view that the text is inerrant, and so a reader with that presupposition may refuse to acknowledge when the text says something that is incorrect or immoral. Another is the view that the text provides supports for one’s worldview, and so evidence that a favorite prooftext means something other than what one assumed it meant may meet with resistance.

Given the photo, perhaps I should add that reading The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version itself suggests that one is less likely to have this particular issue? :)


"So Jesus's personal apocalyptism is debated, but I don't think it's debated that he was ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"Yes, the apocalypticism is debated, and I did try to couch my descriptions with 'something ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"I checked out the always useful Wikipedia page on the historical Jesus, and it said, ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"What a fascinating and thought-provoking session!How does the Talmud illustrate distracted reading? I take it ..."

Liquid Scripture at #AARSBL17

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matthew Funke

    This is closely related to, bust subtly different from, your second possibility: “Believing the Bible” can even cloud your judgment as to what is actually *in* the Bible (or not). When I was a young-Earth creationist, I was *sure* the Bible dictated a fixity of “kinds” *somewhere*. I was also sure that Genesis 1 taught instantaneous creation of things; even though that idea is nowhere to be found in the text, I never failed to see it there.

    • arcseconds

      It’s quite amazing what people can be sure of, but isn’t there (or possibly is there but they’re sure it isn’t), isn’t it?