In case you\u2019ve missed it, there has been some excellent<\/em> discussion of the Bible, inerrancy, and doctrines like creationism on several patheos blogs over the past couple of weeks. I may post some of my thoughts in response at some point, but for the moment I thought I\u2019d pull together some of the posts I\u2019ve been enjoying and list them here, with excerpts.<\/p>\n One Text, Many Bibles<\/a>, on Unreasonable Faith<\/p>\n This is exactly the type of historical criticism we give to the annals of the Assyrians or the court records of the Egyptians. If you\u2019re going to pretend to be using the historical-critical method, you have to take this kind of analysis seriously.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Young-Earth Creationism Is a Cult<\/a>, on Exploring Our Matrix<\/p>\n Although its proponents will at times pay lip service to the idea that acceptance of evolution is not a matter that affects one\u2019s salvation, that is clearly just a PR device. Most of their propaganda and their speeches say otherwise, claiming that acceptance of evolution is the root of all kinds of evil, both spiritual and social, and trying to make people afraid of looking into more closely, for fear that the result will be that they will lose their faith and end up in hell.<\/p>\n In a recent conversation with another former young-earth creationist, I observed that it is no surprise that the proponents of young-earth creationism use fear in this manner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ken Ham\u2019s Biblical\u00a0Exegesis\u00a0Is Just as Sound as His Science<\/a>, on The Slacktivist<\/p>\n For decades I\u2019ve been having this argument:<\/p>\n YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago.<\/p>\n ME: No, actually, it doesn\u2019t. [Insert everything I\u2019ve ever written or said about the Bible for the past 25 years.]<\/p>\n YEC: Does\u00a0too<\/em>.<\/p>\n That argument was exhausting and depressing. But the new variation of it is even more so:<\/p>\n YEC: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago.<\/p>\n ME: No, actually, it doesn\u2019t. [Insert everything I\u2019ve ever written or said about the Bible for the past 25 years.]<\/p>\n INTERNET ATHEIST: Does\u00a0too<\/em>.<\/p>\n ME: Wait \u2026 what are\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0doing here? And why on earth are you siding with\u00a0him?<\/em><\/p>\n IA: I\u2019ve apparently decided he\u2019s the most knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy interpreter of Christian orthodoxy and biblical scholarship.<\/p>\n ME:\u00a0Him?<\/em>\u00a0He\u2019s really not.<\/p>\n IA: I\u2019ve read Answers in Genesis. I know all I need to know about what you Christians believe. And Ken Ham warned me against your seminary trickery \u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Why Do Atheists Always Go After Ken Ham?<\/a> on The Friendly Atheist<\/p>\n We go after Ham because, whether it\u2019s right to take the Bible literally or not, more than 100,000,000 Americans\u00a0already buy into that lie<\/em>\u00a0and he\u2019s one of the ringleaders.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the same reason atheists love to quote horrible Bible verses. It\u2019s not because we think people\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0take random lines (in and out of context) from the Bible at face value; it\u2019s because\u00a0so many people already do<\/em>.<\/p>\n This is also why I don\u2019t find it useful to pay attention to what \u201csophisticated theologians\u201d have to say. Most Christians aren\u2019t paying attention to them, either, so why bother debating a version of Christianity so few people even know about?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Augustine Asks Hard Questions Atheists Don\u2019t Ask<\/a>, on God and the Machine<\/p>\n It\u2019s fun to read or listen to super-duper-smart professional atheists (well,\u00a0they\u00a0<\/em>think they\u2019re smart) banging on about the book of Genesis. It\u2019s a useful issue for them, because the\u00a0primeval\u00a0history in scripture is mysterious, complex, and rich in symbolism. So, naturally, Reason Warriors approach it with the childish\u00a0literalism\u00a0of a young-earth creationist. Perhaps this works for them because\u00a0fundamentalism\u00a0is ill-equipped to properly understand Genesis, which is why friends don\u2019t let friends be\u00a0fundamentalists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why Can\u2019t You Be More Like Augustine?<\/a> on Unreasonable Faith<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure McDonald [of God and the Machine] is interested in the author\u2019s original message either. Like Augustine, he seems to be working under the standard Christian assumption that the texts will always have some meaning that is relevant to us today, even if they only provide questions that spark reflection. The historical-critical method accepts that a text was written by an author in a certain time for an audience that shared that time. It does not assume that a text must contain a meaning that is relevant to our time.<\/p>\n To me, the idea that every passage of the Bible must contain a meaning that is relevant to our lives seems self-centered. We\u2019re not allowing the voices of the past to really speak for themselves. We\u2019re muzzling them and supplying our own meaning to their words. As an archivist, I find that both irrational and unethical.<\/p>\n It is also special pleading. This is not something we\u2019d do with the Roman histories, nor would Christians do this with the Quran or any other tradition\u2019s holy text. Thus McDonald\u2019s message to atheists, boiled down: to understand the Bible, you must stop being atheists and start being Christian. That, I\u2019m afraid, is unacceptable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sooner or Later, You Have to Choose between the Bible and Inerrancy<\/a>, on Exploring Our Matrix<\/p>\n A discussion I\u2019ve been part of on Facebook illustrates something that I have said before on numerous occasions: ultimately, for those approaching the Bible as a sacred text, one has to choose between showing respect for the Bible above all, or giving ultimate authority to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.<\/p>\n This was illustrated in a discussion of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. The two do not agree between David and Joseph. The most common approach to harmonizing them is to claim that one of them is Mary\u2019s genealogy.<\/p>\n But that is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0what the text says. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke explicitly say that they are giving Joseph\u2019s genealogy.<\/p>\n And so this provides a nice test case for my point about the incompatibility of inerrancy and giving one\u2019s ultimate respect to the Bible. If one is committed above all else to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, then you will be forced not just in this particular instance, but time and time again, to sacrifice what the Bible actually says in order to harmonize texts. Those two Gospels can say explicitly and unambiguously that they are giving Joseph\u2019s genealogy. But you will deny that they mean what they say, in order to insist that both are right \u2013 even though, ironically, you are in fact saying that one of them, taken at face value, is wrong. And so with the very sword you picked up to try to defend your doctrine of the Bible, you do damage to the Bible, cutting off anything that is a threat to your doctrine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Inerrancy Is Not a Victimless Crime<\/a>, on The Slacktivist<\/p>\n The doctrine of \u201cinerrancy\u201d is often referred to as a \u201chigh view of scripture.\u201d It is not.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a low-down dirty trick to play on the Bible and on anyone who tries to read it. Inerrancy is not a victimless crime. It chases some people away from the Bible and prevents others from reading it intelligently.<\/p>\n I respect that this idea comes from a place of respect, but that is not where it leads. It leads to a profound disrespect for the Bible, and for those who seek to read it honestly. And, ultimately, it always shifts from being a claim about the Bible itself to being a claim about the person making that claim. After all, what good is an inerrant, infallible text without an inerrant, infallible reader, exponent and enforcer?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Culture Warriors Produce a New, Improved Bible<\/a>, on The Slacktivist<\/p>\n This solves a great dilemma for culture warriors. They really wish the Bible spent more time talking about the things they\u2019re obsessed with, but the\u00a0actual<\/em>\u00a0Bible is a terrible disappointment on this score. Yeah, it\u2019s got a handful of clobber verses on homosexuality and drunkenness, but not nearly as many as they\u00a0wish<\/em>\u00a0were in there.<\/p>\n And when it comes to condemning abortion or secular rock music, the Bible is silent and therefore pretty much\u00a0useless<\/em>.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s a righteous culture warrior to do? What else? They just have to\u00a0add<\/em>\u00a0new stories to the Bible \u2014 \u201cissue-based\u201d culture-war stories that teach the lessons the Bibleought to have<\/em>\u00a0taught if it hadn\u2019t been such a disappointment in its original form.<\/p>\n And then, to make sure that no one treats these new, added sections as less meaningful, they stress that these additions are \u201cabsolute truth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Having Your Bible and Criticizing It Too<\/a>, on Unreasonable Faith<\/p>\n So not only is\u00a0Thomas McDonald<\/a>\u00a0accusing us of being less sophisticated than a fifth-century theologian, nowFred Clark<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0James McGrath<\/a>\u00a0are both comparing us to Ken Ham. These last two are like a Progressive Evangelical tag-team, hitting us from both sides as McDonald distracts the referee. I was just shaking off Clark\u2019s\u00a0gorilla slam<\/a>\u00a0when they both hit me with their \u201cBultmann Bomb\u201d and left me flat on the canvas, demythologized.<\/p>\n \u2026<\/p>\n The\u00a0Liberal approach is to try and save Scripture from itself. No longer believing in the cryptic interpretations of the sages or the wild allegorical readings of the early and medieval Christians, Liberals attempt to use historical interpretation while still finding meanings that are relevant to the modern world.<\/p>\n The result is what Kugel calls \u201capologetics light,\u201d and it is frequently very silly. Take the story of Noah as an example. We now know that the flood story was taken from a Mesopotamian legend. Even some of the original wording is still retained (God \u201csmelled the pleasing odor\u201d). Modest changes were made so that the story would appeal to its new audience, and apparently these changes are enough to make Liberal Christians go into raptures.<\/p>\n Should we be surprised by the fact that the editors replaced Gods with God? No, it would be amazing if they hadn\u2019t. The cause of the flood has been changed from human overcrowding and noise to human wickedness, but is that thin reed really enough to support all the theology that has been placed on it?<\/p>\n The more historical you are in your approach to the Bible, the less relevant it seems. It\u2019s possible that you can\u2019t have your Bible and criticise it too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Four Ancient Assumptions about Biblical Interpretation<\/a>, on Unreasonable Faith<\/p>\n After the\u00a0past couple<\/a>\u00a0of posts about\u00a0biblical interpretation<\/a>, I thought it would be good to post James L. Kugel\u2019s \u201cFour Assumptions.\u201d These are the assumptions that were held by most biblical interpreters from sometime in the Second Temple period until the Reformation.<\/p>\n \u2026<\/p>\n As I mentioned previously, modern Fundamentalists have shed the first assumption but kept the rest. This has led to all sorts of problems. Arguing that the surface or literal meaning of the text is always relevant and never contradictory requires great skill in sophistry. Often times I see Fundamentalists slipping in the first assumption without realizing it, by arguing that the \u201capparent meaning\u201d and the \u201creal meaning\u201d of the text are different.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n