Lucy,
A few comments:
1. There are only a limited number of ways by which you and I (by God's
grace) were made aware of the His saving faith: we were either taught at
home, in schools, and/or in church. My guess is that, for most of us, the
Bible played an important role as an instruction manual for us, our parents,
and the clergy. If, as you suggest, all Bibles on this planet were converted
into ashes, YOUR faith might not be shaken, nor that of your children, but
within a few generations we'd be back in the days before the printing press
was invented, or worse, because the clergy still had access to the Bible at
that time. History tells us what happened when access to the Bible is
limited: we'd probably be back into selling and buying indulgences in no
time at all. I think we can safely assume that God gave us the Bible as His
revelation and that, by removing the Bible from the equation, we'd be left
with "tradition."
2. To touch on your example of the interpretation that goes into
translations of the Bible. Obviously, this happens or we would not have
that many versions. But, if there is some latitude in translating Jesus'
activity on/near/by the water (I did not take New Testament Greek), what
would the point of the story be if Jesus had simply walked along or by the
water?
3. I agree that the Bible is not "God" nor should we venerate it as if it
were.
4. You may be aghast that some denominations set pretty stiff entrance
exams as a requirement to be a member and, by extension, to eternal life
(from a human perspective). Just look at some of the home pages of the more
conservative denominations (I won't name any) that stipulate a belief in a
literal, six-day creation. This does not mean that one cannot be taught in
churches belonging to these denominations. Is it bad planning? That all
depends on what the plan is. There are many "mainline" denominations that
are pretty flexible. If church growth is their goal, they're not doing so
well, by and large. Ideally, we should perhaps all return to the fold of the
(Roman) Catholic church and accommodate the wide range of interpretations.
It would also, conveniently, answer many of the questions on homosexuality
that Burgy posted (and I am being quite serious here). As I mentioned in an
earlier post, since we don't know what the Bible is trying to tell us (other
than that Christ died for sinners and we can't even agree on how many
sinners He died for), are we deluding ourselves by interpreting that which
should not be interpreted?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters [mailto:masters@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Tuesday August 14, 2001 4:02 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Jonah et al
Chuck wrote:
"...this puts the ENTIRE contents of the Bible on a very shaky
foundation, including the cross and the resurrection. Your solution
would, then, include the possibility that the disciples "imagined" the
resurrection, that Jesus did not really
die, that his followers stole the body and covered up the crime, that
they "imagined" Jesus walking on the water, that He didn't really healed
the blind or threw out demons, or turned water into wine."
Lucy responds:
Well...from my perspective, I don't think it matters if the whole Bible
is put on very shaky foundations. What matters to me is if my **faith**
is on a shaky foundation. If the Bible is one's foundation of faith,
then naturally one would not want that foundation shaken. But my faith
has no foundation in the Bible. Don't get me wrong - it's a great book
- the finest ever written. However, if every Bible on the planet were
systematically burned to ashes through some demonic plot, I can assure
you my faith would not be altered one bit. Nor would that of my
children who, at that point, would have no way of reading the Bible.
Again, I see the Bible as an instruction booklet for life - and
certainly not as my foundation in faith. This is a classic problem, of
course. I remember when taking New Testament Greek (I was in my forties
by then) that many of the very young seminary students were aghast to
discover how much interpretation goes into translation of the original
text (did Jesus walk ON the water, or NEAR the water, or IN the
water???). By having the Bible as an anchor to their faith rather than
using it as an instruction book, they began "floating away" from their
faith when the anchor was tampered with. "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me." I don't think the Bible should be a "God." It's a book.
Chuck wrote:
"...making their acceptance an entrance requirement into a denomination
and/or eternal life?"
Lucy responds:
Heavens! I think it's terribly naughty to make someone accept as an
entrance requirement into a church or denomination a rigid set of
beliefs. It's bad planning, too. I mean, the whole purpose of the
church is to teach. How can one teach if one shuts out the ignorant at
the threshold? Not only that, how can one teach if one refuses to learn
himself? I believe that flexibility, the sharing of different thoughts,
and so on is the truest nature of religious education. Of all places on
earth, the church should surely be the most accepting and open for just
those reasons.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 17:47:52 EDT