> >Probably not. I don't think it follows, though, that I have to think the
> >Bible is inerrant.
>
> I didn't use the term inerrant. I prefer the term historical. If the
> events related in Scripture have no basis in fact, then what exactly are we
> believing. There were several reasons I nearly slid into atheism. I believed
There are a couple ways I'd soften this. First, there are lots of events
reported in Scripture, some of which I believe are more important than
others--if it turns out the the bronze laver was really 4 cubits high
instead of 5 (or whatever), I don't really see how that impacts Christianity.
Second, having a 'basis' in fact is pretty broad. The story of Ruth, for
example, is thought by many OT scholars to be fiction or at least a
fictionalized account written early post-exilic period. The usual
Christian gloss for this story is that it is a nice tale about one of
Jesus' ancestors and fodder for out-of-context wedding verses. When you
consider that post-exilic Judaism was very exclusive and xenophobic, Ruth
looks like a powerful tract reminding people that even King David Himself
had non-Jewish ancestors. Its a call for more inclusivity, a higher
opinion of other nations, and more tolerance. So the 'basis in fact' for
Ruth is kind of vague. Is it the historical context in which someone was
inspired to right the counter-cultural wisdom of acceptance and inclusivity?
Is it the historical likelihood that David had a non-Jewish ancestor? If
we discover (somehow) that David in fact didn't, would that make the story
less meaningful in its message?
> that the Bible taught evolution didn't happen--I learned evolution happened.
> I believed that there should be some evidence for Noah's flood (of local or
> global extent)--I could find no geologic support for ANY view of a flood
> until I developed my view. I believed that the Exodus must have been
> true--yet even today there is no real evidence of it (which is why I truly
> hope that the report posted here a few weeks ago might solve the Exodus
> problem).
>
> Note that all these areas involve earth history--biological, geological or
> archeological. While I agree that an inerrant Bible is probably not
> attainable (there being spelling mistakes and typos at the very least), I
> don't see that a historical Scripture is out of reach. A non-historical
> Scripture is no better than the Book of Mormon or any work of fiction I
> might come up with.
I know this is not your intent, but this seems to me to cheapen the Bible
significantly. In my view, the Bible is a source of inspiration, spiritual
guidance, and a source for insights about God, not an archaeological atlas.
It is important, as I think we agree, that the stories be 'historical' in
some sense, but as I tried to point out above, this is quite a fuzzy
criterion. If the theology in the Bible is only as compelling (as compared
to the book of Mormon) as the Bible's superior ability to inform
earth science, then I'd suggest we're in deeper trouble than any problems
earth science might bring up!
> >No, I'm all for only believing in what is real, but that's why I don't
> >think it does us a service to emphasize Christianity's role as an arbiter
> >of earth science. I don't think earth science is decoupled from
> >Christianity in some kind of 'two-chamber' approach, but it seems to me
> >that casting Christianity as one opponent in a fight-to-the-finish with
> >other theories of earth science is to miscategorize what it is all about.
>
> I would suggest that only the YECs make the Bible the arbitor of the
> geological sciences. But I would suggest that what the Bible says about
> geological science should be correct, i.e., that IF there was a flood then
> we SHOULD find some evidence of it. We are not given enough information for
> us to be absolutely sure of any flood scenario but I think it necessary that
> SOME scenarios that matches the Biblical description, be within the realm of
> geological science.
Yes, but any discovery of evidence for a flood is bound to match other
flood accounts just as well as it does the Bible. If the Bible is then
taken to rest completely on its value as a source for such a theory, there
is nothing to discriminate between it and other similar books. That's why
I'm suggesting that these issues are of secondary importance.
> My contention is that in placing 'no-rain-before-the-flood'
> >alongside the resurrection as factoids to be defended at all costs,
> >Creationists have done a disservice to many people.
>
> I would agree that the Flood etc is less important than the resurrection or
> Jesus being a person, but such things are not unimportant or irrelevant either.
> If there is no historical basis for the Flood, then the story is no better
> than stories bout leprechauns faeries and elves, who equally have not basis
> in history.
What I'm getting at is that a story, especially a religious story, is
valuable not primarily for its scientific content, but for its *spiritual*
content. If we have no way to judge the spiritual content of Bible stories
as versus leprachaun stories, then I'm afraid projects to look for small
footprints and bags of gold behind rainbows is probably not going to help :-).
> > In the case of
> >the Mormons, I can only repeat myself from above: I find that the best
> >science tends to undergird (or compose raw material for) the best myth.
>
> But I don't see an aswer for the Mormon question here. Is their myth of a
> Semitic people with big walled cities and chariots in the New World as good
> as our myth that the Hebrews escaped from Pharoah? Are all myths equivalent?
Of course not. But judging the quality of myths or stories is carried out
on a different plan than judging the quality of scientific theories. The
one may have nothing to do with the other (although as I keep saying, and I
think we agree, this isn't the case in real life).
> >I've heard probably dozens of
> >interpretations of the fall story which do not take Adam and Eve as
> >literally living ~6000 years ago in Mesopotamia.
>
> I have something like 20 different interps., including a marxist
> interpretation. These 20 or so interpretations are mutually exclusive so
> they can't all be true at the same time. So which interp. is correct? Or is
> any interpretation, no matter how bizarre correct because it serves the
> purposes of the interpretor?
It depends on what you mean by 'correct' and 'purposes.' A Marxist story
of the fall is likely not 'correct' in terms of Christian theology, because
the Marxist theory of humanity is quite a bit different and the points made
simply won't serve. From a viewpoint outside both, how are they to be
compared? I think we'd agree that their factual basis is an important facet,
but we may disagree in that I'd propose that their 'mythological' basis is
an even more important facet. I don't think there are systematic, "scientific"
ways of doing that comparison (that's the obvious next question :-)), but
I think it is one that is doable and that we do all the time.
[...]
> So, if the core of Christianity is not in the details like the creation, the
> fall, the flood, the exodus etc. Then why do we need the Old Testament. The
> core of Christianity is obviously the resurrection. Under your view, why
> should modern Christians NOT simply divorce our Judaic heritage?
:-) Many do nowadays, myself not among them. Perhaps I've suggested much
of the reason above: the OT *is* our heritage, although perhaps less than
it should be and has been. As such, it is people "like us" captured in
various phases of their spiritual lives as individuals and groups. It has
been considered important enough (although sometimes perhaps for the wrong
reasons) to collect and transmit at incredible cost through the millenia.
But these rational reasons are perhaps not really the point (although for
folks of our temperament, maybe they are the best thing around :-)). There
is always just *believing* in it, which means to me not a groundless
acceptance in every detail but more an openness to let God speak to us
through it. For this to happen, obviously it needs to be taken seriously,
and that involves a historical facet as you are stressing (and with which I
agree, although perhaps not to such an extent). It seems to me though that
the more historically situated we can discover it (like the story of Ruth),
the more compelling it becomes, although not always in the ways expected.
> >Sorry for such a long message--I hope I have clarified what I am thinking.
> >Since you have had this discussion before, though, I may be boring you
> >to tears. :-)
>
> Oh no, I am not bored. This issue is one of the most crucial in modern
> Christianity today. It is what divides the conservatives from the liberals.
> It involves Pilate's question: What is Truth?
I'm enjoying it as well. Thanks for the discussion.
-Greg