Moral's I don't Follow?
Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:33:32 -0500 (00873776012, Mutt.19970908163332.jepler@falcon.inetnebr.com)
Lenny Santee writes:
> Since I believe the Bible to be God breathed (inspired) I do not believe it
> contains contradictions. If, for example, Luke says Judas fell and burst
> open and Matthew says Judas hanged himself there must be an explanation
> that would accommodate both accounts.
That's all well and good if the person you're explaining this to agrees
that the bible is inerrant, but is useless (ie circular) when the intent
is to discuss _whether_ the bible contains contradictions. By your
statement, do you mean that those who are undecided on the issue of
inspiration/inerracny of the bible would be perfectly justified in not
accepting your argument on the Judas issue in particular?
> As for the literal command, every
> passage should be taken literal unless it is obviously meant not to be
> taken literal (Jesus called Herod a fox) or it contradicts another
> statement.
So _if_ I know for some other reason that the bible is inerrant, and I
have two passages that say "A" and "not A" if interpreted literally,
then one or the other or both of the passages is figurative. Which one
is it? By what (necessarily extrabiblical) measure do you decide?
Again, if someone undecided on the errancy issue decides that both
statements were intended literally and thus the bible is errant, what
is your line of reason against _him_? Your line of reason (if you can
produce the ruler by which you decide a statement is literal or not)
does nothing to rule out this possibility, only your assumption of
inerrancy does that.
> Take one of your favorite ones that Christians are to give to
> those who ask. This verse can not mean just anyone and every one under all
> circumstances. I have obligations to my family, myself and my church. I
> am told elsewhere in the Bible that if a man will not work neither shall he
> eat, etc.
But if I insist to you that the bit about "if a man will not work" is
figurative (and anyway, asking for food is "work", isn't it?) and the
command to give is literal, where is your sensible objective rule to
show me wrong? I _understand_ that "when the bible seems to say A and
not A, one is figurative", but your choice of which seems to be as much
from personal bias/ or preference as anything else.
It's certainly curious that you should mention your church and your
family, since the Luke passage is in the context of those who hate you
and those who steal from you. Especially curious when you go on to say
> The Bible must be taken as a whole unit.
Even if this passage is figurative, it must in some way apply to someone
other than your family and your church. Unless they slap you, steal
your cloak, etc....
Speaking of taking the bible as a whole unit, you might go ahead and
explain why the whole Jesus fable isn't in contradiction of the Micah 6
context, or the "all things must be purified with blood" passage in
contradiction of the Leviticus (deuteronomy?) passage about flour power?
Or why Micah 5:3 isn't in the same "whole unit" with 5:2, besides the
fact that 5:3 makes it obvious that Jesus and his mommy didn't fulfill
the supposed prophecy?
> The Bible must be taken as a whole unit. We understand this in
> every day language. IF I should say, "I have lost my watch and have looked
> everywhere for it." It is rather obvious that I have not looked
> *EVERYWHERE* or else I would have found it. There are problem reading and
> understanding what a person means. There have been exchanges on this list
> where people didn't recognize sarcasm or misunderstood what a person was
> trying to get across. I am not saying that the Bible is always easy to
> understand. You must put some effort into getting the meaning. However,
> to say that the Bible is full of contradictions because I can imagine them
> is simply a false way of reasoning.
But the fact that the bible has exactly the same shortcomings---in at
least the same degree---as an average manmade written document is quite
startling when considered with the claim that the bible is perfect.
When you admit that the bible is just like any other book of men you're
admitting that it's just as errant as anything else.
As for your example, (I know you like to put down my examples, or was
that someone else?) I don't think it's quite the same thing. The
situation is more that a whiny kid says "I lost my marbles and I looked
everywhere for them"{ when in fact he looked nowhere. That's what this
seems like to me ...
> I try my best to follow the moral
> teaching of the Bible. Some times I fall short and sometimes I may not
> understand them properly. However, I do try to live by them.
Why don't you understand them properly? Is the bible written shoddily,
or are your reasoning faculties unreliable?
Jeff
--
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jepler/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+