Board index ‹ Bible

[Superfluous Man]

To what degree do you consider Biblical truth to be inherent to Christianity?

First off, for full disclosure, I am an agnostic atheist (I believe in no deities, but don't claim to have active knowledge of their non-existence). I'm creating this post to try and have a better understanding of the broader spectrum of Christianity from the outside, rather than the more limited perspective I gained from my religious upbringing. Also, fair warning, I'm not particularly interested in attempts to reconvert me - I will happily ignore any comments or messages along those lines.

Back on topic, I was presented with certain ideas with regards to Biblical truth - though I'll keep those to myself for now to avoid biasing answers. Since my exit, I've seen more possible viewpoints presented, and would be interested to know how valid or required the general Christian population view them to be.

Which of the following viewpoints do you interpret to be part of a valid - if possibly theologically suboptimal - form of Christianity (with all of the potential benefits post-death as advertised):

1. The Bible is entirely literal truth (as it is the Word of God), barring perhaps a few obviously poetic exceptions like Psalms, explicit metaphors and parables, and descriptions of the indescribable, such as in Revelations. This would mean that the Earth was created in a week (and likely not billions of years ago), people once lived much longer than we currently do, Noah's flood occurred, Jonah spent some time in a fish, Sampson had supernatural strength, etc.

2. The Bible is mostly literal truth, but there's some more nuanced metaphor in there. However, every verse is still divinely inspired and has a purpose for being present in the Bible. As an example, in this view the story of Sampson is perhaps just embellished as a fable about the importance of loyalty and strength in the face of temptation. This would also allow for the events of early Genesis to be more poetically interpreted and perhaps allow for (macro) evolution to coincide with the creation story. Additionally, this would also allow for some of the more potentially draconian rules and prohibitions of the Old Testament to be considered outdated and irrelevant to the modern age.

3. The Bible contains literal truth and at least the main points of Jesus's role are true, but some is essentially noise, archaic to the point of meaninglessness, or perhaps tainted by history. This viewpoint would have the same basic message with regards to what is necessary to go to heaven (depending on which of the Catholic or Protestant perspectives is being used), but might not claim that the flood occurred, would see no need to reconcile evolution with Genesis, and might not believe in all of the miracles or miraculous occurrences. Also, this viewpoint would be less inclined to believe that something is (im)moral just because a verse says so. Essentially, this allows someone of this viewpoint to "pick and choose," so long as part of what they pick is the resurrection and its role in life after death.

4. The Bible is a useful tool with some good ideas about morality, and little more. This viewpoint might or might not believe in the story of Jesus and his resurrection as presented, but probably wouldn't require it of others either way. Someone with this viewpoint would probably quote "love your neighbor as yourself" far more often than John 3:16. This approach would value a personal conviction and Christian identity far more strongly than adherence to a book, and would not necessarily inherently trust the words of that book. As in the last case, this allows the holder of this view to "pick and choose," but this time without restriction.

5. Mostly for completion's sake, a viewpoint that doesn't ascribe any particular measure of truth or import to the Bible. When it's right, it's right, when it makes sense, it makes sense, and when it doesn't, it doesn't.

If you think I'm missing or misrepresenting an option, feel free to make mention of that as well - I just think providing some structure on my end could help clarify my question and the responses I might receive. If you've read this far, thanks for your time. I know I can get a bit needlessly wordy.

[jimwalton]

Actually, I don't like any of your choices. You seem to be fixated on "literal," and there's where the problem lies, imho.

The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

Another word often used to describe the Bible is "inerrant." This term also has its problems and is inadequate to describe what we're after as we talk about honoring the authority of Scripture. We know for a fact that there are manuscript discrepancies in biblical transmission, so it is often said that original manuscripts (the "autographs") are what we consider to be "perfect," or inerrant. But if we have none of the autographs, the claim is somewhat of an illusion. Secondly, we know that the ancients had a different scientific understanding than we do, and that they were writing accurately to their own culture. So is the text inerrant, or isn't it? This isn't the right term, but is rather possibly misleading. In the same sense, the ancients' entire approach to historiography (the writing of history) is different from ours, and when we allow for those differences, "inerrancy" is just not a helpful term.

As was written in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): "We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage and purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. These hermeneutical principles are designed to prevent us from demanding mathematical precision from the New Testament but rather historical and theological reliability in terms of the ordinary communication of daily life. This approach leaves some room for discretion while at the same time not calling into question the conviction that the New Testament is true in all that it affirms."

Theologically speaking, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use a single term that provides an adequate box for us to put Scripture in. All of the words are too limited, and Scripture is too exalted. We use words like infallible, inerrant, and literal to try to declare our deep respect and honor for the authority and divine nature of the Scriptures, but these are man-made words used to refute accusations against the Bible. While we admire the reasons they were coined, further investigation shows us that they don’t rise to the necessary height to capture the worthiness of God's Word.

Our wisest course is to use words that the Bible itself uses to describe itself, and we can find safety and assurance in the adequacy of those terms. Even those words need to be interpreted, however. The first term comes from 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Paul's points are several, not the least of which is that Scripture has God's authority because God is its source. And because God is its source, we can treat it as having the same attributes that God himself has: objective truth, authoritative information, and reliable guidance. It is to be believed and obeyed.

Being God-breathed, the Scripture carries the very presence of God and life of God himself. These words have authority and truth, power and presence. "God-breathed" emphasizes a divine source rather than human truth. Is there a difference between human truth and God's truth? Not in a normal sense, but yes in the sense that our truth is a derived truth, and God's truth is the original and the source of truth. Think of a pool table with billiard balls on it. When you hit the cue ball into another ball, the other ball is not moving on its own power. It's moving because something made it move. The energy it has is real energy, but it's different from the energy of the first ball. And it can't be as much as the original energy; at least some energy was lost on impact. We as humans deal in derived truth (the second ball), but God's Word is Source Truth, objective truth, absolute truth. God is not only the source of truth, he is truth, and the Scriptures are an authoritative revelation of himself. The truth I tell, by contrast, is derived truth. Something else made it true; I'm just passing it on.

Scripture being God-breathed puts it on a different level than anything I have to say, no matter how true it is. His truth, the Bible, carries more weight, more authority, and more authenticity.

In addition, 2 Peter 1.21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Here we see again that God is the sole source, but "the authority of the text is vested in the human communicator, ... [which is] our only access to God's communication, which is our true source of authority." While the pen was in the hand of a human, the words had both divine source, initiative, authority and reliability.

John Walton and D. Brent Sandy counsel: (1) We should be competent readers of the text itself (the words, grammar, syntax, context, genre, etc.); (2) We should be ethical readers as we seek to follow what is written, following the path of the intended meaning of the text; and (3) We should be virtuous readers. The Bible is offering an encounter with God, and it expects the reader to be transformed as a result.

[Superfluous Man]

Fair enough. I wasn't meaning to shoehorn people into anything. The options were to just make the question more accessible and the answers a bit more standardized. As to the focus on the word literal, it's less on the word and more that it's a point of contention I've seen some people argue about (both inside and outside the religion). I thought it would be interesting to see how those inside felt about how necessarily literalism was, and to what degree. There are certainly going to be cases where it's more or less necessary than others in pretty much any interpretation, though. Regardless, I think you've communicated your ideas pretty well.