My Analysis of the Bible Part 1D: My Belief

My Belief 

So how do I view the Bible? I think the best place to start is investigating what God’s word is. If we are to align ourselves with the nature of a God, surely there must be some medium on earth in which God communicates with us. To get this answer, I turn to the Bible. Now this raises a question of why I would look in the Bible for an answer when I do not believe it is God’s word. While I doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, I do see it as a collection of ancient historical and theological accounts. And yes, I do view them as historical, but not to modern standards. For instance, Job is a poetic work, so why would I believe that it is attempting to accurately portray history?⁵ I would compare it Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. It certainly takes place in a real world setting, but for no reason should it be taken as an accurate historical event. The beginning of Genesis refers to God as separating the waters creating air. The ancient view of the world was a flat disc surrounded by water.⁶ While the author may have been trying to portray history, their limited knowledge made their description less than accurate. So why did the author of Genesis write the account? I would think to demonstrate God’s role in our life as a creator, as a force of good and justice and a love for his creation. I believe these things. So the Bible therefore must be studied to understand author intent as well as the resources they had and ancient understanding of the world. This also calls into question the integrity of the authors. If the author is not divinely inspired, then how can we trust him to give us sincere doctrine? That is a good question, and something one should study up on while reading the Bible.

To go back, what is God’s word then to me? John gives us a straight answer: Jesus. Jesus Christ, according to John, is the divine medium in which God acts and communicates to the world.⁷ This medium was put into human form through the man Jesus who walked the earth and taught, and was eventually crucified. I don’t believe any book can ever live up to this perfection. Now of course if a skeptic like me is reading this, you are probably asking why I would believe Jesus is the perfect word of God. I have personal, subjective reasons for believing this. In summary, I have lived "following Jesus", and I have lived not following Jesus and I have found meaning and joy in my life doing the former. Following Jesus of the gospel's teachings has created a framework of thought that I have found liberating. It has brought meaning to my life that I haven't found elsewhere. Are some details in my own faith wrong? Probably. But my faith rests upon the subjective truths I have found in the bible, not the historical truths. So for me, the word of God is Jesus, but not necessarily the literal man who walked the earth 2000 years ago. Instead, it is the truths that I have found to be transforming in my own life the have been associated with the Jesus of the bible and the teachings that are attributed to him.

5. The content of Job
Job is a work of poetry. In the Jewish tradition Job is counted among the poetic books in the sect of scripture known as Writings (or Ketubim). This section also includes Psalms and Proverbs. While this by definition does not mean it is inaccurate, it provides no reason to suspect its purpose is anything beyond inspiring faith and devotion to God, not historical accuracy.

6. The Sky dome of Genesis
In the first description of creation, we see that God separates waters in order to create space for his creation. Genesis 1.6-8:

“And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.”

We now know that our sky is not separated by waters, but rather our sphere is surrounded by vacuum. Now I have heard it argued that the water above the dome is water vapor, but there is no reason to think that the author(s) of Genesis had a concept of water vapor floating in the sky. If he did, he certainly made no attempt to describe it effectively.

7. The Word of God according to John
In the gospel of John, Jesus is named immediately as the Word of God. John 1.1-5:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

And then John 1.14:

“And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Jesus is described as the Word of God becoming flesh. Through this Word the world was created and the life that inhabits it. It is God’s medium of action. Jesus, being the Word on earth, was a light to bring life. This Word of God is what I have faith in.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1C: The Biblical Essentialist

I am not a Biblical Essentialist 

A Biblical Essentialist is a term I use to represent those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in a way to inspire righteousness in man as opposed to record explicitly accurate history. These people generally reject that the earth was created in 7 literal days, or other seemingly exaggerated events such as Samson lifting city gates and carrying them for 35 miles.⁴ This leads to the serious questioning of what is literal and what is figurative. Catholic doctrine takes this kind of view, believing that context and author intent can make the Bible more figurative at times (although I think it is safe to say it is a very conservative Biblical Essentialism).

This is the best argument of the three. If Genesis is not supposed to be literal, how then can we say the Bible is wrong when science tells us that the earth is far older than a few thousand years? And it makes sense too. For instance, it is unlikely that whoever wrote Job actually believed the scene between God and Satan was a real event.⁵ How would he witness this? It is also very unlikely that whoever wrote the Genesis account was trying to write an exact historical account. The purpose is generally believed to be more theological, to demonstrate God’s place in human life. This idea can be scary to Christians because it leaves room for interpretation of a text that Christians use to base their faith. Issues like homosexuality now need to be reasoned with, as it being spoken against in “God’s Word” is not enough of an authority to many Christians today. It makes issues more complex, and can be inconvenient to those pursuing Christian unity. While I understand the problems that this raises, that is not a reason to reject this way of thinking. I believe God’s nature is of love and truth, and therefore I must base my understanding of texts about him in the same light. In other words, I must read them searching for truth, rather than being more focused on the fear of the truth’s consequences. Imagine if Jesus adopted an attitude of fear of consequences, where would we be? His speaking of truth caused many to die in his name, should he have went along with the misconceptions of others about religious life to keep things running smoothly? While I am certainly no Jesus Christ, I am doing my best to learn from him and follow in his footsteps. While faith is certainly an aspect of Christian life, a reverence for truth in its doctrines is equally important, in my opinion. While I do not call the Bible God’s Word, I am very open to this interpretation. However, I do have a problem with it. If we are to title the Bible as “God’s Word” in this light, what stops other wisdom texts from being God’s Word as well? Does the title “God’s Word” simply imply a work which inspires good nature in mankind? Can other religions’ texts also be God’s Word? A simple answer to this is that the Bible is unique in that it revolves around the Church set up by Jesus the Christ; therefore its inspiration is different than other texts since it is meant to be a part of that system established by God. I find this to be a well thought argument. My only disagreement would be I have little faith in the organized church, and therefore do not recognize it as an authority to distinguish uniquely inspired scripture. I suppose the next big question would be why I reject the organized Church. In short, I have found it to be of destructive force in the past (especially when it gained political power) and therefore see no reason to think that it was established by God. I believe that when Jesus says “my kingdom is not of this earth” he means that no church organization or political power can truly contain the Church. This, however, is not the purpose of this essay. It is not to debate the authority of the church (although I suppose this is being challenged by the mere topic of this essay), but rather to investigate the Bible itself. However, if one does share my protestant view of the limits of church authority, one must ask oneself who does have the authority to call any man-made document “God’s Word.”

4. The Strength of Samson
In the book of Judges, Samson is depicted as a lone warrior who had divine strength. One of his feats is mentioned in Judges 16.1-3:

“Once Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute and went in to her. The Gazites were told, “Samson has come here.” So they circled around and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate. They kept quiet all night, thinking, “Let us wait until the light of the morning; then we will kill him.” But Samson lay only until midnight. Then at midnight he rose up, took hold of the doors of the city gate and the two posts, pulled them up, bar and all, put them on his shoulders, and carried them to the top of the hill that is in front of Hebron.”

Gaza being a Philistine city, this is just one of the miraculous events Samson does to embarrass the Philistines. The city gate would be a fortified structure. His total distance carrying the gates on his shoulders would be over 35 miles.

5. The content of Job
Job is a work of poetry. In the Jewish tradition Job is counted among the poetic books in the sect of scripture known as Writings (or Ketubim). This section also includes Psalms and Proverbs. While this by definition does not mean it is inaccurate, it provides no reason to suspect its purpose is anything beyond inspiring faith and devotion to God, not historical accuracy.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1B: The Biblical Idealist

I am not a Biblical Idealist

A Biblical Idealist is a term I am using to represent those who believe the original biblical texts are all literally true. These people believe God inspired men to write everything exactly correct within the Bible, but through copying and translating some meaning and possibly numerical values have been lost. This opens up a significant hole in attempting to understand the Bible, as it is hard to know exactly what has been corrupted and what has not. But for the most part the Bible is generally taken literally as is.

I find this to be a weak attempt to explain that the Bible is the Word of God after viewing its discrepancies. This is really just a masked version of Biblical Essentialist (see Part 1C) attempting to keep the traditional view of the Biblical Literalist. Who is to say which parts are corrupted? You? Me? How about Mohammed? If you are a Muslim you may agree with this, but Evangelicals will not. It is the middle ground for the sake of middle ground, there is no good reason to believe this. Generally this view comes from people who were raised to be a Biblical Literalist, but soon realize there are likely errors in the Bible and need an explanation to justify their belief in the Bible being God’s literal word. It is convenient and practical, but it has little value for someone pursuing truth. With this kind of method of thinking, any religion can be defended. While generally it is used as a “peace maker” between the Biblical Literalists and the Biblical Essentialists, it stunts any valid means of seeking truth as a consequence. After all, how could you test this? What reason do you have for supposing this, other than to explain your belief? It is proposing a hypothesis in order to explain an older hypothesis, as opposed to the academic method of proposing a hypothesis in light of evidence or reason.

My Analysis of the Bible Part 1A: The Biblical Literalist

When describing one’s beliefs, it is of the upmost importance to define one’s terms. Therefore, the first objective must be to define what “God’s word” means. It means a variety of things to different people. There are typically three camps Christians fall into, which I have taken the liberty to label as Biblical Literalists, Biblical Idealists, and Biblical Essentialists. After briefly describing each of these groups, I will then demonstrate why I do not share the views of those who would fall into the group. After I have refuted all three, I will then explain my own belief about the Bible.

I am not a Biblical Literalist
Biblical Literalists believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. They believe the whole Bible is telling one story of the world’s salvation, beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the vision in Revelation of the end times. They believe the earth was literally created in 7 days, exactly as the Bible describes it. They also believe that the Bible has no contradictions. While this is commonly believed by Evangelical Protestants today, I find it unreasonable. Rather than basing my reasoning in science, I looked to the Bible itself to refute this. This theory can be checked by simply searching for inconsistencies in the “Good Word.” And they are there. Read Matthew, and then read Mark. There are discrepancies. There are stories told in both that have differing details. 

While it can be (weakly) argued that certain healings and occurrences are describing two different events, it seems like Matthew edited Mark’s gospel and added to it.¹ Now read John. They are completely different. In Mark Jesus is trying to conceal his identity, in John he’s telling everybody who he is bluntly.² It just does not make sense to think that both capture the real Jesus. Or, if we turn to the Old Testament, ask yourself when Jerusalem was captured. Read Joshua, and then read the beginning of Judges. According to Joshua, Jerusalem (or Jebus, as it was supposedly known then) was not able to be captured, despite Israelite success surrounding that area. In Judges, the tribe of Judah is said to have taken over Jerusalem. Then in Samuel it is said to be taken over by David.³ At least one is wrong. Assuming that everything is 100% correct in the Bible, one can argue that Israel lost control of Jerusalem after Judah took it but before David took it. This is possible in the sense that it could have happened, but unlikely that it would be unmentioned given the city’s importance. And if you believe that the Bible was given to us by God for history’s sake, why would he leave this detail out? I could go on in examples from the Bible like this, but there is little reason to do so. If I did list every inconsistency I found in the Bible, I do not doubt that an apologist could explain away all of them. But if this were to happen, seeing all the improbabilities and extra-biblical explanations to enable the Bible to be 100% literally correct would not work to prove anything. It soon becomes a game to show how this view of the Bible is technically possible, as opposed to my goal of finding what is realistic or likely. It is possible that Jesus was a white man who later flew to the Americas which were actually populated by descendants of Joseph son of Jacob’s line. To a non-Mormon this may seem silly, but look into their scholarship. They can play the game quite well too.

1. The origins of Matthew and Mark
Given that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all share some common stories using nearly identical words at times, scholars typically agree that Mark was written first, sometime before Matthew and Luke. While these stories are not always exact, it appears that in Matthew and Luke the stories are polished up, given Mark’s rushed style. An example of this would be the story of Matthew 8.28 and Mark 5.1. Both stories agree that Jesus crossed the sea, cast out demons, cast the demons into pigs which jump off the cliff side to their death, and is then asked to leave by the frightened townspeople, to which Jesus consents. These stories do have differences, however. In Mark, there is only one demon possessed man who contains a “Legion” of demons, while in Matthew there are two demon possessed men. What’s really interesting is location. In Mark, the city mentioned is Geresa, which is significantly far from the sea (the Sea of Galilee). In Matthew’s suspected revision, the city is Gadara, which is much closer to the sea, although still far enough away for the events described as is to be completely accurate as described.

2. The contrast between the synoptic Jesus and John’s Jesus
While in Mark, Jesus is depicted as the humble Messiah of God, in John he is depicted as God walking the earth. Jesus often tells others in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to keep his messianic identity hidden, while in John he is going into the temple and synagogues bluntly telling others exactly who he is. The two distinct characteristics of Jesus imply that these gospels were written for theological reasons as opposed to attempting to portray an exact historical account of Jesus’ life.

3. The capture of Jerusalem
In Joshua the Israelites begin their conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land. While they are ideally supposed to take all of the land, some cities remained in Canaanite control. One such city is Jerusalem, or Jebus (named after the Jebusite people). While some cities seemed to be conquered by the whole of Israel (read the conquest in Joshua), others were left to the specific tribe in which the city was allotted. Jerusalem was given to Judah. However, Judah was unable to drive out the Jebusites. Joshua 15.63 reads:

“But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.”

However, according to the Judges account of the conquest, Judah did take the city. After capturing King Adoni-bezek and cutting off his big toes and thumbs (as he had done to kings he had conquered), they brought him to Jerusalem to die, and then overtook Jerusalem. Judges 1.8:

“Then the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it. They put it to the sword and set the city on fire.”

Now in Judges 19.10-12 it seems clear that the Jebusites are still controlling Jerusalem, and in 2 Samuel 5.6-9 it is taken from their control by David. What is also noteworthy is later in the same chapter of Judges the failure to capture Jerusalem is noted, only placing the responsibility of its conquest to the tribe of Benjamin rather than Judah. Judges 1.21:

“But the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived in Jerusalem among the Benjamites to this day.”

This makes little historical sense, since it seems it would be the Judeans that would be driving out the Jebusites, not the Benjamites. Some scholars think this was included to pass the blame from Judah, which is generally highly looked upon in the book of Judges, possibly as a precursor to the rise of King David which takes place in Samuel. While there could be some explanation to make these statements make sense, it is unlikely any of them have much truth to them, as any related information would have been present in Judges. It’s more likely that the author(s) of Judges combined multiple older sources into one work, despite discrepancies.

My Analysis of the Bible: Introduction

I get into many deep discussions with Christians about why I do not believe the Bible is God's Word, so I wrote a lengthy essay explaining why. I will divide each individual section into a separate post.

I do not believe the Bible is God’s word. This can be shocking (and sometimes offensive) to Christians when I tell them, as I hang out in Christian circles often. I do identify as a Christian in the sense that I follow Christ, but others have disagreed with me. I have engaged many Christians in discussion about their faith in the Bible, and many have encouraged me to write my questions down. This includes some of those questions, and addresses my beliefs that reflect them. This is not to convince or to provoke controversy. One of my favorite proverbs is Proverbs 17.19:

“One who loves transgression loves strife; one who builds a high threshold invites broken bones.”

I do not wish to cause strife, or to look for a fight to win. There are those who look to build up arguments to challenge others for their own glory, and those who look for truth which can cause controversy. I strive to belong in the latter group. While I am admittedly very comfortable with heated debates (which I could probably write another lengthy paper describing my family so you could understand exactly why that is), I have slowly come to understand that others are not. If you are offended when your faith is questioned, I would encourage you not to read this. This is a summary of my views presented rationally, which means I am critiquing views that contradict my own. I chose to structure this as an argument, but of course I can really only describe my side adequately. I have attempted to include others’ general reasoning in Part 2, but cannot go into as much detail as describing my own views. Describing my own views is a lot simpler than describing the plethora of other people’s individual views that disagree with me. I have attempted to keep from an arrogant tone, and have included others’ arguments in my explanations to demonstrate the fact that while we are arguing our beliefs regarding facts, our reasoning is certainly a gray area.

I'm Back... For Now

I have neglected my blog for a long time. It is my senior year and I have been incredibly busy with school, grad school applications, and family things. However, I am still here and hopefully can post some things I have been working on. I have a rather lengthy religion essay I have been working on for some time as well as an art project to share when I get a few free minutes to upload.

Pizza

I created my next food masterpiece: the homemade pizza. Using a simple recipe from online, I made the dough from scratch. I then used a 7 herb spaghetti sauce for the sauce, mozzarella cheese, pepperoni, and stuffed the crust with string cheese. I then melted butter and mixed in some garlic salt and spread it on the crust and pepperoni. The crust was so thick and cheesy... it was delicious.