A Fresh New Start

I have been writing a series about understanding scripture because I have become so frustrated with some of the things that Christians think and say about the Bible. I really want this to be a dialogue so I try to respond to the questions and accusations that have been raised in the process. The problem is that while I have talked about some specific issues, the discussion is often either very general or focuses on points that I never actually tried to make.

I've just spent way too long trying to write my thoughts pertaining to the latest controversial thread of conversation. Instead of trying to do that, however, I have decided to start afresh. I would like to invite any and all to raise one specific question they have about my view of scripture. If I have an opinion, I will do my best to share it without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of information. As I see it, this is the only sane way to proceed. Believe me, I know how difficult it is, but let's all try to keep our comments brief for this thread.

********************
Links to all of the articles in this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions

Comments

[Tom]

OK, how about this to start: Do you believe that faith in Christ as resurrected savior is the only path to heaven/salvation? Might as well get it out of the way early!

[george]

Yes.

[Bill]

lol...wait a second...who is answering these questions?

My answer is yes as well.

[Ken]

Are you evil and attempting to undermine the foundation of Christianity as we know it?

(inquiring minds want to know)
;-)

[Tom]

Ken, I think that depends on who you ask!
(Debbie seems to think so) ;-)

[Bill]

That's technically two questions, Ken, but I will answer them.

1. I think there is evil in me, but I don't subscribe to the concept of total depravity so I think there is good in me as well.

2. As you know, I don't believe in foundationalism, so I don't think Christianity has a foundation per se. Now if you were to ask if I were trying to unravel the web of Christian beliefs, I would simply say "no."

;-)

[Bill]

Ken, I was working on my conclusion to this series the other day and trying to remember what Deb said you said about this whole subject. It was something about the Bible holding up a coffee table. Do you (or Debbie) remember what I'm talking about?

It was a great quote/question!

[Deborah]

I had actually posted it under one of the topics way back. Man, I really had to dig to find it.

"Okay, so the Bible may be errant, it could be missing important books and may have books it shouldn’t, when Jesus quotes scripture, his quote doesn’t match the original text. My question is: Now what? What do we do with the Bible? If parts may be wrong, how do we determine which parts? What use does it have in our Christian lives? Or should we just stick it under the coffee table to prop up the broken leg?"

And for the record, it is technically 5 questions.

[george]

So are you (anyone of you) saying the Bible is "errant"?

[Tom]

I can almost hear Michael Buffer now: " Are you ready to rumble!!"

I personally don't believe the Bible is errant in its' message of, and plan for, our salvation. I do think there are issues of interpretation which are inevitable when translating from one language into others, especially ancient texts like our Old Testament.

[ken]

I would agree with Tom. I will add that our society, culture, experiences also affect how we perceive/interpret/understand/apply the Bible to our daily lives. The parables that Jesus spoke were tailored for his audience. Paul lived in a society where women were typically uneducated. This has an impact on our interpretation of his comments with regards to women teaching (not trying to open a can of worms with that one).

We need to remember the context of the Bible. There are passages that talk about slaves obeying their masters. Does this mean that we should have slaves? I don't think so. I know I wouldn't feel right having one. But the Bible addressed a cultural issue.

Does any of that mean that the Bible is errant? No. Just, potentially, our interpretation of it.

[Bill]

I love it when I wake up and I have all these comments from the East Coast!

Deb, that just goes to show how observant I am. I didn't realize you had posted that phrase.

I'll reprint the answer I gave to you in that prior thread and then maybe you can ask any clarifying or follow-up questions you might have:

I favor the view of theological reflection called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." This basically states that we reflect on theology based on four things:

1. scripture
2. tradition
3. reason
4. experience

I think you have to hold all of these things in tension. Click here for a link to the explanation given by the United Methodist Church.

[Bill]

Ken,

Your point about slaves would be an example of experience and reason, helping us to overcome the thought process whereby people approved of slavery. I might even go so far as to say that the Bible "errs" in not disapproving of slavery.

Then again, maybe it didn't err in its original purpose.

[ken]

I would disagree on that one. I don't think that the Bible supports slavery. I think it was a Godly response to a human mistake. We had slaves and God told both slave-owner and slave how to be Christians within the confines of their situation.

The Bible does talk about servants, but I think that is different than being a slave (maybe only marginally, but I think it is different). A servant typically entered into the relationship willingly, unlike a slave.

[deborah]

To answer George's question, we would have to define errant. One definition is "roving - in search of adventure", I don't think that one applies. Another definition is "straying from the proper course or standards" - I would agree that under that definition, the Bible is not errant. I believe that God has provided us with a generally intact grouping of information that he wants us to have.

A third definition is "wandering outside the established limits", that one I'm not so sure about. I am aware of transcription errors, or differences in translations in which the actual meanings of words has been changed. I do believe that cultural/personal/religious biases have influcenced each new version of the Bible.

A fourth definition is to have erred, which means "to make an error or mistake". Again, on that one I am not sure. The versions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 are different. Did the authors hear it diferently? Were their memories faulty? Did God provide it differently to each of them at the time of writting? And if so, why? Were parts added or dropped during transcription/translation?

I don't mean to be so confusioning and I'm not trying to skip giving you an answer. I believe that the Bible is inerrant in its purposes.

[Bill]

George,

We have to remember that the word "inerrancy" is a loaded term. I talked about defining the term in a post on Fuller's Statement of Beliefs earlier on this month.

To me, the term has the connotation that there are no errors from a 21st century point of view. That point of view was not shared by the biblical authors, nor do I think we should try to force God into working from that point of view.

As I said in the post I linked to above, some people use the term in a very qualified sense. I prefer to not use the term because I think it's misleading.

Almost two years ago, I wrote another post that talks about why I don't think the Bible is errant. Basically, I said that the Bible has a purpose and it fulfills it.

Finally, let me refer back to the comment I made above about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I don't believe that the Bible's purpose is to have the final, exhaustive say on all things, even if you just limit its scope to "religious" or moral issues. If you think about it, this is an extra-biblical concept. The Bible, itself, doesn't claim to be the final say on all things spiritual or moral.

Okay, sorry...that was a long answer.

[deborah]

Sorry, my last line should read "inerrant in its original purpose." Thanks.

[deborah]

Bill, I have a question for you. Is 1 Tim 3:15 calling the church (the body of believers) the pillar and foundation of truth instead of anything else (including scripture)?

[george]

Can you name an "error"? I don't say this with the intent of "fighting", simply by looking at Deb's definitions do any of you see a specific passage that you would say is in error or where it "wanders outside of established limits."??

I can't think of any. I do agree that some of the English translations don't do justice to the original Greek but I find that the English is usually weaker than the actual Greek words but to me that doesn't make the Bible "errant".

I had a very interesting conversation with an unbeliever today who explained to me how the Bible is full of contradictions, so I got out my bible and asked her to show me one. She could not.

[Bill]

Let me start off my answer with a disclaimer. My goal is not to seek out "error" or contradictions in the Bible. For one thing, I don't think it should be held to the same standards of reportage as today. That's why I'm claiming that we don't need to say that the Bible is inerrant.

Nonetheless, here are a few different examples, so you can't simply act as if no one can come up with any.

1. Numbers
In the Hebrew, 1 Kings 4:26 says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls for his chariot horses, but 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he had four thousand. If you're using the NIV, please note that they have disguised this discrepancy by using the Septuagint for this verse. (You can read my recent post about the Septuagint here.)

2. Math
The measurements given for the "Sea" in 1 Kings 7:23 are mathematically inaccurate. The correct circumference would be over 31 cubits.

3. Chronology
How about the contradiction I just discussed in this post? Did Jesus clear the Temple toward the beginning of his ministry or at the end?

4. NT Quotes of Septuagint (that disagree with Hebrew OT)
I'm cutting and pasting this example from this post.

Hebrews 10:5 says the following:

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me...

This is a quotation from the LXX version of Psalm 40:6. The original Hebrew of that passage, however, says, "you have given me an open ear." The writer of Hebrews concludes, in verse 10, that "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

5. Wrong Names Given
In Mark 2:25-26, Jesus talks about Abiathar being the high priest when David ate the bread of presence. According to 1 Sam. 21:1, Ahimilech (Abiathar's father) was the high priest at that time.

6. Citation Errors
Mark says he's quoting Isaiah in Mark 1:2, but the quote is actually a combination of Malachi and Isaiah.

7. "Theological" Discrepancies
Here's one I've wondered about for a long time, but never bothered to ask, "What gives?"

Passages such as 1 Timothy 6:17 say that no one can see God. Joseph, however, says that he saw God "face to face." (Genesis 32:30 Moses spoke to God "face to face." (Exodus 33:11)

So...What gives?

[deborah]

I already pointed to the difference between Matthew's and Luke's version of the Lord's prayer. That would fall under the definition of err I used earlier. Err and contradiction are different words. As this discussion is focusing on the inerrancy of scripture, not apparent contradictions, I will restrain my comments to that area. Actually, I am not concerned with contradictions which are usually explained by context.

[deborah]

I would like to think that the actual words of Jesus would have been memorable to the disciples, especially the last thing he said on the cross. John has “it is finished” (19:30) but Luke has “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (23:46), Matthew has “why have you forsaken me?” (27:46) and then a random cry (v 50) which matches Mark’s view (15:33-37) Which was it?

Again, I am not really concerned about this kind of error. This is exactly what happens when people give witness statements to the police. Everyone sees things from their own perspective, and remembers what is significant to them. But they don’t always match, and some people err in the order of events or what was said.

[george]

from Deb's post "I would like to think that the actual words of Jesus would have been memorable to the disciples, especially the last thing he said on the cross. John has “it is finished” (19:30) but Luke has “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (23:46), Matthew has “why have you forsaken me?” (27:46) and then a random cry (v 50) which matches Mark’s view (15:33-37) Which was it?"

The simple answer is "all of the above".

You need to understand what a contradiction is. A contradiction, simply stated is "A cannot be non-A". Three of the Gospels tell us Jesus "cried out in a loud voice". Only one actually quotes what he said in that loud voice, so there is no problem there.

Now with John's account the words differ but there is still no contradiction because none of them claims to be the equivalent of a court transcription.

As an example, I quoted your post above, but someone else could quote the same post that I quoted and include "Again, I am not really concerned about this kind of error." Neither of us would be in error.

If I tell you about a baseball game and tell you about the 19 strike outs, but then tell Ken about the two home runs there is no error and no contradiction. If I knew you were a pitcher and he had been a DH I would be talking to you about what is most important to you.

Bill, I'm tired, I'll get to yours in the morning. sorry to jump out of order.

[Bill]

George,

Your answer sounds good until you consider the fact that both John and Luke tell us he said ________ and then he died. Your explanation, just like many explanations for apparent contradictions ignores the plain, simple meaning of the text.

Does that falsify the fact that Jesus was crucified? No. It just means that a couple of imperfect people remembered it a different way.

From my point of view, I don't have to worry about the apparent contradictions raised here or in my comments above. I don't think the Bible is the Khoran. I don't think it's a perfect book that was handed down in just the right words, saying exactly what God wanted people to say. I think that people only think of it that way because of a series of presuppositions they've already made about the way the Bible HAS to be.

[deborah]

I mostly agree with Bill. John and Luke have the LAST thing said by Jesus as different phrases. Matthew and Mark say he just cried. I agree that most likely Jesus said all of those things, including Matthew and Mark's version. But the Bible doesn't actually say that he said all of those things. So at least 2 if not three books have it wrong.

Going back to the witness statements given to the police after a car accident. Each person will give a slightly different version, or sometimes a significantly different version, depending on their perpective and personal biases. It doesn't change the fact that a car accident happened.

My dictionary defines contradict as: a) to assert or express the opposite of, which I don't think is the case with the Gospel accounts, b) to deny the statement of, which again, I don't think is the case here, and c) to be contrary to; be inconsistent with, which I think applies here.

The difference is intent. Because I believe there was no intent, I prefer to go with error/mistake.

[george]

Bill said..."Your answer sounds good until you consider the fact that both John and Luke tell us he said ________ and then he died. Your explanation, just like many explanations for apparent contradictions ignores the plain, simple meaning of the text."

George replies...
What if He said... "It is finished, Father into your hands I commit my spirit."? There is no contradiction. Just an incomplete quote from each. By taking all four accounts we know more of what He said. Probably not every word that was said, but what God felt was important for us to know.

People, (like your Dr. Barr) with an agenda to discredit the Bible are willing to suspend all reason and logic to try and make up a point. As an example...

The president makes a speech on _______________ (pick a topic) the speech lasts 45 minutes. the newspapers report the next day and quote him, now unless the publish the full transcript you will find different quotes in different articles. Are those contradictions? Are they errors? Are they lies? Of course not.

Reporting or quoting part of a statement is common. The Bible doesn't tell us that "Jesus went to the bathroom". Well He must have at some point, should I discredit the Bible for failing to report it?

Dr. Barr, if he were consistent would have to claim that all reporting of history is untrustworthy. (back to throwing out all ancient literature).

What amazes me about the critics is their arrogance and in some cases pure lack of logic.

Critics assert that the Bible was "made up", or "reorganized" or "compiled" by some group, (usually some back room guys out for "power" or "control"). Yet, these guys, making this thing up, can't match their stories from page one to page two? How idiotic is that "thinking". (and I"m not accusing anyone here of that).

Let's be honest, if we decided to get together as a group and write some "made up" account of some event, we'd be sure to get our "stories straight" with each other so as not to contradict each other, or to not imply an error.

The very FACT that the accounts differ slightly, proves that the early church fathers knew the authenticity of the manuscripts and refused to change them.

Dr. Barr needs to take a course in critical thinking.

As for Deb's dictionary. "c) to be contrary to; be inconsistent with, which I think applies here."

I would have to disagree. there is no inconsistency, there is nothing "contrary" about it. From your own analogy, if you talk to the witnesses of a car accident you may get different comments but if one guy was looking from the East and the other from the North, one was in a car, one was in his front yard etc, they will have a different perspective but that's why police collect all the facts and make a determination.

[Just Me]

WOW! You really do have a Dr. Barr, Bill. I went to Google - not knowing anything about Dr. Barr other than what you've written here, and found that your blog was the seventh most popular post about him. Pretty impressive given that he's a nationally reknowned speaker and teacher. ;)
This is all too much for a Saturday for me -Enjoy everyone, I'm out of here.

[George]

1. Numbers
In the Hebrew, 1 Kings 4:26 says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls for his chariot horses, but 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he had four thousand. If you're using the NIV, please note that they have disguised this discrepancy by using the Septuagint for this verse. (You can read my recent post about the Septuagint here.)

I'd guess this is a copyist error. Solomon did not need 40,000 stalls for 1400 chariots. But in the Hebrew when they wrote out 4 and 40, the way they were written, it is certainly possible the manuscript was smudged and misread.

2. Math
The measurements given for the "Sea" in 1 Kings 7:23 are mathematically inaccurate. The correct circumference would be over 31 cubits.

actually it would have been something like 31.495 Cubits. However, in their culture they did not use "pi". It was common for them to round things off. They did not have the exact weights and measures that we have now. They also did not have wrist watches or copy machines. To expect them to say that "Philip ran a mile in 4 minutes and 27.325 seconds would be ridiculous.

Bill said
"5. Wrong Names Given
In Mark 2:25-26, Jesus talks about Abiathar being the high priest when David ate the bread of presence. According to 1 Sam. 21:1, Ahimilech (Abiathar's father) was the high priest at that time."

Actually what Jesus said is that it was in the "days of Abiathar", not the "tenure". Ahimilech was high priest when David ate the bread, Saul had Ahimilech killed. Abiathar became the high priest.

You were at Grace "before" you were hired as youth pastor worship leader (or whatever the exact title was). If someone spoke about "When Bill Arnold our previous youth pastor was here ________-- happened" and technically it was a month before you were actually on the payroll, well... so what? It was during your "time" even if not technically your "tenure".

I'm still not sure I understand what this is about.

What purpose does it serve to look for errors, as if this is some new discovery. As far as I can tell, none of this is anything new. It's all been done 1000 (or is that 100) times before. You can purchase books that explain all these so called contradictions and you can buy books by atheists, liberal theologians etc that highlight these things.

Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it is not.

[Deborah]

Exactly George. You have done an excellent job of proving my point. The 4 books of the Gospel are four human perspectives of their interaction with our Savior. The fact that they err in their accounts does not diminish the sacrifice that Jesus made. But you have done nothing to prove scripture's inerrancy. The fact that you have to put all of the statements together and add to/change what the text actually says "What if He said... "It is finished, Father into your hands I commit my spirit."?" is precisely the kind of error I am referring to. You have explained the reason for the error, but at the same time, have agreed that there is an error. (In this case, if missing part of the quote changes what was actually said, it is an error/inconstancy.)

In fact, our legal system refers to those kinds of discrepancies as inconsistencies. Now if you want to call my dictionary into question, the Houghton Mifflin Company is located in Boston.

I have not been able to locate where anyone here says that the Bible was made up, so please stop throwing out red herrings. I don't agree with those kinds of critics, and I am unafraid of any kind of fictional slippery slope, that is the blessing of faith.

From a historical perspective, no single piece of historical writing is treated as perfect and inerrant. It is usually necessary for there to be several accounts from different witness to verify what happened. It is generally understood that the different viewpoints will be different, and that the exact happenings can be determined by comparing and contrasting the different writings. As I have said earlier, to declare that these writings should be thrown out is childish and naïve. In my personal opinion, that is why we have 4 accounts of the same event available. God’s providence is amazing.

I guess at this point we would have to agree to disagree, even though everything you have said is in agreement with what I have said. We just use the same information to draw different conclusions.

I don’t need the Bible to be “perfect”, I don’t need it to be “inerrant” to call it God’s word. I don’t “believe in the Bible” as much as I believe in a perfect God who has a plan for my salvation. I see no need for him to show me a sign through a perfect Bible. Why do you require the miracle of a perfect Bible to believe? Do you really need a sign from God to believe? I am reminded of how Helen Keller, when told about Jesus, replied that she was aware of him but didn’t know his name, and she had not read or been read the Bible at that point.

[Deborah]

Please keep in mind that during this discussion, before George got involved, I have repeatedly said that "if" there is error or that that there "may" be error, but rather that there is the "appearance" of error. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant in it's original purpose.

[Valerie]

George,

Statements such as:

People, (like your Dr. Barr) with an agenda to discredit the Bible are willing to suspend all reason and logic to try and make up a point.

What amazes me about the critics is their arrogance and in some cases pure lack of logic.

Dr. Barr needs to take a course in critical thinking.

1. You seem paranoid...evil agendas, lack of logic and arrogance?
2. We have not been speaking of Dr. Barr recently, so these comments attacking him are strange. Let’s not forget he is an educated scholar...he uses reason and logic...your comments of him are unfounded.

It's as if you are purposely trying to misunderstand the people here. The point of view Bill is supporting is not evil, he is not out to discredit the bible and I'm sorry but you do not hold the corner on the market of truth. The whole point is that there are various ways to look at the bible and that the bible is not the be all and end all in faith. I don’t view the bible as you do, although I believe in the same God. It’s insulting that you think you have all the answers and that the rest of us are just being swayed by evil, arrogant, illogical, scholars.

Thanks Deb for your comments, you have said what I would like to much more eloquently.

[Person who wishes to remain nameless]

The Bible is God's word. Granted. But it was conveyed through, or recorded by, man, who has repeatedy shown himself to be as fallible and "errant" as any of God's creatures. So I don't understand why we are so reluctant to concede that the Bible might not be inerrant. The bible can be God's word AND be errant. That doesn't imply that God is fallible, only the people through whom his word was recorded. If I employ a scribe to take down my dictation and he makes a mistake, am I then fallible? No...and furthermore, even though there are errors, it is still my word(s).

PS: Great story about Helen Keller. Really makes you wonder whether God's word means something more than the printed pages of a book.

[Deborah]

I love the e-mail address!

[Bill]

lol...me, too. And I love the thoughts in the comment.

It's interesting that inerrantists insist the Bible was conveyed in an infallible way and yet have no problem admitting that there were copyist errors later on. If it was so important for the Bible to be given in an "inerrant" way then why did God not uphold its perfect inerrancy throughout the ages? Is that too hard for him?

[Deborah]

I was wondering where nameless was three days ago, maybe I could have had a life! I don't just wonder if the word of God is more than a printed book, I believe it.

For me, I think that nameless's comment is the perfect wrap up for this discussion. I won't be back to this comment thread.

So, can we do Revelation next? JK!

[Bill]

Deb,

I appreciate your comment about believing in God rather than the Bible.

Jesus said, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40)

We do not worship a book. We worship God. This is not meant to minimize the importance of the book. I happen to believe that I can still look to the Bible as an authority without insisting that it's inerrant.

[Bill]

Dang it, I just left you a comment.

COME BACK!

COME BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!

[Deborah]

Sure, make me look like a liar! I will read them, but I think we have beat this to death, and am ready to move on.

[Deborah]

Actually, I just thought about it, and I am not going to read anymore comments on this thread. I don't want people directing comments my way thinking that while I am silent, I am still reading them. See you in a different post.

[Bill]

George,

I've written another long response to you, which was what I said I wouldn't do. So here's the short version:

1. I echoe Val's sympathies and ask that you please stop trying to judge other peoples' motives. You said we should be able to debate without making it personal and yet you keep doing that again and again.

2. Your answer to my #2 "contradiction" says basically the same thing that I'm trying to say. The biblical writers didn't have the same conventions that we have today.

3. The point of this conversation is to show that inerrancy is an untenable position. Again, my goal is not to discredit the Bible. My goal is to discredit the logic behind the false doctrine of inerrancy.

4. I would be interested in your reaction to this post from earlier in this series. I think Fuller's statement is a good summary of why the term inerrancy should be done away with.

Finally, do you plan on responding to my other 4 "contradictions?" I honestly don't want to take up too much of your time so if you don't think you need to that's cool with me.

[george]

Val said "1. You seem paranoid...evil agendas, lack of logic and arrogance?
2. We have not been speaking of Dr. Barr recently, so these comments attacking him are strange. Let’s not forget he is an educated scholar...he uses reason and logic...your comments of him are unfounded."

I'm not paranoid and frankly it was Bill quoting Dr. Barr that brought me into this entire thing. From what Bill has cited as quotes of Dr. Barr, there is nothing original. It's the same nonsense that Bishop Spong regurgitated from Lessing and on back to the 1500's in Germany.

His "education' does not impress me simply because as I've already said it is the weight of the evidence not the credentials of the scholar that matter.

He does not use reason or logic. He has an agenda, Satan has the same agenda. "Did God really say not to eat from any tree in the garden"

It's that ability to get you to doubt one thing that leads to doubting the next and the next.

If the bible is wrong on one point than how can you trust that it is correct when it says Jesus is the only way to salvation?

How can you trust any of it, if you can't trust all of it.

Minds far more brilliant than any of us here have already disproven Bill's alleged contradictions and Dr. Barr's silly theories. Been there done that, got the T-shirt.

As for Deborah, we most certainly do not agree and I did not prove your point. I could not disagree with you any more than I do. An incomplete quote is not an error or a contradiction.

And Dr. Barr did not directly say the "Bible was made up" but (and I can't find the quote, Bill will have it) he did state something to the effect that it was "modified" or changed as it suited the writers. Bill posted it, I just can't seem to find it now. It was one of the first things that dragged me into this.

Your opinion matters because you have placed yourself in a position of teaching our youth.

If the Bible is not inerrant, not "perfect" which pages can I tear out and throw away? Do I need to really call on the name of Jesus for salvation? How do you know that's true?
How do you determine which verses are true and which are false?

Do you let Bill decide for you? or Dr. Barr? or your own intellect? Feelings? flip a coin?

Do you (any of you) spend anytime reading things that disagree with your liberal theology? Do you actually want to learn the truth or simply entertain yourselves because if this is just entertainment, then have fun. If you want to learn then don't just sit around agreeing with each other slapping yourselves on the back for being so smart. Go read books that explain some of the difficulties. Examine the other side of the argument.

I'm sorry if I seem hostile to Dr. Barr but I did all this 10 - 15 years ago with Spong. These guys always make a fortune for themselves, they sell tons of books and go on speaking tours and most believe strongly in tithing but evidently that's the only thing you can take literally in the Bible. Even though they know that the questions they raise have been answered 200 years ago, they bring them back up to a new group of "disciples" sell a new batch of books and draw to themselves....

[george]

Bill said "1. I echoe Val's sympathies and ask that you please stop trying to judge other peoples' motives. You said we should be able to debate without making it personal and yet you keep doing that again and again."

How can I not judge Dr. Barr's motives? If he's so smart he knows the points you bring up have been answered a hundred times.

While it may not be true of anyone here, most of the folks who pursue these paths are looking for excuses.

Not sure I'll have time for any more of this today. I'm on deadline and it's my anniversary. I've already probably wasted way too much time here. I don't actually believe that anybody here wants to hear the opposing viewpoint. If I'm wrong correct me.

Oh and just an aside, I loved Bishop Spong. We'd debate furiously then go hang out together. I'm sure Dr. Barr is a nice man, he just doesn't impress me. Walter Martin would have killed him in a debate.

[george]

One last comment. (sure, famous last words right?)(grin)
Motives matter Bill. Is Dr. Barr trying to bring more people to the faith? trying to take people away from the faith? is he motivated by financial gain? (he's wrong no matter what his motiviations are but understanding what motivates a person is part of the puzzle isn't it?)

Oh and I don't mean to sound hostile. I'm rushing and when I write "short" sometimes it's interpreted as "angry". It's not, I just tend to be looooong winded and cutting it down sometimes changes the tone unintentionally.

[Bill]

Here's what the back of the book says:

In a pastoral rather than confrontational way, this renowned biblical scholar discusses fundamentalist issues that concern all Christians. Clearly and simply, James Barr sets forth evidence that has to be accounted for and accomodated within any view of biblical authority that might be worked out. He demonstrates that an understanding of biblical authority has to begin with the acceptance of what the Bible really is, and not by forcing upon it a preconceived dogmatic scheme."

I think that's a good description based on my impression of the book.

By the way, don't confuse my words with Dr. Barr's. I have based this series on his book, but that doesn't mean you're arguing with him in all cases. In some cases, I haven't raised points he has raised because I didn't agree. In other cases, he may disagree with things I've said. I wouldn't really know. In the end, this discussion needs to be between you and me.

You talk about solutions and yet, as you pointed out, the debates still go round and round. It comes down to whether you buy into all of the apparent solutions that are given for apparent contradictions. I still find some of them implausible.

I think you can try too hard to come up with solutions. Millard Erickson talks about this in his book Christian Theology. There are various ways one can approach apparent contradictions and he is critical (if I remember correctly) of those who jump to a quick answer.

You wrote: "While it may not be true of anyone here, most of the folks who pursue these paths are looking for excuses."

I've only read one of his books, but my impression of Spong was that he was being destructive. I don't know that I can make that call, though. Regardless, the same cannot be said for Dr. Barr. His problem is not with the Bible. It's with fundamentalism. Since I happen to think that fundamentalism has been a VERY destructive thing for Christianity, I appreciate his motives.

I get the impression that the people you have debated in the past were coming from a different perspective than the people I tend to read. Many of these people still consider themselves to be evangelicals (I call myself post-evangelical, but that's a discussion for another day). Many of them have a background in conservatism, as do I. I firmly believe that many of them are not at all coming from a position of attacking scripture. I think you need to be more careful about understanding who your "opponents" are.

[Bill]

George,

I missed your first of three comments above when I wrote my last response.

Honestly, I'm getting way too pissed off to even respond to some of the stuff you are saying. Don't you realize how much your comments make you sound like an arrogant asshole?

[george]

Bill said "George...Honestly, I'm getting way too pissed off to even respond to some of the stuff you are saying. Don't you realize how much your comments make you sound like an arrogant asshole?"

Thankfully, we don't get "personal" here.

[Bill]

George,

I blame myself for taking this conversation in a direction that would have been better suited for a one-on-one discussion. I'll e-mail you my further thoughts.

[Ken]

George,

I haven't been home all afternoon and am just coming back into this mess. I read your comments towards Deborah and Bill.

First, Deborah and I are able to think on our own. You would realize this if you were a regular reader of this blog. We have disagreed with Bill many times in the past. We have a healthy relationship with Bill and Val that allows for a difference of opinion without the foundation of our friendship being compromised. We don't even agree completely with Bill on this issue.

Second, you are apparently out of the loop at Grace as we have resigned from the youth group effective July of this year.

You continue to come at all of us swinging and I am personally tired of this hostility. You sought out Bill's blog. Did you come here with the intent to touch base with Bill or pick a fight? I would hope that no one put you up to this apparent atttack. I would hope that you are capable of thinking for yourself. Does Frank Spear tell you what to think? (Are you insulted by this comment? If so, how do you think your comment felt when we read it?)

I understand that supposed experts and scholars have debated this for centuries. That does NOT mean that we cannot have a discussion today on it. This discussion is a way for all of us to own and understand what we believe. We question what we believe so that we can strengthen that belief.

I am tired of you and others accusing us (Deborah and I) of being against rules. Obviously, you and others know nothing about us. Do you even know what I do for a living? My job is ALL about rules, codes, and standards. I am not opposed to rules. I think they have their place. I just believe that too many Christians get hung up on the law and lose sight of the person (and God's grace).

I feel sad for you that your faith is so strongly based on PROVING the Bible right to the point that any questioning of its validity shakes the very foundations of your beliefs. How strong can your beliefs really be if that is the case?

I too am done with this discussion. It is going nowhere. You are not listening to what we are saying and seem intent on continuing hostilities. There seems to be an ulterior motive behind your arrival here on this blog. This is unchristian and I no longer wish to participate in it as such.

-Ken

[Valerie]

I was about to defend myself and others to you and have decided against it. This discussion has taken a turn for the worse...you have been totally insulting and combative. You make generalizations about people and thoughts. You are lumping people into categories and not listening to what they are truly saying and have been making assumptions that are totally unfounded. Bill lost his temper…but this conversation got “personal” a long time ago.

I will not even discuss this further.

[george]

I would love to understand what exactly I said that has everyone so upset? I criticized the statements of Dr. Barr. I did imply that he may be doing it for financial gain.

Liberals (in general here) tend to see all ideas as equal but not all people. That's why if you oppose same sex marriage they can call you homophobic or some other name and never debate the issue.

I tend to see all people as equal but not all ideas. There are some really bad ideas out there but just because someone has a bad idea or is wrong does not make them a bad person.

I have attacked the ideas that I thought belonged to Dr. Barr. I suppose a few of my comments were offensive to him but I do question the motives of someone who presents old ideas as if they are their own original ideas and never mentions the known solutions to those problems.

I'm rereading my posts and I'm reading Ken's responses and some of Bill's and I'm wondering. What do you think I said? And why won't you answer the questions that I post to you?

If you're searching and learning you should not be afraid to have your conclusions challenged.

I could be wrong here but considering the years I put into studying both sides of this subject I would guess that I've put more into it than all of you combined. That may sound arrogant but I spent years under Bishop Spong. I read his books, then I read his sources, then I read their sources... I read those that agreed with him and those that disagreed with him. Ultimately I came to my own conclusions. It was that important to me.

If you only read one side of an argument, you can't possibly make an educated decision.

I am curious why you think Fundamentalism has been harmful?

[george]

Why it matters.

I'm going to try and explain why it matters and why I post in spite of being called names.

First, let's suppose the Dr. Barr is correct. The Bible really can't be trusted as the inerrant word of God. It's more of a "globe" than a road map. By that I mean it shows you everything in general but certainly you could not use a globe to figure out how to drive someplace. (am I misstating his position here or am I fairly accurate?)

Ok, so Deborah has proven that the bible is errant because the quotes of Jesus sited earlier. (I don't agree with her but for this conversation, let's pretend that we all agree, ok?).

Ok, so now we know that we cannot trust the Bible when it quotes Jesus.

Second Bill has proven that we cannot trust the Bible when it quotes numbers. (remember is it 4000 or 40,000?)

So, now we get to "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me"

does Jesus really mean that he is the only way to salvation or does he mean that he's the "best" way or the "quickest" way. Why should I take this verse literally? Doesn't that make me a fundamentalist?

If the Bible has errors, how do we determine which verses to trust and which ones not to trust? Where is there room for interpretation and where do I have to take it literally?

[Tom]

I've been trying to stay out of this debate, it seems to be more divisive than constructive. I don't think Christians, even in disagreement, should be aggressive or hostile to one another.

George, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept that you entered into this with benign intention. I hope that you and Bill will try to work this out through e-mail or phone conversation. I truly don't think carrying this on publicly is beneficial to anyone.

Bill, I hope that I'm not speaking out of turn here, as it's your 'blog to run as you wish. If I am, I apologize.

[Bill]

I want to apologize to George and to my other readers for my choice of words above.

Comments on this post are now closed.

[George via Bill]

George asked me to post this here:

Dear Bill,
Upon further review I realize that I really was out of line and would like to apologize publicly since I accused you publicly. I honestly do not agree with many of your assumptions but instead of asking you to clarify, I "jumped to confusion" and accused you and/or Dr. Barr of ulterior motives. I'm sorry.

[Bill]

I really appreciate that, George. I would like to let all of my readers know that George and I (and my wife Val) ended up trading a series of e-mails which ended in reconciliation.

God is good!

[Tom]

Good for all of you! Civility lives.:-)