Howard,
So is there anything special about the Bible that sets it apart from,
say, your writings, or the reflections/experiences of the Christian
community today. If so, what is it?
Also, don't forget the first part of that 2 Timothy 3 passage that
you quote--"all scripture is God-breathed". What does that mean? Is
there a qualitative difference between "scripture" and other writings
on the basis of this? You refer to a "humanly-crafted theory about
the divine inspiration of the canon"--of course, this is a question
begging reference. The scriptures themselves speak of this
inspiration--if the scriptures are God-breathed, then this
"humanly-crafted theory" isn't so far removed from a "God-crafted
theory".
I'm finding the flow of this discussion fascinating (and, of
course--none of this is new). We are troubled by the contradictions
between the finding of science and certain interpretations of
scripture. A desire (a good desire in my opinion) to take seriously
the findings of modern science results in the near abandonment of
Biblical inspiration (in any traditional sense) and supernaturalism
in general (we get re-enchantment instead). This, indeed, is a funny
hermeneutic--that such a dominant role to interpreting the Bible
should be given to making it compatible to modernity (an
Enlightenment rooted modernity at that).
While I'm out punching, let me just comment that I think that "both
sides" of this discussion suffer from an unwillingness to have lose
ends in their system.
Some people twist science and history to make their system work. But
the end result is a system free of contradictions, uncertainties, and
gray areas. Others deny what the Bible says about itself and the
supernatural in order to get rid of the lose ends. Again, they gain a
system free of contradictions, uncertainties, and gray areas. I'm
sure I do the same thing--we all need a certain amount of coherence
in our thinking. But, as a Christian, I have long ago consented to
many such things: the Trinity, the Incarnation, divine sovereignty
vs. human responsibility and free-will, a fully human and fully
divine Scripture, evil/theodicy resolved in the cross and in the
eschaton, etc.
TG
> >From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
>
>> There is often resistance to the idea that the Holy Spirit & the
>> biblical writers accomodated themselves to scientific understandings of
>> the world of their times & cultures, views which we now know to be very
>> limited or wrong. The same people seem to have no problem accepting
>> this with some of the morality accepted in scripture.
>
>George follows this with several examples of human behavior accepted
>by the biblical writers (and the Holy Spirit also?) but now
>considered (by the vast majority of Christians, at least)
>unacceptable -- polygamy, protection racket, extermination of
>populations, slavery, etc.
>
>> But such
>> examples do make it very clear that the biblical writers, and ultimately
>> the Holy Spirit, accomodated themselves to moral behaviors which the
>> Jewish and Christian communities would eventually find unacceptable.
>
>It's not at all that clear to me. I would say that the biblical
>writers simply incorporated, with approval, references to the
>accepted practices of the day. I don't think we have any basis for
>suggesting that they knew better, but nonetheless "accommodated"
>themselves to current (im)moral behaviors for whatever reason.
>
>I would object even more strongly to the idea that the Holy Spirit
>was guilty of the same type of accommodation (knowing better, but
>going along with the times) . Why posit that the Holy Spirit
>practiced such accommodation in the first place? Is "accommodation"
>posited for any reason other than to protect a humanly-crafted
>theory about the divine inspiration of every statement in the
>biblical text?
>
>> So why is it so hard to believe that the biblical writers and
>> the Holy Spirit could have accomodated themselves to a now-outdated
>> cosmology?
>
>If the protection of a humanly-crafted theory about the divine
>inspiration of the canon requires us to posit that the Holy Spirit
>was willing to be accommodated to immoral human behavior, should we
>not question the value of the theory being so protected? I find this
>common practice of accusing the Holy Spirit of accommodation
>(knowing better, but not saying so) highly questionable.
>
>It was for reasons such as this that I said a few weeks ago, "So,
>... I am inclined instead to move in the direction of another view
>of the Bible. (3) The (Christian) Bible is a thoroughly human
>testimony to the authentic human experience of the presence of the
>Sacred -- specifically, God, as experienced by the ancient Hebrews
>and the early Christian community. As such, the text is indeed
>"useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
>righteousness." Given this as the nature of the text, however, it
>may neither be idolized nor treated as the last word on any matter.
>We are called, I believe, not to craft theologies whose only source
>is this particular ancient historical text, not to simply "say as
>they said," but rather to "do as they did" -- that is, to experience
>the active presence of God in our own lives and to tell others about
>it."
>
>Such a view of the canon does not at all lead one to accuse either
>the writers of the text or the Holy Spirit of accommodating
>themselves (knowing better, but not saying so). I believe that the
>biblical writers wrote from their own perspective (both cosmological
>and moral) and that the Holy Spirit is not responsible for what
>these humans wrote.
>
>Howard Van Till
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 13:13:44 EDT