The Full Title of the book by Bart Ehrman's is God's Problem: Why the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. The problem is that the Bible Bart is using is not mine or for that matter the Bible most Christians use. It is Bible that is edited to fit what the liberal scholars have decided it is.
Every Theory Believed but not the Text Itself
Bart's Bible is one in which the Bible is not what it says it is:
1. JEPD Theory is considered fact -- Moses did not write the Pentateuch
2. Two people Wrote Job
3. Two or Three People wrote Isaiah
4. The apostles did not write the documents of the New testament
5. Etc., etc., etc.
In short, the "Bible" is not as the Bible presents itself but a concoction of theories and speculation that is not supported by textual fact. This makes it difficult to say 'the Bible does not answer the question of evil'. This is not accurate in this book by Bart -- He is not using the Bible but a theoretical Bible. I find Bart's position, and those who believe like him, ironic; they reject the Bible on the one hand because of textual error (most of which are not significant), but will present as facts theories that have not textual facts or evidence whatsoever.
A Bible Removed of History
Because of this the Bible's history including Gods acts in history are non-issues for Bart except when they make his case for him. Bart has an interesting argument here -- he rejects any Biblical argument that contradicts what he says because we cant trust the Bible in being historically accurate but then he will turn around and take as fact any event that fits his belief that God is responsible for evil.
Because of these two factors I would say the full title of Bart's book is not true -- it is not how the Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering, but it is rather how the liberal edited Bible fails to answer the problem of suffering and to that I would agree. An edited Bible does not answer the problem of suffering but the real deal does.
Next -- Objection 3 -- No Answer Will Do
Showing posts with label JEPD Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JEPD Theory. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Two
As short as my last post was, this one is going to be a little longer.
The first thing I want to make abundantly clear is that think that Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is not evil. In fact I am glad he wrote it. These issues need to be front and center because if Christians just stick their head in the sand about them it is cowardly -- people are asking these questions and we need to give reasoned responses.
1. The first disagreement I have with this chapter and one that I have throughout the book is that Ehrman seeks constantly to avoid human responsibility for evil. The one thing that Bart constantly harps on is God is responsible for evil according to the Bible. I disagree. Bart says that while many things can be attributed to freewill he says that things like natural disasters cannot be attributed to human responsibility. I believe that Bart's great weakness in his book is that he does not consider the stories of Genesis and their showing of the origins of evil seriously. His contention is that THE BIBLE does not answer the problem of suffering but then he dismisses some of the Bible's explanation because he does not want to believe it. If I say as a apparent to a child -- "don't do that or you will be punished" and then the child does it who is going to be responsible when the punishment is carried out? This kind of puts God in a position of 'damned if He does, damned if He doesn't" If God does -- he is too harsh. If he doesn't -- he does not keep His Word. No matter what God does he loses to Bart.
2. This leads to my second problem with Bart Ehrman -- His constant reliance that liberal views of the text of Scripture is absolutely true. He uses the JEPD theory in this chapter and I find it interesting that He on the one had dismisses the text of Scripture of the New Testament (See Misquoting Jesus) but then supports and uses as a guiding light for his interpretation a theory that has NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT AT ALL. It is inconsistencies like this in Bart's reasoning that bother me.
3. Bart has problems with God's treatment of Israel after their disobedience. God promised to protect them and make them great but then he destroys them. "What kind of God is this?" Bart contends. He is a God that keeps his word. You cannot read Deuteronomy and not get the impression that God's promises were conditional, very conditional and that IF they did not keep their end they were bring the punishments on themselves. Bart never brings this out or seems to even have considered it.
4. Bart contends that the prophets only spoke to their time. I am not sure other Biblical writers would agree. The Gospel writers in particular believed that Jesus fulfilled a lot of things said by OT prophets. I think this a poor understanding of prophecy by Bart as poor as the Evangelicals have at times. Egotism aside, that does not mean the prophets did not speak to the future of God's activities. As to some predictions being unfulfilled -- Prophecy is also conditional, if the conditions change, the results change. Being an open theist my understandings of prophecy are different -- God makes promises but he can choose the time and place of their fulfillment and if the other side of the relationship does not keep their end he is free to not keep His.
5. In punishment, God is not trying to improve morale as Bart contends (humorously but the point is wrong) the point of punishment is correction of behavior. The fact is that Israel could have avoided the evil it suffered by doing one thing -- OBEY, and it wouldn't be to hard. It was only hard because the Israelites thought it was more important to serve themselves than God.
Next: Agreement with Chapter Three
The first thing I want to make abundantly clear is that think that Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem is not evil. In fact I am glad he wrote it. These issues need to be front and center because if Christians just stick their head in the sand about them it is cowardly -- people are asking these questions and we need to give reasoned responses.
1. The first disagreement I have with this chapter and one that I have throughout the book is that Ehrman seeks constantly to avoid human responsibility for evil. The one thing that Bart constantly harps on is God is responsible for evil according to the Bible. I disagree. Bart says that while many things can be attributed to freewill he says that things like natural disasters cannot be attributed to human responsibility. I believe that Bart's great weakness in his book is that he does not consider the stories of Genesis and their showing of the origins of evil seriously. His contention is that THE BIBLE does not answer the problem of suffering but then he dismisses some of the Bible's explanation because he does not want to believe it. If I say as a apparent to a child -- "don't do that or you will be punished" and then the child does it who is going to be responsible when the punishment is carried out? This kind of puts God in a position of 'damned if He does, damned if He doesn't" If God does -- he is too harsh. If he doesn't -- he does not keep His Word. No matter what God does he loses to Bart.
2. This leads to my second problem with Bart Ehrman -- His constant reliance that liberal views of the text of Scripture is absolutely true. He uses the JEPD theory in this chapter and I find it interesting that He on the one had dismisses the text of Scripture of the New Testament (See Misquoting Jesus) but then supports and uses as a guiding light for his interpretation a theory that has NO TEXTUAL SUPPORT AT ALL. It is inconsistencies like this in Bart's reasoning that bother me.
3. Bart has problems with God's treatment of Israel after their disobedience. God promised to protect them and make them great but then he destroys them. "What kind of God is this?" Bart contends. He is a God that keeps his word. You cannot read Deuteronomy and not get the impression that God's promises were conditional, very conditional and that IF they did not keep their end they were bring the punishments on themselves. Bart never brings this out or seems to even have considered it.
4. Bart contends that the prophets only spoke to their time. I am not sure other Biblical writers would agree. The Gospel writers in particular believed that Jesus fulfilled a lot of things said by OT prophets. I think this a poor understanding of prophecy by Bart as poor as the Evangelicals have at times. Egotism aside, that does not mean the prophets did not speak to the future of God's activities. As to some predictions being unfulfilled -- Prophecy is also conditional, if the conditions change, the results change. Being an open theist my understandings of prophecy are different -- God makes promises but he can choose the time and place of their fulfillment and if the other side of the relationship does not keep their end he is free to not keep His.
5. In punishment, God is not trying to improve morale as Bart contends (humorously but the point is wrong) the point of punishment is correction of behavior. The fact is that Israel could have avoided the evil it suffered by doing one thing -- OBEY, and it wouldn't be to hard. It was only hard because the Israelites thought it was more important to serve themselves than God.
Next: Agreement with Chapter Three
Thursday, June 11, 2009
God's Problem -- Initial Thoughts
I recently picked up a copy of a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. Bart is an agnostic who 'converted' from Christianity and I must say Bart is very good as far laying out the problem and dealing with the 'biblical' issue of suffering and the reasons he does not believe in the God of the Bible.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)