Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 5 -- The Nature of Hell

OK. Given all the biblical considerations Boyd presents, I would have to say that his case is good that most of the teaching on final judgment indicates a finality -- death, destruction and perish. The only problem I see is you have to get rid of the 'parable' Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19-31 which I don't actually believe is a parable. That said is there a way to reconcile the two pictures? Does the picture of the Bible leads us to torture or annihilation?

Why not both?

The Luke account is very much a description of what the Jews view of Sheol or the grave that the Jewish people had for centuries, including before Christ. The concept is place of waiting where the justice of God is brought about on a person. The shocking thing to the Jew who heard Jesus' story is that the rich man (supposedly blessed by God) and the Lazarus are flipped. They would have taught and believed it would be the other way around. Contrary to the beliefs of one commenter on this blog the concept of Sheol appears very early in the Bible -- the first writer to use it was in the book of Job which is the oldest written tradition period. This way before the Greeks even existed as a nation.

At the same time, I cannot ignore Boyd and others like him, including many from the early church that say to end something is to end something. They have a point and their reasoning is sound.

Then I see this verse in Revelation 20:14 -- "Then death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire..."

This indicates two things:

1) These are two separate places: Hades/Sheol is some place separate from the lake of fire.

2) That even Hades (if the lake of fire represents the final destruction, death and perishing Boyd hits on) will to have its end.

So what if Hades/Sheol is the place where the good are blessed and the bad suffer for the lives they lived as represented by Luke 16 but the lake of fire is the final end off all things evil after judgment?

Now I am going to be blunt here -- this satisfies my sense of justice. Is it right for someone like say a Hitler or Attila the Hun to just be disintegrated without suffering something for their crimes? To me it would be fitting for them to suffer every death they ever caused over and over again until the final judgment. Shouldn't the man who burned so many Jews as well as other be burned himself? At the same time, Uncle Larry who was a great guy, never hurt a fly or told a lie, but never accepted Jesus and died in his sins -- what should he suffer?

My working theory is that Sheol is not so much a place of torture but a place of justice being served and inequalities being balanced. Look at Abraham's words to the rich man: "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things; and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here' and you are in agony." I want you to notice the reasoning for why each man is in the place he is in -- one received good in his lifetime but the other bad. Now in Hades/Sheol the situation is reversed by God to make things right. It is not about the book of life or the lamb of God, like the lake of fire in Revelation, but what each person did and received in this life. It is these things that determine what happens in Sheol.

I think I can live with a temporary place of God dispensing justice. The thing I have a hard time with is listening to our loved ones for all eternity cry out in pain for something they did in a short amount of time. It also seems inconsistent with the love of God if someone truly repents -- which they may do in Hades/Sheol -- but God does not honor it. Is Hades also a refiners fire of sorts as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3 as well as a place of an another chance for salvation before judgment? One of my professors, Jerry Walls in his Book Hell the Logic of Damnation explores this possibility and at the time I took his class on the problem of evil, I had to admit he made some good points. He theorized that some people would rather go to Hell -- "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" i.e. Paradise Lost by Milton. Is this getting too close to the doctrine of Purgatory? Maybe, but then again, what exactly is Sheol/Hades? Perhaps some would prefer to be annihilated as opposed to serving God?

Maybe Dante had a few things right?

Next: The Purpose of Hell

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 8 -- Job and Isaiah Naked

Job says several things about being naked but one is the most classic line about coming fro the womb naked and in nakedness we return to the dust. (Job 1:21). In using nakedness this way Job shows symbolically that we come into the world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Solomon does the same thing in Ecclesiastes 5:15 -- it is almost a quote of Job. In any case nakedness is sue to make a point and a good one.

The Bible does use nakedness to symbolize things that sometimes involves shame, sometimes vulnerability.

Isaiah 20 is an example of this: Isaiah is TOLD by god to strip naked and walk around naked for three YEARS. It is symbolic of how God is going to shame Egypt and Cush through the Assyrians and in this way God uses the prophet's actions to pronounce judgment on Egypt and Cush. Much the same thing happens in Isaiah 47 about Babylon as far as judgment although there is no record of Isaiah walked around naked. In short God is saying -- I am going to expose you for what you really are -- powerless against me. Other verses about nakedness in Isaiah demonstrate need and the neediness of people that are oppressed. There is also one verse about the comfort of a mother's breasts in 66:11 (see previous post)

I wonder what the modern proponents that all nakedness is sinful do with this passage: Here is someone who walks around naked for three years AT GOD"S DIRECTION! I don't know I am beginning to wonder if the same of nakedness is so much about physical nakedness or a state of spirit. Isaiah is naked but I doubt he himself has any shame about it -- He is being obedient to God so why would he be ashamed of his nakedness? Creates a problem doesn't it when God asks you to be naked before him?

Next: Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 7 -- Women's Breasts

I suppose that one might argue that I seem to have a fascination with this topic and maybe an obsession. I could argue -- "Yeah, I am a guy. Get over it, guys are fascinated with the subject." What I don't think most Christian men and women understand about this issue is that it is a current issue. One State of the United States, New York already has a law about this subject -- anywhere a man can appear without a top so can a woman. Similar laws exist in in about 7 other states in certain situations (beaches and other areas). In Europe, there are many places where a woman can appear topless -- the fact is Europeans don't have as many hang ups about nudity in general as we do in the US. Many local cities, towns, etc. have their own laws because most states leave the issue to local government to deal with on their own. For instance Columbus, OH has a very similar law to the one in New York state. The point is in certain places a Christian can be walking down the street and see a woman topless (or topfree if you prefer) and they really can't call the cops -- in fact calling the cops in New York can get you and the cops sued. So what do you do? You can't avoid everything.

I all states and places though the problem is that a woman is only considered indecent if she shows her nipples. That still leaves a lot of room on a woman's breast.

At this point in going through Bible I am looking for how the Bible refers to nakedness. In the issue of women's breasts at this point I would have to say the Bible is silent other than a few references to nursing. Now as we get past David and begin to look at the rest of the Bible -- nothing till the book of Job. The fact is the poetic literature of the Bible has a lot to say about the subject of women's breasts. Job makes mention of them, Song of Solomon as well (9 separate verses). Job makes mention of the motherly aspects of women's breasts. No sexual connotation at all. Song of Solomon is a different story.

In the context of Song of Solomon, the subject is the desire the couple has for each other. In chapters 1-7 the mention of breasts is one of admiration. That is the man is admiring his future bride's breasts and commenting on them. In short, he is saying his bride has a nice pair. 8:1 mentions the motherly aspects of women's breasts again much like Job. In Chapter 8 verses 8 and 10 the woman in the story mentions her own breasts as a symbol of her virtue -- she has kept her virginity to her wedding night referring to her breast as acting like towers. In this case they are symbolic of her virtue but it is not mentioned how that is so other than to say she was not a women who just put out for anyone. Probably no one has touched them. Seen them? Well it does not say.

What can be said at this point when dealing with the subject of the Bible and women's breasts:

1. When women's breasts are mentioned, the most common reference is to nursing or the motherly aspect of the breasts or women. It is about nurturing.

2. In Song of Solomon we have an unmarried couple and the man makes continued reference to how much he admires -- not only his future wife's body but her breasts in particular. Wonder how he knew what all this looked like in a middle eastern culture? So is admiration a sin? Not with these verses -- they got into the Bible and no sin is mentioned.

3. In all cases, it is never stated that a woman showing her breasts is sinful or shameful. if anything the virtues of women's breasts are set forward and they are not presented in a negative light.

Next: Job and Isaiah Naked.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths

I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.

OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.

Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.

First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.

1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.

This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.

Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.

For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.

Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.

Engaging God's Problem -- Three Objections Part 2 -- Bart's Bible is Not Mine

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

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Seven

Bart Ehrman's God's Problem considers the 'end of the world' answer to the problem of evil. I have a few disagreements with Bart about this although the chapter does have some problems:

1. He plugs some social issues again -- malaria and water issues around the world. Both could be dealt with by humans but were going to blame God.

2. I disagree with Bart's assessment of origin of the apocalyptic view in Scripture. The fact is that it occurs in the writings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as well as David's psalms and the idea of judgment occurs in Job as well.

3. When people assess that the Jewish people failed to keep the covenant and thus received punishment for not keeping the covenant it is not anti-Semitic. Did not the prophets and Jesus (all Jews) say the same. If Christians simple say the sames things Jews say about themselves how are they anti-Semitic. Jesus pointed this out further in his own when he called the religious leaders self-righteous -Is Jesus anti-Semitic

4. He has some interesting theories about the date of Daniel -- that Daniel is written in Aramaic is proof of a later date for Daniel after the fact of all the predictions of course. The fact is if Daniel is educated by the Babylonians his language would a have been changed into Aramaic along with the rest of the Jews seeing Aramaic is the result of Babylonian influence.

5. Because he does all this his version of apocalyptic views is assume that God has relinquished control for now and will bring things back to right in the end -- The apocalyptic view does not have god out of control at anytime.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Eight

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Six

I have a lot of disagreements with chapter 6 of Bart Ehrman's Book God's Problem. Some of them trivial but others are major. Here they are:

1. One thing in this chapter that becomes clear is that Bart wants to pin on God what we have unleashed.

2. He talks of sexually transmitted disease as if it is an act of God -- last I looked sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted by sex -- a controllable behavior.

3. He states their are two authors of Job -- one for the narrative and the other for the dialogue. Is there any textual evidence for this? No. I think the problem with Job then would be that the narrative would not make much sense - -the whole book of Job hinges on the whole thing -- Job loses everything, the debate between him and his friends, God intervenes and then Job receives everything back. Without the debate, the narrative makes no sense and the debate would not make any sense without the why of 'why are they talking" Why is it that liberal scholars are so chronologically arrogant to think a single ancient author cannot use multiple styles in a book?

4. The two author theory leads to some very poor interpretation of the Bible in Job. P. 167 is particularly idiotic. The friends of Job think they are defending God but the text of Job says -- through God's mouth no less -- that Job was right and the friends were wrong. This makes no sense in the narrative part of book unless we know what they said in the poetic part. I have never have heard a more ridiculous theory.

5. Disease has its origins in death and ultimately the reason disease exists is because of us -- we didn't listen as a race to God in the garden.

6. Bart doesn't seem to address the fact that part of the answer to the problem of evil is life after death. Job's children die but where did they go? If they go to paradise they went from one party to another. If hell they went their because of their own evil. In short, Bart rarely factors in both personal responsibility and the afterlife into his discussion. They are both part of the answer the Bible has to evil but he does not put that into his factoring of what the Bible says about evil. There is also no honest consideration of Satan's involvement in being the origin of Evil. Maybe he thinks it is superstitious, but the Bible treats Satan as real and it should be considered in the discussion of what the BIBLE says about the problem of evil.

7. Job is not saying that he in outgunned he is simply saying from the Almighty's perspective he knows he cannot argue against God's justice. When Elihu speaks he never says Job sinned in doing this as Bart claims on p. 183 but that Job is not in position to question God's justice.

8. Bart accuses God of not giving Job a chance to get a word in. That is not the way the story reads -- if anything God says -- 'you got you audience, now what?" Job's response is to repent on his own -- we do not know what time God gave Job to respond and it is pure speculation to say God did not give Job a chance. The time is not recorded between God's answer and Job's response.

9. On to Ecclesiastes, Ehrman's makes the claim that is Solomon wrote the book then he would contradict himself compared to Proverbs -- I disagree -- there is a lot of agreement in Solomon's wisdom even with this book. What Ecclesiastes does is place all the other wisdom in its proper place. It is on this basis that Bart claims the book of Ecclesiastes is written in the 3rd Century BCE. How do we know? Do we have a text from that era that says so?

10. One thing that disappoints me is that Bart treats the last three chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes as if they don't exist. The book ends with a simple conclusion but it has end of the world, final judgment connotations -- fear God, obey him because He is going to bring every act to judgment. I agree that Ecclesiastes says some suffering makes no sense, but he does not draw the same conclusion -- reject the God of the Bible but to fear Him instead. Odd Huh?

Next: Agreements with Chapter Seven

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter Six

This is going to be short. Even though Bart Ehrman's God's Problem is going into an area of the Bible that is my favorite the ideas of Chapter 6 -- Does Suffering Make Sense? The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, I have very little agreement with with Bart' conclusions or observations here.

1. I agree that even the Bible presents that sometimes suffering just is and we have to deal with it. Those of a more fatalistic/deterministic tradition might disagree, but i don't as an open theist.

2. Ecclesiastes is both Bart and my favorite book of the Bible.

3. That part of the Meaning of life is to enjoy it. Eccl. 5:18-19; 8:15 Cherish life and enjoy it.

You can tell with that the Disagreement post tomorrow is going to be long.

Next: Disagreements with Chapter Six