Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- Age of Kings
29 weeks 7 hours ago - You've got a stupendous
46 weeks 6 days ago - As always...
1 year 32 weeks ago - That sounds cool, can't wait
1 year 32 weeks ago - This is the list i should
1 year 43 weeks ago - ..
2 years 18 weeks ago - Father's Day
3 years 31 weeks ago - Buckley
3 years 37 weeks ago - Thanks
3 years 39 weeks ago - Mars?
3 years 42 weeks ago
New forum topics
Syndicate
Navigation
Balance
Wed, 2006-10-04 12:21 — Eric
Many of the people I talk to, especially among my Christian friends, have the opinion that NPR is the mouthpiece of the godless liberals that wish to purge our country of its last vestiges of Christianity. I will readily admit that listening to NPR's news is more challenging to me than, say, Fox news or Glenn Beck. I find myself shaking either my head or my fist at the radio on a fairly regular basis. But just when I'm ready to give up on it and slide back into the easy comfort of a more conservative news source and the approval of the crowd, they do something like this.
Balance is extraordinarily difficult these days. I've mentioned before how my political leanings are not really leanings at all. We Centrists and Moderates don't lean, because we are constantly pulled in opposite directions by those who seem to think that conformity to one extreme or the other is the only proper course of action. So I stand in the middle, being accused of conservatism for my support of the Second Ammendment, and of liberalism for my support of social programs and the separation of church and state. It would be so much easier for me to give in and fall in line with one group or the other. I can listen to the pundits and parrot back whatever they've told me to think, and I'll have plenty of blogs to provide that extra "me too" when I need it. But doing that would also force me to kill my own conscience and adopt someone else's, and I can't do that.
Instead, I'll continue to listen to both Glenn Beck and NPR, to read both Jim Wallis and Jim Dobson, and I'll continue to shake both my fist and my head. The challenge of all the voices that result is to filter them down and value only one: the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit. I'll make my own opinion, because I don't trust any of these other voices to hear that one. But if I only hear one source or one point of view, I run the risk of become too self-assured. The Bible puts it this way: "Plans go wrong for lack of advice; many counselors bring success." (Proverbs 15:22, New Living Translation) I'll take the "many counselors" of divergent viewpoints any day.
- Eric's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Download PDF
Comments
Balance isn't easy
Here are my (one of those Godless liberals) thoughts, for what they are worth...
Balance is a great metaphor to use in this discussion. Those who have walked across a balance beam or tried to walk a tight rope know how important it is to have balance. Every race car driver dreams of a race car that is perfectly balanced, neither too loose nor too tight. Notice anything the above two examples have in common? Motion. If one is in motion, balance is important. It is not always easy, and balance can be easily upset.
The same is true if we are talking about being intellectually balanced. If one is truly going to be intellectually balanced, he cannot get all of his information from one side. That would clearly put him out of balance and he would fall. So, the only way that one can ever hope to stay up is to get a little bit of information from the other side. Too much information from the other side, will again cause one to fall. But you cannot learn how to keep your balance without loosing it every now and then. If we are truly trying to expand our minds, then we are going to be engaged in a constant balancing act. If you don't feel that way, it is a sure sign that you are not moving and are intellectually stagnent.
For those of you who don't know me, I am a student at Wake Forest Divinity School. (The one in Winston-Salem, not Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary which is actually in Wake Forest, NC.) Wake Forest is an ecumenical Divinity School. We have Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Moravians. I even had lunch with a Quaker last week. I chose a Divinity School over a Baptist seminary precisely because I wanted balance. I wanted to have my faith challanged, I wanted to be thrown off balance, and I wanted to learn from those from different traditions than my own. And, that is exactly what has happened.
Kalex, I found it interesting where you went with this discussion, and I am going to take a minute to respond to it. Your assessment of the Dead Sea scrolls is not entirely accurate. They are not word for word copies, although they are very close. Some of the psalms are in a different order, especially in the last "book of psalms." In addition, there are two psalms from the Dead Sea Scrolls that were previously unknown. Also, are you aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain two different versions of the book of Jeremiah? Prior to the their discovery, we knew of the shorter version because it was the version that appeared in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) Most scholars assumed that the Hebrew version was older, and the Greek version was shortened for an unknown reason. You can imagine that theory had to be thrown out when both the short and long versions were found in Hebrew at Qumran.
Secondly, if you never question years or days when the Bible says so, take a look at the book of Daniel. And, I am not only talking about the historicity when the Bible is compared to outside sources, but even when it is compared to itself. The most obvious and glaring example is the book of Daniel. The historical data in Daniel is just wrong, and not just wrong compared to outside sources, it is wrong when compared to rest of the Bible. For example, compare the events in Chapter 1 of Daniel to the same description of events in 2 Chronicles 36. Jehoiakim is the king in Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar beseiged it, but his son Jehoiachin is the king in Chronicles. The events in Chronicles line up perfectly with both the Biblical and Babylonian accounts of the events, but the one in Daniel does not. According to one of my textbooks, a later Greek manuscript acknowledges this problem and changes the dates so that they match up. There are even more significant problems later in the text. Chapter 5 presents a king of Babylon named Belshazzar. While there is a historical character of that name, he was never king of Babylon. After his death, "Darius the Mede" receives the kingdom, a figure otherwise unknown to history. There were 3 Persian kings named Darius, but no Babylonians.
You also have to consider the name Daniel. It is mentioned in Ezekiel 28:3. However, Daniel's wisdom could not have been known when Ezekiel was written because they would have been contemporaries, the events at the beginning of Ezekiel and the events in Daniel would have been happening at about the same time. At least two of my texts say that it is very likely that the name Daniel mentioned in this book is actually borrowed from the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat as a legendary figure of wisdom. So, all of the texts I have describe Daniel as being a folktale, that the incorrect historical data is in it to point that fact out to the reader. It would be like a modern story saying something like "George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were talking..." So, someone who was educated enough to able to read Daniel at the time it was written would possibly have understood it as a folktale.
The above does not take into account the New Testament. Scholars estimate that there are aproximately 200,000 to 300,000 differences in the approximately 5400 copies we have of New Testament texts. Most of them are minor, but some are not. Perhaps the most famous example is 1 John 5:7-8 which does not appear in any Greek manuscripts of 1 John until 1400. This is a text that was clearly added later to shore up support for the doctrine of the trinity.
So, the question I ask myself is, how do we address these issues as Christians? Can we simply ignore some of these contradictions? Personally, I don't think we can. Daniel has characteristics similar to other folktales of the period, so is there an issue if Daniel never happened? (Ruth is similar, and the only other books that would meet this criteria would be Job, Jonah, and Esther. Could these books have been included in the canon to serve a purpose other than to provide history? Could they serve a purpose similar to the parables that Jesus told? I think they could. Maybe their importance is not in their historicity, maybe the importance in in their message. Could there be other small parts of the Old Testament that have a similar function? Maybe. I haven't worked all this out for myself, yet, so I can't give you a definitive answer about how I feel, but I don't think I will ever come to the point where I feel that every word of the Bible, as we have it now, is inerrant. It can't be. There are just too many little differences for that to be true. But, I don't think these differences have a significant impact on the message of the Bible as a whole.
If you want more examples, I will be happy to give them to you. Now, the first thing that anyone who is more conservative than me says when I talk about this is that I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe every word in the Bible. My response is that those people have put their faith in the wrong thing. We can't put our entire faith in the Bible, because it is not perfect. If it was, then we would not have manuscripts that are different. Rather, I choose to put my faith in God (God the father, God the son, and God the spirit) who always has been and forever will be perfect.
Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com
"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin
Re: Balance isn't easy
At the risk of committing a "Pope-ism," I technically didn't say that such people were godless liberals, I simply stated that some other people think that.
Just kidding.
Gil, I love your exposition on balance. It helps reinforce my belief that I'm doing the right thing and that I'm still very much a "work in progress." I've shifted back and forth several times over the years, and I imagine I'll shift a few more times in the future, too.
I want to dive a little further into your discussion, especially regarding the book of Daniel. I'd not heard these things about that book before, though I have heard about archeological evidence that came out that addressed the issue of the rulers and their names. However, right now I don't have the time for a longer post.
One thing that I want to emphasize is that there are some things that are essential, critical doctrines to Christianity. Those things are not negotiable. But there are many, many things that are secondary. We can debate those things vigorously, but we do not have to divide over them as Christians. Also, while I am confident that it won't be a problem here, I'll state for the benefit of others that we do not have to become unpleasant or personal when confronted by those who cannot understand the perfection of our arguments (as Gil has done with me and I with him for these many years).
Essentials
Eric,
I agree completely that there are things that are essential. An example of a question I ask myself when I am doing textual criticism (seminary word there) is, "Would it fundamentally change my faith if Daniel was a folktale meant to teach a moral lesson?" In that case, I have to answer myself no, it would not. Same for Job, etc. So, for me in the Genesis story, is it essential that God created the world in 7 days? Nope. I believe the lesson in Genesis is that God created the world. How long it took him, and what order it happened in (notice that a second story starts in Ch. 2 with events in different order) is not the important thing. The important thing is that God created the world. The way I see it, I am choosing to put my faith God and the fact that he created the world, rather than putting my faith in the Genesis narrative.
Occasionally there are also points that get completely lost in translation. The beginning of Ruth is a great example of this. Naomi left Jerusalem because there was a famine. To the English reader that is no big deal, but the original audience would have seen that as a pun, because in Hebrew Bethlehem means "house of bread" (bet-lehem) So, there was a famine in the house of bread. Also, the names of Naomi's children are interesting. Again, the English reader just reads that their names were Mahlon and Chilion. Again no big deal, until you understand Hebrew. Their names mean "sickness" and "consumptive." So, the original audience would have understood that of course these two sons are going to die, just look at their names! But we loose all of this humor in the tranlation because we don't actually translate the names.
One of the points I am trying to make here is this. Most people read the Bible and assume that they are the ONLY intended audience. While they are certainly one of the intended audiences, they are certainly not the only and, more importantly, not the first. I believe that in order to better understand scripture we have to try to understand not only what it says to us, but what it said to its original audience. How would the original audience have understood them. There are numerous cultural references throughout the Bible that most modern readers miss. So, as modern readers we may be assigning a meaning to the text that is completely other than what the author indended. Luckily, this is starting to change with some of the great study Bibles that are coming out. When you study this kind of thing, you learn some fascinating things. For example, many scholars belive that one of the things that Matthew was trying to do in describing Jesus as the fullfillment of law and prophesy was to depict him as a new Moses. Here's how that works:
Moses Chased by Pharoh -> Jesus chased by Herod
Moses leads Israelites through Red Sea (reed sea!) -> Jesus' Baptism
Isreal in the Wilderness -> Jesus tempted in the Wilderness
Moses recv. 10 Commandments on Mt. Siani -> Sermon on the Mount
Its a fascinating parallel, don't you think!
I agree completely that we do not have to divide over these issues, and it is a shame that this happens so frequently, because we can truly learn a lot from each other.
Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com
"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin
Re: Essentials
One way I have heard it expressed, regarding the Bible and how to read it, is that all of the Bible was written for us, but the Bible was not written to us. An excellent example of this is in the New Testament, with the Pauline epistles. Paul was writing to the various churches and their members. There was no way that he could have foreseen the 21st century church. The divine influence of God through the Holy Spirit allowed him to write in such a way that his letters still have significance to us now, but we were definitely not his original, intended audience.
This means that we have to spend some time getting to know our Bible and different types of writings it contains. It is also critically important, as you pointed out, to keep in mind that we are not reading the Bible in its original language. Poetry, prose, songs, stories, metaphors, history, jokes, and so forth all appear in the Bible. Ignoring the genre, historical context, location, and style of a passage of scripture, or the difference between a translation and a paraphrase, or the differences between translations and their methods, can mean the difference between understanding and confusing its meaning. For example, Paul's exhortation over head coverings for men and women really only make sense when you delve into the historical context and realize that he was telling them that they shouldn't make themselves look like prostitutes from a pagan temple. Yet we still have churches today that try to use those passages to tell their members how to dress, requiring that all the women wear hats or scarves to church!
My only question to you (right now) regarding the book of Daniel is this: it's been a long time since I read through Daniel, but a lot of our understanding of the end times comes from there. (Dan, I know you read through Daniel just recently, perhaps you can help me out here.) Since God, being timeless, would be able to reveal the world's final judgement to Daniel as if it had already happened, we can use these events to receive additional insights into the character and nature of God. If it really is just a folktale, then we lose some of our understanding of God and how He works. I would consider that to be significant - at least potentially.
I personally feel that the "six periods of 24 hours each" creationists are taking an excessively literal view of the Genesis account, but it doesn't ultimately change our faith either way. I have heard one radio pastor who tried to argue that if the Genesis account wasn't six literal days, the whole rest of the Bible broke down and our entire faith was in jeopardy. That pastor lost all my respect that day. If God wanted to, He could have spoken all of creation into being in an instant. He didn't have to take even six days.
Interesting Facts
Doing some more delving into history and the bible has brought up some interesting points and made me study more, which debate usually does. I don't normally enjoy debating faith but, when it comes to history that's when it gets fun.
Nebuchadnezzar invaded Israel twice, once in 604BC and the second time in 597BC. The first time he was general of his father's army, being a prince that wasn't uncommon and was credited with not only destroying Ashkelon on his first visit but, also could have included Jerusalem to the west in that campaign, demanding tribute from Jehoiakim in that king's third year and slaves to ensure Israel's continued compliance. (Daniel and his friends included) Jehoiakim apparently kept screwing up and was finally taken as a hostage himself which made his son king. The second invasion was after Nebuchadnezzar was king himself, once his father died and this one is the account in 2 Chronicles 36 where his uncle Mattaniah was renamed Zedekiah by the Babylonian king and named the governor/king of that province.
Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and took a seven year hiatus to the west when he left his son, Belsharusus (Belshazzar) in his stead who was killed when Cyrus invaded. No doubt by his own people as Nabonidus had insulted their 'gods' by claiming to worship one that he named "Moon".
Darius the Mede was either a new name given to Gubaru, governor of Babylon who may have been a cousin to Cambyses, son of Cyrus who became king later, organizing the empire that his uncle and cousin conquered.
I do agree that there were many versions of scrolls found at Qumran as the Greeks ruled that area for 160 years after Alexander the Great died. Greeks also served in the Babylonian and Persian armies for centuries prior and Daniel actually wrote his book in Imperial Aramaic which was well known at the time across the Near East. With him being appointed head of the princes of Babylon by Darius, it would make sense that he would write in a language that his new leader that he served would be able to understand. Perhaps Daniel even did that to help convert Cyrus to the Hebrew cause and promote their return home which of course Ezra and Nehemiah led.
Daniel
Daniel contains two different kinds of literary genres. When I refer to Daniel as being a folk-tale, I would only be referring to the first 6 chapters. After that we switch from a folk tale to an extremely good example of Jewish apocolyptic literature. It is in the latter that the prophetic material you are talking about occurs.
Its a very interesting book. The oldests texts we have switch between Aramaic and Hebrew and if you notice in Chapter 8, the text all of a sudden switches to the first person, not suprisely a language shift from Aramaic to Hebrew happens here. So, it is at least possible, if not probable, that the book is a combination of texts. When you study it, Daniel is a very strange book, and very often in answering one question simply creates more questions. I doubt we will ever fully understand how or why the book of Daniel came together as it did.
Gil Gulick
http://revgil.blogspot.com
"Those who would sacrifice liberties in the name of security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin
Balance
I've always been a history nut, even when I was a child in school. More books were read about the ancients and medieval era from my shelves than from the school library. One thing that I learned once I became saved was the time lines that they offered for the more archaic subjects - which I know isn't popular among most Christians either. When it came to the bible and history, I've never questioned years or days when it said so. Taking the words at face value when written by a historian or archaeologist always kept me guarded for it usually conflicted with what I faithfully trusted from the bible. Thus, I've accepted that God created dinosaurs and man as well as every other creature within the same week - six days short of the day of rest, making seven. It's hard to imagine that those who accept every other verse argue with those points, feeling that those who copied the verses could've made a mistake when those who have translated the Dead Sea Scrolls matched it perfectly with chapters from Leviticus, Deutoronomy or Psalms. Word for word, which made me smile that no matter how the devil tries to corrupt the truth, it always shines through for those who may doubt. God meant for his love letter to his own to be read by all generations just the way it came from his lips and I'm glad for that. Men's opinion does become tried over the years, theories tested and usually found wanting in one form or another by someone else's ideas or archaeological digs that prove otherwise. 'The just shall live by faith', which helps me believe what I read in the bible and not question because of someone else's views.
I also believe, to our shame, that men like Paul are few and too far between - if they exist at all in these times. I've met pastors who inspired me and that I felt were very close to Him and wondered where I fell short. 'The faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains'. Amazing to think about something like that, but also disheartening when I've never been able to do it. Perhaps that doubt in myself is my failing. I've never felt that he didn't hear me when I cried to him, just that my faith kept things from occuring that I wanted. He always answers, just not in the ways we would like sometimes but, it doesn't keep me from going to him every day.