The authors of scripture were writing in the best knowledge they had at the time of how the universe worked. We do the same today, we know more than they did, but also the way science works makes it likely we believe something now that in the distant future will be considered false.
God accommodates us in our understanding at any given stage of human development. Same as a parent does their child when explaining something complex. Same as my physics professor In college did when teaching me algebra based physics instead of calculus based as I couldnt comprehend calculus. He saw something elegant and beautiful in the calculus of it, but it was beyond my understanding.
Thank you for your words Dogdoc (and work taking care of furry friendsâŚif you are a vet )
I definitely understand what you are saying. But I am not convinced enough by the idea of accommodation that I donât still have further questions. One reason I am not convinced enough is that accommodation assumes that the Bible is (or at least contains) some kind of communication that comes from God. God only needs to accommodate to these ancient people if God were actually communicating with them. I am just not so sure anymore that God was.
If the Bible is Godâs accommodated communication to the ancient people of Canaan, the actual words and stories are secondary to some kind of âhiddenâ meaning, then why not also say the same thing about the communication to the ancient people of the Indus Valley for example that came to be known as Hindus with their own sacred texts? If the communication is taking myths to communicate truths, then do the myths really even matter? Couldnât any myth be used then for this purpose? And then other sacred stories and books may just also be of the same character as the story in Genesis 1. Why was God communicating only to Israel in Genesis 1 and not also to Babylonians through the Epic of Gilgamesh?
My belief at this time is that the Bible is not Godâs communication to people. The Bible is an attempt by ancient people to explain the unexplainable (creation, sin, death, love, suffering, worship, etc.). It is the reaching up to God/Heaven/Meaning (not God handing down Godâs words).
Thanks for your honesty in your current thoughts on this. I can see what you are saying and your concerns, and I have worked long years thinking through those issues too. The questions you have are very layered, and there are responses, but in truth no one can prove it unequivocally. In the end, both positions - âis it true?â, or âis it false?â are a matter of faith to be taken by each individual based on the information they have and know - hopefully after thought and research, whichever way they decide (which seems to be where you are).
Honestly, were it only for the Old Testament, I might have a hard time believing too. But it is in the person I see in Jesus and what he says (what he ACTUALLY says, not necessarily what other people say he does) that I see something that resonates with me. So I look at Him, and in the person I see, I see truth and the face of God and Love. From that person I then look back to the culture he worked in, and from that basis all my other views fall into place.
But not everyone sees that in Him, and if so that is OK. Each must decide for himself.
Hi. (and hi to @Hamfy). Just jumping in to say briefly that my âChristocentricâ view of scripture seems similar to yours, Dogdoc. Because I have come to believe that Jesus is God, and because Jesus took the OT âseriouslyâ, I too must wrestle with the text of the OT and assume that it has teaching value in an authoritative sense. That does not mean a naive âliteralâ/surface or âflatâ reading of the text. Jesus himself went back to the OT to exegete that the purpose was âto point to himselfâ and he challenged previous interpretations and assumptions of the Jewish establishment of the day. We learn from Hebrews 1:1-2 for example, that Jesus Himself is Godâs final and most complete revelation of himself. As a Christian, then, I think my focus is primarily to learn what it means to understand and to follow Jesus, not getting too hung up on trying to decipher a singular fixed and certain meaning from a set of words on a page (as if it always exists). Neither do I feel any pressure to assume that the text itself is an âinerrantâ revelation in every possible way. Godâs intent was not to reveal Himself in a perfect book, but in the flesh, in his perfect Son.
But, yeah, Jesus becomes the lens with which I read the OT and the means by which I try to sift âGodâs message of himself trying to break throughâ versus âhuman stubbornness and blindness and cultural influencesâ that have affected how the biblical authors have written. For me, it also does not mean that no wisdom whatsoever can be gleaned from other traditions or texts like the Bhagavad Gita. But because Jesus happens to endorse the OT scriptures and apostolic writings and not the B.Gita, where such writings come into conflict, I would consider the biblical text (Or Jesusâs view) authoritative.
I wonder if you think he knew the B.Gita even existed. Thatâs a question of Christology. I donât find it instructive (at this point) that a Jewish man, raised in a culture that endorsed a Jewish text, would not do the same with a Hindu text/Scripture. Even in my former Christology I would say he didnât even know about the B.Gita (or that the world was round and not flat).
SureâŚgiven that Jesusâs audience probably didnât know about the Gita we probably would not have expected him to quote it even if Jesus himself knew about it (that is indeed a question of Christology). But I think that misses my core point. Jesus quoted the existing religious text which his audience was familiar with not just to extract pearls of wisdom (which may be found in many places and in many texts), but to explain how the (limited and often misinterpreted) textâs main purpose was to point to Himself. Jesus was not ultimately concerned that people follow a text (whether it be the Gita, Plato, or the OT scriptures), but that people followed Him. I do not consider Christians âpeople of the bookâ (any book) put âpeople of the personâ, i.e. Jesus. Perhaps that makes me a heretic in some Christian circles
Yeah, I concur with Barthâs take on âThe Wordâ. I cringe inwardly when I visit a church and after the scripture reading, the ritualistic phrase is uttered âthis is the word of the Lord thanks be to Godâ. Not everyone shares my personal hang-ups but fortunately this has not been the practice in my Mennonite tradition
)
I donât find it instructive (at this point) that a Jewish man, raised in a culture that endorsed a Jewish text, would not do the same with a Hindu text/Scripture. Even in my former Christology I would say he didnât even know about the B.Gita (or that the world was round and not flat).