The question is important because at least one regular participant here essentially denies that the scriptures are a human product, a position that is essential to most biblical ‘literalism’.
It is also critical because if the Bible is not human literature then by definition it cannot communicate to humans!
Thirdly it is critical because without knowing what kind of human literature a given portion is there is no way to understand its message; any result from getting the type of literature wrong is almost certain to be wrong from the root.
I agree that this is a fair discussion St Roymond and it is important deserves criticism (the academic definition of the word).
I sincerely appreciate that you have thought enough about the defense of your world view and my rebuttals to ask this question…so i wish to offer my genuine gratitude for your insight in putting it to these forums.
Obviously, i will respond as i am supposing that you expect that i should. however, initially i am going to try to mostly like other peoples input as i would like to read other opinions and evidence on this question because i genuinely wish to gain some insight that i almost certainly wouldnt have thought of.
So in light of the above, i will just post a small response and then keep quite for a bit and i look forward to reading some responses.
Im going to take a somewhat unusual route here initially (one that I’ve tended to do lately)…however, the question needs a little modification as its not quite the right question to ask…so let me suggest the following:
Is the Bible a human record of God’s Revelation
i offer the above answer because its quite clear that human literature may be taken as the physical action of recording the voice of someone else…in this case God. So in that way the question is very obviously going to attract a yes answer. Having said that, i do agree that you are seeking a far more in depth discussion of the implications of Gods communication with patriarchs, judges, prophets, men of God, Disciples etc.
I would highlight the following in the above reference…
The Bible is not a literal copy of God’s voice or thoughts, but rather a human interpretation and expression of His revelation. It’s a way for God to communicate with humanity, using human language and concepts to convey divine truths.
Whilst i know that you and i have some differences here, thats a really great answer Richard. I know im not the O.P however thank you for it (from me).
I think the premise implied by this question is that something cannot be both human and divine at the same time. It is a premise I would not have expected a Christian to use.
So the answer I would give is, yes. But do not be fooled. It does not mean the conclusions of literary criticism (or some other types of analysis of the text) are correct.
Same here. I don’t think it follows at all.
Nonsense. I reject the premise employed here that there is only one correct way to understand the message. It is the old BS that the Bible is only true if interpreted correctly – it simply replaces one magisterium with another. I find this approach to be equivalent to rewriting the text and replacing the original with some approved interpretation.
A “human product” does not equate with “human literature”. Scripture is rather, a product of God but is produced by humans. A human product is by nature prone to error, so saying scripture is a human product makes it fallible, which I don’t believe is true. On the other hand, there are copyist and translation errors, as a result of it being under human production.
The Bible is by definition the word of God. It is inspired by God but written by and written for humans… It is God communicating to humans so yes, it is human literature.
By definition, human literature is any literature that is written for humans. Essentially that’s all literature unless there is some other intelligent life in the universe with its own literature.
I’d say its not just one kind of literature but many, and can be understood on many different levels. Its written for both the 3,000 year old shepherd and for us today. Its written for both George of the Jungle and for Tony Stark. Its written for someone with an IQ of 80 and someone with 120.
Being written for everyone and translated into every language in every culture there are so many ways of interpreting it. One understanding is not necessarily correct and another incorrect.
The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. God places the dots and numbers them on the page, but we still need to draw the lines connecting the dots to see the whole picture. The Holy Spirit will later bring the picture to our remembrance, and maybe then we can draw it without following the dots… Its a nice portrait of Jesus, for He is the way, the truth and the life.
No, the implication is that the two cannot be separated, as is all too common in fundamentalism where the human side is essentially ignored.
If it’s not human literature, it can have no meaning to humans. Literature covers the ways that language is used, and without using human means of language there is no communication because all that can happen is the recipient making up whatever subjective impression they want. To use a simple case, Coleridge’s Kublai Khan can be about sex, or Puff the Magic Dragon can be about drugs, or The Star-Spangled Banner can be about genocide (all three of those have been argued, in each case for the purpose of showing how without a frame from human literature there really is no meaning).
The message is what the author intended – anything else is personal invention. Otherwise one may as well say that e = mc^2 is a formula for astral/spirit travel, and there is no way to argue against it.
That’s the opposite of what it is – it is insisting that the text is what it is, not what anyone’s prejudices want it to be.
And worldview ‘errors’, and scientific ‘errors’, and historical ‘errors’ – none of which make it fallible, because it isn’t about any of those things . . . which we know because of what kinds of human literature it is.
I was going to mention Klingons . . .
Only those understandings that fit what the author intended can be correct – anything else is making stuff up. That’s how literature works; it gives form to language in order to establish meaning.
That promise was not given to every individual; it was at best given to the church as a whole, at narrowest just to the Apostles, possibly also to their successors. Individuals depending on that promise for themselves is where heresy comes from.
If you decide that – as one professor I rejected maintained – that the Book of Joshua is a tourist guide to important piles of rocks in the territory of the united Kingdom of Israel, are you going to find the actual message? or if you decide that the Noah story is just ripped off from Babylonian sources, are you going to see what was intended? or if you think that all prophecy was written after the fact, will you gain any understanding? or if you think the Gospels are the result of doing ‘magic mushrooms’, will you get the points at all?
I found it interesting to learn in the theology class I took this semester that the prominent theologian Karl Barth called scriptures “The witness to the Word of God”. He thought that Jesus was the Word of God, not the text. Nevertheless he believed that the text was a faithful, true and “reliable” witness. I resonate with this view.
That promise was given to everyone who believes in and loves Jesus:
John 14:12 Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me…
15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you…
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
So we need to approach scripture from the direction of believing and loving God. Otherwise it leads us to heresy like your examples here:
They might be on the path that leads to truth but headed the wrong way down it.
That is a somewhat simplified statement about the scriptures that are supposed to have two levels of authors - humans wrote the texts but were somehow guided by the Holy Spirit, and some parts are claimed to be direct messages from God through a prophet. That allows for more than one ‘level’ of meaning in the message.
There is the message that the human writer was thinking and intended but there can also be a hidden message or recurring theme about what will happen in the future. That is at least the way how some verses have been interpreted in the NT and among Christians. For example, some prophecies in Isaiah and even some verses in the Psalms have been interpreted as telling about the Messiah, although the human writer may have been thinking something else when writing the text.
Change “human” to e.g. “American”, and see if that’s also true. If it isn’t, work out where the flaw is, and see if that same flaw is present in the original.
Are we to take the undrstanding of the writer os the first creatio narrativre (If there is only one writer, it is more likely to be a coporate memory or tradition that a single composition)
You are limiting Scripture if you insist on a single understanding.
Reinterpreting or moving away from the original intent is not making things up;
How can the Holy Spirit influence if there is onlty one meaning possible?
Most, if not all will first read Scripture with no help, let alone under schollarly guidance. Scripture has to be able to reach those people to start the journey .And, as most do not hav e access to scholarship and that sort of study, Scrupture has to be able to continue that journey without it/
Ouch
Talk about limiting both Scripture and the Gospel!
The Gospel is for all, not the favoured few, the inherited few, or those who were brought up in the Christian faith.
In the biblical scriptures, some teachings are repeated many times and pop up easily, especially when reading the NT. Those are the teachings that reveal the core teaching needed for believing and thereby, salvation.
You can understand enough of the key issues just by reading yourself the text but studying the scriptures can reveal such rich perspectives that open deeper understanding about the will of God and corrects the misunderstandings that easily follow when we read the text through our ‘coloured spectacles’, our worldview. Even such basic issues as who is God or Jesus are not necessarily evident for everybody without teaching or studying the scriptures more deeply.
The Holy Spirit can open to a believer the understanding about some passages of the scriptures, gradually. It usually takes more than a lifetime to learn using merely that method and, for some reason, that method does not remove all misunderstandings. The Holy Spirit teaches what is necessary, usually not the correct interpretation about everything. Relying solely on my own understanding and what the Holy Spirit teaches to me is often pride, not such humbleness that the Lord expects from us.
That’s my view too. If one wants to insist that the printed words are the “Word of God”, then maybe one should believe those printed words when they tell us (in John 1) that actually, that title belongs to Jesus, and He alone (God incarnate - not recorded words on scrolls or modern page) is the only source of life (John 5:39-40).
I think you can study too hard. The basic message of forgiveness and social behaviour is clear for all to see. The final judgement in Matt 25 is not about what we kno but what we do.
Biblical criticism is a necessary evil for human verification and confidence, it is not the way of faith or understanding… Much of the exclusivity and false jusdgement of others comes from delving too deep.
The Devil is in the details, not the Holy Spirit. The more you think you know , the larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of doubt and misunderstanding.
That i concur with.
But, there seems to be a human need to Know everything
All we need to know is that God thoughts are not our thoughts and our expectations are not His. Grace needs no verification and cannot be earned. We fool ourseves into thinking that we can even slightly understand God.
i have found that those who have studed are far more arogant on selfconfident than those of us who trust in God rather than human learning.
Yes and no - knowledge is a two-edged tool.
It may draw the attention away from the central teachings to the marginal ones - away from Jesus Christ. Knowledge may also lead to pride, thinking that ‘me’ is somehow on a more advanced level in the relationship with God than ‘them’.
Those are dangers that need to be avoided.
The other edge is that knowledge is useful. It can help others and ensure that you do not stray away from the correct way. The leaders and teachers of churches that do not have sufficient understanding about the teachings of the biblical scriptures may cause much damage. For the sake of the listeners and lambs, I hope that the leaders and especially teachers acquire sufficient understanding.
Some of the best preachers I have heard have had virtually no education, and many of the famous Christians or Saints were not known for their qualificatins either.
IMO we rely too much on qualifications. Many a minister has come out of college well educated but ill equipped for the work thay are given
A prominant Lay Preacher in our area is very well qualified but reads their sermons with a flat voice that rarely engages. Preaching is more than disemination of information or learning.
The school of Life is still the most effective for living this life, Christian or no.
