The Bible broke my faith in God

Sparks is a great help! I am enjoying his book, “God’s Word in Human Words.” He is Pete Enns’ boss at the college where he teaches. Thanks for the suggestion.

1 Like

I also appreciated Spark’s last bit …

I think we falsely believe that such modern perspectives are morally superior to the “barbarism” of ancient people.

He could have been a lot more pointed (so to speak) with his charge of hypocrisy here. At least the ancients had to kill their foes face-to-face (or maybe from behind a bow-and-arrow at the furthest remove). But today, our killing is removed from us out to sub-contracted armed forces acting on our behalf, and even for them - may involve pushing buttons to drop some ordinance or launch some drone. By the time the sports-like entertainment statistics reach the screens in our comfortable living rooms, we can shake our heads in mild disapproval at how unfortunate it all is and how we wish things could be done differently; and then congratulate each other again on how morally superior we enlightened ones are over those barbarous wretches from back then.

6 Likes

There’s a good amount in this video I don’t agree with. For example, it recoils the Documentary Hypothesis as fact, despite the fact that the academy has abandoned the DH decades ago. The only two “sources” with virtually unanimous agreement now is a Priestly and non-Priestly source. But with Joshua Berman’s Inconsistency in the Torah (Oxford 2017), the very methodology of field of source criticism of the Torah is in crisis.

Other problems:

  • The analysis on Jacob being a pagan is completely and utterly flawed. There isn’t a hint of evidence for that from the biblical text
  • The analysis on the Egyptian background of the exodus is so bad that it’s hard to know where to start. The pyramids were not built by slaves, but by well treated Egyptian workers - which destroys the whole patently ridiculous claim of the video that the Egyptian slaves were well treated
  • The numbers in Exodus are exaggerations, but this guy clearly has no clue what he is talking about when he pretends as if Egypt didn’t own many slaves. There were, at the very least, tens of thousands of foreign slaves in Egypt during the New Kingdom

There are so many flaws in this video that it’s hard to take seriously. The channel itself, 3vid3nc3, looking at its videos, solely exists as an apologetic defense of atheism.

God has been invoked in some bad things, of course, but those “bad things” tend to get exaggerated magnanimously. I’ve had someone tell me, in a serious manner, that the Inquisition killed over a million people. If the fella had bothered doing their research, they’d have found that across more than half a millennium, the Inquisition executed less than 10,000 people. Sure, 10,000 is a lot, but over half a millennium? Clearly it’s nothing even close to what it’s made out to be. The Crusades were also few and far between. I have zero clue why they’re considered very important. I’m sure a hundred other Greek, Roman, and medieval conflicts were a much bigger issue than the Crusades were. Overall, religion has verifiably only been a factor in 7% of the worlds wars. Perhaps the biggest source of misinformation today is the so-called “European Wars of Religion”, which were very little religious and very much political.

And when people mention the bad religion has done, why not they ever mention … the good? Especially for Chistianity. The good Christianity has done is countless orders of magnitude more significant than the bad it has done. If you ever get a good dose of time on you, I’d recommend going through this entire page, a giant eye opener when it comes to the history of Christianity and very well sourced.

On the other hand, if these acts were done of their own volition with just the speculation that God would support them…

Sure, I agree with this.

2 Likes

I could quickly dispute your response, but would have to research your other points.

Genesis 31 has a story of how Laban’s Gods/Idols were stolen by Jacob’s wives. No information on how the idols were returned or why they were stolen to begin with. Laban was upset about his idols gone too.

As I understand it, the core of the video doesn’t change. Be it Documentary Hypothesis or New Supplementary Hypothesis, scholars are not seriously considering that Torah was written by a single individual.

One thing I bring up often also is that they used a lot of war language, even symbolically. A few times, I think at least twice it says they killed all the Canaanites and then a few chapters later the Canaanites are back again.

Or when it says the flood killed the “nephilim/giants” and then later on the Jews run into the giants again and again.

One of the recent Bible projects podcasts, I think the Q&A of the previous series mentioned it.

1 Like

They wouldn’t be alone in that. Can anybody imagine the moral repugnance a future archaeologists might feel about 20th century primitives after unearthing and translating a rare bit of text only to read with horror: “the Patriots rolled over the Chiefs today crushing them in a one-sided slaughter.” And they would shake their heads in disdain as they find transport vehicles from that era that would be very capable of just such unspeakable carnage. :angry: :football: :angry:

3 Likes

I never said that the Torah was written by one person, i.e. Moses. In fact, the Torah,according to the Torah, was not written by Moses.

So I am bothered that this is used against Christianity per se. It’s an argument against traditional interpretations of Christianity, not Christianity itself.

Be it Documentary Hypothesis or New Supplementary Hypothesis,

There is no one specific model that is viable. In the aftermath of Berman’s work, I wonder if any form of modern source criticism will survive to any relevant degree. We’ll have to wait and find out. But I don’t find it particularly interesting or relevant to the question of Christianity whether one person or a community strung the Torah together.

Hi @tailspin. Been there. Big time. Still there. But I want to believe. The desire is still there. So it’s BOTH. If it doesn’t shake your faith, you don’t have any : )

1 Like

He could have. I welcome this introspection, especially as we contrast what we have done with Christ’s plan–but that also seems to emphasize the difference between the OT and Christ. It is a point for humility.

2 Likes

Berman holds to the Mosaic authorship view, correct? If so, he is in a very fringe minority on this.

1 Like

An excellent point. I think the biblical narrative is a record of real growth in revelation about who God is - reaching the ultimate in Christ (a revelation which continues today, I’m increasingly convicted.) I guess Irenaeus thought of it that way too.

2 Likes

very interesting…

Thanks @Klax. Appreciate the support in what I’m feeling. Are you making progress toward some conclusion?

You’re welcome @tailspin. You’re far from alone. Here and beyond. I don’t do conclusions. I distrust progress. : ) I’m grateful for headspace. For those who have gone before. Jesus. Paul. Whichever genius wrote The Cloud of Unknowing, Francis of Assisi, Kierkegaard, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr., Paul Ricouer, Brian McLaren - his Faith After Doubt is lined up for when I finish Rob Bell’s superb Everything is Spiritual. Almost exclusively now the only services I attend [are] those of Oasis, Steve Chalke spoke there yesterday. Perfect. ‘Stop doubting and believe’. Sounds old school? That’s all we got @tailspin! Believe what? The best case interpretation. Not the progressively worse damnationist bad news from Augustine onwards through the egregious bitter ignorance of Luther. I choose to believe in the full efficacious salvific faithfulness of Christ, The Elect in whom all are saved. All. With the fullest, deepest, broadest etymology, epistemology, hermeneutic, phenomenological recovery and restoration of meaning. I’ll supply links to those in recursive edits. What do you WANT to be true in the Kantian categorical imperative sense? That.

All that you say is more than valid. Is entirely rational. But if God walked the Earth as a carpenter… all will be well for all.

1 Like

I want to believe that the human authors had a connection to God that was stronger than the normal human, making their assessment of God’s character (and our standing before Him) more valid/truthful than the musings of Mohammed, Buddha, me, you, Taylor Swift (LOL) or anyone else -and if so, then I am TOTALLY fine with them using hyperbole, allegory, and even satire (lookin’ at you, Jonah). I’m also perfectly comfortable using my own personal connection to God praying thru difficult scripture and asking the Spirit to guide me toward the embedded truth…but that scripture (in my mind) first needs to be validated on some level other than my own WANT.
At this point, I would say that the best support for the OT that I have is Jesus. From what I understand (limited), the Gospels are some of the most validated reports in ancient history due to the relative agreement between the four key reporters/researchers, the reference to living witnesses, the relatively short period of time between events and writings, and between original writings and massive copies, and finally by the shear number of copies which textually agree. And Jesus believed the OT. He believed the history, the prophecy, and the basic premise that humans are plagued by evil, but Jesus also believed that humans could resist evil and treat each other respectfully, furthering His Kingdom. I love this, and cling to it still. So part of me -and this is why I posted my question/predicament on Biologos and why I’m still trying to understand it all- part of me not only wants to believe but STILL believes the OT because I still believe in Jesus and what He was doing.

3 Likes

@tailspin. Hoo boy. Well, all I can say is, no matter how far you go up country, no matter what falls off the wagon, including the wheels, Jesus, beyond all enculturation, is still there for me as I wade ever slower through the snow drifts. It’s ALLLLLL about Him.

1 Like

Berman holds to the Mosaic authorship view, correct? If so, he is in a very fringe minority on this.

No he does not, and I’ve little clue where you got that from.

Genesis 1-11 and countless other stories and moral atrocities in the OT are rather suspect. Even the foundational exodus narrative might be way overdone. What exactly is the story of Israel that we cling to after we keep sawing off branches? What tree remains when we resort to progressive revelation? At what point do we just become Marcionites and largely reject the OT?

I mean if the Exodus story is a fictionalized dramatization, oddly enough Matthew does the same thing to Jesus’ birth but he does so based on this narrative. A fictionalized narrative based off another fictionalized narrative, with both having the appearance of history. I wonder how many other fictions were derived and casted in the light of foundational fictions?

Vinnie

3 Likes

You may be setting yourself up for future failure. The NT is in better shape than a lot of the OT but much of it is still questionable. Your manuscript evidence that is reiterated by apologists is unconvincing. We really have next to nothing as far as manuscripts go for the first hundered years of the existence of NT texts. Also, before they were established as Scripture, on par with the OT would have been their most fluid time. So while the NT is better attested than other works, this isn’t as forceful as you think. We have a lack of evidence for when it really matters.

The relative agreement between the gospels today is viewed by the vast majority of competent exegetes as arising out of direct literary dependence (synoptic problem). The days of 4 separate testimonies, 2 by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), 1 by an eyewitness proxy (Mark as Peter’s interpreter) and 1 by a companion of Paul are long over in scholarship.

I say this as a Christian who considers the Bible my sacred scripture and authoritative. You are correct though. For all practical intents and purposes, Jesus was a practicing Jew. He seems to have considered parts of the OT sacred scripture for sure. Jesus gave us no indications he rejected the foundational narratives of his culture and by his many appeals a good case can be made he accepted them.

For me, Jesus could have been wrong (oh the scandal) about the historicity of OT topics just as he was probably wrong about the mustard seed being the smallest and just like when he mentioned a sun rise, he probably thought the sun actually rose like everyone else and wasn’t omniscient using phenomenological language. There are limits to Jesus’ knowledge in the Bible (not knowing the day and hour, not knowing who touched his robe). The incarnated Son of God was not omniscient in human form. He shared in all our weaknesses and limitations (“take this cup from me”) and the only way he differed was a sinless life.

I would also distinguish between Jesus accepting the historicity of Adam and Eve and questioning that background assumption of his time, and questioning the teaching he uses it for: he uses it to speak against divorce. Let no man separate what God has joined. I would have an issue with disagreeing with the meaning of Jesus’ teaching but not on his potential acceptance of Adam and Eve as literal which was part of his background knowledge. Even if Jesus did know of it, was he supposed to explain that in 1800 years people will realize it’s not history? Or was he giving moral instructions and teaching about God in his time? There is nothing immoral about getting a fact wrong or appealing to accepted convention. Jesus was sinless. I don’t believe it’s necessary he would have received a perfect score on the SATs. I just also concede that obviously, even his moral commands are situational by default. They were delivered in a specific language (Aramaic maybe a little Greek as well) in a specific culture at a specific time in history and many times the context can be lost. We have to be careful in making everything universal despite not having information about how nuanced some of Jesus’ stances could actually be.

I don’t like the God-man view of a Jesus where
you turn his Omni-attributes off and on whenever convenient in reading the Gospels. God became human. An omnipotent and omniscience being on the cross misses the whole meaning and point of the incarnation. It makes the sacrifice less genuine to me. Did God or did God not actually lower himself?

Worrying about where her or not Jesus thought Adam and Eve were real people is to ask the wrong question. The proper question to ask when reading about Jesus is how now shall I live?

Vinnie

4 Likes