Growing up, it was common to hear that our only creed was "We have no creed but the Bible."Of course that was not true. We believed in all kinds of things that the Bible does not describe, the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ most prominently. These things come to us from the great tradition of the church, of which we were largely ignorant. In my opinion this is sad. In an attempt to be un-Catholic many evangelical protestants cut themselves off from the riches of the great tradition.
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
11.16.2009
"If One Thing in There Isn't True..."
"...Then we can't trust anything it says." "Every word is true, or its all garbage." I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard that statement made about the Bible.
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
11.09.2009
Lost in Translation(s)
Another year, another new Bible translation. The Common English Bible is causing quite a stir in Christian community right now.There are roughly 15 standard translations in relatively common use among Christians: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NLT, HCSB, NASB, NJB, NET, NAB, & CEV. In my experience, most people have strong opinions about one or more of these translations whether positive or negative.
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
11.02.2009
Creation...Literally?
No one actually reads the Bible literally. Some people think they do. When it comes to the issue of creation, the 'literalists' insist that a six day creation and a young earth are the only truly biblical position. But six-day-ers and young-earth-ers do not actually read the Bible literally. Disagree? Let me show you what I mean.
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
