DOWNLOAD PDF THE BIBLE REALLY DOES MAKE SENSE

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : 4 Ways to Study the Bible - wikihow The Bible Really Does Make Sense [Alan Foster (wife Maureen)] on blog.quintoapp.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This book is an attempt to explain or simplify some of the difficult passages in the Bible that puzzle readers who desire to grasp the truth of what is being said. If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense. The opponents of dispensationalism sometimes depart from the above rule, and although they might not want to admit it, they seem to follow this rule: If the plain sense does not fit my theological system, then I will seek some other sense, lest I should end up agreeing with the dispensationalists! This is illustrated by an amillennialist, named Hamilton, who made this remarkable admission: Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures [Cited by Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers,, 35]. In other words, if a person really interprets the Bible prophecies literally, he will of necessity be a premillennialist, according to Hamilton, who himself was not one! The dispensationalist believes that God means what He says and says what He means. In childlike faith he recognizes his need to simply take Him at His Word and rest upon His clear, normal, obvious statements. Some of the opponents of dispensationalism claim that they too interpret the Bible literally. Here are seven simple tests to see if a person truly does: God says that His work of creation happened in six days. Does He really mean what He says? Can we take Him at His Word? How would a child understand this verse? Today many teach that these six days of creation cannot refer to literal 24 hour days, but instead must represent long ages of time which would then correspond with the vast geologic ages theorized by evolutionary scientists and scholars. But does normal interpretation allow for such a non-literal approach? How would Moses and the people of his day have understood Exodus The rules of language and word usage demand that we understand these as literal 24 hour days. Whitcomb, a pioneer in the modern creationist movement, has mentioned the following significant points among others: See a precise parallel in Numbers 7: How inconsistent to say that God worked six long ages Exodus The pressures of unsubstantiated scientific theory should not force Bible believers to abandon the natural sense of language. Test 2â The Change in the Nature of Animals Isaiah 11 Do I understand Isaiah 11 to be describing a time when the nature of animals will actually be changed from ferocious to gentle, from meat eating to plant eating, from poisonous to innocuous, etc. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: Does God really mean what He says in the above verses or does He mean something else? If we take these verses literally, according to the normal way in which words are understood, then we are forced to conclude that the kingdom has not yet arrived! If you go to any zoo, you will not find any lions eating straw. Today no loving mother would allow her child to play with a deadly poisonous snake. Since its initial publication it has been renamed The Reformation Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers,,, ] The inconsistency of this interpretation is seen by comparing it with another passage which refers to the diet of animals. Why does the plain sense make good sense in Genesis 1 but not in Isaiah 11, especially when both passages are speaking of the diet of animals? Could it be that Isaiah 11, understood literally, does not agree with their theological system which says that the kingdom is here and now, whereas the teaching of Genesis 1: This illustrates the point that theologians are often inconsistent when it comes to their use of the literal hermeneutic, and they often tend to abandon the natural and normal meaning of words when the words describe kingdom conditions. Dispensationalists are known for their consistent use of the literal hermeneutic. If anyone doubts that Isaiah Then throw in a rib-eye steak and watch the action! Six times in Revelation chapter 20 reference is made to a period of a thousand years. Gary North has been one of the leaders of the postmillennial reconstructionist movement the "theonomy" movement. Scofield for holding to the gap theory, a position commonly held among many of the earlier dispensationalists, but rejected by many if not most dispensationalists today. North made the false accusation that no dispensational seminary takes a position on a recent creation and that no dispensational seminary takes a position that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days. This accusation was false, evidenced by the fact that Grace Theological Seminary had published a Page 1

2 written positional statement on this issue, entitled Biblical Creationism, which was adopted by its faculty on July 6, Ninety-four schools responded to the questionnaire and one hundred and seventy schools did not respond. But of the schools who responded, fifty-five took a position in support of the days in Genesis 1 as literal 24 hour days; one school did not teach this and 30 schools did not take an official position on this issue. North is to be commended for his literal approach to the first chapter of Genesis and his insistence that the six days of the creation week were literal 24 hour days. He takes Genesis 1 very literally and understands the six days in their normal and natural and obvious sense. North were to follow the same literal approach that he uses in Genesis 1 and apply that to Revelation chapter 20, then he would be a premillennial dispensationalist and he would be forced to abandon his postmillennialism. But instead he abandons his literal hermeneutic. For him, the thousand years in Revelation 20 are very symbolic. The term "thousand years" mentioned six times in Revelation 20 does not really mean a thousand years, according to North. The thousand years represent "a vast, undefined period of time It has already lasted almost 2, years, and will probably go on for many more. The thousand years is to be understood as a symbolical number, denoting a long period Dominion Press,, North is totally opposed to the evolutionary theory, and yet he handles Revelation 20 in a way very similar to how the evolutionists handle Genesis 1. Evolution is really impossible, but if you give us enough time, all things are possible. Even though we cannot see evolution taking place today, if you give us enough time then anything can happen. In discussing how the first living cell originated, Gore said, "The odds against the right molecules being in the right place at the right time are staggering. Yet, as science measures it, so is the time scale on which nature works. Indeed, what seems an impossible occurrence at any one moment would, given untold eons, become a certainty" Likewise, evolutionist George Wald wrote this: The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: We need millions and millions of years. Without that much time our evolutionary theory is in great trouble! Reconstructionists echo the thinking of the evolutionists in their approach to Revelation chapter Reconstructing society according to Biblical law seems impossible, but if we have enough time it can be done. In fact, it seems as though society is becoming more and more lawless. But with enough time these changes for the better will come. We can do it but we need time. If you give us enough time anything can happen. Thus we cannot take the thousand years of Revelation 20 literally because we need much more time than that. We can be thankful for a great Creator God who was able to make the heavens and the earth in six literal days! And we can be thankful for a great coming King, the Lord Jesus Christ, who can suddenly and mightily transform society by bringing in His promised kingdom Daniel 2: All man can do is make society more and more corrupt, even as it was in the days of Noah! Gary North understands the days in Genesis 1 literally, in their normal sense. He understands the years in Revelation 20 in a non-literal way, in a symbolic way. It fits his theology to make the days of Genesis 1 be literal days; it contradicts his theology to understand the millennium of Revelation 20 as a literal millennium of years. Should not the text of the Bible determine our theology instead of letting our theology govern how we understand the text? For more information on the kingdom, see Biblical Teaching on the Kingdom. It is described in four different ways: God means what He says and says what He means! He has told us about a period of time which is equal to three and a half years, and He describes this period of time in four different ways to make sure we understand! When God says 1, days does He really mean 1, days? When God says 42 months, does he really mean 42 months? When God speaks of half of a seven year period Daniel 9: Can we give God some credit that He certainly knows how to count? Do I believe in a future millennial temple exactly as described in the closing chapters of Ezekiel? Those who do not believe in a literal, earthly, millennial kingdom have a major problem believing that there will be animal sacrifices reinstituted under a Zadokian priesthood during the coming kingdom age. They cannot understand how this can be reconciled with the once-for-all, forever sacrifice of our perfect Substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet we cannot ignore very clear passages which speak about future animal sacrifices in the context of a future millennial temple. See Ezekiel especially To spiritualize these prophecies is to empty them of their literal content. To pretend that they somehow apply to the church of this present age is an insult to the God who expects us to take Him at His Page 2

3 Word. Actually many non-dispensationalists simply ignore these prophecies which is easier than trying to explain them away. The same non-literal approach is often taken with respect to the millennial temple with its detailed description given to us in Ezekiel chapters Why do we understand the detailed descriptions of the tabernacle and temple to be descriptive of literal structures, but when it comes to a future temple, also described in great detail, we abandon a literal understanding of the Word of God? Page 3

4 Chapter 2 : The Problem with "Plain Sense" Reading of Scripture ONLY JESUS GOD offers Total Forgiveness for ALL Sin to Enter the Kingdom of GOD - Duration: The Endless Love of Jesus Ministries 34, views. It says that God IS good. Just a lucky shot. Yesterday was no exception. Amidst the horrifying reports of a plane dropping altitude over the Alps and then crashing into the mountain with people on board, there was the story of a soccer team who changed their travel plans because they decided the layover in Dusseldorf was too long. When we hear stories like that, us Christians tend to say, "Wow! A man goes to his doctor for pneumonia and the chest x-ray shows a tumor in his lung that is entirely removed and cured because the doctor accidentally discovered it when it was still in its early stages. I survived an aggressive form of breast cancer when I was 28 years old. Yes, I always say. God is absolutely good. But is this WHY God is good? It sounds obscene to say that. There were people diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and died weeks later because their cancer was discovered too late. No, my instincts say. In Psalm 46, the psalmist says, "God is our refuge and strength, a present help in times of trouble. Therefore, we will not fear God is just as good to the people who went down on the Germanwings plane as he is to the soccer team who switched flights at the last minute. God is just as good to the people who died in the car accident as he is to the people who avoided it. God is just as good to the parents of obedient children as he is to parents of children who have rebelled. God is just as good to infertile women as he is to women who have as many biological children as they want. God is just as good to the single person as he is to the person who gets married. God is just as good to the people who lose their jobs in corporate downsizing as he is to the people who earn a promotion. God is just as good to the people who drown in a tsunami as he is to the people who are rescued. God is just as good to the young women who died of breast cancer as he was to me when I survived it. The answer is always a resounding YES. But we have GOT to stop only talking about his goodness when an unexpectedly pleasant thing happens. God is not good because we avoid danger. God is good because when the storms of life hit, he comes closer to us than the storm ever could. He holds us in his loving arms. Page 4

5 Chapter 3 : does the bible make sense? Yahoo Answers Buy a cheap copy of The Bible Really Does Make Sense book by Alan Foster. This book is an attempt to explain or simplify some of the difficult passages in the Bible that puzzle readers who desire to grasp the truth of what is being said. This is some default text for your bio area. To change this text, go to the Widgets page and edit or delete the default text in the topmost Bio widget column, called "Bio area spanning column". ProPhoto4 is really flexible when it comes to what sort of content you can put in your bio, as well as how it is arranged. To really understand all of the possibilities, we recommend checking out both of these important tutorials: Understanding Widgets and Customizing the Bio Area. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Do you have a hard time reading the bible? Does it make sense to you? Last week I asked people to join me in reading the New Testament over the next couple of months. Let me preface this by saying I am in no way an authority on the bible. Lets get into it shall we? What did I know coming into the book of Matthew? I remembered that it was written to a Jewish audience 2. The gospels are about Jesus. Each book of the bible was written by an author, and written TO a group of people, and just like any author, the author had an intent on why they were writing. There were things going on that the author was going to address. Even better is having an understanding of the culture that the audience is reading from. We often try to understand what is being said in a letter that was written years ago and comprehend it with our minds. Imagine taking some of these blog posts and sending them back years. And is also not literal because there are more than 14 generations between some of those names. Than how can it be true?! And also includes a prostitue Rahab in the lineage. Last time I started reading through Matthew I starting looking them up, and it made things come a live a bit more. The places Jesus is going has significance, because the original reader would have known where He was talking about. So when Jewish people heard that Jesus had to go into Egypt to hide, chapter 2 I wonder what kind of things that stirred up in the Jewish audience. Egypt was a place of slavery for them. I like that Joesph in 1: Even when we are right, or have the right, we can still go about doing things lovingly. Another good thing to look for is repeated words or themes. Kingdom is a ruling word. So just from internal evidence maybe this book was written to Jews who did not yet believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Or Christian Jews who needed reaffirmation that Jesus was the Messiah. Miracles â The miracles Jesus is preforming had more significance to the original reader than they do to us. They seem random to us but the people Jesus was healing were people that were ritually unclean leporsy, dead body, woman subject to bleeding and therefore unable to approach God because of the Levitical law. Are you reading along? Did some verses really stick out? Or did you have a question about one? Visited times, 1 visits today. Page 5

6 Chapter 4 : How To Read The Bible For Better Understanding "Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does.". Your information will not be shared. Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. It is not an open challenge for Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their religious beliefs. Please read the site disclaimer prior to posting comments. I used to believe in a god that loved me and the world and that took care of mankind. I used to be very strong in that conviction and every week I would be in church worshiping the god of the Bible. I used to spend loads of time thinking about god and the Bible and our place in this world. I would also tithe and make a real effort to spread Christianity. Now I can say without equivocation: Does not being religious now mean my life is meaningless and devoid of any kind of real hope? What has happened is that I now have a more realistic view of the world and my tiny place in it. I now understand that humanity is but one species on this planet and I have realized how small humans really are. The fact is what is meaningful to you is relative. You may believe that bird watching is meaningful to you and that nature fills you with joy. Another person might think that bird watching is boring, truly sucks and is a waste of time. Just because religion makes some people feel like they have meaning in our world does not mean that it is true. Some people might actually believe that religion sucks the life out of you and can make your life devoid of meaning. Your life having meaning is actually up to you, it is not extrinsic to you, your life and the meaning of it, is totally what you believe and make of it. What happened to me anyway? Why am I on this rant about religion? I have left religion completely and decided never to go back to any church. The reason I am on this rant is because I feel that religious dogmatism and indoctrination really screwed up my life and on some level I am still suffering from it. Secondly if I can help other people to realize the destructive capability of religion on society, families, children, science etc, then I believe I have done something good for our world. Even if only a few people read this article, that is OK, I hope it helped them. My god is better then your god First off, have you ever noticed that there are so many religions in the world? Every culture has their own particular religion, modern examples are In Israel, Judaism is the main religion, in most of the Middle East, Islam is the religion and in China Buddhism is the main religion, to just name a few. There are even religions of the past which have died out and no one worships those gods anymore for example: You would be amazed at how important the gods were to the people and how their entire life centered around the gods. Did you ever wonder WHY if a supposed true god existed he would have allowed this religious plurality around the world? Not all religions are ONE, they have competing philosophies and beliefs, and practices, view of morals etc. Plurality of religions makes sense if religions are created by MEN. Ironically this is exactly what evolution and Anthropology show. Most of the time they will have not even studied into these other religions and really why would they? They adopted the popular religion of their culture and Christianity for the most part is the religion of their culture. The real fact is that people will in the main adopt the religion of their culture. Look at India, for the most part people are following the Hindu religion. Sure there may be a few other religions in India like Christianity and Islam but the majority will follow the religion of their families, their parents. When you think about it, this argument is very obvious and exceptionally hard for the religionists to refute. I used to be a Christian and my family were generally Christian and I became a Christian when I was about 20 years old. I have to admit I never looked at reason and logic and never really knew anything about the world religions. Why would I have anyway? I was more or less a product of my culture. I assumed that my religion is true and theirs is false, and ironically that is what they probably think of their religion and how they got into it. The fact of evolution and studies in things like Anthropology and comparative religion, concerning how religions start was very revealing to me. Science essentially made mincemeat of my religion, showing me how I believed unlikely things about the physical world. So I stopped going to Church and used my time for other things. I truly now have no desire to study religion anymore because I believe it is failed philosophy and has been proven to be a bag of holes. Sometimes I think about the past and how I truly believed some whacko things for example: I used to believe that the Page 6

7 Theory of Evolution was essentially a mere hypothesis and that Intelligent Design made more sense. I believed that there was a conspiracy by scientists to destroy the Bible and Christianity. Now I can see that I was a delusional believer and through culture and family was indoctrinated into religion. We humans generally think this way in the world apart from religion e. If someone told you that Vitamin C cured cancer I am sure you would be skeptical right off the bat. Cancer is a powerful disease and kills millions. You would probably tell the person you would want to see some evidence of that. A rational person wants evidence for claims not mere claims to knowledge. Religious people in my opinion compartmentalize their religion from the real world, they believe things that are preposterous. I hope as well that perhaps you would consider your beliefs and how you see the world and perhaps see if the light of evidence shines on them or not. Page 7

8 Chapter 5 : 3 Bible Verses That Make Sense as You Get Older - Bible Study Very few things make sense unless you are looking at them from the proper context. If you attempt to build a piston engine using a turbine engine building manual it is not going to go very well. From contentions that its contents condone rape to the notion that the scriptures tout polygamy, there is no shortage of faith-based controversy. The latest such controversy came in early June, when three professors with intricate knowledge of the Christian scriptures came together to pen an article in the Des Moines Register meant to challenge some traditional perceptions. In short, they sought to refute the claim that the Bible restricts marriage to one man and one woman. But were they correct in their insinuations? These thinkers and leaders tackled controversial subjects like monogamy, polygamy, rape, divorce, celibacy and a number of other associated subjects. Below, we tackle these discussions one-by-one: The primary question when considering the Bible and marriage is whether the holy book endorses monogamy â that is, a marriage in which there are only two individuals traditionally speaking, one man and one woman? Most of our experts agreed that the book does, indeed, advocate for this type of relationship. He argues that these elements help one to properly understand the entire Bible and, thus, the complex issues within it like marriage. AP For Dennis, it all goes back to the creation story. Genesis, in a sense, is what he believes God wanted for mankind, however the story ended up changing as human beings exercised their free will. He noted Biblical references as well of man and woman coming together as one. According to Spero, marriage is more than a mere partnership that exists for business purposes. The attachment of male and female is the ultimate and only sanctified human union. It is sanctified because God himself created and thereafter blessed it, as is seen in Genesis. It is an endowment from God and the culmination of His Creation. Nettelhorst, too, noted that the Bible is clear in 1 Corinthians 7: As one of my teachers put it: The true image of God is only found when a man and woman are united physically and spiritually in marriage. In an ultimate sense the joy, love, passion, and ecstasy of the male-female relationship is the experience of oneness and Godliness. The obsessive drive that God planted in human beings to seek out these relationships is an indication of how central marriage is to the whole purpose of our existence. So, What About Polygamy? But there may be some elements surrounding the issue in the Bible that atheists and other critics are overlooking. Darrell Bock, a New Testament expert and professor at Dallas Theological Seminary noted, these individuals are not wrong to highlight that polygamy existed in the Bible. But their failure to put it into context is often problematic. AP Rabbi Spero added that while the Old Testament clearly confined marriage to one man and one woman, it was neutral and silent, in his view, regarding the notion of having more than one spouse. Some of the elements surrounding polygamy, though, were likely cultural, he argues. Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife as did King David. However, polygamy has been forbidden to Torah observant Jews by Rabbinic decree for over a thousand years. Ostensibly this is because, although not inherently immoral, from a practical standpoint it was not working anymore. Hanegraaff goes as far as to say that the Bible actually condemns polygamy, noting that this is the case in Deuteronomy He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. The great king, renowned for his supernatural wisdom, ended his peaceful, prosperous reign in scandal and civil strife. But could all of this chaos be attributed to polygamy? It would appear so. One wonders what the holy book really says about ending these cherished relationships â and how this can be applied to contemporary society, if at all. Dennis believes that this also can be traced back to the creation cycle, which ends in a new and perfect creation. Since humankind is still subject to the imperfections of a fallen world, he claims that the Bible permits divorce in certain cases preceding the consummation of history. Getty Images Bock elaborated on this point, offering two possible circumstances in which divorce would be permissible. The first is the case of sexual immorality, as specified in Matthew The second circumstance, described in 1 Corinthians 7: Does the Bible Address Rape? Some atheists and Biblical critics have held up the notion that the Bible condones rape. Averick addressed Deuteronomy â the book that is most targeted by biblical critics. From a strictly Old Testament perspective, celibacy is not even an option for individuals, according to Averick. Sexual relations between husband and wife increase holiness and Godliness and build a deeper relationship with God. The Page 8

9 Bible expert, like some of the others we spoke with, rejects the claim that the holy book corroborates this practice. Noting that some might use Matthew The one who can accept this should accept it. There is speculation among Bible critics as to whether or not the Old Testament prohibits intermarriage among different cultures. To this, Spero asserted that this was never an issue of race, but rather of cultures outside of the Jewish religion. Spero also noted that King David was a descendant of Ruth, a Moabite woman. Is Levirate Marriage a Biblical Mandate? Nettelhorst further described Levirate marriage, its definition and the context. The protection of women. Much like the rape provisions, Nettelhorst argues that women would essentially be helpless in the culture of the time if widowed. Considering their standing, they would have been destitute, so the provision presumably offered females backing and afforded them some much-needed assistance. Does this apply to modern men and women? While atheist activists and other Biblical critics have harsh rebukes for the Bible, citing many of the aforementioned issues in their critiques, it seems there are explanations from both Jewish and Christian perspectives that help to better frame how, through a faith and culture lens, the book should be read. In the eyes of the scholars and faith leaders we spoke with, context is key. They contend that anecdotal examples, without framing, have led readers astray. And Averick, from a Jewish perspective, notes that simply reading the text without understanding its intended meaning and central components is haphazard. Again, context is apparently key. In the end, though, disagreements, even among people of the same faith, surround these subjects i. Page 9

10 Chapter 6 : How To Make Sense Of The Bible » the BAKERS blog.quintoapp.com This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Posted on May 30, by Valerie Tarico Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God, and, in a peculiar twist of logic, they quote the Bible itself to back up their claim: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Here are twelve kinds of verses that Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. Weird insults and curses. The Monty Python crew may have coined some of the best insults of the last years: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. But for centuries the reigning master was Shakespeare: It is certain that when he makes water his urine is congealed ice. She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. A little divine focus on amping up leafy green vegetables and avoiding sweets might have gone a long way. Instead, the Bible strictly forbids eating rabbit, shellfish, pork, weasels, scavengers, reptiles, and owls. As is, Christians simply ignore the eating advisories in the Old Testament, even though they claim that edicts like the Ten Commandments and the anti-queer clobber verses still apply. All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Holy hang-ups about genitals. God, or the Bible writers is hung up about sexual anatomy in a way that many modern Christians, fortunately, are not. Jacobs, attempts to obey Mosaic laws about menstruation. When his wife finds out what those laws actually are, she gives him the middle finger by sitting on every chair in the house. When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Worse, he appears to lose control of his temper at times, lashing out like an oversized thwarted three year old; and his earthly representatives, the prophetsâ including Jesusâ do the same. Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Times when the Bible God is worse than Satan. In the Bible, Satan is described as a roaring lion who prowls the earth, seeking whom he may devour. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. Instructions for slave masters. The reality is that the Bible says much more in support of slavery than against it. Even the New Testament Jesus never says, owning people is wrong. Instead, the Bible gives explicit instructions to masters and slaves. You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. And so does the dog that belongs to your kinky neighbor. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the Page 10

11 voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Denigration of handicapped people. The yuck factor is probably wired into humanity at the level of instinct, a way to avoid contamination and pathogens. Modern Christians largely escape their denigration of physical handicaps. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: Whatever god or natural process created this world was brilliantly sophisticated and complex. Bible-science not so much. All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. Moral edicts that demand too much. If much of the Bible get ignored because it is morally irrelevant, immoral, outdated, or factually wrong, another portion get ignored because it sets the bar too high, like putting divorce on par withâ omgâ homosexuality. If you want to send a conservative Bible-believer into a froth, try suggesting that Jesus was a socialist. Then, when he goes all Jehovah on you, quote from the book of Ephesians. Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. Some years ago I worked on a website called Wisdom Commons, a library of timeless quotes and stories from many traditions. I had the idea that I would go through the Bible and pull out bits that were relevant, so I started reading. What I found was that most of the Bible was neither horrible nor inspiring. It was simply dull and irrelevant: On top of that, it was badly written, with some stories garbled and others repeated though rarely in complete agreement about the facts. With a finite number of pages to set the course of human history, this was the best He could do? She is the author of Trusting Doubt: Subscribe to her articles at Awaypoint. Page 11

12 Chapter 7 : Do not judge - Is that biblical? What does the Bible mean when it says we are not to judge othe For (at least) all these reasons, it looks like Genesis 1 doesn't make much sense, which of course brings us to a key rule of biblical interpretation. When the Bible doesn't make much sense, it's time to go back and question the lens through which we're reading the Bible. This sounds like a good principle, and in principle I would agree with it. I understand that the appeal of a "plain sense" reading of the text is to try not to read things into the text. I have found, however, that a "plain sense" reading actually takes far less notice of the actual story itself, and must read far more things into the text or simply ignore many features of the text to make it all "work," than do other ways of interpreting the text. The main reason for this is because what the "plain sense" of the text says to us, it says in the context of a 21st century view of the world. In other words, we read and hear the text from our own perspective of the world, which is far removed from what most of the biblical text says in its "plain sense" from within its own perspective of the world. I agree totally that we should let Scripture stand on its own and not try to make it say what we want it to say, twist it to support our own pet doctrines or ideas, or ignore those features of the text that make us uncomfortable. One of my frequent appeals is to return to Scripture and take it far more seriously than we often do. But I think that takes far more work and understanding than just reading the text and assuming that whatever we think makes sense to us is what it really means, and so is the Truth. There are three crucial problems with a literalist or "plain sense" approach to the text. The first problem with a "plain sense" reading is the range of knowledge and understanding of Scripture and its background of the one applying "plain sense" to the text. The second problem is that in a plain sense approach, we most often assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious, or emotional context is what the text itself means to say. The third problem is that a "plain sense" reading often does not or cannot see features of the text like irony, word play, metaphorical writing, multilevel symbols, or other much more subtle features of communication that go far beyond, or sometimes in direct contrast to, what seems to be the "plain" meaning. An example of the first problem can be seen in a "plain sense" reading of the vision of Psalm 89 The plain sense reading tells us that the new king from the line of David will be a military leader who will restore the empire of Solomon and expand his conquests across the sea and the great rivers even though he has suffered a temporary defeat. In other words, the new king will be a conquering military leader like his ancestor David who will "crush his foes, and strike down those who hate him. But that reading of the text does not consider that all of the symbols in this passage come from the cultural context of the Ancient Near East, and are creation symbols of peace not martial symbols of war. The "battle" images refer to God bringing peace and justice into the chaos and disorder of the world cf. Note that a feature of the New Jerusalem is that there will be no more sea Rev. That is a theological statement, not a geographical one. But such aspects are not and cannot be obvious from a "plain sense" reading, either in the psalm or in Revelation. It takes a thorough understanding of the cultural and historical background of the text to understand it correctly see Speaking the Language of Canaan. And yet, for everyone familiar with those cultural images in ancient Israel, reading these images as metaphors of peace rather than war would readily be the "plain sense" of the text. So, if we lived in ancient Israel 3, years ago, the plain sense reading would be, well, plain. But to us today, it is not at all plain. In fact, what appears to us as the plain sense reading is actually nearly the opposite of what the text communicated in its own context. Likewise, the following verses of this psalm vv. That is the plain sense of both texts, and is repeated in other places. Yet, we know that historically this did not happen. This itself violates the plain sense of the text by introducing ideas that are not in the text in any plain sense reading, and to which later writings do not refer in retrospect. There are many other examples of this problem in the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament. The second problem is much more difficult to identify without knowing some broader features of the biblical text and biblical theology. How do we know that a verse that appears to make good sense to us means anything close to what we think it means? Or why do we not want to take some verses at face value when their meaning is fairly obvious? So, they contend, Jesus did not really mean to turn our other cheek to enemies, because that is far too Page 12

13 idealistic and not practical in a modern world in which violence is all too common. As a result, the plain sense reading of the text is rejected, in this case because it does not fit with other ideas. The problem is the consistency with which this principle can be applied to the biblical text. I am suggesting that a plain sense approach to Scripture, without some other deliberate and carefully thought out methods of interpreting the text, will most often cause us to see in Scripture what we already think about issues. That "plain sense" tells us that Jesus did not really mean for us to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies and persecutors in all situations, because that is impractical in our cultural context. And common sense tells us that the command "Do not kill" really only means premeditated murder by people who have no good reason to do so, and could not possibly apply to capital punishment, or war, or killing intruders in our home, or abortion to save the life of the mother see The Word "to kill". My point is, we do a lot of interpretation in terms of our own ideas, even when the "plain sense" seems obvious. If that is true, what do we really think we are doing with the passages in which the "plain" sense is not quite so plain?! As an example of the third problem, we can note that irony is a feature that a plain sense reading will almost always miss. For example, I have seen Habakkuk 1: This is combined with a certain theory of the Atonement to produce a very hybrid "plain sense" reading. The problem is that the verse is Habakkuk is heavily ironic, and in fact, means exactly the opposite of what the words say. It is a statement made for the purpose of demonstrating that it is not true since God is, indeed, looking on evil in the world by allowing the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem! The words say one thing, but the context makes it clear that nearly the opposite is the meaning. There are many other examples. The issue, then, is how we go about deciding whether something is a literal statement to be taken in its plain sense or is a figure of speech. For example, how many of us have ever misunderstood someone who was joking and we thought they were being serious? How we perceive the comments makes a great deal of difference in how later conversation unfolds! And so we think we are listening to one thing when in fact the writer is saying something quite different. That simply calls us beyond a "literal" mode of thinking to distinguish what kind of writing with which we are dealing. It is often easy to think a certain text is a statement about the ultimate reality of God, and that seems to us to be its plain sense because that is what we have always been taught or believed. That kind of decision about the text is very hard to come by with a literal, plain sense reading. The same applies in different ways to other features of the text such as literary context, original language, cultural and historical context, etc. As each of those aspects of the text is examined, we have moved further away from a "plain sense" or a "literal" reading of the text, and closer to an exegetical analysis of the text to hear the theological message. Now, it is true that some of the great Reformers, such as John Calvin and John Wesley, advocated a "plain sense" reading of the text. Moderns who have wanted to avoid much critical examination of the text in favor of a literal surface reading have often quoted them. However, we need to note two crucial elements of the context in which they were advocating a "plain sense" reading, and what they meant by that. First, this classical plain sense approach was a product of the Reformation, a major tenet of which was to recover the authority of the Scripture for the people. For centuries, interpretation of the Bible had been under the control of the dogmatic systems of the church and was used to promote those systems. In some cases, Scripture was used as little more than a source of proof texts for a doctrinal system that had been built from centuries of practice and philosophical speculation. The Reformers, beginning with Martin Luther, insisted on replacing the authority of the dogmatic systems of the church with the authority of Scripture. In this context, "plain sense" meant biblical study apart from those creedal determiners of meaning. Second, since the early centuries of the church, biblical interpretation had been influenced by the categories of Greek philosophy. One of the early debates of the church concerning Scripture was how to relate the Old Testament to the New Testament. Since the early church had struggled to distance itself from Judaism, there was reluctance to make the connection historically. So, using the categories of Greek idealistic philosophy, the connections were made on the level of typology and allegory. The Old Testament was seen as the shadowy images of the true reality of the New Testament. This often led to a nearly complete dismissal of any historical setting or meaning for the Old Testament in favor of a spiritualized and Christianized symbolic meaning. In this context, "plain sense" was a modest call for a return to seeing the Old Testament in different ways than the sometimes fanciful allegories that had become popular in the early church. This simply says that while the Reformers did, indeed, Page 13

14 advocate a "plain sense" reading of the text, it did not mean quite the same thing to them that it does to modern advocates who equate a "plain sense" reading with virtually no biblical study. The Reformers who wanted a plain sense reading took great care to do biblical study, most writing detailed commentaries on the Bible. To them, "plain sense" meant that there was a lot of work to do in understanding the biblical text rather than simply accepting what the church had always said the text ought to mean. So, many people want to be able to assume a "plain sense" of the text. Unfortunately, there is a high risk of misunderstanding the biblical text with such an approach. In some cases it is simply because we assume that the text means what we already think. The danger is that such a "plain sense" of the text becomes what we want it to mean. In some cases we do not realize the historical distance between the text and us. For some, it is not being able to see the biblical text in all its richness and diversity. And for some, it is simply a matter of not wanting to spend the time studying to understand what the text might actually say beyond the words on the page. In any case, the responsibility of students of Scripture is to hear to text for what it says theologically. And that often takes a great deal of time and effort in moving beyond the physical words on the page. Page 14

15 Chapter 8 : Do You Interpret the Bible Literally? Recently, I've seen my faith shifting. Especially in how I approach the Bible. There are a lot of parts of the Bible that just don't make sense to me. In the past, I've had the following. Subscribe to the CompellingTruth. Do not judge - Is that biblical? What does the Bible mean when it says we are not to judge others? For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. But what exactly does that mean? The Greek word used for "judge" in Matthew 7: In short, to "judge" is to separate, determine, or pronounce an opinion concerning right or wrong. Only God can accurately judge, for only He sees the heart 1 Samuel Often when we think of those who are "judgmental," we think of hypocritical or self-righteous people. When we are eager to judge others, it is usually because we are eager to boost our own self-concept. Judgmental people generally do not live up to their own standards of morality. To assuage their own sense of failure or guilt, they begin comparing themselves with others, usually condemning the other in an attempt to make themselves feel acceptable. When we are focused on the shortcomings of others, we are blinded to our own faults. We become like the servant who was forgiven a great debt yet failed to extend the same mercy to a lesser debtor Matthew Failing to see our sins impedes our ability to enjoy fellowship with Christ and to cooperate with His work of sanctification. Our blindness also precludes us from being able to help another believer along the path of righteousness. The blind cannot lead the blind. Though we are not to judge others in the condemnatory sense explained above, we are called to be discerning. We have a responsibility to distinguish good from evil and light from darkness Isaiah 5: We should first check our own motives and our hearts for any unrecognized planks Jeremiah Our world is filled with sins and lies. We are to judge these things. Jesus told His followers, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" John 7: The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. Our judgments should first be regarding matters of truth. This is not to say that we condemn that person. Rather, we judge the actions of the person and, accordingly, how we should relate with that person. If he refuses to change, then we may need to stop relating with him as a fellow believer and relate with him instead as we would an unbeliever Matthew We are to make proper judgments about right and wrong, but not out of pride or self-righteousness. We are not to condemn others. However, we are to be discerning and act appropriately on truth. Page 15