Subject: Revelation in the Gospels? |
Bible Note: I am somewhat disappointed by the rhetoric that has been flying back and forth here. Some of the responders need to take a step back and remember that Christian charity and courtesy go hand in hand. That said, I'm going to try to respond to what legitimate comment I could filter out. 1. In regard to II Timothy 3:16, please read the verse carefully. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or imply that all Scripture is literally true. It says that Scripture is "inspired". That does not have to mean factual. It's just not there, folks. If it's not there, don't put it there. It is inspired. I believe that. It's not all literally true. 2. In many areas of the Bible,it's accepted by almost everyone that literal fact is not being served up. Examples: a. Mat. 1:17 - there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Really? That doesn't jive with what we know of Jewish history. But it does jive with the commonly-held practice at the time of adjusting geneoligies of prominent persons so they worked out to a multiple of 7 and/or 3 - significant numbers in Jewish numerology. b. Luke 3:23-38. 73 generations from Jesus to Adam. Really? Only 73 generations from CREATION to 27 A.D.?! Hmm, but there's that 3 and 7 again. c. Song of Solomon. Are we really supposed to take that book literally? Really? Or is it as some believe an allegory of Gods' love for His Church? Or is is simply one of the most beautiful erotic love poems ever written? d. Job 1:2. 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hmm, there are those numbers again. Did he really have 10 children? e. Matt 3:5-6 "Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Really? Everyone in Jerusalem and all of Judea? All of them? Approximately 2,000,000 people baptized by John? Or just literary license by the narrator? f. Psalms. What about Psalms? Hymns of praise, stories of grief, lamentations,and joy. Written to specific meter, and sometimes to fit acrostic patterns in the original language. Are they all literally true? Did God really make David lie down by still waters, and set up a table for him in the presence of his enemies? Did David really write all the Psalms that "tradition" assigns to him? Or are they the incredibly beautiful "praise and worship" songs of pre-Christianity. g. Revelation. Literally true? OK, first tell me what it MEANS, and then perhaps we could have a discussion about literal truth. Recognize, of course, that you'll be the first person in 2,000 years who will successfully make that claim. Or is Revelation apocalypic literature, and should be treated as such? I'm sorry, but before anyone stands up and defends the Bible as 100 percent "literally" true, they need to take a good look at everything they're defending. Did not Jesus Himself used the time-honored form of parable to deliver His messages? Or do you really believe that there was a man who built his house on a foundation of sand? I'm appending here a quotation from a good friend of mine, who is a pastor and holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies. He is one of the most solid, Biblically founded Christians I know: "Are the gospels first century history? Biography? Novels? All kinds of possibilities crop up with no certain answers. And all this resides in the realm of answering the question of "what the Bible meant." It's a whole new ballgame when we start talking about "what the Bible *means*. It's one thing to say this book is historical. But it's another thing to attribute theological truth to it because of it. Or, on the other hand, it's one thing to deny a books historicity and ipso facto say that there is no theological truth! One of the standard arguments about some of the so-called problems with the Bible is that these books are religious literary works. They are not meant to be scientific. (A concept that would have certainly been foreign to the original writers and readers. It seem a bit cultural-centric to say that all previous generations could not relate to the scriptures so that we could.) As a corollary to this, that means that each of the gospel writers may have said something not merely because "it was so," or because it made a better book, but rather, they said it this way because it strengthened their theological rhetoric. What all Bible readers (even non-believing ones)would agree with is that the gospel writers wanted to convince their readers that Jesus Christ is Lord. And we know, historically, that just about anyone who could write was trained in rhetoric." I simply don't see the conflict. Read intelligently, the Bible is a rich collection of history, parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and wisdom literature. It is all inspired. It is all of the things outlined in II Timothy 3:16. It is the only source for theological truth. That doesn't make it all literally true. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |