Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Thoughts on the Bible I

The Bible.
The Word of God.
Written largely by man.

Viewpoint # 1:
The Bible is perfect.
This stance takes the view that the Bible and all its' contents should be taken literally, without interpretation.
My problem with this view?
This is the view that describes the world has flat, the sun revovling around the Earth, that murder is okay and often the answer, homosexuality is a sin, the Earth is about 6,000 years old, etc.
This is the stance that many radical, fundamental Christians take, often who are also known as Young-Earth Creationists.

Viewpoint #2:
The Bible has a lot of perfection.
This is the stance that most of what the Bible says should be taken literally, but that there are some examples of symbolism and room for interpretation.
Is the Earth flat? No, the "flatness" of the Earth is symbolic.
Does the sun revolve around the Earth? No, science has dis-proven this and it was an interpretation by the people of the times.
Genocide and mass killings are to be symbolic in nature, perhaps of hell.
My problem with this view?
Although it clarifies a lot of the inconsistencies with the Bible, everyone has different interpretations.
It's almost like people pick and choose what is to be interpreted as symbolic or represented as the true Word of God.

Viewpoint #3:
The Bible has a lot of imperfection.
This is the stance that also the Bible is the Word of God, it was written by man, passed down and re-written over the centuries and is subject to many errors, inconsistencies and flaws.
My problem with this view?
If the Bible has so many problems, but is supposed to be the Word of God, why has God allowed for something of such imperfection to exist and guide mankind?
God wants people to believe and trust in him, but it is hard when His Word is too confusing, inaccurate and imperfect.

Viewpoint #4:
The Bible is not the Word of God.
This stance generally looks at the Bible as a collection of fiction and not one of historical documentation.
Although there may be some stories in the Bible that can be quite helpful to mankind, there is also parts of it that should only be taken as fiction.
My problem with this view?
I don't have a problem with this view! I agree with this view!


The Bible has a lot of inconsistencies.
I do not see how anyone can logically or rationally dispute this.
Does this necessarily make it not the Word of God, or not a book to follow?
It was one of the first thoughts on my mind that really led me to try to reassure myself that Christianity was the way.
In the end, the more research I did and the more that I read the Bible, the more I began to question and doubt Christianity.

The bible does speak of genocide, murder, hate, violence, greed, jealousy, etc.
What is wrong and what is right?
It is all up for interpretation.
The Word of God should not be unclear, ambiguous and imperfect.
That alone may lead one to seriously question the overall value of the Bible.

I have many problems with the Bible and it would take, literally, hundreds upon hundreds of blogs to address all of those problems.

Perhaps for now, I ask this to all of you who are Christians.
How do you feel about the bible?
Respond with your thoughts!
I will post specific problems in future posts.


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

where does it say the world is flat?

why is homosexuality NOT a sin? If God deems it so, shouldn't that be enough whether humans agree with it or not?

where is murder the answer? The old Testament is radically different than the second. Is war never the answer? You certianly wouldn't tell that to a Jew in a Nazi extermination camp?

There's actually support in the world for both young earth creationist and others who believe in millions and millions of years.

Why can't the Bible be perfect AND symbolic? A lot of what's in the Bible is poetry, and is meant to connect with the reader and each may get different things out of it, but it doesn't make the Bible inconsistent, it makes the people who read it different.

Can you please give me specific examples of it being full of so many errors?

I do not agree at all with your stance that it is fiction. Why then do we have Babylonian documents that speak of the same flood? Romans of Jesus's life? It certainly cannot be ALL fiction.

Is it fair to conclusively conclude that it has so many inconsistancies when one has not studied it in great depth?

I'm not saying that I'm a master of it, I just know that some "inconstistancies" are the fault of human ignorance.

Food for Thought,