Why defend the Bible?

[unknown soldier]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

I'm sure Christians have many reasons to defend the Bible which we can talk about, but here are four reasons we can begin to debate and discuss:

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.
2. It inspires and encourages them to remain steadfast in the faith.
3. It provides guidelines for living life wisely and morally.
4. It offers hope to them.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from? Again, we can discuss many reasons, but I'd like to start by discussing the following four reasons:

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.
2. The Bible is full of internal inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled.
3. The Bible is often inconsistent with what we know from science and historical studies.
4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for centuries.

[1213]

...If you are an atheist you do not have a belief in God. So, how do you reach the conclusion that atheists hate God? It makes no sense.

I think atheists want to deny God’s existence, because they don’t like the idea that Bible God would exist. By what I see it is not much about believing. And even if they would not believe God exists, they still can have opinion about God of the Bible, and they do not like God. Reason why I think so is that they often lie and twist the truth.

[Difflugia]

If some Christian doctrine depends on various authors being in harmony with each other, a demonstrated claim of disharmony would mean that the doctrine is a false one.

Perhaps I'm obtuse but this still doesn't sit well with me. If you agree with the following there is no need for you to respond. I think it makes perfect sense but I'm unsure of exactly what you mean. You have a Christian doctrine, which, by definition is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church or other group. It isn't realistic to think it is totally harmonious, and I don't think you were suggesting that, so if some Christian doctrine depends on various authors being in harmony with each other, considering total harmony is unrealistic, a demonstrated claim of disharmony would indicate only some disharmony which should be reviewed and possibly revised. Not a total disharmony or entire false doctrine.

My statement was a reaction to doctrines that are presented as binary (either totally true or totally false). Not all doctrines are presented that way, but the ones that are tend (in my experience) to be the ones associated with "attacks on the Bible."

Most evangelical Christians would deny that any two biblical authors disagree about anything. That can be correctly stated as a binary without hyperbole or oversimplification because it's part of a larger doctrine that the entire Bible has been inspired by a single, unchanging god. Whether or not this is a reasonable approach is immaterial because we have examples of such doctrines treated as binary.

A slightly updated edition of Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties is still in print as Zondervan's New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. This is a list of proposed contradictions within the Bible and corresponding harmonizations. Many are reasonable (especially if the bar is set at "possible" rather than "probable"), but some are downright absurd. One example is his treatment of the death of Judas, which he concludes as so:

If the branch from which he had hung himself was dead and dry—and there are many trees that match this description even to this day on the brink of the canyon that tradition identifies as the place where Judas died—it would take only one strong gust of wind to yank the heavy corpse and split the branch to which it was attached and plunge both with great force into the bottom of the chasm below. There is indication that a strong wind arose at the hour Christ died and ripped the great curtain inside the temple from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). This was accompanied by a rock-splitting earthquake and undoubtedly also by a thunderstorm, which normally follows a prolonged period of cloud gathering and darkness (Matt. 27:45). Conditions were right for what had started out as a mere suicide by hanging to turn into a grisly mutilation of the corpse as the branch gave way to the force of the wind and was hurtled down to the bottom.

The likely, real-life explanation is that Matthew and Luke each knew a somewhat different tradition. Some inerrancy doctrines are fine with that because they insist only on doctrinal inerrancy rather than verbal. Verbal inerrancy, however, is common amongst evangelicals and can only be supported if the two accounts of the death of Judas are somehow describing the same event. Other conflicting events can be simply (if implausibly) split into two (sermons on both the mount and plain, for example, or Jesus cleansing the Temple twice), but it's much more difficult to speculate that two different death accounts are because the same person died twice.

[theophile]

Do I think that every biblical author used every term in the exact same way? No. But I do think we need to be extremely careful and considerate about how words are used there, as I believe the original authors were.

Many apologists will defend the Bible by changing or redefining the words in problematical passages. In some cases after apologists are done with those passages those verses bear little resemblance to what they are in that particular Bible version. Maybe apologists should publish their own version of the Bible. They may want to call it the "Sanitized Version."

I believe in rigor, and that you need both intra and intertextual analysis to backup interpretations, not to mention close examination of the original Hebrew / Greek / Aramaic. But even then, to my point about how the bible is designed to challenge us, there are intentional ambiguities peppered throughout. We need to use the clues and cues provided to discern the true interpretation, and get closer to the true message / teaching. (And strengthen our power of discernment in the process.)

A famous example is at the end of the book of Job, and Job's final statement in 42:6 (NIV): "Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” This verse is open to 5+ valid translations, and depending on how it's cast it can completely change the meaning, not just of the verse, but of the entire book. i.e., Has Job at last been put in his place by God for his insolence as a lowly human being who dares call God to account? Or, opposite this, is Job relenting in his argument against God because he has at last been consoled, and taken newfound pride in his humanity?...

The clues and cues are there to find the truth (more on this later). But more to the point, what is a translator to do with this? English simply doesn't have words with corresponding range, and the subtlety and challenge within the text is inevitably lost no matter what you do. So in defense of apologists, many times they are right to look more closely, and second guess what translators have done.

Do I think that every biblical author had 100% consistent theologies and would have nothing to debate each other on? No. Again, the elimination of debate, I think, would miss the point... The point, in fact, is to incite it, and inspire it, and to keep it going beyond the challenges that the bible sets us even, so that we do the job of challenging each other, and help each other grow in wisdom. And ideally leave the bible behind in our wisdom... (Or take it further.)

Challenging people is one thing, but confusing them is something entirely different. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the way the Bible is written did help people to understand it, but it appears that it confuses people who can never completely agree on what it says.

All that you need is in there. So your point that the bible doesn't "help" people understand it is mistaken. I could give you another example. Genesis 3:1 (NIV again): "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

The word used to describe the serpent here is Hebrew "arum." But there are two things to note, both of which would have been far more obvious to a reader of the original Hebrew:

1) 'Arum' has both a positive and a negative connotation. It can mean crafty, shrewd, cunning, i.e., of nefarious intent. Or it can mean sensible, prudent, wise... To someone reading in the original Hebrew, this would have been obvious. And indeed, if you look intertextually, more often than not this word is cast in the positive sense. But that is not the case here, and the ambiguity intended by the writer gets lost in translation... But the ambiguity is there, which to me is a clear challenge from the writer for us to discern if the serpent is of good or ill intent, a fact that is missed if we don't look more closely. And a fact that we would be foolish to ignore by simply assuming the serpent is evil, as popular opinion demands.

2) 'Arum' has a clear wordplay with the word used in the previous verse to describe Adam and Eve, i.e., 'arummim', or naked. So again, another challenge from the writer... To a reader of the original Hebrew, a clear link would be established by this wordplay between humankind and the serpent, and further questions would naturally arise about the 'arum-ness' of the serpent (or the arummim-ness of humankind...). i.e., Should we read the serpent as the most naked of wild creatures? Which is to say as the only wild creature that was willing to come out into the open in order to meet with Adam and Eve? If so, this does not suggest nefariousness on the serpent's part but rather the opposite, i.e., vulnerability... exposure... a willingness to overcome its fear in order to share / commune with the new arrivals in the garden...

Last, combining 1) and 2), there is the provocative suggestion that we should discern wisdom in the serpent's act, i.e., that the serpent is the wisest [i.e., most arum] of wild creatures precisely because it is the most naked [i.e., most arummim]. The critical lesson being that there is wisdom in overcoming our fear of being naked and taking the risk that such exposure brings in order to achieve communion (a premonition of later verses such as Matthew 10:16's teaching that we be "wise as serpents").

Now, you can crap on that line of interpretation all you want, but it's valid. And the point that I'm trying to make is less that it's right and more that the hints are there if you look for them. And if you look even further, namely to Genesis 1's indication that all creatures are originally good (including the serpent), we can make a strong case for the truth of it all.

But yah, many of these subtleties are lost in translation. That, however, is not the bible's fault, nor the fault of it's writers, nor a case against my argument.

...it does so in rich and beautiful ways.

Some Bible scholars have resorted to characterizing the Bible as a treasure of literature. I wouldn't place the Bible on a par with Shakespeare, but I think it might be more on a level with Stephen King.

I don't know how you can read something like the book of Job, or the Psalms, or the Gospels, and make a claim like that. But hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No point hashing it out.

So even if it's just a matter of distinguishing the different agendas, vocabularies, and theologies of its writers, and discerning the wisdom between them, that alone would be enough for me to defend it - even though I think there is far more to defend about it.

Why do you need to defend the Bible as literature? I don't know of too many people who are trying to deny it's importance as mythology.

I don't need to defend it as literature. I am defending it as a tool that exercises and trains us in wisdom, and that just so happens to be beautiful literature.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #43]

The bottom line here is, we have someone who wants to insist the Bible is immoral, while they certainly seem to demonstrate one who has very little knowledge of the Bible, because they seem to have reached their conclusions about the Bible by listening to what others have to say, as opposed to actually using their own mind.

Actually, if you carefully read what I wrote in the OP, I listed four common reasons to defend the Bible and four common criticisms of the Bible. For the purposes of this discussion I'm not saying that any of those reasons/criticisms are necessarily true or false or that I agree or disagree with any of them--only that they are used by at least some Christians or atheists as reasons to defend or criticize the Bible.

Now, you are very welcome to opine that some or all of them are not in use. If so, you may post your own reasons why Christians might defend the Bible or why critics might attack the Bible. If you think there are no reasons Christians or others defend the Bible, then you should say so. In any case, if you think there is at least one reason to defend the Bible, then please explain why you think it is important to do so.

Moreover, they have failed to demonstrate what morality would be, and goes on to insist that morality would be subjective, which would simply mean, the Bible can be immoral to some, and moral to others, and both would be correct. In other words, it can be both, at the same time.

I didn't intend to discuss morality per se on this thread. Again, this discussion is about why people think it's important to defend the Bible. If you want to discuss morality, then please discuss morality as it relates to why people may defend the Bible. For example, you might argue that Christians fear that if the Bible is not defended, then the morality in society will get worse.

So I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding on your part. I should have explained all this earlier, but I assumed the OP was clear.

[unknown soldier]

But even then, to my point about how the bible is designed to challenge us, there are intentional ambiguities peppered throughout. We need to use the clues and cues provided to discern the true interpretation, and get closer to the true message / teaching. (And strengthen our power of discernment in the process.)

It appears that you see the Bible as a book of "brain building" puzzles. If that's correct, then your defense of the Bible is that reading it is a good way to develop thinking skills.

The clues and cues are there to find the truth (more on this later).

If you do arrive at some truth in the Bible, then how do you demonstrate that you are right to everybody's satisfaction?

So in defense of apologists, many times they are right to look more closely, and second guess what translators have done.

It's fine to second guess a translator if one is aware of some mistakes they have made. However, if an apologist or scholar changes the meaning of a passage to make the passage say something it wasn't meant to say, then it should come as no surprise that "the Bible" comes under attack by critics who unearth the deception.

All that you need is in there. So your point that the bible doesn't "help" people understand it is mistaken.

It's not difficult to explain why the Bible as we know it is so confusing. It's HUGE for one thing. It was written in dead languages that as you say are difficult to translate into modern languages, and it's full of bizarre imagery that has little to do with modern cultures.

I don't know how you can read something like the book of Job, or the Psalms, or the Gospels, and make a claim like that. But hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No point hashing it out.

Bible scholar Hector Avalos has criticized other scholars for making the Bible out to be "fine literature." He disagrees with them saying that they are getting desperate to find a way to make the Bible out to be relevant.

I am defending it as a tool that exercises and trains us in wisdom, and that just so happens to be beautiful literature.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. Studying folklore can uncover some important truths about people and their cultures, and I think it's wise to study the Bible for that reason. Heck, even I would defend the Bible from anybody who sought to remove it from library shelves. It would be a shame if its poetry and stories were lost.

So it looks like we've uncovered two reasons to defend the Bible:

1. It can be a healthy intellectual exercise to study it to find hidden or "deep" meanings in it.
2. It's an important trove of literature from antiquity.

[unknown soldier]

...If you are an atheist you do not have a belief in God. So, how do you reach the conclusion that atheists hate God? It makes no sense.

I think atheists want to deny God’s existence, because they don’t like the idea that Bible God would exist.

How anybody would want the Bible God to exist is frightening in itself. Maybe some people want a "God of war" to destroy their enemies.

Anyway, I can't speak for all atheists, but I think many of them are like me in that they do not like the idea of God existing. We would prefer the world like it is with no Gods to harm us.

...even if they would not believe God exists, they still can have opinion about God of the Bible, and they do not like God.

Oddly enough, some atheists do hate God even though he doesn't exist. Steven Weinberg, for example, is an atheist who says that he doesn't like God.

Reason why I think so is that they often lie and twist the truth.

Sometimes some atheists do lie. Everybody occasionally lies. I have caught Christian apologists in lies. I think that apologists sometimes lie because they think that those lies can bring a greater good.

So we arrive back at the issue raised in the OP. Some apologists will defend the Bible because they think that the Bible is vital to do great goods--goods that cannot be done any other way.

[otseng]

Reason why I think so is that they often lie and twist the truth.

Moderator Comment

It's best not to make negative general comments about any group.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

Most, if not all alleged contradictions or mistakes, exist only if Bible is interpreted so that it appears to have mistaken. If we read only what is said in the Bible, without own explanations, I don’t know any mistake in it.

The interpretation is only correct if it does not show that there are mistakes or contradictions. If contradictions and mistakes are found, then the interpretation is is incorrect. That very much sounds like an application of confirmation bias.

[brunumb]

...If you are an atheist you do not have a belief in God. So, how do you reach the conclusion that atheists hate God? It makes no sense.

I think atheists want to deny God’s existence, because they don’t like the idea that Bible God would exist. By what I see it is not much about believing. And even if they would not believe God exists, they still can have opinion about God of the Bible, and they do not like God. Reason why I think so is that they often lie and twist the truth.

What ideas I like and do not like have no bearing on what is real. The idea of a loving god and a happy afterlife is very appealing but it does not affect what I believe to be true. If one of the reasons for you thinking that way about atheists is because they often lie and twist the truth, you should be aware that the same applies in equal measure to theists.

[unknown soldier]

What ideas I like and do not like have no bearing on what is real. The idea of a loving god and a happy afterlife is very appealing but it does not affect what I believe to be true. If one of the reasons for you thinking that way about atheists is because they often lie and twist the truth, you should be aware that the same applies in equal measure to theists.

It's very common for apologists to accuse atheists of being dishonest. In other words, the apologists are implying that their evidence and their logic is so great, that only a dishonest person could possibly deny them.

So how does all that come into play when defending the Bible? I think that apologists are banking on their effort to make atheists look to be untrustworthy. That way nobody need doubt the Bible's truth just because some atheist criticized it. Those atheists are so dishonest that they should not be believed!

Anyway, the criticism's from atheists are but one reason to defend the Bible.