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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #137]

The pagans on occasion burnt to death living, breathing, thinking individuals, or so the story goes. God's solution was to order the killing of all men, women (except young virgins), children and livestock, and take their land. Somehow you morally equate the first with abortion but not the latter.

You are mistaking the role of God. God is the judge. And He judges an objective moral code. You may not like it that He is the judge and you may not like the objective moral code but that is really inconsequential. God is the judge and the moral code is what it is. All men have broken this moral code and they are all subject to judgment. Now whether God has mercy on some is not for anyone but God to decide because He is the judge.

Everyone that was killed was under judgment for breaking the moral code or the law. God was simply using people just like a judge who uses men to carry out the sentences He chooses to place on those that break the law.

We do not condemn a judge when he makes his judgment, especially when we know that the person is guilty. Everyone who has ever lived is guilty of breaking God's moral code. So judgment can come at any time.

[unknown soldier]

Unfortunately, the book's out of print.

Yes, but you can still get a used copy at Amazon. Did you check the link I posted?

I flipped through it and it's much better than I expected, with the book descriptions including overviews of both secular scholarship and church tradition.

That's correct, and it's a very good book for this discussion. It was my goal to substantiate what I was saying about traditional Protestant Biblical interpretation. This book is a great source of information on that issue although it does have a liberal bias.

Even "apologetic nonsense" can be helpful in learning how many Christians interpret the Bible. Yes, this book has a Christian leaning, but not to worry, though, because we're smart enough to sift the wheat from the chaff.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has introductions to each book that are concise and reflect modern scholarship, but it's saddled with the whole Bible itself, making for a different kind of unwieldy.

You can easily hold the Illustrated Bible Handbook in one hand. I suppose that's why Blair calls his book a handbook.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #137]

God's solution was to order the killing of all men, women (except young virgins), children and livestock, and take their land.

You are mistaking the role of God. God is the judge. And He judges an objective moral code. You may not like it that He is the judge and you may not like the objective moral code but that is really inconsequential.

God was simply using people just like a judge who uses men to carry out the sentences He chooses to place on those that break the law.

You are mistaking the role of God. Humans carry out such atrocities for personal gain and attribute justification for their actions to God-sanctioned directives. There is no objective moral code nor is God involved at all. To talk about justice and judgement in such situations is to abandon any sense of morality in order to shore up a religious belief.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #142]

Even "apologetic nonsense" can be helpful in learning how many Christians interpret the Bible.

Right? So instead of one reading the Bible for oneself in order to determine what is being said, we rather depend on the "apologetic nonsense", which is easily demonstrated to be "nonsense", in order to determine that it could not possibly have been written in order for God to communicate what he wanted Christians to know, throughout all times?

All you are doing is to expose the same "nonsense" of Christians, which I have been exposing. However, exposing the "nonsense" of Christians, does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that what is contained in the Bible would be, "nonsense".

Yes, this book has a Christian leaning, but not to worry, though, because we're smart enough to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far, all you seem to have been "smart enough" to determine, is what the average Christian has to say about the Bible. You have not in any way demonstrated an actual working knowledge of what the Bible would actually contain. But hey? I not surprised in the least, because this is what I have been saying all along. In other words, there are those who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of what they want to be so critical of, because their only knowledge of the Bible, completely depends on what Christians have to say.

[Difflugia]

Yes, but you can still get a used copy at Amazon. Did you check the link I posted?

I did and I'm considering it. I've switched most of my new book buying to digital over the last few years, but I really want a copy. Me and my first world problems!

Even "apologetic nonsense" can be helpful in learning how many Christians interpret the Bible. Yes, this book has a Christian leaning, but not to worry, though, because we're smart enough to sift the wheat from the chaff.

No argument from me. I collect study Bibles (well, Bibles in general) and still use them to get a quick overview of a theologically conservative or inerrantist position on particular verses. It's also fun to flip through the study notes to find items worth looking up in real scholarship.

[unknown soldier]

Yes, but you can still get a used copy at Amazon. Did you check the link I posted?

I did and I'm considering it. I've switched most of my new book buying to digital over the last few years, but I really want a copy. Me and my first world problems!

I should get a kindle because my printed books are really piling up. Like you I've done a lot of work studying the Bible and reading what both Christians and atheists have to say about the Bible.

Even "apologetic nonsense" can be helpful in learning how many Christians interpret the Bible. Yes, this book has a Christian leaning, but not to worry, though, because we're smart enough to sift the wheat from the chaff.

No argument from me. I collect study Bibles (well, Bibles in general) and still use them to get a quick overview of a theologically conservative or inerrantist position on particular verses. It's also fun to flip through the study notes to find items worth looking up in real scholarship.

In that case you should find The Illustrated Bible Handbook to be useful. For example, the issue of what the Bible has to do with individual modern-day Christians was raised on this thread. Was the Bible meant to speak to merely the people who might be addressed in it at the time they were addressed, or was its content meant for all people over all time? According to Blair:

The Bible is ... one book with a pervading theme: God's activity in the redemption of the world through a chosen, renewed, and obedient people.

In other words, it was meant to be universal. I'm not sure if the Old Testament was originally meant to be universal, but now that the Old Testament is conjoined with the New Testament, the pervading Christian theology is that again yes, the Bible as Christians know it today is meant for everybody.

But what of Philemon in particular? According to Blair, Philemon is important theologically and historically. It pointed out to Christians that they needed to effect social change. Paul surely had that idea in mind when he wrote Philemon wanting not just one church but all Christians to understand that message.

[Difflugia]

Was the Bible meant to speak to merely the people who might be addressed in it at the time they were addressed, or was its content meant for all people over all time?

According to Blair:

The Bible is ... one book with a pervading theme: God's activity in the redemption of the world through a chosen, renewed, and obedient people.

In other words, it was meant to be universal. I'm not sure if the Old Testament was originally meant to be universal, but now that the Old Testament is conjoined with the New Testament, the pervading Christian theology is that again yes, the Bible as Christians know it today is meant for everybody.

One author whose views I find fascinating for many reasons is Richard Elliott Friedman. He's a scholar specializing in the Documentary Hypothesis, but also an observant, practicing Jew. He fully recognizes the different and often contradictory views of the many authors of the Bible, but also believes that God was responsible for its final form as His message to humanity. I love to compare his treatment of the Torah in both his text-critical work and theological/liturgical commentary.

It's also funny because I was just last night reviewing Richard Bauckham's books for a conversation in a different thread. Bauckham is one of those folks that's both a respected scholar and conservative apologist. I always find it interesting to see which view wins out whenever they're in conflict, which is what attracted me to his books in the first place.

But what of Philemon in particular? According to Blair, Philemon is important theologically and historically. It pointed out to Christians that they needed to effect social change. Paul surely had that idea in mind when he wrote Philemon wanting not just one church but all Christians to understand that message.

Well, it's nearly universally accepted as genuine and not the earliest letter that he wrote, so I think we can expect that he'd know it would be copied and passed around.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #146]

Was the Bible meant to speak to merely the people who might be addressed in it at the time they were addressed, or was its content meant for all people over all time?

Well, again we are showing a complete lack of knowledge of what the Bible is. The Bible is a collections of different writings by different authors covering different topics, and the intent (what was "meant") was to have the official writings which the Church could agree upon. Therefore, the Bible was not written with any sort of intent, but was rather writings put together with an intent, and the intent of those who compiled these writings, would have nothing to do with the intent of the authors of the content.

So then for example, the authors of the OT had the intent to communicate a message to the Jewish people, and not only did they not have any other intent at the time of writing, they could not have possibly had any other intent other than the Jewish people, because they would have had no idea about the Bible being compiled. The point is, it is the authors intent which matters at the time of writing, and if one is going beyond the clear intent of the author, then I can only imagine this one is attempting to bring something miraculous into the equation, and I cannot imagine you would want to do that?

So then, the evidence we have of the intent of the authors is the fact that most of them had a particular audience in mind as they wrote, with many of them addressing a particular audience. What would be the evidence they would have had another intent?

The Bible is ... one book with a pervading theme: God's activity in the redemption of the world through a chosen, renewed, and obedient people.

Well, if the "Bible Handbook" says it then it must be true? Well, not really, because the Bible is obviously not "one book", but is rather a collection of different writings, many of which would be letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, which were addressing particular concerns at the time, which would have nothing to do with me. Next, notice how it says "obedient people"? What Bible is he reading? It seems to me to be clear the "people" were far from being "obedient"?

Also notice how this author proclaims that it is "God's activity"? Well, I cannot imagine you would agree with that, but for some reason everything else he has to say, must, and has to be correct? Nice!

In other words, it was meant to be universal. I'm not sure if the Old Testament was originally meant to be universal, but now that the Old Testament is conjoined with the New Testament, the pervading Christian theology is that again yes, the Bible as Christians know it today is meant for everybody.

My friend, the intent of compiling the Bible was in order to have writings the whole Church could agree upon. The intention of the authors would have nothing to do with the intention of those who compiled the Bible, because they would have had no way to know about the Bible being compiled. Thus far, we have the evidence the writers of the NT were concerned with one audience as they wrote, which is the fact they addressed these audiences, speaking to concerns in that audience at the time, while we have ZERO evidence the authors had other intentions, other than the "Bible Handbook" which is no evidence at all.

It pointed out to Christians that they needed to effect social change.

GOOD GRIEF! The NT nowhere ever asks Christians to "effect social change" but somehow we are supposed to get this message from a letter addressed to one person, concerning a slave. What kind of "social change" would Paul be communicating, because it seems to me Paul is telling Philemon that it is perfectly fine to own slaves?

Paul surely had that idea in mind when he wrote Philemon wanting not just one church but all Christians to understand that message.

No my friend! I am afraid not! First, Paul did not address a Church in this letter, but one individual. However, you are telling us that we can be "sure" of Paul's intent. Well we have the evidence that Paul only addressed one individual in this letter, and made personal requests in this letter which none of us today could possibly provide. So then, what evidence do we have which would cause us to know that, Paul would have had the whole Christian world in mind as he wrote this letter? I'm thinking that would be another, ZERO!

[unknown soldier]

One author whose views I find fascinating for many reasons is Richard Elliott Friedman. He's a scholar specializing in the Documentary Hypothesis, but also an observant, practicing Jew. He fully recognizes the different and often contradictory views of the many authors of the Bible, but also believes that God was responsible for its final form as His message to humanity. I love to compare his treatment of the Torah in both his text-critical work and theological/liturgical commentary.

Some Jews like Elliott Friedman as well as Christians can be very good Bible scholars. They can inform us about much of what the Bible is about, who wrote its books, when they were written, the main themes of those books, and so on. Even if you don't agree with these scholars' theology, you can at least know what their theology is by reading their books.

It's also funny because I was just last night reviewing Richard Bauckham's books for a conversation in a different thread. Bauckham is one of those folks that's both a respected scholar and conservative apologist. I always find it interesting to see which view wins out whenever they're in conflict, which is what attracted me to his books in the first place.

It's odd that scholars can be so critical of the Bible yet still consider themselves Christians. John Dominic Crossan, for example, comes to mind. I suppose that when there's a job to do, religion often takes a back seat.

But what of Philemon in particular? According to Blair, Philemon is important theologically and historically. It pointed out to Christians that they needed to effect social change. Paul surely had that idea in mind when he wrote Philemon wanting not just one church but all Christians to understand that message.

Well, it's nearly universally accepted as genuine and not the earliest letter that he wrote, so I think we can expect that he'd know it would be copied and passed around.

Whatever else you might say about Paul, he wasn't dumb. He no doubt knew that his brand of Christianity was being widely adopted by the church of his day. He knew that his letters in particular were reaching an audience well beyond the immediate recipients. Keeping these facts in mind, Paul probably had two parties in mind when writing Philemon: Philemon and his church, and anybody else who was open to Paul's preaching.

I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #149]

Paul probably had two parties in mind when writing Philemon: Philemon and his church, and anybody else who was open to Paul's preaching.

The key word is "probably" but the fact of the matter is, you cannot even demonstrate "Paul had two parties in mind" would be "probable". We have the fact that Paul addressed only Philemon in the letter, along with the fact that Paul makes personal requests that no one else could have possibly fulfilled other than Philemon. However, we are suppose to believe that Paul would have others in mind as he wrote this letter to Philemon, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, with plenty of evidence to the contrary? The only thing you have supplied us with, is the opinion of other Christians, and if we go back to my first post on this thread, will we see this was exactly my point.

It sort of reminds me of those who insist they were Christians at one time, but claim they did not do a whole lot of thinking in order to make such a decision because they were simply taking the word of Christians. They now would like us to believe that they have rejected Christianity, and that it was the thinking process which lead the away from Christianity. However, nothing much has seemed to have changed, other than the mind. In other words, they want to argue that the Christians they took the word of, were completely in error, and somehow they got sucked into believing this error, but for some reason, the Christian must be right as far as what is contained in the Bible? Can anyone make this make sense?

I mean the Christian suckered one into believing something would be true, when it is clearly false, but somehow now the Christian must be right, about what is contained in the Bible, and the intentions of the authors? I thinks we have clearly demonstrated that there are those who allow others to do their thinking for them, because no one could read the letter to Philemon, and come to the conclusion, Paul would have had anyone other than Philemon in mind.