a broken bible

February 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm 1 comment

bibleIf all the underpinning assumptions of the gospel (man’s sinfulness, holiness of God, his demand for justice or death, resurrection, sanctification) depend on accepting the bible as truthful and authoritative, doesn’t it make sense to examine it critically? Why would you say, “these facts/ideas/tenets are so real to me that I could never examine the texts they are derived from?” Or are these ancient documents so clearly true that it would be the height of foolishness to question their factualness. Are they really that clearly true?

I see the choice to follow a text as something completely different from believing it is an authentic document. You can believe that Obama’s inaguaral address is authentic, that he really spoke those words, but you can choose to believe that they are not entirely authoritative. Or you can obviously make the opposite choice, to grant Obama such a degree of authority (due to his intellect or rightness, or whatever) that you trust that the words are true and are willing to follow them even when they don’t make sense. In other words, trusting his wisdom even when you don’t see it. Couldn’t the same be said of Hitler’s followers? No doubt many of his faithful followers doubted him at times, but that for all the good he had done it was worth giving him the benefit of the doubt in those areas. The same can certainly be said of ascribing authority to the bible. Maybe people see so much good come out of it that they give it the benefit of the doubt, even when it doesn’t seem right at times. And then seeing that trust seem to be rewarded with good fruits, blessings in life, family, reformed character, etc. So that validates the trust, provides confirmation that the trust was well placed.

But I would still contend that it is unexamined trust if we have not looked closely at the texts. Maybe that is acceptable, but if so it should be equally acceptable to examine the texts critically. And the problem is that once the documents are critically examined, they don’t hold up at all well. I have been asked the question, “why do you not believe the bible?” But I think the relevent question is actually, “why did you choose to initially examine the documents critically?” Because that would point to something that changed, whereas critical examination is something I had really engaged in previously, at least not in the same way. So “Why do you not believe the bible?” is really an over simplification of the question “why did you conclude the texts were not reliable?” It is easier for a believer to look at it that way because it provides a way to avoid asking the question themselves or considering that there could be cracks in their own foundation of belief.

I don’t know exactly why I did start examining the texts critically, other than to suppose there must have been a cognitive dissonance somewhere that was too great to ignore, or a collection of smaller dissonances that added up to something greater. And what does it ultimately matter why one comes to examine the texts of the bible critically? If they are elevated to the point where they cannot be examined they are being elevated to the position of God himself. And if the foundations on which they stand are too shakey to withhold scrutiny, they are not firm enough to base one’s life on. And what does faith look like then, if you strip away the factual data and conclude you no longer find it authoritative?

Advertisements

Entry filed under: bible, Uncategorized.

Mad, Bad, or Bible…

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Ben Sanders  |  September 7, 2009 at 8:37 am

    I was raised as a Mormon, which is fairly described as a conservative fundimentalist religion. I remember clearly what made me question my faith, I was unbearably unhappy, and wanted to be sure I was doing the right thing before continuing with a life of misery. Ironically, I had set out to prove the truth of my faith, and failed.

    I think you may have hit on a oft overlooked truth that may be invaluable to would be evangelical atheists: the evidence has always been there, the trick is figuring out what makes people look at it. I would love to hear why others examined their faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 20 other followers

Recent Posts

current and recent reads

read:
not much

reading:
Russell Shorto: Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason

to read:
???

I support Kiva.org

Kiva - loans that change lives

Categories

wordpress visitor

%d bloggers like this: