From: Bonnie Dixon
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God....and love thy neighbor as thyself”
Biblical literalist creationists are doing even more of a disservice to religion than they are to science. They lack a sense of
history and need to realize that ideas themselves evolve. Why do Biblical literalists think the people who wrote the Bible
intended a literal interpretation in the first place? The people who wrote the Bible were writing with the understanding of their
own time. The Bible was written over a long period of time and severely edited in the 4th century by the early Catholic Church
as evidenced by the Nag Hammadi material. The Jews practiced midrash, searching prior texts for material they could weave into
the stories they wanted to tell. When early Christianity separated from Judaism this understanding, so crucial to Biblical
interpretation, was lost. When the Bible is read today, by people who lack this understanding, it is interpreted as prophesy.
Actually writers researched existing material for a story as writers do today. Jesus himself spoke in parables and metaphors as any
Jew would have done.
The Etruscans who preceeded the Romans and Hebrews foretold the future by examining the guts of sacrificial animals. We don’t
do that anymore. Animal sacrifice was still practiced by the Hebrews in the time of Jesus so an interpretation of the crucifixion
as a blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices was appropriate in it’s time. Has anyone sacrificed a lamb on an alter lately? Surely
this interpretation can be placed in historical context and discarded as a useful concept. Perhaps the second coming will actually
be a better understanding of the first. I’m looking forward to this and hope to help in bringing it about. We may have to call it
something besides Christianity though. That term is becoming exclusive to the Biblical literalist creationists (at least according
to them) and, therefore, an embarassment.
When you think about it, worshiping Jesus as a God is a sneaky way to avoid doing what he told us to do, love one another. What
a good idea. That really would save the world. The development of the concept of hell in Western theology, from an actual
place called the valley of Gehenna to an abstract concept back to an actual place in the afterlife, is another idea alien to the basic
teaching of Jesus and should be discarded in our time. How does it serve the doctrine of love to send everyone to hell who doesn’t
agree with you? The timeless, peaceful detachment of Buddha (taking the long view) and the concept of karma from Hindu
tradition ("what goes around comes around" as the popular saying goes) are two examples of religious ideas of great value from
other traditions that are compatible with the doctrine of love. A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originates. How
wonderful to live in a time in history when all of this knowledge is available to us.
The definition of God has also undergone evolutionary change. Three hundred years ago Baruch Spinoza provided an elegant
proof of the existance of God, essentially that God and nature are one. If you can’t see God in the face of a flower you won’t find
God in a book either. The wonder of creation is intrensic to our very existance and pervades it all.
Usually, I don’t proselytize. Each person should have the freedom to develop their own religious understanding at the their own
speed in their own way. The men who founded our country understood this and I honor their wisdom. But, ya’all are scaring me.
So, instead of waiting for Biblical literalist creationists to bore themselves into insensibility listening to insipid "Christian" rock I
decided to give it a try. Please wake up. Don’t be afraid. Just keep an open mind, give the test of reason to all your ideas and
experience the wonder of being alive. All you really need is a love of truth and the truth of love as evidenced everywhere.
Bonnie Dixon
Response from Timothy Wallace:
Bonnie Dixon wrote:
>> “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God....and love thy neighbor as thyself”
Biblical literalist creationists are doing even more of a
disservice to religion than they are to science. <<
This is an interesting comment to make following God’s command. While
it isn’t clear whether you mean to suggest that it is a “disservice”
to “literally” love God and love others, that seems to be the unstated
implication. One is left to conclude that indifference and/or hatred
towards God and one’s fellow man would
be the preferred response of the anti-biblical pseudo-intellectual
(such as yourself?). But that’s really no surprise:
“Professing to be wise, they became fools... For they exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator... ...being filled with all
unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of
God, insolent, arrogant, ...unloving...” (Romans 1:22-32)
(I have to wonder what might be the official “non-literalist interpretation” of
that passage!)
>> They lack a sense of history... <<
In making such an arbitrary and uninformed judgment of another’s
“sense of history” you betray an unmistakable case of arrogance on
your part. I suggest it is an act of extreme presumptuousness to
insist that others must “lack a sense of history” simply because they
don’t subscribe to your philosophy of choice.
>> ...and need to realize that ideas themselves evolve. <<
No one whom I know has denied that the ideas of men tend to evolve.
It is a self-evident principle. However this fact by itself is no
basis for presuming to “know” that truth also evolves, or that because
men and their ideas are subject to change, God and His Word are
somehow required to conform to the same pattern. To so project a
property of human character onto God or His truth isn’t necessarily
reasonable or logical—and is therefore hardly justifiable on the basis that you award yourself the “right” to do so.
“For I, the Lord, do not change...” (Malachi 3:6)
“The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His
heart from generation to generation.” (Psalm 33:11)
“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture
is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was
ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy
Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)
The notion that God’s message is comprised of “evolving ideas” is
completely foreign to those who have known Him and witnessed and
recorded His involvement throughout history. Those who truly “lack a
sense of history” are those who wish
to force the historical biblical record into their humanistically
defined mold, denying both the historicity and the absolute,
immutable, propositional truth preserved and revealed in that record.
>> Why do Biblical literalists think the people who wrote the Bible intended a literal interpretation in the first place? <<
As with most any other form of non-fiction literature, a literal
interpretation is the norm, unless otherwise indicated by the context,
other internal evidence, or the specific indication of the writer.
Except in certain specific, well-defined cases, those whose hands
penned the Scriptures did not suggest anything other than a literal
meaning in the message they conveyed. It is no more appropriate to
arbitrarily insist on a non-literal reading of the biblical record
than it would be for me to arbitrarily insist on taking the contents
of your email message in an exclusively non-literal context (i.e., you didn’t mean what you said, but what I want you to have said).
>> The people who wrote the Bible were writing with the understanding of their own time. <<
We have no reason to doubt that this prevented them from consistently
conveying God’s truth under the guidance of His Holy Spirit (even
within the context of the times and cultures within which they all
wrote), unless we make the willful choice to arbitrarily and subjectively
embrace precisely such a doubt.
>> The Bible was written over a long period of time... <<
Yes, over a period of some 1,500 years, as a matter of fact.
>> ...and severely edited in the 4th century by the early Catholic Church as evidenced by the Nag Hammadi material. <<
This is a pretty big claim to make, and one incapable of unambiguous
substantiation. The contents of the Nag Hammadi texts are dated at
roughly A.D. 350-400 by most scholars, and they are not
corroborated by either older or newer manuscripts. The contents of the
New Testament manuscripts, on the other hand, are surrounded by literally thousands of
corroborating copies dating from a few hundred years earlier to
several hundred years later than the Nag Hammadi texts. The
authenticity and integrity of the Nag Hammadi texts is thus made
suspect, at best, merely by the external textual evidence alone.
No historical record (whether Christian, gnostic, or otherwise) justifies the claim (popular among modern “gnostics”) that “the
Church” destroyed the gnostic manuscripts, and the fact that Irenaeus
and others wrote knowledgeably against gnostic heresies in the late
second century indicates—if anything—a policy of toleration
(but with objection), rather than censorship, from within the Christian
community towards the gnostic heretics.
The Nag Hammadi texts appear on the scene conspicuously too
late in time (and too few in number) to be easily credited with
historical authenticity. Their contents are rife with matters of
doctrine and history contrary to (or at least very apparently
inconsistent with) the balance of the Christian and Hebrew texts upon
which the Christian Scriptural tradition was based from the beginning (i.e., well before the sparse samples of Nag Hammadi text are dated).
To claim, in light of all this, that the Nag Hammadi material somehow
serves as evidence that the Scriptures were “severely edited in the
4th century by the early Catholic Church” is to demonstrate a poor
grasp of the historical implications of both the internal and external
textual evidence which precedes and follows the 4th century in
abundance, as well as an ignorance of the documented traditions surrounding the Scriptures during (and preceding) the time period in question.
In the interest of developing an informed and balanced perspective on the Nag Hammadi documents, I suggest seeing:
http://www.trueorigin.org/naghammadi1.php
http://www.trueorigin.org/naghammadi2.php
>> The Jews practiced midrash, searching prior texts for material they could weave into the stories they wanted to tell. <<
This is a convenient story to tell as a means of casting
pseudo-intellectual doubt on the Hebrew tradition of preserving and
venerating the Scriptures. Such fabrications scarcely qualify as
legitimate scholarship, however, and amount to nothing more than
fanciful—and unsubstantiated—speculation. (They also render one
guilty of “bearing false witness,” which is a violation of God’s Law.)
“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made
by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as
there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly
introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who
bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many
will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the
truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you
with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and
their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels
when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to
pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the
ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness,
with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the
ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to
destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example
to those who would live ungodly thereafter...then the Lord knows
how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the
unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment...”
(2 Peter 1:20-2:9)
>> When early Christianity separated from Judaism this understanding, so crucial to Biblical interpretation, was lost... <<
This is more ignorance-based fabrication. The notion of
Christianity “separating from” Judaism is itself based on a poor
understanding of the relationship between the two. The early
Christians were all Jews. They did not see themselves or their
obedience to the Lord Jesus as an act of “separating from” Judaism,
but as the beginning of a completion/fulfillment of the Jewish
hope, as recorded and foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures from the very beginning!
Devout Jews both in Israel and abroad looked eagerly for the literal
fulfillment of the promised Messiah, whose life, place of birth, and
sacrificial death for the sins of men, were all prophesied in detail
hundreds of years in advance in the Scriptures. The content of those
Scriptures was no “woven” hodge podge of “borrowed” story-telling
material, as any bonafide Hebrew scholar will confirm.
>> ...When the Bible is read today, by people who lack this understanding, it is interpreted as prophesy... <<
I suggest it is not the modern readers who lack understanding, but
persons such as yourself, who consider re-writing history and
promulgating ignorance-based fabrications about the Hebrew and
Christian Scriptures an acceptable means of discrediting their
contents—and advocating a heretical religious agenda.
>> ...Actually writers researched existing material for a story as writers do today... <<
The above claim is an excellent case in point, for which I invite you
to produce some unambiguous, credible substantiation.
>> Jesus himself spoke in parables and metaphors as any Jew would have done. <<
The fact that Jesus sometimes spoke in parables doesn’t change
anything concerning the reliability of His message, the accuracy with
which it was recorded and sovereignly preserved to this day, or the
importance and effectiveness of His death, burial, and bodily
resurrection as the satisfactory ransom for the sin-burdened souls who
have entrusted themselves to their faithful, holy Creator throughout
history. Incidentally, that He would speak in parables and lay down
His life for us are both foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures.
>> ...Animal sacrifice was still practiced by the Hebrews in the time of Jesus so an interpretation of the crucifixion as a blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices was appropriate in it’s time. <<
The willing submission of Jesus to crucifixion was foretold in the
Hebrew Scriptures, as was the specific purpose of it—as well as the
usefulness of animal sacrifice chiefly as a picture of that which was
to come. There is no alternative “interpretation” of who Jesus is, or
what the purpose of His death and resurrection accomplished, when the
content and context of both the Hebrew Scriptures and His own words
are allowed to speak for themselves without the re-interpretation
required to subject them to the gnostic fabrications to which you ostensibly subscribe.
>> Has anyone sacrificed a lamb on an alter lately? Surely this interpretation can be placed in historical context and discarded as a useful concept. <<
...Only to those so arrogant as to deny their own personal sin, their subsequent need
for a Savior, and the love of a holy Creator who took upon Himself in
sinless human form the penalty for their being born-and-bred violators
His Law.
>> Perhaps the second coming will actually be a better understanding of the first. I’m looking forward to this and hope to help in bringing it about. <<
The Second Coming, ironically, isn’t a topic with much—if any—substantiation in any of the gnostic texts. The very concept must
first be “borrowed” from the words of Christ and the first apostles,
before it can be perverted (“interpreted”?) to suit the aims of those
too proud to admit their sin before the Living God. To naively presume one’s self to play a role in “bringing it about” betrays a distinctly misinformed understanding of a subject, about which there is plenty of original and definitive content.
Here’s a sampling of the texts from which the doctrine of the Second
Coming originated...
From the apostle Paul:
“For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord
will come just like a thief in the night. While they are
saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon
them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and
they shall not escape.” (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3)
“...the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His
mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to
those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the
gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of
eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and
from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified
in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all
who have believed...” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10)
From the apostle Peter:
“...But the present heavens and earth by His word are being
reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and
destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact
escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The
Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but
for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will
come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with
a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat,
and the earth and its works will be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:3-10)
From Jesus Himself:
“...the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and
then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will
see the son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power
and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a
great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from
the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other...”
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass
away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of
the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in
those days which were before the flood they were eating and
drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until
the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of
the Son of Man be. Then there shall be two men in the field; one
will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding
at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left.”
(Matthew 24:30-41)
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the
kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is
in heaven.”
(Matthew 7:21)
>> We may have to call it something besides Christianity though... <<
If you think worrying about “what to call it” will even be a matter of
any concern, then you have not merely “misinterpreted” the event in
the context of its original source, but you are sadly ignorant of the
authentic prophetic record of it, and the nature and magnitude of the
event itself.
>> That term is becoming exclusive to the Biblical literalist creationists (at least according to them) and, therefore, an embarassment. <<
“That term” finds its roots only in the Bible, in passages for which critics like yourself have yet to produce credible non-literal (re)interpretations. You would find more credibility vis-à-vis the Bible in saying nothing about the Second Coming than in pretending to “know” something about it. Jesus said:
“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son
of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of
the Father and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26)
“And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”
(Luke 6:46)
>> When you think about it, worshiping Jesus as a God is a sneaky way to avoid doing what he told us to do, love one another... <<
When you think about it, your personal refusal to worship Jesus as the Son of
the Living God is both blasphemy, and a disregard for the balance of
His teaching. He certainly did instruct His disciples to love one
another, but that’s not all. In fact, He plainly indicated that
foremost is our love for God, which you seem eager to avoid!
He said:
“He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
There’s nothing “sneaky” about obeying and worshipping the Lord Jesus
for who He is—and there is nothing about it that prevents us from
loving our neighbors. No logical basis justifies pretending that
obediently loving and worshipping the Savior prevents or excuses one
from loving his fellow man. What is truly “sneaky” is pretending to honor Him with a contrived, arbitrary, and feigned “authenticity” while simultaneously ignoring—nay, denying—His very words!
>> The development of the concept of hell in Western theology, from an actual place called the valley of Gehenna to an abstract concept back to an actual place in the afterlife, is another idea alien to the basic teaching of Jesus and should be discarded in our time. <<
“...alien to the basic teaching of Jesus”?? I suggest that you spend some time studying subjects like this before spouting such nonsense. Jesus spoke of hell more than any other individual in Scripture. Some examples (in none of which is found the term “Gehenna” in the source [Greek] text):
“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will
gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those
who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace
of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth.” (Matthew 13:40-42)
“So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come
forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and
will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:50)
“And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it
off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life
crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast
into the eternal fire.” (Matthew 18:8)
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me,
accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for
the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:41)
>> How does it serve the doctrine of love to send everyone to hell who doesn’t agree with you? <<
The Living God revealed in Scripture is
the embodiment not only of love, but also of holiness and justice. If
you had read the Scriptures you would know this, but you seem to be
operating primarily on second- and third-hand, new-age-agenda-based (re)interpretations, rather
than going to the original source yourself.
He has made it clear that we are all guilty of sin (breaking His Law,
falling short of His standard). We are, by nature, fallen and prone
to love anything but Him and what is right. We all deserve
destruction. However, He has sovereignly chosen to save for Himself
those from among us to whom He gives the will to obey and acknowledge
the rightness of His standards. This is what the Scriptures teach. If it doesn’t meet with your approval, you might want to reconsider who you really think is really “god” in your life(!).
It is a popular practice to cry “foul” and attempt to impose a twisted
human standard of “fairness” or “love” upon the Creator, fully missing
the abject arrogance of such an act...
“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?...”
(Romans 9:20)
>> The timeless, peaceful detachment of Buddha... <<
Detachment is right: Buddha died and was buried, remains so, and did nothing to save men from bondage
to (or punishment for) sin. He sure said some fine things, but he did
nothing to reconcile men with their Creator/God. Jesus, on the other hand,
specifically stated that this was His purpose—and He executed that
purpose flawlessly, in order to both accomplish the justice of God and
commit the supreme act of divine love.
>> A good idea is a good idea no matter where it originates. <<
On the other hand, genuine truth is not subject to
opinion or part of a cafeteria line of options—not in any other aspect of
human experience, and nor is there a logical, objective reason why it
should be assumed to be so in matters of origin, destiny, or spiritual
condition.
>> The definition of God has also undergone evolutionary change. <<
Only among those who wish to define for themselves a God, rather than
humbly submit to the only real one...
“You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for
yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or
on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall
not worship them or serve them...” (Exodus 20:3-5)
>> Three hundred years ago Baruch Spinoza provided an elegant proof of the existance of God, essentially that God and nature are one... <<
A “proof”? I seriously doubt it (and you surely have not substantiated it). Do not confuse the marvel of God’s
handiwork with God Himself. That’s idolatry. God is not the
same thing as His creation any more than a painter is the same thing
as one of his paintings...
“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creation rather than the Creator...” (Romans 1:25)
“You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for
yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or
on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall
not worship them or serve them...” (Exodus 20:3-5)
>> Usually, I don’t proselytize. <<
Good. Going by your phony doctrines, you’ll incur less judgment on yourself that way.
“It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe
to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if
a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into
the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to
stumble.” (Luke 17:1-2)
>> Each person should have the freedom to develop their own religious understanding at the their own speed in their own way. <<
Says who? When did truth become a matter of personal choice? Recall,
for a reality check, that what was “true” spiritual fare for the Nazis
permitted them to rape, enslave, and slaughter at will. On what basis
would you justifiably deny a modern Hitler “the freedom to develop”
such an understanding, as long as you elect to make truth so
meaningless and subjective? Do you still fail to see the schizophrenia of your delusions-called-spirituality?
>> Please wake up. <<
I did, 18 years ago. After trying Edgar Cayce, gnosticism, mysticism,
rosicrucianism, and dabbling in whatever seemed handy on the “new age”
platter, it eventually became obvious that it was all nothing but me
trying to better myself through this or that philosophy—one brand
of “truth” or another (mix & match, as necessary). It was all up to me
to get it right.
Then I discovered that the Jesus of the Bible taught something wholly
different. Not only was it not up to me to get it right, He said it
was impossible for me to get it right. God gives grace and compassion
to the humble and obedient, but resists (stands against) the proud,
who think they can do without Him. I had scoffed for most of my life
at the idea of needing Jesus to die for my sins, and I had enjoyed the
pseudo-intellectual “new age” environment in which I could toss Him a
nod of approval through the darkened and perverted veil woven by all
the phony “knowledge” bandied about among the self-styled spiritual
“insiders” (of which I was one).
>> Don’t be afraid... <<
I can assure you, I’m not.
>> ...give the test of reason to all your ideas and experience the wonder of being alive. <<
Man’s reasoning abilities are limited—and influenced by his fallen
(sinful) nature. Reason alone is inadequate to guarantee arrival at
the truth. Men have reasoned their way to every imaginable
conclusion, demonstrating that it’s a man-worshipper’s delusion to think that a “test of reason” will
suffice in assuring one of possessing the truth.
As for the wonder of being alive, whereas I used to think I had
experienced it at its best, I now know the same wonder in the light of
an unspeakable freedom that comes only from gratefully loving and
serving my Master and Creator.
>> All you really need is a love of truth and the truth of love as evidenced everywhere. <<
Sounds real sweet (and appropriately “new agey”). I’m hard pressed to believe you
know what it means to “love truth” when “truth” (by your schizophrenic
definition) can be anything from Nazism to Jim Jones. As for “truth
of love evidenced everywhere,” try telling that to the victims of Nazi
Germany, the Sudanese government, Chinese communism, the school and
church shootings that are becoming commonplace in the U.S... That’s
some “evidence” you’ve got there, lady. It sounds a whole lot more
like further substantiation of the Bible’s accuracy in articulating the human condition. What is “evidenced everywhere” is that, although we do recognize and esteem love, we’re all sinners in a fallen world...
“There is none righteous, not even one...” (Romans 3:10)
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
(Romans 3:23)
Kind Regards,
TW
