Saturday, January 7, 2012

The Bible against itself

I've started reading The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark. I think Thom is a Christian even though his book is about the Bible not being inerrant. Most folks would probably label him a liberal Christian for this view of the Bible. He starts out by saying that the Bible contains arguments. Different authors of the Bible had different opinions about things. 

For example, some authors believed in Nationalism and others in Universalism. Ezra is given as an example of a nationalist who did not believe in "sharing" Yahweh with other nations. Ezra even goes so far as to expel from the land all the pagan women who had intermarried with the Israelites along with their children (Ezra 10). The author of Jonah had a different viewpoint. In the story of Jonah, Yahweh was merciful to the repentant pagans in the city of Ninevah. The author of Jonah believed that Yahweh was the god of all the nations which is in conflict with what Ezra believed.

Another topic that writers of the Bible could not agree on is suffering. Thom Stark gives several examples in his book of how some writers thought that suffering was a direct result of sin, but other writers felt that suffering was distributed evenly between the righteous and the wicked.

So what conclusions can we draw from the arguments within the Bible? To me, it is evidence that the words in the Bible are the thoughts of several different men and there is nothing behind the curtains inspiring them into a single, unified message. What's interesting is that Christians believe the Bible "all fits together" and they use this as evidence of its inspiration. I've read the Bible from cover to cover a few times and whenever I hear this I think, "Really? It all fits together?"

What are some other things that the writers of the Bible don't agree on?
My next post will cover the next section I've read in C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.

No comments:

Post a Comment