The overwhelming majority of those who believe in the truth of the bible split into two groups: Those who believe it is literally true - which I have remarked upon in my previous post; and those who see it as metaphorically true. The later believe it is a good guide to an absolute moral truth. The events mentioned in the bible are designed to pass along that moral truth, rather than a historical one.
There are many arguments to be made about the morality of the bible, but those will not be presented in this case. At the moment I wish to keep the discussion within the realm of the truth of the bible. And so the first point to be made is that of the last chapter: The bible tends not only to be factually inacurate, but also contradicts itself within its own rules.
Now back to the metaphors. The story of the flood was evidently designed to demonstrate Gods fury, while the parting of the sea was designed to demonstrate his mercy. Sound logical enough. But then what of the order of creation? What moral truth can be found in the fact the the sun was created after the plants? How does the direct blood line between Jesus and king David teach us anything (A blood line that is different in each of the gospels. Another example of biblical contradictions).
Another possible view is that the bible was written by man. It may contain moral truth and a message from God, but was written within the context of the people it was given to. A bronze age people.
This sort of reasoning raises even more questions. How can someone discern the moral truth from the tribal barbarism? In many places in the bible, God explicitly expects his people to commit genocide, or oppress women. Under which category should we place such commands? Are they a metaphor? or were they intended to be taken in context?
If the answer is context then the conclusion is unavoidable: The book was not intended for us to begin with. It is a bronze age book with a bronze age mentality depicting a bronze age God. This God acts and reacts consistently with the morality of that time. If we are to read it within that context and then intemperate our findings through the filter of our own morality, then it is not the book that’s in charge of the moral truth, but the filter. Us.
When we hear of those who believe in a literal acceptance of the bible, we may laugh. But there seems to be a rational element at play. If one has made the decision to believe in the God of the bible, it makes perfect sense to believe that his Gods text is literally true. It is the basis for his faith. On it’s face, it makes more sense to view the bible as non-literal. A non-literal interpretation fits perfectly with a non-belief in God. But it does not fit as well with religion. It feels strange to base ones life on the belief of a biblical God while viewing the bible as open to interpretation and human error.
But when it comes to the bible, everything is strange.
No comments:
Post a Comment