Comments on: The Bible doesn’t say http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/ a few graffiti on the wall of life Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:11:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: God and the Bible http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4976 God and the Bible Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:59:22 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4976 It is very understandable that when people discuss the Bible with each other they use the words The Bible syas to prove their point. What other way is there for people to prove that what they are asserting is not just their own personal opinion but that it is God's opnion. On the other hand: the Bible is a very difficult book and many passages and verses in it are open to more than one explanation. This means that people should never use the words The Bible says just to end the debate and to prove that their interpretation of a certain Bible passage or verse is the right one and that people with a different interpretation are wrong It is very understandable that when people discuss the Bible
with each other they use the words The Bible syas to prove
their point. What other way is there for people to prove that
what they are asserting is not just their own personal opinion
but that it is God’s opnion.
On the other hand: the Bible is a very difficult book and many
passages and verses in it are open to more than one explanation.
This means that people should never use the words The Bible says
just to end the debate and to prove that their interpretation of
a certain Bible passage or verse is the right one and that people
with a different interpretation are wrong

]]> By: CD-Host http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4625 CD-Host Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:56:25 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4625 I agree with you strongly on this point the confusion people make between their interpretive framework and the text itself. All texts only say something within a framework of interpretation. And most people who are using the bible are trying to make subtle judgements hence their framework is fragile, change it slightly and the interpretation can shift radically. In my <a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/07/female-leadership-in-churches-debate.html" rel="nofollow">"debate the calvinist"</a> debate that was essentially what I argued regarding female eldership that just a slight shift in culture (the importance of virginity) led to a massive shift in what people believed about female eldership; and if one carries to that to today you can see how a similar slight shift can lead to a different opinion on woman in ministry. Anyway, it's a fully worked example of your point. I agree with you strongly on this point the confusion people make between their interpretive framework and the text itself. All texts only say something within a framework of interpretation. And most people who are using the bible are trying to make subtle judgements hence their framework is fragile, change it slightly and the interpretation can shift radically.

In my “debate the calvinist” debate that was essentially what I argued regarding female eldership that just a slight shift in culture (the importance of virginity) led to a massive shift in what people believed about female eldership; and if one carries to that to today you can see how a similar slight shift can lead to a different opinion on woman in ministry.

Anyway, it’s a fully worked example of your point.

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4608 doug Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:09:00 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4608 And a PS to that. I'm not saying "merely your interpretation", I'm saying "involving your interpretation". I think those are significantly different. And a PS to that. I’m not saying “merely your interpretation”, I’m saying “involving your interpretation”. I think those are significantly different.

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4607 doug Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:07:47 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4607 But what you've done there is select from a broader range, and (for the sake of argument) let me tease out a couple of issues. First, there was for some time some major disagreement about whether God creates out of nothing, since Genesis doesn't actually make this clear. Arguably Job and Isaiah do, to say nothing of Paul's implication in Romans 4, but agreeing on what we mean by saying God is the Maker of all things, visible and invisible, which I think is the only theological statement that does justice to the whole sweep of the biblical narrative and its claims, actually proved to be contentious. Second, to take one of the points you select: "Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God’s own heart." Well, up to a point. But presumably not when he arranged for Uriah's death, or on several other occasions. The implication of the way you present this is that David is a worthy king, and so establishes the importance of kingship. I would give more credit to God's ability to turn even our mistakes and rebellions to good account: kings and rulers in all sorts of ways remain bad, and the one who comes as true King is consistently un-king-like. Now these are quibbles in one sense, but in another they highlight that even your selection of what "the Bible says" though a fair one of some central themes, involves interpretation (as selection always does). But what you’ve done there is select from a broader range, and (for the sake of argument) let me tease out a couple of issues. First, there was for some time some major disagreement about whether God creates out of nothing, since Genesis doesn’t actually make this clear. Arguably Job and Isaiah do, to say nothing of Paul’s implication in Romans 4, but agreeing on what we mean by saying God is the Maker of all things, visible and invisible, which I think is the only theological statement that does justice to the whole sweep of the biblical narrative and its claims, actually proved to be contentious.

Second, to take one of the points you select: “Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God’s own heart.” Well, up to a point. But presumably not when he arranged for Uriah’s death, or on several other occasions. The implication of the way you present this is that David is a worthy king, and so establishes the importance of kingship. I would give more credit to God’s ability to turn even our mistakes and rebellions to good account: kings and rulers in all sorts of ways remain bad, and the one who comes as true King is consistently un-king-like.

Now these are quibbles in one sense, but in another they highlight that even your selection of what “the Bible says” though a fair one of some central themes, involves interpretation (as selection always does).

]]> By: Wonders for Oyarsa http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4604 Wonders for Oyarsa Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:45:34 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4604 Hi Doug, I'm a little torn on this. While I agree that we all have an interpretive framework, I don't think there aren't cases where we can't simply and unapologetically state that: "The Bible says x..." The sound bite debate in the media goes like this: "The Bible says Homosexuality is wrong"... <i>"Yeah, but the Bible also says slavery is OK"...</i> "No it doesn't - if you look at the overall story the Bible is telling it is about a God who sets slaves free"... <i>"Well that's your interpretation. The Southern slave owners interpreted it differently. So it doesn't really have authority either way - people just use it to say what they want to say."</i> Q.E.D. - go to a commercial. I really think one can say some pretty powerful things, straight from the authority of the Bible, without saying that they are merely your interpretation. Here are some examples: - God is the maker of the world. - Though man was created good, he now has evil in the intentions of his heart, such that he cannot trust them alone to "do well". - God has acted in calling a people to himself - the nation of Israel. - Israel has proven stubborn and rebellious against God, and though God has disciplined them, he has remained faithful. Though he exiled them for disobedience, he brought them again to their homeland. - Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God's own heart. - Jesus is the messiah - the king of the Jews - the son of David - and his kingdom is the kingdom of God. None of these are mere "interpretation" - they are part of the core message of the Bible itself. Now, there are nuances that are up to interpretation, and application up to interpretation, and corollary questions and ambiguous passages and concepts up to interpretation, but the Bible does actually say something. Forgive me if I've imputed to you much that you didn't say - no doubt I have. But I hope you can see why I push back somewhat. Hi Doug,

I’m a little torn on this. While I agree that we all have an interpretive framework, I don’t think there aren’t cases where we can’t simply and unapologetically state that: “The Bible says x…”

The sound bite debate in the media goes like this:

“The Bible says Homosexuality is wrong”…
“Yeah, but the Bible also says slavery is OK”…
“No it doesn’t - if you look at the overall story the Bible is telling it is about a God who sets slaves free”…
“Well that’s your interpretation. The Southern slave owners interpreted it differently. So it doesn’t really have authority either way - people just use it to say what they want to say.”

Q.E.D. - go to a commercial.

I really think one can say some pretty powerful things, straight from the authority of the Bible, without saying that they are merely your interpretation. Here are some examples:

- God is the maker of the world.
- Though man was created good, he now has evil in the intentions of his heart, such that he cannot trust them alone to “do well”.
- God has acted in calling a people to himself - the nation of Israel.
- Israel has proven stubborn and rebellious against God, and though God has disciplined them, he has remained faithful. Though he exiled them for disobedience, he brought them again to their homeland.
- Israel had a problem in wanting a king over them like other nations, when God was their king. Yet king David was a king after God’s own heart.
- Jesus is the messiah - the king of the Jews - the son of David - and his kingdom is the kingdom of God.

None of these are mere “interpretation” - they are part of the core message of the Bible itself. Now, there are nuances that are up to interpretation, and application up to interpretation, and corollary questions and ambiguous passages and concepts up to interpretation, but the Bible does actually say something.

Forgive me if I’ve imputed to you much that you didn’t say - no doubt I have. But I hope you can see why I push back somewhat.

]]> By: MetaCatholic » Gay questions to straight answers http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4541 MetaCatholic » Gay questions to straight answers Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:59:08 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4541 [...] the question many are asking is “Does the Bible condemn same-sex practices?” Apart from the dubious idea that the Bible says or condemns anything, I think this is the wrong question, because it is focussed on an abstracted [...] [...] the question many are asking is “Does the Bible condemn same-sex practices?” Apart from the dubious idea that the Bible says or condemns anything, I think this is the wrong question, because it is focussed on an abstracted [...]

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4529 doug Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:13:28 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4529 Yes, they are related. I hope to find time to suggest in a subsequent post some of the ways in which they differ. Yes, they are related. I hope to find time to suggest in a subsequent post some of the ways in which they differ.

]]> By: Dannii http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4524 Dannii Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:08:57 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4524 He said "It is written..." Different words, and he's only referring to the Hebrew scriptures of course, but I don't see how that's substantially different to a Christian saying "The Bible says..." He said “It is written…”

Different words, and he’s only referring to the Hebrew scriptures of course, but I don’t see how that’s substantially different to a Christian saying “The Bible says…”

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4523 doug Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:39:28 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4523 Nope. There was no Bible. Nope. There was no Bible.

]]> By: Dannii http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4521 Dannii Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:10:49 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2008/07/the-bible-doesnt-say/#comment-4521 Hmm, didn't Jesus say "the Bible says" in Luke 4:4, and well, at a great deal of other times too? Hmm, didn’t Jesus say “the Bible says” in Luke 4:4, and well, at a great deal of other times too?

]]>