My understanding of the Tanakh/Old Testament is that the Torah (and some other books, at least in part) is sourced from four different sources (the E, J, P, and D) from different areas and times. We have multiple versions (including Deuteronomy pretty much being a copy of Exodus) of text because they were all put together for various reasons. And yes, I realize there’s disagreement on the specifics, but that should still be good enough for a message board comment from a guy who hasn’t done any serious study on the topic.
Anyway, I don’t understand the line of thought that Biblical criticism is an attack on faith as opposed to leading to a greater (and more meaningful) understanding. The literalism movement strikes me as a very shallow form of faith.
Considering that up until the Protestant Reformation the Catholic and Orthodox churches were the only game in town, and neither taught Biblical literalism, then I guess there WAS no “true church”.
Of course, I swear I read somewhere that Chick and company believe that there was a secret underground group of Protestants around all along, and they only came to the front when Martin Luther spoke out. Or something like that.
Agreed. I was speaking of the argument that “Jesus must have been the Son of God, because he raised Lazarus from the dead - says so in the Gospels”. Well, if you don’t take the Gospels as gospel - so to speak - that argument fails. Now, I may be strawmanning here, but it seems to me that I have heard that argument made by evangelicals. But in any case, it was just an example of my point that it is not an attack to examine and debate the arguments of a theology. And, as you have demonstrated gracefully, this can be done without ill-will.
Of course. In fact, it was C.S. Lewis’ arguments in Mere Christianity that led me to…well, I was a nominal Christian before I read the book, so I’ll say, led me to start really thinking about and understanding my faith. (Which led ultimately to rejecting it, so when I’m standing in front of Saint Peter, and he’s asking me about my Flying Spaghetti Monster T-shirt, I’m throwing Narniaboy under the bus…) And I’m certainly not about to say that people like Thomas Merton, G.K. Chesterton, Simone Weil or Paul Tillich were unintelligent.
But ultimately, none of those arguments are founded in any objectively demonstrable fact. And the tools of rationality I was taught in college - Occam’s Razor, falsifiability -leads me to prefer a simpler, more economical explanation, that to me has the added advantage of beauty; the amazing complexity, in its strengths and limitations, of the human mind. Which is why I describe myself as a humanist - atheism is just part of it.
Yeah, no kiddin’. But you raise a very interesting question, that perhaps deserves a thread of its own. I described religion, along with politics and art and literature and philosophy, as nonrational rather than irrational, specifically to avoid the pejorative connotations of “irrational”. Nonrational phenomena, to me, are things that cannot be held to an objective standard of proof - that have no basis in demonstrable reality - yet do have existence of a sort, and influence and affect human beings. And perhaps have a “truth” of their own; albeit, one is susceptible to revision.
What about simple statements of fact, like the age that King Jehoiachin began to reign?
II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Or the number of children Michal had?
II Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
II Samuel
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: