Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:56:35 PM
Michael Coogan,
through CNN's website, reminds
hit & run Bible mockers of their talking points, though he is no a "hit and run" guy himself, being a lecturer on Hebrew Bible-Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School, professor of religious studies at Stonehill College, and director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum.
As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings, many of whom are named: David, Isaiah, Luke, and Paul.
Yes, but the Bible (which is, indeed, a collection of various writings) also claims to be the Word of God, divinely inspired, and authoritative. Now, either that claim is false or it is true. If it is true, then that is a big deal. Whenever guys like this deny that the Bible is ultimately divine rather than human in origin, it is always to try to repel something like the notion that the Bible teaches that
sex is for marriage, or that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. It is never to deny the "love your neighbor" or "care for the poor" stuff. Funny how that is.
So it's not surprising that inconsistencies are frequent in the Bible, both trivial and profound.
If you are willing to discuss it, name
one actual profound inconsistency in the Bible that, when the passages are taken in their contexts and properly considered, are indeed actually inconsistent.
Although Jews and Christians, individually and collectively, have for the last 2,000 years accepted the Bible as authoritative in principle, in practice many of its values have been rejected.
If you are willing to discuss it, name
one. (Not that you'd submit to Biblical authority even if all such objections were answered.)
On issues such as slavery, no one today would maintain that slavery is acceptable, even though, according to the Bible, it was a divinely sanctioned institution.
Working one's debts off was divinely sanctioned as were how to handle those defeated in a just war, but never slavery in the sense of enslaving innocent people against their will, especially on the basis of skin color. The Bible does not promote every behavior that it records.
In the debates about slavery in the 19th century those opposed to its abolition cited the Bible in support of their position, but despite such biblical warrant, their views were renounced.
That's because they were successfully countered by other Bible-believers.
According to biblical law, a father could sell his daughter as a slave, and the last of the Ten Commandments lists as off-limits a neighbor's possessions -- his house, wife, slaves, and livestock. But the majority of modern Jews and Christians no longer accept the biblical view of women as men's property and hence subordinate to them, as they have also abandoned the biblical practice of polygamy.
This would be a good place to start in response to this. The Bible never promoted polygamy, and does promote monogamy (see Paul's writings on the requirement for a bishop). And yes, it is still wrong to covet anything that belongs to someone else. If you don't think spouses still belong to each other today, go ask anyone who is paying alimony.
Now we're going to get to the real reason for this attack on the Bible…
In current debates about family values, most of which have to do with sex, opponents of abortion and advocates of a woman's right to choose both cite the Bible in support of their conflicting views, even though the Bible in fact says nothing specifically about the issue.
The Bible depicts the unborn as human beings, human persons, and depicts the unjust killing of human beings as murder. You do the math.
And with regard to same-sex marriage, although the few biblical writers who mention same-sex relationships, especially between men, were unequivocally opposed to them, many contemporary believers would argue that, as with slavery and the status of women, it is time to recognize that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.
Jesus and the writers of the New Testament promoted the equality of individuals, freedom from bondage, and improved the status of women. Nowhere do they record a call to change the prevailing understanding and longstanding Biblical prohibition against sex and sex-like behavior outside of marriage, nor the cultural and Biblical rule that marriage unites a bride and a groom. Jesus challenged the culture and certain traditions and practices, yet did not challenge the Biblical teaching that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.
Opponents of same-sex marriage cite Leviticus, which says that when a man sleeps with a man as with a woman it is an abomination.
It isn't just Leviticus. There are New Testament passages, too, and Jesus affirms marriage as the uniting of a bride and a groom.
They're right: It does say that. But it later calls for the death penalty for such activity, which only the most rabid opponents would insist on. The Bible also calls eating pork and a woman wearing a man's clothes abominations, yet many would no longer enforce such prohibitions.
Again,
see here.
Individual biblical texts should not be appealed to selectively: Such cherry-picking is all too easy because of the nature of the Bible as a multi-authored book.
Actually, it is more because different books of the Bible are written to different audiences.
He then goes on to write about the Constitution to make the point...
What are those underlying values? I would argue that they are rooted in love of neighbor, which Jewish and Christian commentators over the ages have identified as the essential and enduring message of the Bible.
First and foremost, we are to love God with everything that we have. Obedience to God is part of that. Loving others is part of obedience to God, and we will love each others in the best way possible if we have the right relationship with God.
So, I suggest, the essence of the Bible -- its ultimate authority -- is not in its individual pronouncements, but in its underlying message: equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
Great. Yes, it is a good thing to love. But love doesn't mean that we pretend that sin isn't sin, or that we abandon other Biblical values, morals, and boundaries. Love doesn't mean telling someone that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing because that is what they want to hear. Love doesn't mean allowing my own voice to be silenced so that others can do wrong or decide things for me.
Throughout the Bible, from the first book through the last, for all peoples and places and times,
marriage is presented as something that unites a bride and a groom. This is in contrast to certain commandments given to a specific people for a specific time and place. How do we know the difference? Though Bible study. Actually reading the Bible and considering the audience of the various books, the literary genres being used, and so on.
Although one need not invoke the Bible or
disapproval of homosexual behavior to defend marriage (or human life), the Bible does command believers to stand up for Biblical morality. (Be sure to vote!)