Accuracy of the Bible

[Commoner]

First of all, the Bible doesn't classify as a "work of fiction." That aside, the poster to which I responded completely discounted any theological context. As I responded to Auto, that kind of analysis yields an inaccurate conclusion, because a theological context is necessary to properly analyze a work in which theology is the basis for the writing. Since the poster completely discounted theology, and then went to say that the Bible is such-and-such, I would conclude that the problem lies, not with a theologian who understands the theological undercurrents both explicit and implicit in scripture, but with those who discount a theological analysis altogether.

What exactly do you mean by theological analysis? What kind of a texts other than the Bible would also be subject to "theological analysis"? That is - what makes it a candidate for such an analysis?

 

[sojourner]

What exactly do you mean by theological analysis? What kind of a texts outside of the Bible and similar holy books would also be subject to "theological analysis"? That is - what makes it a candidate for such an analysis?

It is a candidate for theological analysis because it is grounded in theology. It is a theological treatise. Science texts are analyzed scientifically. History texts are analyzed historically. Can you think of any reason why the Bible should not be analyzed theologically?

It's sort of like taking a science text, giving it only a literary analysis and coming to the conclusion that it sucks, because its narrative structure is weak.

 

[Commoner]

It is a candidate for theological analysis because it is grounded in theology. It is a theological treatise. Science texts are analyzed scientifically. History texts are analyzed historically. Can you think of any reason why the Bible should not be analyzed theologically?

It's sort of like taking a science text, giving it only a literary analysis and coming to the conclusion that it sucks, because its narrative structure is weak.

It's an analysis of form, not content? I'm pretty sure a literal reading of a "science text" is ok.

I don't have a reason why the Bible should not be analysed theologially - as I have no idea what that means. You mean "by theologians"?

 

[sojourner]

It's an analysis of form, not content? I'm pretty sure a literal reading of a "science text" is ok.

I don't have a reason why the Bible should not be analysed theologially - as I have no idea what that means. You mean "by theologians"?

It's both form and content. But we also have to understand that, since the Bible is a theological treatise and not a science or history textbook, that a literalistic treatment is, in most cases, the wrong treatment.

By getting "hung up" on historical or scientific accuracy, one misses the point of the text. Sort of like if one gets hung up on the historical accuracy of Aesop's Fables.

The texts all make a theological statement. That theology is imbedded in the cultures that produced them. It is sometimes explicit, sometime implicit in the texts. One need not be a "theologian" to make such an analysis, however, the deeper one wants to go, the more advisable it is to make use of the best scholarship available.

 

[Commoner]

It's both form and content. But we also have to understand that, since the Bible is a theological treatise and not a science or history textbook, that a literalistic treatment is, in most cases, the wrong treatment.

By getting "hung up" on historical or scientific accuracy, one misses the point of the text. Sort of like if one gets hung up on the historical accuracy of Aesop's Fables.

The texts all make a theological statement. That theology is imbedded in the cultures that produced them. It is sometimes explicit, sometime implicit in the texts. One need not be a "theologian" to make such an analysis, however, the deeper one wants to go, the more advisable it is to make use of the best scholarship available.

Oh, ok, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point of my question - which I'll try to rephrase given the new information: What makes this text theological, rather than being regarded as fiction. There are certainly works of fiction (or at least what we all recognize as fiction) that center around god, gods and religion; and they are certainly filled with metaphors and context and subcontext originating from other texts - religious and non-religious; and they are filled with cultural references and historical references and socio-economic references. You know what I mean? What exactly do you use as criteria for distinguishing this one from "those ones".

I mean, I would certainly not get hung up on the accuracy of a fictional story (unless it's so obvious that it's distracting - something like a flat Earth, for instance). But if the claim is made that a story is not fictional - that claim must necessarily center around the "historical or scientific accuracy".

 

[sojourner]

Oh, ok, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point of my question - which I'll try to rephrase given the new information: What makes this text theological, rather than being regarded as fiction. There are certainly works of fiction (or at least what we all recognize as fiction) that center around god, gods and religion; and they are certainly filled with metaphors and context and subcontext originating from other texts - religious and non-religious; and they are filled with cultural references and historical references and socio-economic references. You know what I mean? What exactly do you use as criteria for distinguishing this one from "those ones".

I mean, I would certainly not get hung up on the accuracy of a fictional story (unless it's so obvious that it's distracting - something like a flat Earth, for instance). But if the claim is made that a story is not fictional - that claim must necessarily center around the "historical or scientific accuracy".

Usually, fiction is strictly defined as literature written for entertainment. The Bible was not written for entertainment. It was written to teach theology.

In fiction, it doesn't matter if the god exists or not, because the text does not relate to the real world. In Biblical literature, God is assumed to exist, and the text does relate to the real world.

 

[Commoner]

To give you an example of what I mean when it comes to the credibility of a story. Just yesterday I was reading a thread in which someone posted a story of a student answering a question in his chemistry exam in a very original way. Have a read, if you'd like, it's quite amusing (click). So, the story is great fun and all, but for me - there's a serious flaw in it. It claims to be a true story.

It's not, it's a complete fabrication. And I think this is important to note, and important to investigate - because, while the story serves its purpose well, the claim that it is true and the implication that such an answer actually got a student a good grade in an exam is not quite as "great" and can potentially get you in trouble. While this example is trivial, I trust you can see what I mean by it.

So, when you say the dividing line between fiction and theology is, among other things, the assumption that god exists, perhaps you can understand why this is the main preoccupation many of us have with the text. It matters - because it has implications for the rest of the story. If you read the story I linked to, there is a real difference between regarding the story as true or as "legend" - at least for a misinformed chemistry student. That one false claim just completely ruins it for me - even though the story itself might be really great.

The story if it is true and the story if it's not a "true story" are really two different stories. So that is where an analysis must start - once you know whether it's true or false, you can start dissecting it further - otherwise, you're likely to come to the wrong conclusions, no matter how good you are at figuring out the depts of meaning, the shades of gray.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe define "theology." That might help.

 

[ramrod8789]

I think it's important to understand that the bible is a book about spiritual truths and for spiritual guidance. It is NOT a science book and was never meant to be. Much of it is not even a history book and wasn't meant to be. It is not even ONE book - it is a collection of different literary forms by a myriad of authors over a span of 2000 years.

There's a lot of talk about inaccuracies in the Bible. In my experiences many of these "inaccuracies" are overblown, exxagerated, and shaky when truly studied in context. Often, they are absolutely UNIMPORTANT when it comes to whatever spiritual truth or teaching is the central point of whatever chapter or book is being discussed.

I have yet to meet a "biblical inaccuracy" that "impressed" me as important or theologically devastating.

You claim the book is a collection of Spiritual truths. It's said within the pages of the book that the holy spirit inspires only truth. It is also said that the holy spirit brings to rememberance all truth. Truth is said to be solid fact.

answer me this. If the Book is a collection of Spiritual truth, why does the book portray single one time events on different days? For example:

Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers and the animals. The Book of John places this event in the second chapter of John implying that the event occured 2 years before it actually occured. Matt and Luke imply this one time event occured the same day of the triumphal entry, while Mark tells us this single one time event occured the day after the triumphal entry.

Regarding the Anointing in Bethany:
The book of John places this event 6 days before the Passover, The book of Matt and mark place this one time single event two days before the Passover.

Can a one time single event be listed to have occured on different days and still be truth from a perfect God? If Yes can anyone claim there is such a thing as truth if truth is only a matter of human perception?

If the true woshippers of God are in spirit and in truth, How can this be a Christian if they claim a written lie for any event is truth from God? The testimony that follows is from an ancient text. Is this a written reflection of spiritual truth from God? You'll find it differs from what is currently in your bible for this point of earth history.


And Jesus said unto them, Ye have heard what men in the world say concerning me, but whom do ye say that I am? Peter rose up with Andrew his brother and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, who descendeth from heaven and dwelleth in the hearts of them who believe and obey unto righteousness. And the rest rose up and said, each after his own manner, These words are true, so we believe. 3. And Jesus answered them saying, Blessed are ye my twelve who believe, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but the spirit of God which dwelleth in you. I indeed am the way, the Truth and the Life; and the Truth understandeth all things.4. All truth is in God, and I bear witness unto the truth. I am the true Rock, and on this Rock do I build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, and out of this Rock shall flow rivers of living water to give life to the peoples of the earth. 5. Ye are my chosen twelve. In me, the Head and Corner stone, are the twelve foundations of my house builded on the rock, and on you in me shall my Church be built, and in truth and righteousness shall my Church be established. 6. And ye shall sit on twelve thrones and send forth light and truth to all the twelve tribes of Israel after the Spirit, and I will be with you, even unto the end of the world.7. But there shall arise after you, men of perverse minds who shall through ignorance or through craft, suppress many things which I have spoken unto you, and lay to me things which I never taught, sowing tares among the good wheat which I have given you to sow in the world. 8. Then shall the truth of God endure the contradiction of sinners, for thus it hath been, and thus it will be. But the time cometh when the things which they have hidden shall be revealed and made known, and the truth shall make free those which were bound. 9. One is your Master, all ye are brethren, and one is not greater than another in the place which I have given unto you, for ye have one Master, even Christ, who is over you and with you and in you, and there is no inequality among my twelve, or their fellows. 10. All are equally near unto me. Strive ye not therefore for the first place, for ye are all first, because ye are the foundation stones and pillars of the Church, built on the truth which is in me and in you, and the truth and the law shall ye establish for all, as shall be given unto you. 11. Verily when ye and your fellows agree together touching anything in my Name, I am in the midst of you and with you. 12.Woe is the time when the spirit of the world entereth into the Church, and my doctrines and precepts are made void through the corruption of men and of women. Woe is the world when the Light is hidden. Woe is the world when these things shall be.

 

[sojourner]

Truth is said to be solid fact.

Truth and fact can be two different things. Truth can be conveyed through the use of allegory, which may be fictional.

answer me this. If the Book is a collection of Spiritual truth, why does the book portray single one time events on different days?

The "book" is actually a library containing works by several authors, from different cultures, over a period of hundreds of years. First off, the editors thought it important to preserve all the Tradition, even parts that are contradictory. Second, some of the authors had theological reasons for placing events in different places.