Andrew, thanks for your reply, it has helped me to understand your views much better - as often happens, I suppose, it becomes clear that our differences are not so great.
I will only reply to a few bits and briefly.
At 12:14 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Andrew Alder wrote:
Chinese whispers ....
I'm sure that in communities which relied upon oral history, it was a long way from chinese whispers. And that is hard for us to understand today. But on the other hand, there would be influences which moulded the stories over time ... I don't think it is reasonable to assume that there was no change over time.
It seems to me that oral history relies on a story, possibly told in a camp-fire like setting. So something like Noah's Ark could be a base unit of oral history - something which could be told in one session. Bits of oral history which don't form part of this sort of unit are more likely to be lost, unless they can be made part of a story. So there is a big chance that the smaller chunks and anecdotes would be tacked on to another story, and therefore become placed out of sequence, etc.
It also seems to me that stories are told and passed on for a purpose. One purpose is preservation of the traditions themselves, but there are lots of other moral and educational purposes for telling stories to the youngsters. So stories become shaped to different purposes, which are not constant over time.
And even if we still find the accuracy inadequate, we also have the question of what God is doing all this time. My belief is that he still takes an interest in keeping the Bible accurate, and I find this conviction shared by the many translators I have had the priviledge of meeting over the years.
Yes, but the same sort of dynamic applies. If we ask, why did the narrator tell this story, we can also ask, why did God tell this story? Maybe that will lead somewhere, maybe not. But I don't believe it will lead us to the point of regarding the Bible as historical or scientific fact, which is where some people end up because they propose a false choice between the Bible being accurate truth or a pack of lies. They sometimes use language like "authoritative" which is why I think I got the wrong scent from you - I'm not suggesting that you think this way.
So what has changed over a few thousand years? Certainly people have changed. And we could argue that the way God interacts with people has changed.
We could indeed. But there's also the little matter of the Incarnation. Words fail me.
Well, I suggest that you lay this on a bit thick ... for us, the incarnation happened at a point in history. But if we believe that God is eternal, then there is not an OT God and a NT God.
But there's another, relatively minor but still important, complication to what you say above. You seem to assume above that similar stories do *not* occur today. You may be right, and I hope so, but it's a big nasty world out there. How confident are you that human sacrifice is totally unknown today?
Whether or not human sacrifice happens today ... we have both said that if someone in our church believed God was asking them to sacrifice their child, we would have serious doubts. More than that I believe any reasonable person would feel duty-bound to intervene in any way they could to protect the child.
In that environment, could we still believe that God would ask such a thing? Not me. And if I can't believe it today, I can't see a good reason to believe that God asked it of Abraham. And in that case, I could not use the passage to teach others about faithfulness. If you are saying that maybe Abraham was mistaken, that puts quite a different spin on the whole story.
Yes, terrible things happen today. Ten or 15 years ago in Victoria, a woman died when her husband and another man (some sort of pastor IIRC) were performing an exorcism on her which included physically removing a demon from her uterus - the injuries would have been appalling (even the tabloids didn't go for the details). I raise that because I think that primitive beliefs thrust into certain brains can have dangerous results.
I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make?
I guess that is part of it. And if our understanding of God has out-grown this story (in some respects) then we should allow ourselves to move on, and not feel that we have to drag it all with us into the 21st century when it doesn't want to go. I think I'm in common with Allan on that.
If so, let me go further. Take *any* proper subset of the Bible, big or small, and IMO it represents a more limited understanding of God than the whole Bible does.
That seems to be a generalisation of the point you are making here. Have a good look at it. Would you agree with it?
Yes I agree but that is not my main point - I think it comes through best just above.
Of course I can't make rules for God. But if I was forced to accept a barbaric God then I certainly would not worship him/her. It would only be fear that might make me give up time and money for that God. And as the consequences of unbelief (as observed in a large part of the population) seem to be minimal, that would be a natural course.
I don't think these consequences are "observed" to be so minimal. Claimed yes. I think these claims are documented throughout history, and particularly in the Bible, many times over.
The impression I gained both in Primary School and in Sunday-school (1950s-1960s) was that at most times and places in history people were pretty good, life was pretty good, and most people were God-fearing. This IMO was an unfortunate and inaccurate world-view. What the Bible and history both seem to actually say is that throughout history, people have been barbaric, life has been unpleasant for most of them, and God has struggled to be heard. I think this is the picture you describe below, so perhaps we agree on this.
So was this period unusual? Well, yes and no. We are still suffering IMO from the misplaced optimism and faith in science, industrialism, and the (secular) American way that marked this period in Australian society at least. But IMO this misplaced faith in substitutes for God is not unusual in history either. I've previously spoken of the self-assured physics of the second half of the 19th century. I think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably much the same story, from the little evidence we have.
Ok, well maybe I wrote off the consequences of unbelief a little lightly. But Paul (I think) wrote that if Christ did not rise (I substitute for example, 'if God is not love') then we are the most pitiful people.
I've been involved in past years in Kairos Prison Ministry (and may be again one day I hope). Just BTW there are opportunities for people to participate in this program, both to see it in action and to help it significantly, and all it takes is a few hours on a Friday afternoon and evening and a bit of paperwork some weeks beforehand (and this paperwork is *not* negotiable). If you haven't already, I recommend you take one of these opportunities to see God really rock your socks off with the relevance of Christ today. Email me, privately if you like, if you are interested. Or talk to almost any other current or past Kairos team member.
Over the years several of the guys in green have said to me words to the effect of "I'm glad I went to prison, I would not have met Christ otherwise", in a situation that makes me think they are quite genuine (which is, bluntly, a contrast to many other prison programs). It brings a lump to my throat every time. These guys are not for one moment belittling the cost to them of going to gaol. Rather they are awed by how important God is to them.
Or to put it another way (and the point is), how great the price has been of their unbelief.
This is a tough one, though. I could say that an accident which landed me in hospital changed my life. Or I could say that I am blessed to have known someone with cerebral palsy and walk a mile with them. I would say that God is (especially) with us in our sufferings, indeed (related to the cross) shares all our sufferings. But I don't understand why people are disabled, or are injured, or land in prison.
Children dying of hunger or disease is a completely different matter to God asking for a child to be sacrificed.
My point was just that I don't understand why God can't miraculously get rid of malaria, any more than I understand why he puts Abraham and Isaac through the torture he does.
I agree they are different matters, but I don't see what your objection is here. Is that any clearer?
I guess it seemed qualitatively different to me, for God to ask a person to inflict pain - to murder in cold blood, to act unethically. Is it unethical that God does not eliminate malaria if it is within his/her power? Terry Lane thinks so and so he came to believe that God did not have such power.
If we would lock them up today, then I think it is a consistent standard to say that Abraham *should* have been locked up back then. When we decide that slavery is not acceptable, we don't decide that its acceptability has changed from one day to the next, even though changes to the law might mean that it is legal one day and not the next.
I don't agree that Abraham "should" have been locked up. Christopher Columbus would be court-martialled in any of today's navies for errors of navigation. We can't always apply today's rules to yesterday's events.
Well obviously there was no one there who was going to lock him up - and it would have spoiled the later bits of the story. We don't tell people to go and follow Columbus' example of navigation. But there are those who seriously tell others to go and follow Abraham's example of faithfulness. To me, this has serious dangers, as well as the huge difficulty in transplanting the story to Australia 2004.
But let me see if I am understanding you ... in the same way that you have agreed that saying "this is the word of God" does not mean "these are the words of God", is it that by saying "the Bible is all authoritative" you do not mean "all the statements in the Bible are authoritative (at face value)".
Because it seems to me that your statement that the Bible is all authoritative (and that we cannot pick and choose which bits are authoritative) is not bourne out by your discourse.
Hmmm. OK. Is there anything in particular that I have said that contradicts the idea that the Bible is *all* authoritative?
Perhaps that's because you fail to grasp what I mean by "authoritative". What I mean is simply that if *I* honestly know what it means, then I'm bound by it. But I don't acknowledge the right of you, or the Pope, or *anyone* else to tell me what it means.
This is not a cop-out. It's a very important principle.
Fair enough. This is quite different from what I first thought you meant - progress.
I think we often underestimate the barbarism both of the past and of the present. Children were executed for being uncontrollable only a few hundred years ago in England. Women are executed on suspicion of unchastity in some parts of the world today.
Barbarism from humans is a norm in most of history. But we are talking about barbarism from God.
Hmmm. If Isaac had been sacrificed, then this would be true. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I can't think of any scenario in which it would have happened. Had Abraham refused, then Isaac was safe. Abraham obeyed, and again Isaac was safe. So what's the problem?
But what is going through Abraham's mind as he prepares for the sacrifice ... "it is OK to sacrifice my son, because God has asked me." I can't accept a person thinking that.
But I think we can easily find examples of barbarism from God. Does that make God barbaric? Not IMO. We need to also understand the constraints he was under, which we can't do completely but it helps to try.
I don't think God is barbaric either, so that is why I discount the authority of the barbaric bits attributed to God, like slaughtering the Caananites.
I'm curious that you find barbarism from humans the norm only in "most" of history. When was the non-barbarous period?
In my house, last evening. Mind you, I did have some barbaric thoughts when the local ABC kept interrupting the cricket broadcast with flood 'updates' that were old news - so maybe that doesn't count either :-)
Hmmmm. Are you sure you *can* set up two harmonious groups like this?
Well, make believe, imagine. I'm not saying that everyone has to fit into one group or the other, many people might not.
IMO these fights would break out long before the two groups met. Food for thought?
OK, so that just adds another layer - instead of consensus in each group, the conclusion represents the wishes of the strong debaters, with a few concessions for the others. That could also have been a dynamic in authorship of the bible.
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
