Tweet
Well according to former Episcopal bishop, John Shelby Spong, author of the book, The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, he had this to say in response to the question above:
"I suspect that we still call the Bible the "Word of God" because everyone reserves to himself or herself the right to interpret what that claim means. When some Christians say of the Bible, "This is the Word of God,"they mean quite literally that they believe this book was written or dictated by God and is therefore inerrant. That is the most popular point of view asserted by America's well-known television evangelists. One wonders, however, upon hearing that claim whether these people have ever read the entire biblical text! Others, attempting to find a more moderate position which will allow a bit more interpretive space, suggest that to call the Bible the "Word of God" simply means that God inspired the Bible's human authors. It is still God's word, but some room is created to allow for human error in the sacred text. At least people holding this position give evidence of the fact that they know enough about the biblical text not to want to ascribe it all to God!
Others, who are still bound, albeit even more loosely, to the traditional claim that the scriptures contain or reveal the "Word of God" suggest that what this phrase really means is that people in every generation continue to hear the "Word of God" through the reading of these ancient and time-bound texts. This position is frequently adopted by those who are moving toward the edges of institutional Christian life. It is as if they sense that without an authoritative Bible undergirding their faith, there is little or nothing holding it up. The struggle to secure the authority of the Bible is therefore an enormously important issue.
Was this claim for the Bible to be the "Word of God," no matter how it is interpreted, ever appropriate for this volume which contains sixty-six books (or even more if you count the Apocrypha) that were written over a period of perhaps twelve hundred years? Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny? Is this claim not the primary source from which evil has flowed so freely from the Christian church throughout Christian history?" (pages 16 - 17)
So, Spong discussed three different possible interpretation of the meaning, "This is the Word of God." Then, Spong goes on to give examples as to why the literal, strict claim "This is the Word of God" is inherently absurd in our world today:
"I do not understand how anyone can saddle God with the assumptions that are made by the biblical authors, warped as they are both by their lack of knowledge and by the tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time. Do we honor God when we assume that the primitive consciousness found on the pages of scripture, even when it is attributed to God, is somehow righteous? Can the Bible be the "Word of God" when it has Samuel order King Saul in the name of God to 'Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass' (1 Sam. 15:3)? Is it the "Word of God" when the Psalmist writes about the Babylonians who have conquered Judah: 'Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks' (Ps. 137:8 - 9)?
Many of these biblical assertions have floated across the Internet in a vareity of versions, making good reading for a biblically illiterate nation. According to the Bible, one of these Internet offerings noted, it is permissible to sell one's daughter into slavery (Exod. 21:7). It is of interest that sons as candidates for slavery are never mentioned.
The execution squads would have to work overtime to keep up with the number of texts from the Bible that call for the death penalty. Violating the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2), cursing (Lev. 24:13 - 14) and blaspheming (Lev. 24:16) are among them. Such judgments would fall most heavily on athletic locker rooms used in preperation for Saturday or Sunday football games! But of course no one should be playing football anyway, for Leviticus also prohibits touching anything made of pigskin (Lev. 11:7 - 8)! Even stubborn and rebellious children are at risk of capital punishment, according to the Bible. If children do not obey their parents, if they overeat or drink too much, they are to be stoned at the gates of the city (Deut. 21:18 - 21)." (pages 18 - 19)
And in addition to Spong's discussion of this issue, I would like to add my own amusement of those who pick and choose passages of Leviticus that conveniently fits their political agenda, such as passages in Leviticus that they interpret as condemning romantic love between two men or two women, but ignoring other passages they ought to follow, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabric, avoding certain types of seafood, and so forth.
I'm also troubled the high biblical illiteracy of Americans today. For instance, the biblical account of Sodom seems to condemn rape, not love between two men or two women.
"I suspect that we still call the Bible the "Word of God" because everyone reserves to himself or herself the right to interpret what that claim means. When some Christians say of the Bible, "This is the Word of God,"they mean quite literally that they believe this book was written or dictated by God and is therefore inerrant. That is the most popular point of view asserted by America's well-known television evangelists. One wonders, however, upon hearing that claim whether these people have ever read the entire biblical text! Others, attempting to find a more moderate position which will allow a bit more interpretive space, suggest that to call the Bible the "Word of God" simply means that God inspired the Bible's human authors. It is still God's word, but some room is created to allow for human error in the sacred text. At least people holding this position give evidence of the fact that they know enough about the biblical text not to want to ascribe it all to God!
Others, who are still bound, albeit even more loosely, to the traditional claim that the scriptures contain or reveal the "Word of God" suggest that what this phrase really means is that people in every generation continue to hear the "Word of God" through the reading of these ancient and time-bound texts. This position is frequently adopted by those who are moving toward the edges of institutional Christian life. It is as if they sense that without an authoritative Bible undergirding their faith, there is little or nothing holding it up. The struggle to secure the authority of the Bible is therefore an enormously important issue.
Was this claim for the Bible to be the "Word of God," no matter how it is interpreted, ever appropriate for this volume which contains sixty-six books (or even more if you count the Apocrypha) that were written over a period of perhaps twelve hundred years? Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny? Is this claim not the primary source from which evil has flowed so freely from the Christian church throughout Christian history?" (pages 16 - 17)
So, Spong discussed three different possible interpretation of the meaning, "This is the Word of God." Then, Spong goes on to give examples as to why the literal, strict claim "This is the Word of God" is inherently absurd in our world today:
"I do not understand how anyone can saddle God with the assumptions that are made by the biblical authors, warped as they are both by their lack of knowledge and by the tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time. Do we honor God when we assume that the primitive consciousness found on the pages of scripture, even when it is attributed to God, is somehow righteous? Can the Bible be the "Word of God" when it has Samuel order King Saul in the name of God to 'Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass' (1 Sam. 15:3)? Is it the "Word of God" when the Psalmist writes about the Babylonians who have conquered Judah: 'Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks' (Ps. 137:8 - 9)?
Many of these biblical assertions have floated across the Internet in a vareity of versions, making good reading for a biblically illiterate nation. According to the Bible, one of these Internet offerings noted, it is permissible to sell one's daughter into slavery (Exod. 21:7). It is of interest that sons as candidates for slavery are never mentioned.
The execution squads would have to work overtime to keep up with the number of texts from the Bible that call for the death penalty. Violating the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2), cursing (Lev. 24:13 - 14) and blaspheming (Lev. 24:16) are among them. Such judgments would fall most heavily on athletic locker rooms used in preperation for Saturday or Sunday football games! But of course no one should be playing football anyway, for Leviticus also prohibits touching anything made of pigskin (Lev. 11:7 - 8)! Even stubborn and rebellious children are at risk of capital punishment, according to the Bible. If children do not obey their parents, if they overeat or drink too much, they are to be stoned at the gates of the city (Deut. 21:18 - 21)." (pages 18 - 19)
And in addition to Spong's discussion of this issue, I would like to add my own amusement of those who pick and choose passages of Leviticus that conveniently fits their political agenda, such as passages in Leviticus that they interpret as condemning romantic love between two men or two women, but ignoring other passages they ought to follow, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabric, avoding certain types of seafood, and so forth.
I'm also troubled the high biblical illiteracy of Americans today. For instance, the biblical account of Sodom seems to condemn rape, not love between two men or two women.
Comment