 |
|
|
|
 The Bible presents us with an evolving story, writes John Shelby Spong.
December 29th, 2011
09:10 AM ET
My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions
By John Shelby Spong, Special to CNN The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound. To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend. First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it. The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament. Actually, that's not in the Bible Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today? Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture. This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by? My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality? Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write. Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100. For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative. In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side. Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all. My Take: Yes, the Bible really condemns homosexuality Instead, it’s an interpretive account designed to conform the story of Jesus’ death to the messianic yearnings of the Hebrew Scriptures, including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. The Bible interprets life from its particular perspective; it does not record in a factual way the human journey through history. The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites. Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be? The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents, for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few. The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity. The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed. It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies. The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily. It was the prophet named Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C., who changed God’s name to love. It was the prophet named Amos who changed God’s name to justice. It was the prophet we call Jonah who taught us that the love of God is not bounded by the limits of our own ability to love. It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” It was the prophet we call Malachi, writing in the fifth century B.C., who finally saw God as a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries. One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge. The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves. That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Shelby Spong. soundoff (6,068 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, December 29
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s note: John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is author of "
@Momoya
Do you think the Big Bang Theory is a good argument against the existence of God?
Byzinga!
No. At least generally speaking. If there is a holy text out there that describes the big bang very clearly and in very human terms then it would be a predictive text and i would be very interested in what sort of god that holy text described.
Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean "arguments against gods existence." Atheistic arguments must be against the particular sort of god described. There are no universal arguments because there's no universal god. Everybody believes in a different one based on their own personal interpretation because the disciple of theology has no way to verify its "findings." People believe in the god of their own ideals, and use various holy texts to justify their presumptions.
I'm not asking if the Big Bang Theory is found in some
Holy text – I know that it's not. I'm asking you if despite it's obvious omission from sacred texts, do you think a supplies a plausible explanation for the origins of all that is?
Once u have not tested its essence ur opinion of its contents are irrelevant. I don't see a test that can prove that God is not there objectively because the results have to b interpreted u see n that is a subjective matter. Is the Bible a book about agape love? Now that is the question.
No, the bible is not a book about agape love. You can certainly read it as if it was, if you like, but some passages aren't going to make much sense.
There lies ur problem. Read the passages concerning the greatest commandment and the good Samaritan again. Its unfortunate but u missed the essence while studying the Bible's words. The Key is to obey the Greatest Commandments and use it to unlock the meaning of the rest then it makes sense.
The religious study of the Bible is not the same as spiritual obedience to God's judgements. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can actually to be called the Tree of Judgement between Go(o)d and (the) (D)Evil rather than Tree of Conscience. The essence of the Bible is plain to a man of Agape.
What also the Bible shows is that people that followed his decrees were blessed abundantly and the more they were true to themselves and God, God actually spoke and guided them directly, if not through other messengers. But what was very apparent was when people sinned or turned their backs on God's teachings, God stopped these direct one-on-one conversations. With today's hustles and bustles along with technological advances, it has become very difficult to even listen to God. That's why it was asked in the Bible: will God find faith on earth when Christ comes the second time for the rapture. But one message is clear from the Bible: God sent his only Son Jesus Christ that whoever believes in Him will have a chance at eternal life when judgment of the evil ones come.
actually, the term "rapture" never appears in the New Testament. you can look it up.
Mark 13:13-35. Just as Jesus left the earth witnessed by hundreds of people, so would be His second coming which would be witnessed this time by all parts of the world. The Rapture is when he gathers his chosen people from all around the world, those that believe and loved Him, to save them from being judged along with the wicked ones. Technicalities is for human, but once you are spiritual it is God that explains things to you directly and this only happens if you ask God through His Son Jesus Christ. Sure the Bible was not printed perfectly as it was done by hands and machines, but the words are truly from the living God that proved He loved us by sacrificing His Son for the world to see and believe especially when He rose from the dead and was taken up to heaven witnessed by eyes like yours and mine.
The word "blogosphere" is never mentioned in the Bible either. Hmm, I wonder what that could mean???
Cnner is there a scripture from YHWH(God) that confirms this was said about His son in the OT? For in the book of remembrance its true name for the OT by YHWH in Malachi 3v16 for us to remember the truth, the only Son and Firstborn that He has ever mentioned is in Exodus 4v22,23 of His chosen people ISRAEL. There can't be two firstborn sons can there? No, this is an impossibility. Also in the book of remembrance the so called OT YHWH tells us that No One Can Die For Anyone Else Sins in Jeremiah 31v30 and Ezekiel 14v14 that every man soul is judged by His own righteousness, even Noah Daniel and Job had to die for their own. YHWH warned us of a change of strange new gods that would come in the latter days in Duet. 32v17 through the prophet Moses of idols devils these are not of the Creator YHWH(God). Moses told the people that their future generations will go into idolatry and in Daniel 11v36-12v10 of his vision in vs.39 is the strange god of christianity and in vs.43 is the strange god of islam that was prophesied to Daniel from Gabriel that will be in the 4th kingdom and christianity was legalized by Constantine in 311 as prophesied it would be. Your Creator YHWH(God) is our only savior He tell us in Isaiah 43v3,11 and there is no one else, also in Isaiah 49v26 and isaiah 60v16 and in Isaiah 40v18 YHWH says to us "Who will you liken Him to? The book of remembrance the OT is the truth it tells us the past the present and the future it prophesied what is to come to us in the future from YHWH.
@NiiCroffie
I don't think that my credentials and experience with the bible makes me a spiritual leader. I don't claim to know or believe anything about any god or its "spirit." I do know about thousands of ways that the bible proves itself more a book of collected myths, and I know enough of it to understand how it contradicts itself on its claims of god and instead causes the reader to project onto it his own desires and see there a god of his own description. It's a mythical artifact, as any unbiased evaluation proves.
You're posts are nearly incoherent, by the way
Glad u think my posts r incoherent. However I am limited to 300 xters/post by my fon. I also believe that ur views on the Bible is essentially yours tho arrived @ after study. What I am saying is that u conduct face-value tests but u do not conduct the spiritual tests so y say u understand it then?
This only showcases my earlier observation. You can only argue against the God of the fundamentalist-literalist! You won't drag me into that world view, that understanding of God and the Bible. But it for sure is the one you were taught, and the one you reject. Can't say that I blame you, but I never started there in the first place.
Lamaitre, I'll debate any god you wish to present to me, it really doesn't matter. I don't want to drag you into any world view, I want to debate your assertions about the god you believe in. It's really childish of you to assume what sort of world view I was taught and what sorts of world views I can debate. Unlike the god of the bible, I can offer you real-time proof, today. I can prove your silly assumptions incorrect as I talk with you. Again, if you guys can't even keep yourselves in line as to what should be literal or figurative, then how do you pretend that your god's will can be found at all?
It seems that 90%, maybe more, of the atheists who post on here (and boy, do they flock to here, seeking to evangelize), can only argue against the God of the fundamentalist-literalist. They don't argue against the God of the philosopher, the scientist, the scripture scholar, the mathematician, the humanitaria, or the theologian.
It's an endless stream of "Noah couldn't possibly have fit all the species of the world on his ark. Case closed." That, and the "celestial old man in a beard demanding obedience," makes up the extent of most of the discourse. The other tact is "Religious people suck."
True enough. Not able to comprehend God as he is, their arguments are based on the most suitable god they can construct from their imaginations. Usually it's made of straw.
Lemaitre, where can you and I meet to debate the existence of the precise god you hypothesize? Perhaps you should wonder why god has not provided a yardstick by which you believers can determine whether or not they are believing correctly. If you guys can't agree on what god's most important rules or, or which passages are literal or figurative, or what god's nature is most like, then that's not the atheist's problem, it's your problem.
Momoya can't u see? Atheists have a religion. Y shud I debate u on ur key doctrine when I am busy practising mine? If u have a concept of a God that does not exist debating will not prove u r right. It is a subjective matter. This is not 300AD where we debate subjectives as if they were objective.
@Rochdoc
I missed one of your posts on the previous page, so I am responding here
I don't hate the bible; in fact, I quite like it. As a BELIEVER and missionary, I read and studied the bible for decades. I am an atheist BECAUSE of what the bible says.
Science does NOT say that some stuff came into being from nowhere and exploded. The study of the stars and the study of mathematics has been going on for more than centuries, so I was wrong. I should have said that the study has been going on for millennia.
Read carefully: the big bang describes the first few moments of expansion of a very small and dense space. That expansion is still occurring as the matter and the universe continues to spread out. Think of it like a fourth of july firework. First, the small charge gives off light and begins to expand, but there is no sound. The universe also expanded with light, but without sound. The firework continues expanding but then the sound is produced and later heard. As the universe expanded, it took on characteristics that allowed for sound, and then that sound occurred–just like in the firework. The firework continues to expand and cool, and then it goes out. The universe is in this stage. It is continuing to expand and cool and will eventually go out. Consider the firework; consider that one of those little, individual sparks is a galaxy. Not a perfect analogy, but it roughly explains how our existence is within the aftereffects of the initial expansion of the big bang.
As to your other questions and assumptions, I have no idea what you are really getting at. It is BECAUSE the bible does such a poor job at recording history, making scientific predictions, and establishing spiritual truth that it cannot be god's word. God wouldn't make such dumb mistakes. If an alien were asked which religion or holy book was true, it would decided that each holy book was a collection of myths as affected by the culture's place in history and its geographical resources available to the believers who wrote the myths.
@Kent
You shouldn't let one anonymous poster on this sort of forum "settle things in your own mind" about anything, much less the theories of scripture origin. If you need such things settled, respect yourself and your processes enough to do your own research on the matters and come to your own well-studied conclusions.
I'm here to try to convince believers to critically and honestly consider their own god and holy book as if it were the god and holy book of a different type of belief. Muslims can easily point out the silliness of the bible and its beliefs and christians can easily point out the silliness in the Koran and its beliefs. Critical examination shows the texts and the beliefs for what they are–cultural myths as evolved through various geographies and history.
Was there anything you wished to discuss, or were you just wanting a sermon from the depths of my knowledge?
Momoya u honestly think that ur credentials as a religious leader make u a spiritual leader? That is the Bishop Emeritus' thinking too. Christ did not study theology neither was he bishop but people did follow him for spiritual guidance n still do. I studied these sciences but I'm not an atheist.
A religious man is an atheist looking for evidence of God. A spiritual man is one who loves God with all his life and his neighbour as himself. Religious people are eventually disappointed while spiritual people bear fruit. Why did some Pharisees become Christians with all their credentials?
The questions Kent asked u were so simple that u did not need to pull rank on him if u knew the answers. As usual u know the answer but do not appreciate the question. Can't u b honest with urself that u have not understood the Bible. The natural sciences are not a Bible for the atheist religion!
You make me feel the academic requirement for pursuing theology is so low that when such a person reads Darwin's Theory of Evolution he is fooled into thinking he knows Genetics and every other field of d natural sciences-a claim no true scientist will make. Maybe only scientists shd study theology.
I will take your reply to be a long-winded "WHAT???" to my questions. In other words, you don't have the foggiest notion what I'm talking about – and you wouldn't even know how to answer my questions. Translation = you do not know "a lot" about the Bible.
Finally, finally, finally, an educated Priest. A theologian? Look this guy studied. Until anybody does this kind of study you ar accepting stories handed down from your parents, society, etc. this is the most important article written in CNN ever, listen up people if you really believe there is no need to fear truth! If you base all your counter arguments on what you think you are part of major problem, ignorance or the unwillingness to Learn what is objective. The books of the bike were canonized by man.
Do you think you've discovered some heretofore hidden insight, that is to say "man canonized scripture"? You're a little late to that party!
Actually, a better way to say it is "the Church canonized scripture."
J an educated man is one who can function with what he learns. If the Bishop Emeritus learnt Theology to know God and ended up not believing in Him was he educated? The answer is sadly no. There is a reason why the Bible works for those who practise its words but not for those who know about it.
It's the arrogance of the bible believers that's just amazing. Most of them don't know the bible very well and have not studied it, but simply know what few interpretations keep getting repeated in their pulpits. Then they walk around as if they are the absolute authority on the bible and know more than people who have dedicated their lives to studying ALL of it and not just the few stories that support the particular style of faith they're already indoctrinated in. It's like they're 9th graders walking around pretending be authorities on string theory. Strange.
@momoya
Kind of like you expounding on scripture and string theory. Two things you know next to nothing about!
Kent, I don't expound on scripture or string theory, but I know quite a lot about scripture and a little bit about string theory. Since your accusation was false, what larger point were you trying to make?
@momoya u feel it is arrogance for us to tell u we know God is but humility on ur part when u say u don't. If u spent time reading Theology u will know there is very little Bible learning in there. It is basically a course devised by St Thomas Acquinas and co. New? Ask Oxford Uni! lol
Momoya – you know a lot about scripture? Good, because I've got some questions that I need settled in my own mind. 1) what is your educated take on the "Q Source Theory" for the synoptic gospels? 2) do you think the evidence is there in the texts that Jesus quoted from the LXX? 3) was John borrowing from Daniel in his use of "Son of Man" theology? 4) how many authors were there of Isaiah, one, two, or three? 4) is owl meat kosher? Why, or why not?
@ momoya: You are an intelligent, thoughtful, learned, and well-intentioned man. I appreciate your efforts to enlighten the unenlightened. I should warn you, however, as my own grandfather (G_d rest his soul) warned me: it is pointless to argue with someone who has made up their mind; who will not listen; who will not read; and who has no respect for study or learning. As to those who respond to you with snide, spiteful, snarky and hateful barbs I would simply suggest that G_d is not diminished in any way by those who question scripture, nor by those who doubt Him, nor by those who seek Him in non-traditional ways, nor even by those who deny him. And, those who insist on a literal interpretaion of scripture have the most fragile faith of all. They embrace their certainty like a child grasping their favorite teddy bear. They attack you because they are threatened. Their unspoken fear is that faith is complicated, and that bad things happen to good people. if you believe, simply live a life of faith: do good, prevent evil, pray often, forgive quickly, answer softly, and turn the other cheek.
To Mr Spong, I leave you with a quote from St Augustine:
"If you only accept the parts of the gospel that you like, then it's not the gospel you believe in, but rather yourself.
The books you read where cannonized by man, end of story, so you believe in men not god. The point is you quote the cannonized books, the ones you were taught, he studied his brains out.
What I find most provocative about Spong's argument is this phrase – "The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging." Jesus made mention of the static nature of the Word of God noting how not one bit of it would pass away before the world did.
The question I'd ask Spong is place himself in the world 500, 1000, or 1500 years ago. Would he write as he has here. If so, then fine, but if not I wonder if his commentary is nothing more than a contemporary revisionist review of the Bible reflecting Spong's desire to fit the Bible into his own dogma.
You Miss the point, he wasn't and you weren't, so you believe what you are told, he studied theology which is a real academic field. Besides CHRISTMAS is not I the bile and is anti bible, do you celebrate Christmas. Well if you so yo are nt only off from the past you don't even read the book as it stands. There is no christmas, no Easter. How could Jesus be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights and the belief in good Friday make sense. It does not! Not even for a second grader. At least read the booms as the exist.
Don Roach, I think you've answered your own question. In my opinion, I think Sprong is saying that ALL of the bible is revisionist, written by different authors over a huge time span, centuries after events may have happened. His point is that the bible has constantly changed and therefore cannot be taken literally.
test
The biggest lie in the Bible is that it has anything to do with religion. If you want the truth get my book THE GREAT PYRAMID HISTORY WITHOUT A PAST where I show the corrolation between history, religion and archaeology.
Bishop Spong, if there were more Christians like you, I would go back to church. Sadly, as evidenced by these comments, there aren't.
How many more people have to be like Bp Spong before you go back to church? What's the tipping point; is it a number, or a percentage?
Are you inspired to avoid church by the thoughts, intellect, and behavior of all the people who don't go?
Believe u me there are whole denominations full of Bishop Spongs. I'm Anglican so I will recommend us to u. U don't even have to believe in God to b our senior cleric so u r welcome. There can never be enough worldly believers so please join us maybe u might become spiritual along the way who knows!
Spong aims to clear up three major misconceptions that people have about the Bible. What he actually makes clear, though, is his own staunch unbelief in the Bible, and his penchant for specious argument.
"To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend.
First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it."
It is not true that "every biblical scholar recognizes" that the Bible is "absolutely" historically inaccurate. Spong is either unaware that there are, in fact, biblical scholars who believe the Bible is historically truthful, or he doesn't consider them "real" scholars. My guess is the latter. But by making such a sweeping statement, he gives the impression that every serious student of the Bible agrees that it is full of historical falsehood. Such an assertion lends an aura of credibility to his reasoning, but it is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
"The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament.
Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today?
Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture.
This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by?"
According the Bible's own testimony, Moses himself wrote the first five books of the Old Testament (Deut. 31:24; Mark 7:10; John 5:46). Clearly Spong does not believe this, which he is free to do. But he writes as though the speculations of critical scholars are indisputable facts: that the first books of the Old Testament were written 300 years after Moses, that they were based on oral traditions, and that these traditions were corrupted over time. Where is the proof for these assertions? There isn't any; they are guesses. And there are plenty of biblical scholars who would dispute them. So, when Spong writes of "the facts", they aren't necessarily the true kind.
"The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites."
Again, Spong is misleading. If the Bible is clear about anything, it is that it considers itself, in the "literal sense", to be the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). And there are millions of people who have read the Bible and do make such a claim! And that's because they, unlike Spong, believe what the Bible says about the Bible.
Spong rejects the Bible as God's Word because it sanctions hate, immorality, and even genocide. Actually, the Bible condemns all these things – it's all in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). But by pointing to certain passages, wrenched from their canonical context, Spong can portray the Bible as chock-full of evil teachings.
Two responses come to mind. First, no Christian I know, who takes the Bible seriously, believes hatred, immorality, and genocide are right. And that's because they understand the full biblical context of the sorts of passages Spong cites. Spong's selection of these passages is superficial and prejudicial; he does not take into account other biblical teaching that helps make sense of these difficult passages: God's holiness, man's sin, the transition of God's Kingdom from Israel in the Old Testament to the Church in the New Testament, and so on.
Second, there is a deeper problem for Spong. On what basis does he condemn hatred, killing, genocide, and so on? Not on the basis of the Bible, for as he tells us, it is full of error and not God's Word. Are these things self-evidently evil? Or are they evil because Spong says they are? It seems to me that his argument here boils down to this: I find much in the Bible distasteful, therefore it cannot be the Word of God. He may not like what he sees in the Bible, but that's no proof it's not God's Word.
"The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed.
It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies."
Here Spong argues that God has improved with age. More precisely, that the Bible's understanding of God improved with age. He writes, "The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily," and then cites examples from the prophets to show how, as time went on, they gradually came to a better understanding of God: that he is love, and "a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries" I'm not sure what he means by a "universal experience," but the point is clear enough.
So, the Bible's understanding of the essential character of God evolved over time (and for the better). In response, maybe it is best to quote Spong himself, "only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim." Again, it sounds so plausible, especially when Spong cites the words of specific prophets. But a careful study of Scripture shows that the fullness of God's character – his wrath and mercy, his judgment and grace, his holiness and love – was understood by Old and New Testament writers alike. What Spong calls "static" is in fact the unchanging character of God. This is no misconception, but a fundamental truth of the God revealed to us in the Bible.
Spong ends by saying:
"The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves.
That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world."
I'm sure Spong is sincere when he says he treasures the Bible. The problem is, I don't recognize the Bible he's talking about! Here is the heart of the matter: Spong has convinced himself, and he is trying to convince others, that the Bible is really something it is not. It is not about "becoming deeply and fully human". It is gospel, good news – how God gave his Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for sinners, in order to deliver a people from condemnation and to bring them eternal life. That is its "essential message". If Spong wants to reject this message, he does so freely and at his own peril. But let's be honest and admit this is the Bible's central message.
I haven't read anything else by Spong, but he seems bent on discouraging people to believe in the Scriptures. But in fact, he does prove the truth of at least one passage, 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Well said. It is difficult to debate on religion because religion is based on one's faith.
1 – read the books as thy exist for yourself
2 – study theology if you are not afraid. Your life will be harder. It's eas to be told believe In this, harder to think for yourself.
I have read the bible many, many, many times and done much work to understand it. In many, many scriptures, the small claims are proven false by simple advances in common knowledge. There is, therefore, no reason to believe what it says that cannot be tested and observed. It's just a fancily constructed Harry Potter series.
Thank you for responding as I was unable to articulate your post as I wanted to.
I agree with the post.
If there is God then it would seem to me that Jesus described it best when he said, neither look here or look there for behold the kingdom of God is within you.
Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
There are about 7,770,000 species on the earth. If there are 90% insects, and we consider them to be all very small, (which we know they are not), we could say that each pair, in order to fit on the "ARK" would need 4 square inches for two of them, plus their food for more than 40 days (Actually I think it was about a year, but we will go with about 40 days just to give the bible thumpers a chance, it supposably rained for 40 days). Since 12 inches squared = 144 cubic inches, 144 cubic inches / 4 cubic inches = 36 per square foot. We know that, the insect population is about 80 – 90% of the entire 7,770,000 species, so making a conservative estimate, we will say it is 90%. 7,770,000 * 90% = 6,993,000 insects. 6,993,000 insects / 36 insect per square foot = 174,250 square foot needed to house all of these insects, and their food. Now the animals. 7,770,000 – 6,993,000 = 777,000 animals. We will again be conservative, and say that each animal requires only 3 cubic feet living space and three cubic foot for 40 days supply of food. 9 cubic feet total for each pair of species. They say the average size is actually that of a sheep, which would be more like 9 cubic feet for the two sheep alone. So, 777,000 animals x 9 cubic feet = 6993000 cubic feet required to house them. Now we will take the total needed for the insects and the total for the animals and add them together. 6,993,000 square foot + 174,250 square foot = 7,167,250 square feet needed on the whole "ark". (We will not even count the space needed for the humans, breathing space for all of the animals, and space needed for the structure of the "ark" itself.) Now the dimensions of the "ark" are well known. The length of the ark – 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits". This is equivalent to a length of 450 feet, a breadth of 75 feet and a height of 44 feet (assuming an 18" cubit); or 500 Feet, 83 feet and 49 feet (if it was the Egpytian 20" cubit). (We will use the larger size, just to give the bible thumpers a better chance) 500 x 83 x 49 gives 2,033,500 cubic feet. But wait, we needed 7,167,250 cubic feet! That is 3.5 times more space needed than the "ark" provided! And, we did not calculate for breathing space, space for humans, or internal structure of the ark itself! So, bible thumpers, please tell me, what did "god" do, shrink the animals?
YES
Oh you are soooo close Mr. Irwin. But, 'perspectively' think even more 'minutely' AND become 001 with the concept. The answer is 'within you'. p.s. life is not all about numbers......
Don't forget that for this flood to cover every piece of land in 40 days, it would have to reach the tallest peak in the world in that time. This peak is currently about 8848 meters above sea level. It would have to rain everywhere on earth at a rate of 221 meters per day, or some 6 inches per minute.
It would take some 4 quintillion (4E+18 or 4,000,000,000,000,000,000) cubic meters of water, or roughly one sextillion (1E+21 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) US gallons.
Where did all this water come from, and where did it go?
There are so many flawed and tired arguments about religion flying around in these comments. If people would only pause and think critically about what they believe and do a tiny bit of reading, we might get somewhere.
Please add the following books to your 2012 reading list:
"Letter to a Christian Nation" and "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God"
Read those books and your thoughts are likely to be more clear and your words more coherent, no matter if you argue for or against the existence of God.
Peace
Shawn Irwin must also know that the definition of species and breeds are not altogether defined in biology hence a definite number is not given. I do not argue with him on logic but the facts are that science never sees itself as the truth but a means to knowledge of the truth. Do u know truth?
Peachy exemplifies what we are talking about! Why should I study only these books to get to know there is no God? I have not seen him walking down the street, have I? I have to study a hypothesis which is not proven not one that is. It isn't strange to say God is not but very strange to say He is!
Atheists believe Christians don't study. What has a funny quote from Albert Einstein got to do with God being or not. Did he study Physics or Theology? Did he sit down to write an atheist creed or Bible at least? Was he a practising and spiritual Jew? Why should I follow him rather than Yahshua?
Wikiquested Rylands papyrus P52... I think everyone should read up before jumping up and down.
16halo is trying to use crass anti-intellectualism to dispute well-thought out theology. There are several schools of thought but if you have not read and then practised biblical teaching u will only know but never understand. Just as any science do it to check it out. Knowing it is not enough.