Saturday, August 4, 2007

This just in....We've been reading the Bible wrong!

(Harvard Genius Decodes the Bible)...according to his publisher.

In How to Read the Bible, Harvard professor James Kugel leads the reader chapter by chapter through the "quiet revolution" of recent biblical scholarship, showing time and again how radically the interpretations of today's researchers differ from what people have always thought. The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Such findings pose a serious problem for adherents of traditional, Bible-based faiths. Hiding from the discoveries of modern scholars seems dishonest, but accepting them means undermining much of the Bible's reliability and authority as the word of God. What to do? In his search for a solution, Kugel leads the reader back to a group of ancient biblical interpreters who flourished at the end of the biblical period. Far from naïve, these interpreters consciously set out to depart from the original meaning of the Bible's various stories, laws, and prophecies -- and they, Kugel argues, hold the key to solving the dilemma of reading the Bible today.

How to Read the Bible is, quite simply, the best, most original book about the Bible in decades. It offers an unflinching, insider's look at the work of today's scholars, together with a sustained consideration of what the Bible was for most of its history -- before the rise of modern scholarship. Readable, clear, often funny but deeply serious in its purpose, this is a book for Christians and Jews, believers and secularists alike. It offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

Apparently the poor soul who wrote this blurb has never heard of the Graf-Wellhausen theory or the Jesus Seminar. The book will appeal to liberals and posers who think it is better to just throw in the proverbial towel on inerrancy. It's "dishonest" not to cave into this so-called scholarship?

The guy who wrote this must be one of Kugel's underlings, or perhaps he is the shoeshine boy who grovels at Kugel's feet. Why he talks like they recently dug up a witness from Shechem to interview about the whole Genesis 34 incident. Dinah never raped? Really? Being scholars they must have video tape or something solid, don't you think so? Well, I'd better chuck my theology! This changes everything!

It changes nothing. This is older than Moses. This goes back to Eden. Hunter-gatherers indeed!

Friday, August 3, 2007

The Work of God

I hope and pray that my struggles with faith will be mostly private. Undoubtedly, some reader will ask why I pray for that. Isn't faithlessness in vogue these days?

After all, apostates like Bart Ehrman, John Spong, and Marcus Borg make a name for themselves with works of faithlessness. All of those men are well known for their opinions on the reliability of the Bible. Their opinion is that the Bible is not reliable as a historical document or a revelation of God. They present a picture of Christianity where people are encouraged to believe in the Bible as a metaphor, nothing more, nothing less. They present a very lack-luster, watered-down, weak picture of Christ. They deny the deity of Jesus and promote a vision of Christianity that winks at sin and preaches universal salvation. It's a picture that is devoid of judgment and is extremely popular these days.

I understand that as many as 70% of Americans claim to be Christian, but one only has to look around at our culture to see that few believe in judgment. Blogspot is an excellent example of the works of a nation that thumbs its collective nose at judgement. Just flip through the blogs here and most of what you'll see is futility, vanity, or abominations. I spent some time doing that last night, and 90% of what I saw was garbage. I didn't keep statistics, but every tenth blog was a very elaborate boilerplate advertisement for pornography. Those blogs are a clear and blatant violation of the Blogger Content Policy, but I am still searching for the correct way to report them to Google. But even if I found the magic hyperlink for reporting this blog scum, I know from past experience that corporate America is not interested in righteousness. Nor do they fear judgment.

So what is the work of God? Jesus put it in a nutshell, which you can find in the 6th chapter of John's gospel. He said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." That is it friend. The work of God is saving people from eternal torment. God is doing that through His Son, Jesus Christ. He brings men to faith in Him through the hearing of His Word. So the work of God is to spread the Gospel.

That simple truth is a tremendous principal that I have struggled with.

To be continued in part 2.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Crazy Feminism

I lean on Dr. Albert Mohler to keep me informed of cultural phenomena of interest to Christians. His web log is invaluable to me. I recommend it highly to all.

Dr. Mohler's July 23rd blog entry deals with some nutty commentary by Nona Willis-Aronowitz. She rejoices over the her observation that casual sex is "certifiably pop culture". Willis-Aronowitz suggest that one of the goals of feminism is to empower women by enabling them to feel good about themselves via taking the guilt out of "nonmarital sex". It's almost laughable, if not for the fact that it is tragically sad, how feminism has sown the rotten seeds of fatherlessness and marital dysfunction that seem to plague our nation today. Is feminism entirely to blame for the harvest of bastardization and sexual immorality in America? Perhaps not entirely, but it certainly led the way.

On May 31st, Mohler wrote about a UK study done on teenage boys from fatherless households. It turns out that boys without fathers generally grow to be men who have a low regard for women. They become users and fixers in there relationships with women, and develop a penchant for petty crime. It seems that single mothers stand a greater chance of raising males to be abusers and deadbeat dads, than they do in raising men who will love women and care for children. According to another article by Mohler, medical researchers are helping to further this Orwellian madness by developing sperm from bone marrow. What, we don't have enough already?

Another notable blog post from Dr. Mohler deals with insane logic used by loony liberals at the United Nations. The killing of baby girls is apparently a serious problem in some parts of the world. Some leaders are concerned that perhaps as many as 100-million baby girls have been killed through practices like sex-selective abortion. The United States introduced a resolution calling for condemnation of the practice of female infanticide, but liberals in the European Union blocked the measure. Our EU friends say that it would be wrong of us to tell women not to kill their baby girls, because we'd be intruding on the reproductive rights of those women. How ridiculous its that? It goes against the feminist ideology to protect the lives of girls if it means taking a stand against abortion!

The movement that is supposed to advance the cause of women is the worst thing for them.  Feminists want to turn women into soulless sluts who raise up men that abuse women. They think it is better to decimate the female population of the world than preserve the lives of girls. It's not a liberation movement after all.  Feminism is an experiment in eugenics, Nazi style.

Ye blind guides!