|
‘God’s Word’ writer ill-informed
 I’m disturbed by Alan Reynolds’
ill-informed attack on scripture (‘The Bible is God’s Word
– told through human words,’ November).
Reynolds caricatures the conservative position on the
nature of inspiration, the genre of Genesis and ‘literal’
hermeneutics.
After he imports into Genesis 1 several items not found
there (saucer-shaped earth, hills, towers, pillars, saltwater), he of
course has no trouble dismissing this ‘straw man’ version of
the text as contrary to what he calls science.
The Hebrew word raqi’ah does not necessarily imply a ‘solid sky.’ This
term can be translated as ‘expanse,’ referring to something
‘spread out.’ The Latin firmamentum
(implying a solid object) was an unfortunately
inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew.
Reynolds says he believes “any attempt to
understand the Bible literally . . . raises more problems than it
solves.” Really? Does he reject a literal resurrection of Jesus?
Resurrection of a genuinely dead man must surely be considered an
‘unscientific’ concept.
When he portrays the Bible as not actually the words of God but
merely “the words of men” which (somehow) bear witness to what
God has done, Reynolds’ article sinks into the quicksand of
neo-orthodoxy.
Karl Barth, founder of neo-orthodox thought, similarly
stated the writers of scripture “have still spoken the Word of God in
their fallible and erring human words.”
Such a position is completely contrary to the
Bible’s teaching concerning itself.
Richard Peachey, Abbotsford
Alan Reynolds ridicules the message of Genesis, by
equating it with ancient Hebrew beliefs not
found in Genesis.
He ridicules a literal interpretation of the Bible by
equating it with the belief that all the Bible was dictated by God. Some
parts were dictated, some not – but all parts are literal unless the
context shows otherwise.
The real problem with “any attempt to understand
the Bible literally” is that it confronts our idolatrous faith in
science – which promotes atheistic and/or naturalistic accounts of
origins.
The Bible is the Word of God in its own right, and not
only insofar as “it bears witness to God’s Word in Jesus
Christ.” God spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament –
and by his Son in the New.
Kenneth Affleck, New
Westminster
Alan Reynolds’ points about Biblical literalism
can’t be made often enough. There may be plenty of Christian
literalists; but atheists like literalism even more, and this crude shared
method of interpretation lands us Christians in battles we shouldn’t
be fighting in the first place – and which, frankly, we can’t
possibly win.
The solution is not, of course, to reject the Bible but
to understand it better – and Reynolds deserves our thanks for his
illuminating suggestions about how to understand the meaning of the Word of
God.
Brendan Ritchie, Boston, MA
Editor’s note: The
conclusion of Alan Rey-nolds’ article – delayed for space
reasons – will appear in January’s BCCN.
We are all potentially inhumane
Re ‘Community rallies for peace in India,’
November: The fact is, we all have the potential, to some extent, to behave
as inhumanely as any evildoer on this planet.
Furthermore, it basically takes the cooperation of 100
percent of the populace to maintain peace, yet only one suicide bomber can
bring blood-drenched instability to an entire planet. Remember Gavrilo
Princip, who initiated the domino affect that brought about WW I, by
assassinating an Austrian duke.
I personally cannot imagine myself being part of a
raging lynch mob. But I believe that, deep down inside, I am not (and
nobody is) totally immune to various circumstances which have brought many
people down through history to commit atrocious acts.
Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White
Rock
Continue article >>
|
Bible speaks of mistreating earth
Earl Banks (‘Global warming is a huge
hoax,’ November) has a point when he asserts that global warming has
become idolatry.
In fact, the entire environmental issue is an obsession
that takes people’s eyes off God.
However, I disagree when he says that “nowhere in
the Bible is [it] even hinted” that “a sovereign God is going
to let humans wreck the planet.”
Scripture is riddled with references to the
relationship between man’s behaviour and the state of the land, with
the inference being that disobedience in man is connected to destruction of
Creation.
God handed dominion over the earth to us in Genesis 1:
26, which means he willingly surrendered his sovereignty over the planet.
That’s one of the reasons why Jesus Christ had to come to earth
as a man, rather than as God.
Further, in Genesis 1:28, we are given the first great
assignment: be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue
it. We are supposed to be the guardians of the earth, with license to
use it and manage it – but not beyond our ability to replenish
it.
Alas, we haven’t done a very good job of that,
but praise God that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross allows us to repent
of that and re-commit to that assignment.
In 2 Chronicles 7:14, God nails the point home:
“If my people, which are called by my name, will
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked
ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will
heal their land.”
By negative inference, if we don’t repent and get
back in line with him, then our land will stay in the sorry state
it’s in.
Drew Snider, Vancouver
I agree with Earl Banks, that Christians all too
quickly jump on bandwagons like the global warming ‘hysteria.’
However, I don’t share his view that, because the
Bible says nothing about this contemporary issue, we should avoid it. The
Bible says nothing about smoking or taking drugs either; but Christians
don’t endorse such indulgences, because they are harmful.
Secondly, while we believe God is in control of the
global climate, we’ve learned there are consequences in our local
environments when we log mountain slopes, build extensive urban landscapes
and emit large amounts of gasses. Winds, precipitation patterns and
temperatures in cities are different from rural places. While we still
don’t know how much of an effect these things have on a global scale,
the fact that they do have an effect at all should be a concern to us all.
Thirdly, when it comes to idolatry, I think the
majority of our culture still follows the consumerist mentality –
especially evident as Christmas approaches. There may be a few shrill
voices heard from the radical environmentalist camp, but they’ll be
largely ignored in the coming weeks.
Roland Derksen, Vancouver
Earl Banks asks a very simple question, “Do you
really think a sovereign God is going to let humans wreck this
planet?”
We are much more important to God than, say, a flower.
So I shall assume, in general, that this soulless planet is also not as
valuable as a single human life.
We are given the freedom to wreck souls –
so why not a soulless planet?
Some of us are not jumping on the climate bandwagon, as
we have known for some time just how greedy and destructive we can be.
Richard Tran, Vancouver
December 2008
|
