what do you think about this quote by a christian textual critic...."?

Question

"First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in caring for God’s people. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of."

why would god create a bible with problems that even an eminent textual critic admits that there are things about it that a layperson would be absolutely confounded on? Not every christian throughout all ages had the resources of contemporary apologetics, so how were they to know that all was well concerning the bible?

Answer 1

Simple answer: no god created the Bible.

The Bible is an important religious and historical document. By studying it, we can learn a lot about the beliefs and customs of people who lived a long time ago. It's very important in that sense.

However, some people take it too seriously, and that's why they get alarmed when they find out that some parts of it are not easily addressed by the fundamentalist paradigm.

Answer 2

My response is: who said it? in what context? what else does this person teach? is it in line with Scripture?

At first glance, it sounds an awful lot like a higher critic to me. Higher critics are not serving God or others, but themselves. Not all who claim to be God's messengers are God's messengers.

However, this may not be the case if there is a reasonable & Scriptural context surrounding it. Being fallen, all humans are likely to be fooled into thinking something that is false at some point or another. Even Paul admits that there are naive believers. So what? In this case, what this person is saying is right. We shouldn't overwhelm new believers with all the paradoxes & mysteries of God's wisdom at once, just like you don't expect a baby to learn trigonometry.

The bottom line is that, you just don't give us enough information.

Paul says, "I urge you brothers (lay people), to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (i.e. the simple Law & Gospel which are simple to understand with the help of the Holy Spirit). Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk & flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Romans 16:17-18.

Instead of listening to what one fallible human says about the Scripture, why not go to the Source: John 10:35; Mark 8:38; John 14:26; Acts 24:14; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21. Much of the time it is straight forward. However, without the Holy Spirit, a person can't understand it.

Answer 3

Keep in mind that at the time the Bible was written (or the various times in which the various pieces were written), it would have made perfect sense to the readers of that day (well, so far as textual criticism is concerned, anyway). Here we stand centuries later with a huge cultural divide from first century Jews/newly converted Christians living in the Roman Empire - and the divide only gets wider with the Old Testament.

In order to understand the various portions of the Bible in the terms that they were written, we have to use tools such as textual criticism because, well, we're not first century Jews.

Often times scholars can get so wrapped up in their studies that they neglect the people of God. It's easy to fall into wanting to find the historical implementation of peace offerings so much that one forgets all the many times God called on the leaders in the Bible to "comfort, comfort my people." This may be what this scholar is referring to. That one of the aims of understanding scripture better is to minister to people, not to burden them with Greek verb splicing.

Answer 4

And who was the source of this "quote"? The first basic flaw of this premise is that "lay readers" are people of "little understanding". Whoever this "Christian textual critic" is, he'd better retake Biblical Hermeneutics 101 and 102 before making such broad and baseless generalizations. And God did not "create" a bible with "problems that even an eminent textual critic...". That is YOUR baseless and gross generalization.

Answer 5

"God-given interpretation" (Watch Tower 1917 December 15) The Finished Mystery published in 1917 “In the light of Divine Prophecy, now being daily fulfilled and made clear to "the watchers," the following lines from the pen of Pastor Russell is further proof that he was sent of God to this generation”. Page 5 "The Finished Mystery" "In 1879 Charles Taze Russell began the publication of THE WATCH TOWER, of which he was the sole editor as long as he remained on earth. THE WATCH TOWER was, and is, the first and only journal declaring the presence of the Lord Jesus. Pastor Russell being the messenger to the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household or Faith meat in due season, it was to be expected that he would bring forth from the Lord's great "Storehouse" the needed spiritual food for the Church, in harmony with God's will". Page 7 "The Finished Mystery" The "voice from heaven" of Revelation 18:4 is the voice of The Watchtower Society. (p.378) Bar-nice word magic.

Answer 6

It seems that what you are saying is that you are not going to believe in a religion unless everything in it is easy to understand, and/or is scientifically explainable.

Quantum mechanics is full of hard to understand and seemingly contradictory concepts, but I don't hear anyone complaining that physics must be false because it is confusing and difficult to grasp. I never heard anyone complain that Zeno's paradoxes somehow disprove Newtonian laws of motion, or that Schrödinger's cat proves that Albert Einstein must not exist. Quite contraire, part of the appeal of physics to some is its very complexity, and apparent paradoxes. The complexity and apparent contradictions gives people a mental puzzle to ponder over, muse over, philosophize over, and to perhaps to solve.

Did it ever occur to you that part of the appeal of a religion is the fact that it is NOT easy to understand? Part of the appeal of God to some is the complexity, the miraculous and the unexplainable. If God was completely understandable, and explainable, then I think that most religious folk would suddenly find religion to be boring -- even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

It is folly to assume that an infinite God is ever going to be completely understandable by a finite human mind like ours. If God is real, then he is obviously something beyond human experience; if he were too easy to understand, then I would begin to expect that he was made up.

It appears that no religion is ever going to satisfy you, I'm afraid, since almost all of them believe in the supernatural and the mystical; they will all seem to be equally weird and irrational to you.

===edit===

I think that what the textual critic was trying to say with his comment, is that scholars should not engage in irresponsible speculation without evidence, as many liberal Bible critics seem to do (such as, assuming that the books of Moses were really written by a reformed minded Judean King centuries after Moses died, etc.).

Answer 7

because then, there's things you could keep learning all the time. i don't think you need to know the bible word for word and understand it all in one go - it would start to get boring and would lose the meaning it has (cue people telling me its boring and meaningless already...aha) but the way it is, you can keep taking stuff for it,

thats just a theory obviously, i mean it might be easier if it was simpler to understand. but for those critics you talked about, they must have got their knowledge from somewhere - probably the people before them. those bible buffs have probably always been about.

Answer 8

faith, bible says ; foolish things to confound the wise,
it's a book of "faith" you get a whole other understanding reading it with your heart and Spirit, but to someone with out the Holy Spirit it's just dead letter.

Answer 9

My "lame" answer is saying 'ditto and amen' to Richard G's answer. Well stated.

Answer 10

I think what he's really saying is "Don't reveal any errors until you can explain them."