Is the bible "true"?
Is the bible "true"? It starts to occur to me that this is a very dumb question in the context of our culture, where truth is so variable in its definition. But it might also be a dumb question theologically - premised primarily as it is on the mistaken notion of a one-to-one relationship between the Scriptures and the word of God.
The only possible one-to-one that we can make with the word of God is Jesus - even if we take the bible as "infallible" - hence John 1:1.
So I reckon that the word of God is a person, not a thing. And that correlation in itself seems to me to be much more readily identifiable as God's way of establishing, maintaining and developing relationship with his creation - his intention to converse, connect and create.
A better question than "is the bible true" might be - does the Bible accurately reflect the sort of relationship that God might want with us?
And this leads to a core premise - that if the answer to this last question is "yes", then one part of the bible emerges as giving more insight than all others - the story of Jesus. All the rest operates as worthy amplification and explanation, but it is the gospels (and, in some ways, the book of Acts) that provide the core, the "fulfilment".
Again, quoting Scripture - quoting Jesus - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them." Matthew 5:17 - NIV. Obviously I am not arguing that the remainder be abandoned - rather that they represent a second-hand view, where Jesus represents clarity. Have a look at John 1:14-18.
One problem with where Christendom has gone, among others, is that it has elevated much of the bible to the same level of importance in terms of revelation, and diminished the centrality of the revealed word of God - Jesus.
OK - that last statement's certainly worth arguing about. And even in writing this, I realise that there are obvious objections to some of the statements. But I reckon I'm close. More later.
The only possible one-to-one that we can make with the word of God is Jesus - even if we take the bible as "infallible" - hence John 1:1.
So I reckon that the word of God is a person, not a thing. And that correlation in itself seems to me to be much more readily identifiable as God's way of establishing, maintaining and developing relationship with his creation - his intention to converse, connect and create.
A better question than "is the bible true" might be - does the Bible accurately reflect the sort of relationship that God might want with us?
And this leads to a core premise - that if the answer to this last question is "yes", then one part of the bible emerges as giving more insight than all others - the story of Jesus. All the rest operates as worthy amplification and explanation, but it is the gospels (and, in some ways, the book of Acts) that provide the core, the "fulfilment".
Again, quoting Scripture - quoting Jesus - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them." Matthew 5:17 - NIV. Obviously I am not arguing that the remainder be abandoned - rather that they represent a second-hand view, where Jesus represents clarity. Have a look at John 1:14-18.
One problem with where Christendom has gone, among others, is that it has elevated much of the bible to the same level of importance in terms of revelation, and diminished the centrality of the revealed word of God - Jesus.
OK - that last statement's certainly worth arguing about. And even in writing this, I realise that there are obvious objections to some of the statements. But I reckon I'm close. More later.
Comments