Interpret literally? I find it hard.

Eddy Tiner

There are a number of sets of passages in the Bible where I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the different language used, except to say that one is in error.

Matthew 27:44 "The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words."

But in Luke 23:39-41 "One of the criminals who was hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, 'Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!' But the other answered, and rebuking him said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.' "

I don't see how both statements can be true. Either both of the robbers insulted Christ on the cross, or only one did.

Personally, the explanation seems clear: it's that (like the rest of the Bible) these are man-written accounts of God's message. The MESSAGE (Jesus died on Calvary, and at the time was generally despised by the human race he came to save) is true, but the words used are man's, subject to all the fallibility and imprecision to which we are prone.

revmattchoo.com · House Cat Joined: 02 Sep 2003 Posts: 165

couldn't matthew have been writing about an earlier time at the cross than luke? here's the explanation:

at first, both criminals hurl insults at Jesus. then one of them comes to his senses and realizes who Christ is and then changes his attitude.

metothezero · Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:52 pm Post subject:

hmmm....

Eddy Tiner

Yes, the idea that these two gospel writers recorded an incomplete version of the conversation appears plausible in this case. (To be sure, it seems a bit odd that neither of them recorded BOTH portions, but it's not a major stumbling block to understanding these passages, I'll admit.)

However, consider who went to Jesus' tomb the Sunday morning after he was crucified.

Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and Mary.
Mark says it was Mary Magdalene, and Mary, and Salome.
Luke says it was Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Joanna.

Three gospels; three different versions. The notion that each writer simply provided an incomplete and different (but accurate) list of the women who approached the tomb that morning seems unlikely to me.

metothezero · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:24 am Post subject:

metothezero · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:53 am Post subject:

We are told that there are billions upon billions of stars in the sky. Stars that are not merely specks of light in our viewing point, but rather huge balls of fire, some the size of the sun. It is sometimes difficult for me to fathom this, fathom the size of the universe...it seems unlikely to me that this is true. Does this make it false then?

mijt1 · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:04 am Post subject:

Eddie
What exactly is your position on the bible? do you believe it's inspired of god? or has any value to us today?

If you're interested I can tell you what convinces me it's the word of God?

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:13 am Post subject:

Certainly, the measure of how likely something seems to any of us is not what makes it true or not. However, proving or disproving any of this isn't the point, anyway. Ultimately, the question is "What are we to believe?" Don't focus on the semantics of my statements, but on the substance of my line of reasoning.

Continuing with the idea...

That morning, Mark 16 says the women entered the tomb, and saw a young man sitting on the right. Matthew 28 says they saw an angel outside the tomb. Luke 24 says two men appeared behind them, after entering the tomb. John 20 says that Mary (alone) saw two angels in the tomb, but only after Peter and others had come to the tomb and departed.

So what are we to believe? Was it men or angels? Were they inside the tomb, or outside? Were there two of them, or only one? If we attempt to accept these accounts literally, there is no way to reconcile them.

What do I believe? That's a fair question. I believe the Bible is indeed the word of God. Over the course of millennia, he has revealed himself to us, his special creation. Those revelations we have written in scripture -- the word of God, as recorded by man. Relevant to us today? Absolutely! As relevant as it ever has been, but only if we refuse to shackle the power of the MESSAGE by insisting on a literal interpretation of the MEDIUM.

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:09 pm Post subject:

mijt1,

I am most definitely and sincerely interested in hearing what convinces you the Bible is the word of God.

Eddy

Matthias · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:25 am Post subject:

Eddy,

First of all, may I humbily suggest that you investigate crime scene investigation, especially how to deal with multiple witnesses.

I point this out because when police interrogate witnesses, they expect slightly different answers, and never expect a complete picture from any one witness. In fact, if all witnesses had all of the facts, the police would be certain there was cover-up going on!

Remember this when you collaborate the Gospels.

That having been said...

Da Blonde Bombshell · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:00 am Post subject:

Eddy, try comparing John with the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). John shows the cating out of the money changers as occurring early in Christ's ministry; the others show it as during the final week that ended in the crucifixion.

The authors of the gospels were not the original disciples, but came from oral and written traditions from early Christian scribes. Matthew the tax collector, for instance, was long dead by the time manuscripts of the gospel appeared. Traditionally it was said to have been based upon his account, but no one knows. It's kind of like the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Noah Webster is traditionally cited as author of the first American Dictionary, but that is looked upon with askance by disciples of the British Samuel Johnson. As for Merriam, I assume he's long since dead, too, probably he bought the right to used Webster's name from his estate. Doubtful either of them wrote definitions for "radio", "computer", "jazz", etc., or included one for "crib" meaning apartment or house.

Details in the story of Christ that conflict among the gospels are not important so much as the meaning of his life and his ministry was.

Fundamentalists will tell you different but IMO they are fooling themselves.

Da Blonde Bombshell · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:07 am Post subject:

Eddy, I would also strongly recommend the book Liberating the gospels by bishop John Shelby Spong. Spong is very liberal and fundamentalists believe he is more post-Christian than Christian...he does not believe in Christ's ascension into Heaven because, he says, it is based on the false cosmology of the three-tiered universe (Heaven above, hell below, earth in the middle). Suffice it to say he says many other things conservative Christians don't like, but he is an excellent writer and scholar of the Bible. This book addresses the way Jewish traditions are interwoven into the gospel stories.

Matthias · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:10 am Post subject:

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:28 am Post subject:

The crime scene analogy is very appropriate, and illustrates the point quite well. Let me expand the idea a bit. Suppose we were jurors, and two witnesses to a bank robbery made the statements "They left in a getaway car doing 30mph down 3rd Street," and "They drove away doing 50mph on Oak Street." It's quite likely that with a bit more information, we could correctly conclude that both accounts were accurate, and that the car initially drove on 3rd, and then turned onto and accelerated down Oak. The two accounts are easily reconciled with each other, and corroborated by other information (checking a map, for example). And I fully acknowledged in an earlier post that there are parallel Bible passages where this appears to be exactly what is going on.

However, what if two different witnesses said something like this? "The five robbers inside the bank left, jumped into a blue Buick parked on the street, and drove away," and "There were three robbers inside the bank. When they were finished, they ran out, and their waiting getaway driver pulled up to the door in a red Ford Explorer. They jumped in and sped off." Here, there seem to be two possibilities. It's possible that this crime was a very complex operation, and each of these witnesses saw something very different, but both accounts are accurate; or one of the witnesses is wrong.

The resurrection story more closely resembles the second analogy. So what are we to believe? If we wish to maintain that each of the four versions is literally accurate and without error, then it should be a simple matter of developing a narrative that includes all the details of each. But doing that requires severely stretching the very story's credibility. Try it! I've tried, and I failed.

And so we are left to do exactly what a jury would do in your example. We examine the body of evidence, we consider the accounts of different witnesses, and we answer the question "What are we to believe?"

Eddy Tiner · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:46 am Post subject:

[quote]That having been said...
[quote]As relevant as it ever has been, but only if we refuse to shackle the power of the MESSAGE by insisting on a literal interpretation of the MEDIUM. [/quote]
You are saying this about something VERY specific, something that you have not as of yet mentioned. On which issue do you have so strong an opinion?[/quote]

Matthias,

Actually, I say this and believe it generally. I was answering mijt1's question about my position on the Bible. God's message is in there. But it's just not as simple as reading the words and concluding that somehow God is restricted to communicating to us through human language.

We lament the fact that Christianity is not taken seriously by "the world". I'm saddened when I realize that it's partly (largely?) our own fault. Fundamentalism and literalism causes many non-believers to conclude that if we're wrong about our own scripture, then we're probably wrong about the plan for salvation, as well.

That scares me.

Eddy