In
1992, the pope of the Catholic church made an awesome statement.
He apologized for the treatment of Galileo some 350 years prior.
(Even though it took 350 years for the church to acknowledge a mistake,
you'll see that they are still ahead of many churches today)! What
had Galileo done? He simply stated that the earth revolved around
the sun. Why was that such a big issue? The bible says that
God created man, and that man was created in the image of God. If
mankind's planet wasn't the center of the universe, then, (the thinking
went), people would stop believing that God created man, and thus, stop
attending church. Now, while such thinking might be silly to most
educated people now, it was not silly at the time. Another notable
decree from the pope during the 1992 apology: Evolution is "more than just
a theory."
A theory is a model
which seems to address known facts and observations. There are four
central theories to science: The theory of the atom, Plate tectonic
theory, The Big Bang, and
Evolution.
It is interesting
to note that Christians who accept a fundamental interpretation of the
bible accept plate tectonic theory as the reason for earthquakes, and they
accept the theory of the atom as the reason for chemical bonding and nuclear
power. This is despite the fact that nobody can directly observe
a "tectonic plate," nor can anyone observe atoms. Yet acceptance
of scientific theories puts one in contradiction with the bible, since
each of the theories (above) support each other, and two of the theories
contradict the bible. This essay is not to support any theory.
A web search will find plenty of scientific research which does a far better
job than I could. Rather, the purpose of this essay is to discuss
what "truth" is in the bible.
First one
needs to realize that the bible has language problems. Despite people
referring to "the word of God", that "word" was first a collection of laws
from Moses in Hebrew. It was delivered unto generations by mouth,
which always results in changes. (Ever play the party game "Gossip")?
Next it was recorded as mankind evolved written language, roughly 3,000
years ago. Next it was translated, judged, and edited by a prophet
named Huldah. Several more prophets continued editing and adding.
Two books, Ezra and part of Daniel, were originally Aramaic. The
New Testament was in Greek. By the fourth century, the bible was
put into several translations of Latin. Jerome's Vulgate edition
was the dominant one until the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther
had it translated for German Christians. English had several editions
including the King James version, which was based on several inaccurate
Greek & Hebrew texts. With so many translations to compare and
so many languages to overcome and more scrolls discovered every few years,
more translations continue to be made. If you find this difficult
to understand, try asking a jew what the word "shalom" means, or a Hawaiian
what "aloha" means; these are but two examples.
Next, one
needs to be aware of the role of history. If history is simply a
written record of events, then why don't all history books agree?
Russian and American books disagree on the events in World War II, for
example. Rather, history is always subject to political, social,
and regional background of the author; there is no absolutely "pure", "objective"
history. It is always an interpretation of the events, shaped by
such factors as personality and cultural background. History can
be a biography; from decisions of leaders. History can be based on
cultural and political movements. History can be a result of changing
technology. One needs to be aware of the terms in which the bible
was written. Authors of the bible rarely paid attention to the order
of events! It was understood that God had a purpose for each event
that happened; order was irrelevant. "For God there is no difference
between a day and a thousand years" (Psalm 90:4) An interesting contradiction
is borne out in Genesis 1 vs. Gen. 2:3. In the first creation account,
light is created and shines on the earth. Plants are created in vs.
12. But the sun, the source of energy, isn't created until vs. 16!
It gets even more interesting when in 2:3 creation is complete, yet it
begins again all over again in 2:4. Adam is created in 1:26, then
a second time in 2:7! The point is that if one is looking for factual
truth as defined by chronological historical order, it won't be found often
in the bible. Here's a good example: Can you use a dictionary
for a chemistry text? Of course-- dictionaries have most all of the
words in the chemistry book. So why use the chemistry book?
Because the dictionary wasn't meant to be a chemistry book.
Similarly, the bible wasn't meant to be a historical scientific
account of creation.
Truth is not
a simple concept. It can mean faithful, or loyal. It can mean
reliable, or correct (this is the one adopted by anyone who has ever served
on jury duty)! True can meane genuine, or conforming to an original.
So are you asking, "Is the bible faithful to God", or are you asking, "Is
the bible free of factual errors?" Honestly, the bible contains fiction.
Try reading II Samuel 12. When Nathan the prophet hears how King David
sent Uriah to the forefront of battle so he could be killed and David could
take Bathsheba for a wife, he tells David a story about sheep and goats!
When a poor man called upon him, in accordance with custom, he killed a
sheep to serve to his guest. But the sheep was the only possession
of a poor man-- a family pet, not one of his own, many sheep. Nathan
asks David what he thinks of the story. David is furious and wants
to know who the man is. Nathan replies, "You are the man," and David
realizes that the story was not about two of his subjects, but rather the
King, Uriah, and Bathsheba. Although Nathan's story was not literally
true, but rather contained truth-- something much more important
than facts.
Let's look
at Jonah and the whale. I don't believe that Jonah was in the belly
for 40 days and 40 nights; but that's not the point. Instead,
let's remember that the bible was originally oral tradition. A good
memory technique is to have some sort of "hook" to help people remember
it; hence the whale. Remember that Jonah is called as a prophet to
Ninevah, the capital of Assyria. Jonah, not surprised that God wills
to destroy this sinful city, did not want to go and warn the people to
repent! So Jonah heads off to another city, which is where the whale
comes in and redirects him to Ninevah. Due to the turnabout, he did
deliver the warning. The people repent; Jonah is furious that he
doesn't get to witness God trashing the place, and goes off to sulk.
God makes a plant grow next to Jonah to give him shade. Jonah is
delighted. The next day, God destroys the plant.
"Do you miss the plant, Jonah?" asks God.
"You know I do, Lord" replies Jonah.
"Are you sorry it died?"
"Of course I am."
"Jonah, that was only a plant, here one day. You
miss it, and wish it had not died. How do you suppose I would feel
if I had to destroy a whole city of my people?"
Suddenly the
purpose of the whale becomes evident: to remind us all, clearly, of
God's grace. The truth of the story is not about it's scientific, historical
reliability, but rather is about loyalty to God's purpose for us.
Suddenly a
whole new world opens up as we read the bible. With discrepancies
over words and translations, use of metaphor and fiction, suddenly or search
for "truth" becomes at once more mystifying and exciting. The question
is, are you willing to accept an idea on "blind faith" when you hear a
pastor say "God says..." in a sermon, or are you going to be mindful of
the history and realities of language in the bible. Are you ready
to go search for a deeper truth beyond the outdated literal translation
of today? Do you know which denominations search for truth, contending
not to know all of the truth in the bible, and which churches use a literal
translation to justify their own ends?
(For further reading, consider "Biblical Truth and today's World,"
by Bruce D. Rahtjen, c 1995 by Trefoil Press).