Bob Thune 2004-03-28 2
From Summa Bergania
From : Bob Thune, Jr
Sent : Sunday, March 28, 2004 6:29 PM
To : David Bergan
Subject : Literal vs Allegorical - WWJD? :)
Hey David,
Hope the tone of my last email didn't come across as negative. Rereading it, it comes across a little sharply. Again, we're running up against the limitations of email dialogue here. :)
In answer to your first question: sure, we COULD take the stories of Adam and Eve, Babel, Noah, and Job metaphorically or allegorically... but Jesus didn't, and neither did the NT writers. What reason do we have, living 2000 years later, to interpret these stories differently than those inspired authors, who were closer temporally, culturally, and theologically to those events? (See Matt 24:37-38; Heb 11:7; 2 Peter 2:4-5; 1 Tim 2:13-15; and James 5:10-11, just to name a few).
Second question: No, there are no differences in inspiration among these texts/authors! Notice again that the Apostles and NT authors (see Acts in particular) draw from the minor prophets as much as (if not more than) Moses. The writer of Hebrews makes complex theological arguments from Psalm 95 and 110 (Heb 3, 4, and 5). Obviously the apostles and writers of the NT did not recognize any "degrees" of inspiration. Again, I say that their view of the text should be normative for our view.
Third question: you're right, a majority does not create truth. But perhaps I'd phrase it like this: objective truth generally creates subjective accord. If truth is really true, tremendous numbers of people will generally agree with it, because it is so demonstrably true (which is why there are very few flat-earth theorists today!). So my point was that Osama's claim to divine inspiration is backed up by much less subjective unanimity than the Bible's claim. This does not prove the point, but adds to the preponderance of evidence.
Fourth point: I guess I'm arguing that divine inspiration/inerrancy is much more like a courtroom than like geometry. We are after enough evidence to move us beyond a reasonable doubt; we are not after axiomatic proof (though that would be nice). So for texts which claim inspiration and inerrancy and which subjectively have led people to agree with that claim for thousands of years, we should take their claims at face value and then work to prove or disprove them. (Obviously, because of the subjective value of the Bible to so many millions of people throughout history, I think it stands on a higher plane than a crazy letter from Osama.)
This is simply the scientific method, is it not? Propose a hypothesis and then experiment to test the truth or falsity of that hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that the Bible is "guilty of error until proven innocent;" I am suggesting that (due to the Bible's own claims and the overall witness of church history, dissenters noted) we should assume it innocent until proven guilty.
Let's keep moving forward in the deductive process here. Where to next?
Bob
