A Thread of Truth ........part 2

There has been a great deal of debate among my acquaintances lately as to the nature/existence of God. Involved with that discussion is the argument over whether or not the Bible is admissible as evidence.


One camp claims that the Bible can be used to prove itself wrong, but cannot be used by the other side to prove the existence of God....
The other camp asserts that the Bible cannot be used to prove itself wrong, but should be allowed as evidence  for God's existence. 


I for one think that this idea is incongruous. From a scientific standpoint...scientists look for holes in a document before relying on it as incontrovertible truth. You must address all contraindications in your findings before you can declare your findings accurate.
From a legal standpoint both sides must have access to a witness, then it is  up to those hearing the argument to determine the outcome.


Regardless of the outcome of the debate, this is part of what I believe to be true about the Bible.  Much of my thoughts have nothing to do with the actual text of the document except to address its claims to be:
a) infallible, without error
b) inspired by God
c) good for teaching, reproof and correction.

In looking at cultural  historiography  it is quite apparent that typically in the past, historic moments were not recorded when they happened, as most historic moments were not recognized as such till their story was almost unrecognizable as the actual event. Most of what was recorded on a day to day basis were the deaths and births in important families and financial/legal transactions.  Therefore as far as factual information is concerned the best this text can offer is genealogies, financial and troop accounting, and laws both civil and religious.


Cultural study has shown that most peoples preserve a type of oral history , legend or myth (think Paul Bunyan) for many generations before either a) the culture acquires written language or b) someone gets the bright idea to write it down.
Thankfully I have several of the various incarnations of my dad's stories of the same fishing trip under my belt and so have first hand knowledge of how historiography works.


Culturally we all tell stories for many of the same reasons. Our foremost reason is to impart knowledge to another. Another reason is to model appropriate behavior. We tell stories to try to explain phenomena that we do not understand, and sometimes we tell stories just for the fun of it. All of the stories that we tell that are picked up and retold by the next generation become a part of our culture and ultimately a part of our history.
Most of us understand that grandpa didn't really walk 10 miles to school in six foot of snow with no shoes, uphill... both ways.... but that he's really trying to teach us to be grateful, or that he just likes to bitch.


I think that this is what the Bible actually is... a compiled cultural history... complete with fish stories and moral lessons, kernels of truth about factual events layered with the exaggerations which create mythical heroes and subsequently turns them into gods.
I also believe that if you look at the cultural record long enough you will find that nearly every author on the face of the planet believed that they were divinely inspired both to produce their work and in all of the production of their work. It is not so great a stretch then, if you believe that there is a Creator or that there could be one, to understand that any act of creation would be "divinely inspired". But that does not mean that there are no errors in those creations, not does it mean that science from that time could not be disproved at a later time as more data is collected.


Even documents containing errors are good for teaching and reproof... if for no other reason than to say "This is in error." The purpose for stories in general is to instruct while entertaining. The characters are meant to be emulated, ridiculed, reviled or pitied. They speak of human potential to both ends of the spectrum.
So, as to the Bible's claim that it is inspired by god and good for teaching? Yeah, I will give it that. Of course it never said "only the scriptures between these covers." so, one could argue that, since that was one sentence in one letter written to one man, that the larger definition of scripture applies and ALL SCRIPTURE(sacred religious texts) is inspired by god and good for teaching, or that just the letters from that man to the other...
I am personally of the opinion that Paul specifically chose a word that meant "writing" to include all writing... everything formed from the creative spark. Paul was often very vague about what could be included in a list, but excruciatingly specific about what could not.


I see no contradiction that this verse means exactly what the greek says...
"All writings are inspired by god and are profitable for all manner of teaching and instruction."