This is an outstanding post. I particularly agree that many of the religious do not understand theology. The notion of God entertained by creationists and ID proponents has long struck me as rather crude, a kind of celestial Edison. Also, the term translated as day in English translations of Genesis actually means simply a period of time. And, as I have pointed out before, if you're going to insist that every word of the Bible be taken literally (an unusual way of reading anything, to say the least), then be consistent: It was a serpent that tempted Eve, not the Devil. The text makes no mention of the Devil. Don't read things into it.
Thank you for sharing the posting. Your site is always an amazingly diverse and worthwhile encyclopedia of wonderful (and often provocative) postings. I share in your frustration with those who would make flawed pronouncements about faith and religion, basing their pronouncements on either flawed readings or no reading of the Bible. Empty-headed (or propagandistic) interpretations of the Bible have long been problematic, and the difficulties inherent in translations (IMHO) can sometimes exacerbate the problem. In my own case, I do not read either Hebrew or Greek, so my readings of Hebrew scriptures and the Christian New Testament must depend upon translations. I prefer the Jewish Publication Society's TNK (for the former) and the NRSV New Oxford Annotated Bible (for the latter); however, the KJV's majestic language has a lot going for it. Well, I suppose the bottom line is this (and I speak as someone who lives and teaches in the "Bible Belt" of the American south, which can be quite an experience): The books of the Bible were written by human beings who fervently tried to communicate their understanding of God, His Creation, and Jesus Christ; moreover, the Divinely inspired words of these human authors (in some ways, like the words of some secular authors: Blake and Hopkins, for example) serve as catalysts for our own uneven attempts to understand the Divine.
ReplyDelete