Does this rock your world?
Christianity Today posted this article talking about stories in the Bible that Theologians are finding do not appear to "fit" into the early Biblical manuscripts. I have a feeling that this is freaking some people out. This particular article is on the story of the woman caught in adultery and the whole he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.
Does this rock your world or does everything in the Bible have to be historically accurate in the way we know history today coming from the mouth of Jesus...or is this story there to communicate more about Christ and his character? I think these kinds of situations are fascinating and create good dialog.
Pierre was able to take a class by (the quoted) Craig Evans last summer, in which we were able to discuss the concepts presented in this article. It does make one think though on how we use the Bible to drive home our points. Kudos to CT for bringing topics like this to the general populations attention.
What do you think?
Labels: Christianity
posted by Kay @ 11:15 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Thanks for posting this.
Sure there are a handful of "suspect" passages but we shouldn't just throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. The bible is the most accurate ancient document we have...
I don't understand the controversy. That this passage is disputed has long been known. But there are only a small number of passages like this. And yes, I do think it matters greatly whether the Bible is historically accurate. I have a different view on inerrancy than the Fuller Doctrinal statement. But I won't get into that. Maybe on Friday.
Sorry, "me" and theologymom,I didn't do a good job of communicating that one. I'm not throwing out the Bible, because of this passage and others like it. I just think Christians need to understand how the Bible was written historically is not how we understand history today. Context is key!
It doesn't rock my world, and I don't think it should rock any others.
Me: Your statement suggests you view this as a detriment to the historicity of the New Testament. This one event summarizes much of our contemporary understanding of the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. Does it have to be historically true to represent that? I'm not so sure. I can STILL see it as inspired and reliable even if it was added a century later.
And what does "accurate" mean? In what context?
Theo-mom: I'm curious about your view of inerrancy. I don't believe inerrancy is in the Fuller doctrinal statement. I won't use that word because it's too volatile. It can mean so many different things to different groups. I've heard it defined in certain contexts where I agree 100% and others where I would never commit to it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home