stahrwe wrote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.
DWill wrote:Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?
There need not be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be positivie progress made. What one needs is an openess to dialogue. For example, when a discussion is presented relating to unsavory aspects of a Bible story we need not divert into the ditch to justify or debunk the casuality figures based on speculation of the population of an area 3,000 years ago. When discussing Genesis chapter 1, we don't get bogged down trying to cram our favorite canard down each other's throats. This seems an endemic issue with Bible discussion. To me it seems a bit Biblephobic, as if an atheist or agnostic cannot discuss the Bible without every other sentence pounding home the idea that they don't believe the Bible. Wright does it in his book and it causes him, in his attempt to creatively frame the nth iteration to select examples which actually emphasize his lack of Bible knowledge. We don't do this when we study poetry, or Greek mythology, and yet, it seems the only thing we can do with the Bible. Does it not seem odd that the book which had had the greatest impact on Western Civilization cannot be systematically read and discussed on a website devoted to discussing books.
A meeting of the minds doesn't mean agreement; it just means that participants are in the same general vicinity. It's a simple matter of knowing when discussion will be profitable and when it won't. You just avoid those topics that are going to highlight people's conflicts with each other, that's all. It would be like the situation of having Uncle Morrie come for a visit. He's a great guy you can have fun with, but please don't bring up
that subject. You and I could talk about almost any topic without impasse, I would think, but unfortunately not the Bible. Look again at the passage you've kindly provided. The fact that you believe the axiom and I don't means that any shared attempt at analysis of the Bible will be snarled with unprofitable conflict. You appear to insist that there is neutral ground on which the parties could come together, only it isn't really neutral ground; it's tilted toward you. By proposing that we look at the Bible as though it were not a written product having some of the same hallmarks as any other written product (e.g., a history of composition), you're proposing something that seems to many unreasonable. No wonder they want to stay away.
If you want to get closer to neutral, you'd have to take a more detached or non-devotional approach to the Bible, maybe similar to a Bible-as-literature approach. A "good stuff in the Bible" approach might work also. You probably don't believe this, but I think the Bible is a great book (esp. the OT), and I would like to know more about it. But the way I (and Wright) have gone about talking about it is inherently offensive to you, so a different mode would have to be adopted if there's to be any sense in having a conversation.