Keep it simple, stupid. One of my college professors reminded us of that acronym constantly whenever we were discussing programming or system design. It tends to be good advice. I was reminded of it earlier today when I heard some people discussing the Sabbath Day.
The Ten Commandments tell us that the Sabbath Day is the 7th day of the week, and Jews were to keep it holy by doing no work on that day. What day of the week is the Sabbath? It’s Saturday. That’s why some Christian groups like the Seventh Day Adventists gather for worship on Saturday instead of Sunday. Of course, other Christian groups consider Sunday to be the Sabbath Day, though I’ve never really understood why.
The kind of Christianity I was raised under realized that the Sabbath was Saturday, but we didn’t believe we had to observe it. We believed that the New Testament (specifically books like Galatians and Hebrews) taught that the Law of Moses was done away with when Christ was crucified; therefore, no one was held to it anymore. The New Testament also gives examples of Christians coming together for worship on the first day of the week — Sunday. That didn’t mean that Sunday had become the “new Sabbath,” just that observance of the Sabbath was no longer necessary.
So why do I bother bringing any of that up? It just struck me as I listened to that conversation today that the Bible does not adhere to the KISS method. How simple would it have been for Jesus or Paul to take a moment and explain the Sabbath situation? They could have laid it out so clearly
Under the law of Moses, we kept the Sabbath Day holy. We rested on the last day of the week just as God rested on the seventh day of the week of creation. But now God has given us a new covenant, and observance of the Sabbath is no longer necessary. Instead, we will come together to worship God on the first day of the week — the day that Christ rose from the dead.
Or maybe they could have said something like this:
Just as Moses instructed you to observe the Sabbath Day and keep it holy, so shall we also observe the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day — the day that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. For two days each week we shall worship the Lord and glory in all the things he has blessed us with.
Phrase it however you like. The point is, the issue could have been handled so simply. And the same could be said for any other issue. What is required for salvation? Is it faith alone, as many Christians believe? Is baptism also necessary, as some other passages indicate? Can salvation be lost, or are we eternally secure? Do we go straight to Heaven or Hell when we die, or do we first go to some kind of Hadean realm? Is Purgatory real? Is Hell real, and if so, is it literal torture or just separation from God? Will people who never knew about Jesus be saved or damned? Will there be a rapture? What about a period of tribulation?
We could go on and on. And if you get a room full of theologians, you’ll get many different answers for each one of these questions.
Why? If Christianity is the only true religion, and it’s the brainchild of the most supreme and perfect being in existence, why in the world is it not any clearer about issues of such importance? Why does every person with an opinion have to support their beliefs by cobbling together a series of passages taken from all over the Bible just to support one of their specific doctrines? Why can’t you pick one of these issues and go to just one passage that plainly lays out its explanation?
To me, it’s just one more glaring piece of evidence that shows Christianity’s just a myth.
Finding Truth 
You may not, but other Christians do. But either way, it is another piece of evidence. It’s not complete proof, but the fact that the Bible (which is supposed to be an extremely important message from our creator) is neither inerrant nor straightforward definitely calls its legitimacy into question. And that does raise some difficult questions for Christianity as a whole.
LikeLike
Yes it does raise legitimate questions, but just not, in my opinion, the conclusion you draw. But I think we have reached an impasse, and it is time to draw the curtain. Thanks, and best wishes.
LikeLike
unkleE, I’m very intrigued by your apparent stance. I’ve never met a self-proclaimed Christian that doesn’t believe that the Bible is God’s word/inerrant. Could you expand on your view of what exactly the Bible is and why you feel it gives you a basis for your faith? I know it’s slightly derailing the conversation, but I’m sure some of the other readers of Nate’s blog are curious as well. Thanks, and I look forward to your reply.
Graham
LikeLike
G’day Graham, I’m intrigued that you’re intrigued, so we’re even! : )
“I’ve never met a self-proclaimed Christian that doesn’t believe that the Bible is God’s word/inerrant.”<
This is surprising to me, for heaps of christians don't believe in one or other of those things. For example: CS Lewis, most historical scholars (e.g. NT Wright, Craig Evans, AM Hunter, etc who are all christians), the Presbyterian (i.e. reformed) faith I was converted within, would all not hold to inerrancy.
“Could you expand on your view of what exactly the Bible is and why you feel it gives you a basis for your faith?”
It is important for me that my faith is well grounded in reality, truth, evidence. So I approach the Bible in two steps. (This wasn’t how it happened historically, but it is how I now think.)
Step 1: Before we can believe the Bible is a special book, we have to have reasons. And they can only come by looking at the evidence impartially.
So I read (a) what the Bible says about itself and (b) what the scholars tell me. And I find (in very brief summary):
(a) The Bible isn’t one book but 66. It doesn’t claim to be inerrant or the “word of God”. Some parts claim to be inspired, or the words of God (e.g. the prophets, Jesus). Some parts read like legends/myth (most of the early parts of the OT), others like poetry (e.g. Job, Song of Songs), etc. The New Testament reads like people telling the truth. There is clear progression through the OT into the NT, as teachings and concepts are revised, updated, applied differently or brought into focus. Most importantly, Jesus and the NT writers treat the OT as sacred and authoritative, but not always inerrant or literal, and they are sometimes quite flexible in their interpretations. Jesus promised the Spirit would lead his followers into all truth, implying they didn’t yet have “all truth”.
(b) The scholars confirm all this. Significant chunks of the OT cannot be confirmed as historical, and some seems not to be. By the exacting standards of historical research applied to the NT, much of it can be accepted as historical and very little can be considered not to be, but much cannot be either confirmed or rejected by secular history. Jesus was a real person, he was known as a miracle worker, he believed he was the Messiah, the son of man and son of God. He was believed to have risen from the dead.
Step 2: All of that is pretty much fact, which most scholars would agree with whether they are believers or not. On the basis of those facts I find it compelling to believe Jesus and his disciples told the truth and it is recorded reasonably accurately. So I am willing, as an act of faith based on all that evidence, to believe that God set the whole thing up. The only question is how did he set it up?
Nate and others believe if God planned it all, the Bible would be 100% perfect, but I can’t see how that is any more than one possibility. After all God set up the universe and it isn’t 100% perfect either. (I think there are reasons why both universe and Bible are as they are, related to God giving us humans and the entire universe autonomy, and anything autonomous from God must, by definition, be less than God and less than perfect.) The evidence indicates that the Bible is inspired by God but written by humans. God has kept it sufficiently reliable to give true information to those who seek it, but allowed the standards of the day (e.g. the mixture of history with saga and the non-literal) and the idiosyncrasies of the writers to be expressed. The Holy Spirit enlightens and gives faith to those who will receive his ministry.
So that is the basis of my belief. First, the plain facts and evidence; second, faith in Jesus; third, faith in the Bible as reliable if understood for what it is and not for what it isn’t.
Sorry that’s so long, but how could I say any less? Thanks for the question.
LikeLike
The Bible should have benn shorter. That would have helped. A God given Cliff Note if you will.
LikeLike
What about “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” [Mark 12:30-31] and “You shall love your fellow human as yourself.” [Mark 12:32]? 😉
We might find that too obvious in our time, but we must keep in mind that it wasn’t all that obvious at the time – and that, even today, it is a demanding ethic (I can tell I fall short of such a seemingly simple one).
LikeLike