Biblically Illiterate Bible Quoting
By: C. Don Jones (Glorious Life)
Nothing gets my dander up like biblically illiterate bible quotations.
Social media makes this worse.
Southerners fall into this trap quite easily.
We don't have a lot of this on NT... because our members never actually "quote" anything.
On NT everything is paraphrase. This is probably because a paraphrase can never be fact-checked.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nothing gets my dander up like biblically illiterate bible quotations. Social media makes this worse. Southerners fall into this trap quite easily. Biblically illiterate Bible quoting was once the justification for supporting slavery, the death penalty, and opposing scientific education. But there is a problem for everyone who claim to hold the Bible as authoritative and never read it.
The Bible Says
There is no higher appeal to authority for some folks than to appeal to the Bible. "The Bible says" begins some of the strangest conversations in which I have taken part. These conversations range from whether women may serve in pulpits to the nature of angels. Often the conversations lean to the speculative. The majority center on matters of race, homosexuality, marriage, and abortion.
The problem with claiming "the Bible says" is that it is a biblically illiterate claim. The belief that the Bible speaks with one voice on every issue is just wrong. There is no way around this fact. The letter of Paul to the Romans contains important assertions. But not every biblical text supports these assertions. The claim from Hosea , "I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel…"(1:4a) is directly contradicted by the command "You shall strike down the house of your master Ahab. so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets…the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel, and no one shall bury her" given to Jehu. (2 Kings 9:7-10b) Can it be just to command an action and condemn it? The two prophets are both considered faithful (because they are canonical) even though they contradict.
Biblically Justifying the Unjustifiable
There is no worse abuse of scripture than deliberately quoting to justify prejudice. I recall right-wing parishioners who quoted Psalm 109:8 against Barack Obama. I pointed out to those who did that the next verse which reads "May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow." I asked, "Do you hate this man so much?" One person publicly recanted this action. When another left wing Christian friend used this same passage about Donald Trump, I replied the same way. Unfortunately, she doubled-down on the claim. Recently, the same approach has been used to attack Kamala Harris.
Biblically illiterate quoting assumes a literalism that is morally untenable. People cannot help quoting in such a way that makes the words the opposite of their meaning. The famous story of Mary anointing Jesus in John. Jesus' response to Judas is quoted to justify ignoring poverty. "You always have the poor with you" is followed by the statement "but you do not always have me." (12:8)
I wonder sometimes if we continue to have poverty because of this misquote. Was Jesus justifying ignoring poverty? Or was he taking Judas to task for his statement? The writer shows this latter idea is accurate. "(He said this not because not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it)" (12:6) The parallel statement in Mark includes the phrase, "and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish."
Hostile Quoting
Judas is not merely unconcerned about the poor. Judas robbing the purse was a way of robbing the poor. When the Bible is quoted by people who are hostile to the good of others, it sends a false message. A White House spokesperson a few years ago claimed it was "biblical" to obey the evil laws used to separate refugee children from their parents.
Both sides in political debates are guilty of biblically illiterate quoting for the purpose of propaganda, But the right wing misuse is more pernicious. Appealing to conservative evangelicals by misquoting the Bible works because it manipulates evangelical language. Claiming a "biblical worldview," politicos misuse "biblical authority" to justify the unjustifiable. Hostile quoting must be called out for what it is.
The evil produced by claims of divine blessing has always exceeded the good that is produced. Often, it does the opposite of what it claims. The road to Hell cannot be paved with good intentions if the intentions are never good. Until the churches begin critically reading the Bible, this evil will prevail.
Tags
Who is online
177 visitors
Bearing false witness in the name of the Lord.
The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose...
-- Principle Professor
I yield to your far greater status...
Reading one's own meaning into tiny excerpts (the point of the article) is of course a problem. But the bigger problem, from my perspective, is granting the Bible authority in the first place. Unless it is established that this ancient collection of words is divine, the Bible should have no authority whatsoever. Given thousands of years trying to establish biblical divinity, I doubt that this will ever happen.
I agree... kinda...
You're right that inerrancy is an idea that must be refused.
Tactically, though, my (considerable) experience in ''debate'' with fundies has convinced me that it's best to start small. Show that verses contradict each other, for starters, and then explain that, well of course since they were written by two different prophets.
Once they accept that books had different authors, they've kinda accepted that those books weren't written by God. This, incidentally, gets God off the hook for the Bible's many contradictions. And the fundies are relieved to not have to red-card God!
I do not recall ever witnessing a 'fundie' under any circumstances admit that the Bible is not divine. They will acknowledge that the books were written by different authors but will maintain that these authors were 'inspired' by God and that the words, therefore, are divine.
Even when truly ugly passages are presented (e.g. those sanctioning rape, murder, slavery by God) they resort typically to tactics such as claiming 'reading out of context', equivocation on the meaning of common words, deflection from the question, etc. They do not, in my experience, acknowledge that these were simply the words of ancient men pretending to speak for God and thus not necessarily the will of God.
We have come across some very different 'fundies'. Yours are substantially more rational than mine.
Sadly... not very often. Fundies are not generally open-minded, as you say. My failures are far more numerous than my succeses.
My ''recipe for success'' doubles the success rate... to 2%...
Head on, though, yields zero..
I never expect a 'fundie' to change their mind. My focus really is on challenging claims. If someone holds that our decisions should be guided by the Bible then I clearly would seek to challenge that dangerous position.
However, if someone views a select subset of the Bible (disregarding the ugly balance) and holds that this subset contains ancient human wisdom that is applicable today, then that is an entirely different matter. I am in support of using the Bible to help us understand the ancients and to use some of their wisdom. For example, much of the wisdom attributed to Jesus. But to abandon critical thinking in favor of a demonstrably errant, contradictory ancient book that is simply deemed divine sans supporting evidence is simply intolerable.
Hi Bob! The Bible is not a critically-thinking book. It is a book of scriptures- purposed words and meaning to those seeking to live life in some semblance of spiritual terms.
Didn't I read once several years ago that you give no credence whatsoever to Paul's letters? Am I mistaken?
I agree entirely. The seed isn't really about the Bible, but about those who read it... and how they go wrong.
Not at all... but most Christias do accept Paul as almost-messiah. I try to know a little about his books because others will bring them up.
Point of clarification: What "most Christians do accept Paul as almost-messiah." Name of organization, please. I would like to learn of one or several of them.
Almost all Christian branches.
I know of no major denomination that clearly sets the Gospels - the books of Christ - above those of Paul.
They don't set them above the Gospels, but the Catholic Church sure likes to set Paul's words as equal to the Gospels.
Yes... and then there are the overzealous who set them a bit higher yet...
In totality, Bob, Why would it be "needful" or "helpful" to set one apostle over and beyond the other apostle? Paul, fulfilled a service to the Faith, leading to development of the Church as a body with its 'singular' head being Jesus Christ and the Godhead, but not Paul himself or any other apostle.
Even the Old Testament prophets for whom such verbiage as "major and minor books" is used, that is not done as an indicator of value or importance of the writer's or book contents, per se.
I have no idea. But that seems to me to be what has happened.
What and which "zealous" are you pointing out, Bob?
"Zealous" is probably not the best word.
At some point, early Christians must have been confronted with the question of what weight to give to the teachings of Paul.
Christ's message was sufficient for ethics... but he said nothing about how to run his church. In fact, he very likely never considered the concept of a "church of Jesus". But that church did arise, so it had to be organized... and voilà! Paul was necessary from the point of view of people who considered that a church had to have staff and hierarchy...
(Let's recall that this was the Roman Empire, where anarchy was not well thought-of...)
The concept of the Church derived from the root of the (Jewish) Temple. From the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles we can learn that all the "leading men" called apostles came from backgrounds in Judaism and Temple life and culture. Thus, the foundation for a new way of congregating was known to Paul, who became its medium.
I don't understand. Paul's epistles were addressed to Greek communities, who knew nothing (and cared less) about Jewish traditions. I thought that that reconciliation was Paul's great accomplishment.
It is Paul who came out of a background of spirituality, gathering, temple service and worship. In this one sense, the Church is the organized version of the temple of the Old Testament. Of course, the rules inside are different ones.
Before his conversion, Saul of Tarsus hunted Christians. He was on a such a mission when he saw the light.
Don't misunderstand. I don't think Paul's teachings were ''bad''. But as John said, we must avoid distractions... we must keep our eyes fixed on Christ's message ''love one another''.
That is an interesting and good point! Paul 'wrestled' with doctrine and uniformity of thought throughout his letters to the new churches. In one way, he wanted the new churches to accept rules and limitations placed on them for the sake of order, but he was under a mandate (from Jesus the Christ) to express liberty from the oppression of sin.
In this manner, Paul writes out his frustration with reconciling sexual sins (immorality) pitted deep within the carnal (flesh) nature which is in contrast with the spiritual nature. The fleshly dynamics of this world being more demanding and inherent (of this world), than the spiritual dynamics which are otherworldly and are never manifested wildly (they are cultivated).
Utimately, Paul settled on a body controlled and disciplined by spirituality is a higher model of existence.
This is a good case in point. I don't remember Jesus having been much hung up about sexuality. He may have mentioned it, but He certainly didn't make it a big deal.
Paul did make it a big deal, and we've been burdened with it ever since.
Well,. . .Jesus, . . .in his role as Son Of God. . . was received of a 'full' (total immersion) of the Spirit of God at his baptism (for ministry). Thus, sexual life and its adjoining behaviors fell subordinate to the mission of creating a 'body' under Jesus Christ as 'head.' The 12 apostles did not begin the body of Christ in the nations as we see, know, and experience it today: Paul did that.
True to form, Paul disciplined his body to a confession and similarly sexual life (and a family life) fell subordinate to a spiritual life.
I agree with John: nothing must distract from Jesus's message.
So... if Christ Himself didn't mention a subject, then it is a distraction. It MUST be subsumed into Christ's message: ''love one another''.
When you think about it... all sexuality would be just fine, if we love one another!
To each his or her own. Parse the book as you see fit. However, this Bible, this Faith, is what it is or come to be. And, that is not a popularity test. Best any of us who look to it for ways of living and spiritual direction can do is treat in honestly and do the best we can to be fair to everyone despite how we choose to live ourselves.
Because, when you think about it the Christian liberty Paul offers believers does leave room many levels of conduct at various stages of an individual's life. It is not a strict doctrinal message that has no movement to the left or the right-in a non-political sense.
This statement has many avenues turning through it. However, I don't know that we need to travel down any of them today.
''Love one another''
Sounds very similar.
That's true... but it might be interesting, some other time.
I've said that a time or two. Some denominations treat Paul's words as if they are as equal as Jesus words. The Roman Catholic Church is really guilty of that...but they were the ones who originally compiled the Bible we know today.
Hello Trout'G! To my knowledge, and more to my comprehension, Paul is deferred to as the 'founder' of the Church system in heathen society. That is, Paul started the 'gathering in' of believers into communities after the "Scattering" from Jewish Temple society. Thus, He is respected much like we North Americans defer to our founding fathers - albeit Paul is a devout spiritual leader.
And I absolutely think that is an accurate description of him. But I've had people tell me that the words Paul spoke are just as important as the ones Jesus spoke because Paul was divinely inspired or something like that
And that is true in a sense . That sense, being that of an Apostle. Or Spiritual Leader arriving in the stead of the "Master' and Son of God. Keep in mind, that Paul is one of the Apostles-even labeled himself: (Read it for yourself if you wish!)
Paul, in our New Testament set of books is the preeminent leader, writer, and addressor to the Church world as inhabited today. That is, by virtue of his diligence to "Go" and suffer the slings and arrows of doing so, he has heft given to what he 'brought'!
Now then, biblically (in sum) it is Peter that makes it clear no person is worthy of worship meant for God(head) alone!