tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post6634955719002232044..comments2024-02-13T08:45:20.455-05:00Comments on The Schooley Files: More on Rob Bell's "What Is the Bible?"Keith Edwin Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-71535173526545471702013-12-13T19:53:56.843-05:002013-12-13T19:53:56.843-05:00Hey Bob,
You know very well that I'm much mor...Hey Bob,<br /><br />You know very well that I'm much more interested in stimulating discussion than in agreement, anyway. :-)<br /><br />"Reconcile" was purposely in parentheses and could have been omitted altogether. Truth is, even though I'm not shy about claiming even the bugaboo word, "inerrancy," I've spent very little time and energy trying to reconcile divergent accounts within Scripture. I'm pretty content to trust that they are <em>in principle</em> reconcilable, and treat suggestions about how to reconcile them as mere possibilities. <br /><br />I think my comment is justified (perhaps without the parenthetical addition) in light of Rob's insistence that it is the very discrepancies that make the overall idea believable. Someone who affirmed the accounts and therefore the event, but didn't try to reconcile their divergences, would take no such shot from me. It seems that at least in some sense, Rob's trying to have it both ways.<br /><br />The point about needing interpreters is well-taken. When we have an eye-opening moment from a teacher, we should be able to go back to the text and see that it's there. It's different with the esoteric knowledge that gets passed off as biblical insight. You look back at the text, and it's not there anymore. You have to buy the dvd to recapture the feeling.Keith Edwin Schooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-17849731259734712332013-12-13T09:00:58.780-05:002013-12-13T09:00:58.780-05:00I agree with your post overall, but I have a coupl...I agree with your post overall, but I have a couple minor quibbles. First, this line:<br /><br />"So Rob manages to affirm the literal truth of the Resurrection while not having to affirm (or reconcile) the literal truth of any of the documents that document that fact."<br /><br />This seems a bit over the top. Every Christian "affirms the literal truth" of parts of scripture without completely "reconciling" the text. The accounts of the Resurrection are a perfect example of this. I believe in the resurrection but I cannot effectively reconcile the divergent accounts. I've read plenty of attempts to reconcile them, but they all strain at credulity in one direction or another. I don't think Rob's attempt to explain the divergence is any less valid, although in full disclosure I admit I tend to lean toward his style of thinking on this topic.<br /><br />Finally, I agree that Rob's handling of Ephesians 1:9-10 is a "springboard", much like most of the preaching I heard in my youth. We are all, however, "dependent on the gifted interpreter." Of course "context is king" but where do we get that context from? From learned men and women who translate the text, who explain ancient syntactical and rhetorical style, who enlighten the history and culture of the text, etc. We all have had "I never thought about it that way" moments reading Don Carson or NT Wright or Dallas Willard, and that's not a bad thing.<br /><br />I don't want to discourage anyone from studying the scriptures for themselves either, but I also daily see the disastrously misguided interpretations of people who believe that all they need is a plain English bible (or KJV) and the brain God gave them. Anyone can read the bible devotionally, but to truly study and understand it requires a community of people including "gifted interpreters." This is why God gave "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers". (Oxford comma ommitted intentionally...) I don't think the average American Christian is overly dependent on "gifted interpreters." I think the average American Christian isn't dependent enough, in the sense that they don't dig deep enough to find the context to make it king.<br /><br />As I said, minor quibbles or differences in emphasis. Overall we are in agreement, as usual.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914401032087512202noreply@blogger.com