Republicans on the Bible
November 29th, 2007I didn’t watch the Republican debate (see the transcript: part 1 and part 2) last night, but there was a question about the Bible posed to the candidates by a man via YouTube: Do you believe every word of the Bible? See the end of part 1 and the beginning of part 2 to read the responses.
In short, Rudy Giuliani said it’s the greatest book ever written, but that he doesn’t believe everything should be taken literally (such as Jonah in the belly of the fish). Mitt Romney said he believes the Bible is the word of God, but that some people might interpret it differently. Mike Huckabee said the Bible is God’s revelation to us, but added that not everything in it should be taken literally.
An interesting exchange, I guess — but as I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s necessary for someone to have a proper understanding of the Bible in order for him or her to be a capable president.
Your thoughts?
Hat tip: Brett
I agree that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally. I find that figurative language is best taken figuratively. Of course, I doubt that’s what these men meant by their statements.
I have two thoughts: first, what Marty said. “Should we take it literally” isn’t an either/or question - clearly, there are major portions of the Bible that are descriptive, allegorical, figurative, etc.
Second, this question has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person is qualified to be President. Too many people seem to think we’re electing a Pope here.
>Mitt Romney said he believes the Bible is the word of God, but that some people might interpret it differently.
He needs to be clarify that Mormons use their own translation (the Joseph Smith Translation - JST). The Mormons that visited me a year or so ago used it to redefine grace as ‘merited favor’. They had a dictionary in the back of their Bible that they read the definition from. What was odd is ‘grace’ is not a word unique to Christianity. You can pull out a dictionary and read the definition. Their definition that they fought for and insisted on using was not even the correct definition of the word!
Reminds me of the quote by Chuck Swindoll:
“Cults use our vocabulary, but they don’t use our dictionary.”
I don’t think it’s necessary for someone to have a proper understanding of the Bible in order for him or her to be a capable president.
You are absolutely right Tim. Excellent point.
I think Joseph Dearing is a Christian fundamentalist and his insistence on voting for a candidate who takes the Bible as true, word for word, is exactly like a Islamic fundamentalist who insists on voting for a candidate who takes the Qu’ran as true, word for word.
Peter says, “clearly, there are major portions of the Bible that are descriptive, allegorical, figurative, etc.” I’m interested to know how Christians determine which parts are “descriptive, allegorical, figurative, etc” and which parts should be taken literally? Do you all agree about which parts are which? Joseph Dearing doesn’t agree with you as he believes every word as the literal truth. It seems to me that believers interpret the Bible as they see fit and that’s why interpretation varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, and individual to individual.
He needs to be clarify that Mormons use their own translation (the Joseph Smith Translation - JST)
Actually, as a whole they use the King James Version except where the unfinished JST has been deemed useable, then it is inserted where necessary.
j razz
>Actually, as a whole they use the King James Version except where the unfinished JST has been deemed useable
And the point is that when someone does that, it can no longer be said that they use the KJV as it is known to be. And that’s not even mentioning how they believe the Book of Mormon trumps the Bible - where necessary of course!
I did watch it and felt like Huckabee really shined.
IMO, his best response was to a question posed about him accepting support from Log-Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans).
He quipped about needing all the support he could get and followed it up by saying: “So would I accept their support? Of course. Would I change my position on same-sex marriage? No, I wouldn’t. But if they’re willing to support me, I’ll be their president. I’ll be anybody’s president, but I’ll be true to my convictions, and I think that’s what Americans look for — not someone they’re going to agree with on everything, but somebody who at least has some convictions, sticks with them, can explain them, and can at least have respect for people who have different ones.”
As far as the Bible comment was concerned, the person who posed the question was obviously trying to get the canidates to put their foot in their mouths and two of the did. Giuliani looked like he was trying to be as vague and placating as possible and Romney looked like he was trying to answer the question without any refererences to Mormonism. Only Huckabee was composed enough to answer truthfully and simply.
To echo what others have been saying for awhile: Can Hunter and Tancredo just throw in the towel already? They’re taking time away from canidates who have a better chance of getting the nomination.
I’m interested to know how Christians determine which parts are “descriptive, allegorical, figurative, etc” and which parts should be taken literally?
Good question, Cineaste.
The short answer is interpretation: just like we would read Homer or Plato and infer if he was making an anology or stating a fact, we do a similar thing with scripture. But, as with everything, there are differences of opinion, and that is where there is a continuum, with absolute literalists like Joseph Dearing on one side and those that take large parts or all of it figuratively on the other.
A bit more of a detailed answer would be to show that some parts are clearly figurative, like this
My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.
which is scary if you take it literal, and others are historical fact, like this
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
Everything that falls between those two extremes forces us to take into conseration common rules of translation from an ancient document and make ddecisions. There is actually a relatively small number of passages that are in question for most of orthodoxy, but one example would be Genesis 1-3.
i hope that gives you a cursory idea of how we make those decisions.
But Nick, there is some stuff in the Bible that is clearly meant to be taken literally but because our culture has changed in the last 2000 years it no longer can be taken seriously. Take for example this passage…
“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” Deuteronomy 25:11-12
I found the commentary for this quite amusing…
>But Nick, there is some stuff in the Bible that is clearly meant to be taken literally but because our culture has changed in the last 2000 years it no longer can be taken seriously.
Cineaste,
I don’t want to get us off the topic, but the short answer to your question is found in the new covenant of Christ. The long answer will take more time and space to flesh out. So, if you’re interested, read this thread…
The Purpose of Christ’s coming
Yeah, Cineaste, that commentary is very funny.
I would say what you are referring to is different than the literl/figurative issue. This was taken literally in Jewish law, but Jesus cam and did away with this (or fulfilled it) in the New Covenant. No Christian I know actually pushes for this to be practiced today. Roger is right about it being a New covenant thing, though I didn’t read the thread.
Now, we are not out of the woods yet. There are still some decisions we have to make about the Old Testament, and as you can imagine, there are people on all sides of this as well. Most Christians say that the purity codes have passed away, things like eating pork and planitng multiple seeds in the same garden, as well as the severe punichments for even the simplest infractions, but they maintain that the stories are true and can teach us things, and that the moral laws, like don’t kill, steal, etc. still apply.
In short, I think you are talking about 2 seperate issues: literalism vs figuratism and old covenant vs new covenant.
By the way, I broke a rule a didn’t proofread that last entry, and it shows by all of my typos.
Please forgive.
Cine the best answer to your question is–find out for yourself!
As for the Debate, Both Paul and Huckabee did not get to speak until after 25 minutes into the proceedings. Romney, Giuliani and McCain led the way in amount of time speaking. Shocker.
Nick, the point is, does a law that states “If a chick grabs your junk, then cut off her hand” sound divinely inspired to you? Can you point out what makes this law so transcendent that it must be of divine origin? To me, this sounds like a law made by a guy who got his junk crushed by a chick. That’s the real reason people don’t follow this law today, it can’t be taken seriously. It’s not taken seriously because of old covenants and new covenants or whatever, it’s because people interpret this law as barbaric as Muslim law. Christians today don’t need Jesus to tell them that cutting off a womans hand because she grabbed their nuts is barbarous and wrong. If Christians didn’t know any better and actually needed the son of God to tell them the obvious, I’d worry. Now to get back on topic, I think this is why none of the Republican candidates agreed with Joseph Dearing.
Cineaste, you are right in saying that people dont follow that today because it can’t be taken seriously. But, the old/new covenants thing is also true. No doubt, some of the OT laws are culural, and that is why they don’t apply, but they also dont apply because the Jesus coming and all that.
Christians today don’t need Jesus to tell them that cutting off a womans hand because she grabbed their nuts is barbarous and wrong
That is true, and I guess the mistake here is to apply OT law to current day. things are just so different now. And again, no one is suggesting we follow this law. it is barbaric, as much of the culture at that time was. if this is what you mean by taking all scripture literally, no one will agree to it. but again I think that this law is a different issue than the “literacy” issue.
I think we’ve come full circle. When you say, “…the mistake here is to apply OT law to current day. Things are just so different now.” It confirms what I said at the beginning…
“…there is some stuff in the Bible that is clearly meant to be taken literally but because our culture has changed in the last 2000 years it no longer can be taken seriously.”
Your definition of “literal” is simply a linguistic one. I’m saying that one can’t take these laws literally as God’s words because they are obviously not the word of God. A law about women grabbing a man’s privates just doesn’t strike me as being of diving origin. Yet, Christians do interpret the “grab the nuts, lose a hand” law as God’s divine word, and other’s don’t.
By what standard does Cineaste determine whether a passage from Scripture is of divine origin, other than by consulting those fine theologians at Cracked.com?
I’m saying that one can’t take these laws literally as God’s words because they are obviously not the word of God.
Jesus did. He believed them to to be the word of God.
j razz
Hey Bubba, if you think an injunction against grabbing someones nuts can only come from God, more power to you. And yes, I hoped you liked cracked.com, it’s some fine satirical theology indeed! You have to admit, it’s pretty darn funny.
>If Christians didn’t know any better and actually needed the son of God to tell them the obvious, I’d worry.
Why do we laws in general? Shouldn’t people just know better? That’s the problem. We are the problem. We’re capable of justifying any behavior in the name of self.
Cineaste,
Out of curiosity in following the conversations here, and I ask respectfully, have you ever read the Bible for yourself, especially the New Testament? Or what background do you have with it?