‘God’s Word’ writer ill-informed

I’m disturbed by Alan Reynolds’ ill-informed attack on scripture (‘The Bible is God’s Word – told through human words,’ November).  

Reynolds caricatures the conservative position on the nature of inspiration, the genre of Genesis and ‘literal’ hermeneutics.  

After he imports into Genesis 1 several items not found there (saucer-shaped earth, hills, towers, pillars, saltwater), he of course has no trouble dismissing this ‘straw man’ version of the text as contrary to what he calls science.  

The Hebrew word raqi’ah does not necessarily imply a ‘solid sky.’ This term can be translated as ‘expanse,’ referring to something ‘spread out.’ The Latin firmamentum (implying a solid object) was an unfortunately inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew.  

Reynolds says he believes “any attempt to understand the Bible literally . . . raises more problems than it solves.” Really? Does he reject a literal resurrection of Jesus? Resurrection of a genuinely dead man must surely be considered an ‘unscientific’ concept.  

When he portrays the Bible as not actually the words of God but merely “the words of men” which (somehow) bear witness to what God has done, Reynolds’ article sinks into the quicksand of neo-orthodoxy.  

Karl Barth, founder of neo-orthodox thought, similarly stated the writers of scripture “have still spoken the Word of God in their fallible and erring human words.”

Such a position is completely contrary to the Bible’s teaching concerning itself.  

Richard Peachey, Abbotsford

Alan Reynolds ridicules the message of Genesis, by equating it with ancient Hebrew beliefs not found in Genesis.

He ridicules a literal interpretation of the Bible by equating it with the belief that all the Bible was dictated by God. Some parts were dictated, some not – but all parts are literal unless the context shows otherwise.  

The real problem with “any attempt to understand the Bible literally” is that it confronts our idolatrous faith in science – which promotes atheistic and/or naturalistic accounts of origins.

The Bible is the Word of God in its own right, and not only insofar as “it bears witness to God’s Word in Jesus Christ.” God spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament – and by his Son in the New.

Kenneth Affleck, New Westminster

Alan Reynolds’ points about Biblical literalism can’t be made often enough. There may be plenty of Christian literalists; but atheists like literalism even more, and this crude shared method of interpretation lands us Christians in battles we shouldn’t be fighting in the first place – and which, frankly, we can’t possibly win.

The solution is not, of course, to reject the Bible but to understand it better – and Reynolds deserves our thanks for his illuminating suggestions about how to understand the meaning of the Word of God.

Brendan Ritchie, Boston, MA

Editor’s note: The conclusion of Alan Rey-nolds’ article – delayed for space reasons – will appear in January’s BCCN.

We are all potentially inhumane

Re ‘Community rallies for peace in India,’ November: The fact is, we all have the potential, to some extent, to behave as inhumanely as any evildoer on this planet.

Furthermore, it basically takes the cooperation of 100 percent of the populace to maintain peace, yet only one suicide bomber can bring blood-drenched instability to an entire planet. Remember Gavrilo Princip, who initiated the domino affect that brought about WW I, by assassinating an Austrian duke.

I personally cannot imagine myself being part of a raging lynch mob. But I believe that, deep down inside, I am not (and nobody is) totally immune to various circumstances which have brought many people down through history to commit atrocious acts.

Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White Rock

Continue article >>

Previous article Don Cantelon: the art of retiring gracefully	Next article www.canadianchristianity.com - the third generation
Page 14	Page 15

Bible speaks of mistreating earth

Earl Banks (‘Global warming is a huge hoax,’ November) has a point when he asserts that global warming has become idolatry.

In fact, the entire environmental issue is an obsession that takes people’s eyes off God.  

However, I disagree when he says that “nowhere in the Bible is [it] even hinted” that “a sovereign God is going to let humans wreck the planet.”

Scripture is riddled with references to the relationship between man’s behaviour and the state of the land, with the inference being that disobedience in man is connected to destruction of Creation.  

God handed dominion over the earth to us in Genesis 1: 26, which means he willingly surrendered his sovereignty over the planet.  That’s one of the reasons why Jesus Christ had to come to earth as a man, rather than as God.  

Further, in Genesis 1:28, we are given the first great assignment: be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it.  We are supposed to be the guardians of the earth, with license to use it and manage it –  but not beyond our ability to replenish it.  

Alas, we haven’t done a very good job of that, but praise God that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross allows us to repent of that and re-commit to that assignment.  

In 2 Chronicles 7:14, God nails the point home:

“If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

By negative inference, if we don’t repent and get back in line with him, then our land will stay in the sorry state it’s in.

Drew Snider, Vancouver

I agree with Earl Banks, that Christians all too quickly jump on bandwagons like the global warming ‘hysteria.’

However, I don’t share his view that, because the Bible says nothing about this contemporary issue, we should avoid it. The Bible says nothing about smoking or taking drugs either; but Christians don’t endorse such indulgences, because they are harmful.

Secondly, while we believe God is in control of the global climate, we’ve learned there are consequences in our local environments when we log mountain slopes, build extensive urban landscapes and emit large amounts of gasses. Winds, precipitation patterns  and temperatures in cities are different from rural places. While we still don’t know how much of an effect these things have on a global scale, the fact that they do have an effect at all should be a concern to us all.

Thirdly, when it comes to idolatry, I think the majority of our culture still follows the consumerist mentality – especially evident as Christmas approaches. There may be a few shrill voices heard from the radical environmentalist camp, but they’ll be largely ignored in the coming weeks.

Roland Derksen, Vancouver

Earl Banks asks a very simple question, “Do you really think a sovereign God is going to let humans wreck this planet?”

We are much more important to God than, say, a flower. So I shall assume, in general, that this soulless planet is also not as valuable as a single human life.

We are given the freedom to wreck souls –  so why not a soulless planet?

Some of us are not jumping on the climate bandwagon, as we have known for some time just how greedy and destructive we can be.

Richard Tran, Vancouver

December 2008