The Problems Inherent in "Evidence-Based" Bible Thumping
I make a point of not referring to Scripture much to support the ideas I express on these pages, mostly because Bible interpretation depends almost entirely on motivation, which then influences any subsequent interpretation.
Also, there’s the matter of confirmation bias, to say nothing of the complexity involved in understanding and then explaining ancient sacred texts written in different languages by individuals from times and cultures whose consciousness differed much from our own. Then there is the “Word of God” argument, which magically disregards the reality that all Scripture is fundamentally secondary and external.
I say this not to dissuade people from reading or interpreting the Bible, only to point out that interpreting Scripture should probably be an individual effort in this time and place, whereby Scripture is approached with the honest “objective” of attaining some form of primary knowledge or understanding.
That is, Scripture should serve as an intermediary or bridge to personal spiritual knowing and understanding, not as a reference employed to objectively support or prove some professed assumption, dogma, doctrine, or correct teaching.
As an example, I will touch on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and the supposed support of this doctrine in the Bible. Many refer to Genesis 1:1 as their first proof of creation from nothing, but nothing in that first passage explicitly states this. On the contrary, some biblical scholars are ambivalent about Genesis 1:1. Others go as far as to claim it as proof of creatio ex materia.
And speaking of creatio ex materia, I have often wondered how ex nihilo proponents explain the later creation of both Adam and Eve, not from nothing but from dust and Adam’s rib, respectively.
Now, I am familiar with plenty of explanations and elucidations that clarify these examples of ex materia as actually being ex nihilo, but they all essentially miss the point. The “fact” remains—if God created everything from nothing, why did He need dust to “form” Adam and Adam’s rib to “form” Eve?
I raise the example not as an example of an interpretative "mic drop", or to elicit further clarifications from readers or initiate a prolonged comment debate on the origin of first things but to point out that basing one’s metaphysical assumptions predominantly on Scripture and then utilizing that as a baseline form of public argument is a complex and dizzying pursuit, one that keeps individuals focused on secondary, external considerations when the answers they seek exist predominantly in the primary and internal.
Also, there’s the matter of confirmation bias, to say nothing of the complexity involved in understanding and then explaining ancient sacred texts written in different languages by individuals from times and cultures whose consciousness differed much from our own. Then there is the “Word of God” argument, which magically disregards the reality that all Scripture is fundamentally secondary and external.
I say this not to dissuade people from reading or interpreting the Bible, only to point out that interpreting Scripture should probably be an individual effort in this time and place, whereby Scripture is approached with the honest “objective” of attaining some form of primary knowledge or understanding.
That is, Scripture should serve as an intermediary or bridge to personal spiritual knowing and understanding, not as a reference employed to objectively support or prove some professed assumption, dogma, doctrine, or correct teaching.
As an example, I will touch on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and the supposed support of this doctrine in the Bible. Many refer to Genesis 1:1 as their first proof of creation from nothing, but nothing in that first passage explicitly states this. On the contrary, some biblical scholars are ambivalent about Genesis 1:1. Others go as far as to claim it as proof of creatio ex materia.
And speaking of creatio ex materia, I have often wondered how ex nihilo proponents explain the later creation of both Adam and Eve, not from nothing but from dust and Adam’s rib, respectively.
Now, I am familiar with plenty of explanations and elucidations that clarify these examples of ex materia as actually being ex nihilo, but they all essentially miss the point. The “fact” remains—if God created everything from nothing, why did He need dust to “form” Adam and Adam’s rib to “form” Eve?
I raise the example not as an example of an interpretative "mic drop", or to elicit further clarifications from readers or initiate a prolonged comment debate on the origin of first things but to point out that basing one’s metaphysical assumptions predominantly on Scripture and then utilizing that as a baseline form of public argument is a complex and dizzying pursuit, one that keeps individuals focused on secondary, external considerations when the answers they seek exist predominantly in the primary and internal.
No comments have been added yet.
