cartoon: BIBLE MAN
BIBLE MAN! He comes from another world, another age, inerrant King James Version in a 100% genuine bonded-leather shell. He means business. Do not cross him. Do not transform him. Do not modify him. Do not redact him. Do not criticize him. Do not analyze him. Do not twist his words. Believe everything he says, without question, without pause, without doubt. He will not share your brain with philosophy, science, mathematics or history. He demands total and unequivocal allegiance. He will dominate your world. THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL: DO NOT RESIST!
I am resisting! The Bible is not inerrant.
It is truly a product of both man and God. It is because of the ‘man’ part of the equation, that the text is not inerrant. But the ‘God’ part of the equation is infallible.
So while every jot and title may not be without error, the message of the Bible (Christ died for sinners) is true, and can be trusted.
This understanding of scripture leaves us free. The ‘inerrant text’ understanding of scripture turns us into the dreaded ‘BIBLE MAN’.
Timely topic (for me anyway), np. We were just discussing this yesterday at church. Great topic!
– Steve
Do not cross him. Heh heh. Clever.
The bible is probably designed to be inerrant so that “those that have ears let them hear”.
It is by faith the we believe.
When we see the text itself as inerrant, we have just said goodbye to faith. We don’t need it anymore…we have just become Moslems.
The Living God won’t be trapped in a splattering of ink on a page. For the letter brings death, but the spirit brings life. (St. Paul)
Don’t be decieved by those that deny scripture either, for the message of scripture is true.
Does Bible-man has a hat on? Cause if he does it is cool (lol). Good points NP – basically we cannot interact with the bible – and if we cannot do that – then what a waste of time having some scriptures in the first place.
I’m afraid I see the Bible as much more than “a spattering of ink on a page.” and I believe it is the letter of the law that brings death, meaning the law passed down to Moses from God.
Tell me, who decides what part of the Bible is of God and so infallible, and what part of it is of man and so fallible. I may have given Fishon a hard time about how I feel he wields the Word sometimes but I don’t believe we can pick and choose what in it is God and what isn’t. That’s a slippery slope. The Scripture is God breathed meaning God had a hand in all of it. I think there are problems with some translations and we have to use wisdom but a scripture I have trouble with I would have to go back to the original. I will stand by everthing Jesus said, even if I don’t like it. I have watched someone I love dearly go from loving Jesus and living her life to please Him to dismissing Him as a great prophet in history, and the Bible irrelevant because someone was kind enough to point out systematically all the “errors” in it.
If we don’t learn the character of God from the Bible, where do we learn it? From other men?
I think I read this exact thing on slice of laodacia……
Shelley,
The whole Bible is the Word of God. Just because the gospel writers had the order of a few things different (for example, when the disciples recieved the holy spirit…in the upper room..or at Pentecost…or who showed up at the tomb first, or when Jesus went to Jerusalem), that doesn’t make the Bible any less the Word of God. All that does is confirm that man had a role in compiling it.
And which Bible is enerrant? The Protestant version? The R. Catholic version? The Eastern Orthydox version? If the text itself is supposed to be inerrant than there must really be only one right version.
This inerrant bible stuff is a relatively new idea brought forth as a response to the enlightenment and rationalism.
For most of the Churches history, the Church was not hung up on this stuff the way we seem to be. They had real freedom.
When we have a view that every jot and tittle has to be exactly like it’s purported to be..we lose our freedom and often look like fools when the secularists point out obvious discrepencies in scripture.
St. Pauls admonition about law as written down (ink on a page or letters carved in stone) also applies to any law by which we are held regarding our faith. Any demand that existence places upon us, whether it be in and of a book, or a demand by your employer to be the best you can be…is law. It brings forth death (because it can never be achieved in perfection…God’s standard for law keepers)
The Bible is like the elements of the sacraments, products that man uses and products that God uses (for His purposes).
It doesn’t bother me one bit, nor do I think that the Bible is any less the infallible Word of God, because I think that in all the thoudands of bits of manuscripts required to put together one copy of the new testament, there may have been a comma left out, or the order of a particular incident was off.
Frankly, I think it even helps, or strenngthens my faith and my Christian freedom.
Thanks!
– Steve
I’ve met Bible Man! He’s scary.
Oh NO!!!!! YOU’VE MET HIM!!! AND YOU ARE STILL ALIVE?????
Steve, if you and I are quibbling about commas, then we are definitely wasting our time arguing the point. My gut reaction was to the “ink ..” comment. I love the Word of God. It is sacred to me, it is the foundation my faith is built on so I’m a little defensive about it. Sorry, my reaction was knee jerk.
My concern is that as in the case of my loved one some of the minor dicrepancies were used as a stepping stones to call into question some of the core beliefs put forth in the Bible and then finally Jesus’ deity was challenged.
God Bless, Shelley
NNNNNIIIIIICCCCCEEEEEE!!!!
Shelley,
I see your point exactly. It is a fine line we walk (I think). It’s easy to go too far one way or the other.
Many biblical inerrancy fundamentalists look foolish and backward when they try to defend things that they shouldn’t waste their time defending. We can’t prove any of this! If we could, we wouldn’t need faith. Therefore we proclaim and let the holy spirit create faith…when and where He wills.
On the other side are the liberal intelligencia (within the Church) that make the Bible over into an irrelevant book of an ancient era. These folks don’t believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and they pick and choose what they like. This is dangerous.
I know reasonable people will differ on this topic, but I like the center position. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is God’s Word to us in all matters of faith and life…even though it may have some man made discrepencies and others errors of no import to the overall message. This is the historical view of the Church and I believe, that it keeps our faith in tact and also our freedom.
I always like to remind people that our Lord Himself wasn’t above using stories, that were probably taylored to the point that He wanted to make (the parables). This is also what the Apostle John may have done seeing as how his gospel is so much different (contains things that the other three do not have).
I find no problem with this at all. This topic can really shake the ground underneath the feet of some of our Christian brothers and sisters that have a little more ossified view of the scriptures. I know it shook me up for awhile.
Thanks much Shelley! Blessings to you!
– Steve
[...] taken from the Naked Pastor [...]
Shelly – “Tell me, who decides what part of the Bible is of God and so infallible, and what part of it is of man and so fallible. I may have given Fishon a hard time about how I feel he wields the Word sometimes but I don’t believe we can pick and choose what in it is God and what isn’t.”
Shelly, have you ever studied how the Christian bible came to be what it is today? (hint – picking and choosing)
The cartoon is not about the bible, it’s about Bibleman!
And Bibleman is after me! His menacing step klunk ever so loud as he shrieks: ‘worship me! worsip me!’
I’m hiding behind the sofa?
Maybe Anne-Droid can help?
Sorry, thebutler, but I don’t get it. As I told Dave before I’m not very good at getting some kinds of humour. Slap stick, no problem, lol, but other stuff, not so good. Shelley
Steve wrote: “When we see the text itself as inerrant, we have just said goodbye to faith.”
————-Sounds sooo profound! Let me see if I get this right.
**If I believe the Bible is inerrant, I don’t have faith? Is that what you are saying?
**But if I believe the Bible is errant, I do have faith? Is that what you are saying?
So the obvious conclusion is, if I was to believe the Bible errant, I have faith in an errant book!
Sorry, Steve, old boy, the Bible is inerrant, and I have faith in what it teaches and who it teaches about. My faith isn’t in its inerrancy, it is in its conclusions.
You build a strawman who burns up.
fishon
Steve: It doesn’t bother me one bit, nor do I think that the Bible is any less the infallible Word of God, because I think that in all the thoudands of bits of manuscripts required to put together one copy of the new testament, there may have been a comma left out, or the order of a particular incident was off.
—————–Steve, you know full well that when the arguement about the inerrancy of scripture is debated, it isn’t about commas or the order of a particular incident. It is about the Genesis creation, the Flood, the parting of the sea, etc. It is about the creation account being a nice story but not true {Marc Borg and company}. Again, it ain’t about commas.
fishon
Steve wrote: Many biblical inerrancy fundamentalists look foolish and backward when they try to defend things that they shouldn’t waste their time defending.
—–Not that I would necessarily say that is not true, but give me an example so as to have a better idea of what that looks like.
fishon
the butler, I’ll save you dear. Me and the Borg (Invisible Church) with which I am one!
Ax
fishon,
I never said the Bible was inerrant. I criticized the belief that the text was inerrant.
Eaxamples were those I used in my 3rd comment. Plus others. For example, in Genesis, the world the way it is described as a dome with lights hung in the dome describes a flat earth. The earth is not flat. The ancient Hebrew writers just commented on what they knew. God did not feel it was important for them to desribe the earth in a way that would be accurate today. So what? I don’t care.
You are correct when you say that I have faith in an textually errant book. I keep having to go back to the distinction between inerrant text and inerrant book. The Bible is completely true. The message is inerrant and infallible. The text’s and some of the order and content does not jive. So what? It does not matter to me because I have faith. I do realize that some people need to have every jot and tittle line up exactly or their faith is shaken. That’s fine. But that’s not me.
The Moslems believe that there are absolutely zero errors in Koran of any kind. A moslem needs no faith because the book is proof positive in and of itself. I thank God that the Bible isn’t viewed that way (by most).
Commas aside, fishon, which of the Bibles that I mentioned earlier are correct and which ones are false since their content substatively varies aside from punctuation?
I’ll say again, that I once felt as you do, so I’m not being critical, just trying to give you another point of view. You are free to take it or leave it or mull it around for awhile…and then chuck it!
Thanks fishon!
– Steve
Steve,
I do realize that some people need to have every jot and tittle line up exactly or their faith is shaken.
—-I am a jot and tittle guy—but oooh how you assumes to speak to whether my faith is shaken or not. Maybe you need to be address as prophet Steve?
Oh, by the way, I choose Prot.
fishon
fishon,
I’m just wondering how you reconcile those differences in the gospels and in Genesis. (there are other differences that involve 3 different ancient Hebrew traditions and slightly differing versions of the flood account- but too involved to discuss now)
I’m glad you and I are reading the right Bible. All those R. Catholics and E. Orthydox Christians could be in a heap of trouble. What a shame, since it was primarily R. Catholic and E. Orthydox clergy and theologians that pretty much put together our Protestant Bible. (I know the Reformers revised it and that the Holy Spirit was of course in the whole shabang)
You know, fishon, you got me a thinking…what about the early Christians…for 500 years they didn’t even have a Bible. How did they manage? They had the Living Word of God, and that’s what we have too.
Anyway, fishon, you are a terrific thinker and staunch defender of the faith. I’m honored to be able to knock this stuff around with you.
– Steve
Ah Steve,
I don’t know about the “terrific thinker” thing. Man, I really am about the lest educated pastor you know–well, blog with. But I am smart enough to duck some of your statements and questions. Some of them are just darn unanswerable to me.
Yes, I am a defender of the faith–but I realize that absoletly nothing I say will have any affect on anyone unless the Holy Spirit does the affecting.
I suspect you and I will bounce more thoughts around in the future. You need to be patience with me; sometimes I misunderstand some of what you say—maybe it is that that ‘thinking’ thing. I out think myself quite often.
fishon
“I believe it is the letter of the law that brings death, meaning the law passed down to Moses from God…Tell me, who decides what part of the Bible is of God and so infallible, and what part of it is of man and so fallible. I may have given Fishon a hard time about how I feel he wields the Word sometimes but I don’t believe we can pick and choose what in it is God and what isn’t. That’s a slippery slope” (Shelley)
There is some really strange irony going in this paragraph. The Law (given from God) brings death but the spirit of the law (Paul’s teachings/gospel) brings life? You say ‘I don’t believe we can pick and choose what in it is God and what isn’t’ but that is exactly what is happening in that first sentence of this quote. Paul calls the Law ’such and such’ and you accept that as is – no questions asked. But what if the Prophets say the opposite – will they get the same credit as Paul?
“My concern is that as in the case of my loved one some of the minor dicrepancies were used as a stepping stones to call into question some of the core beliefs put forth in the Bible and then finally Jesus’ deity was challenged.” (Shelley)
Tell your loved one – we have something in common – I don’t see Jesus as deity neither – and yet I still persist about being a Christ(meaning Messiah – not God)-ian. Maybe he is onto something…now I know I have pissed off, not the bible man, but the salivating orthodox faith articles man.
the Bible is the word of the ancient day so why should i alter it if it wasn’t mine to begin with? i can interpret it. all versions after the “original” are interpretations, so where is the original? does it matter? what is staying the same between the lines is cold hard truth that can not be undone from the human consciousness if it is, in fact, understood with a humble heart. as far as i’m concerned, any misunderstanding and misleading version of Jesus’ ancient story caves in on itself after it is tested by true hearts, erased in time. and true hearts are timeless hearts because Love transcends time. God is love. God makes reality relevant. history is relevant. Jesus’ life is so powerful that it hasn’t ended but carries on in a mysterious spiritual force to us all.
I escaped Bible man too. I was actually turning into him, when God Himself intervened and sent two messengers (read friends) to warn us and help us escape.
Wait, I may be confusing Bible man with ‘I read the Bible more than you and must do what I say’ pastor man.
My mistake.
same one in disguise
We know KJV is the only valid Scripture because it lines up with good Christian doctrine. We know what good Christian doctrine is because it’s in the KJV and not in those other “translations,” the ones that are not of God.
It is only God’s providence that preserved good doctrine before the completion of the KJV.
Darnest thing I ever saw.
“Please don’t judge me,” but it is ok for me to judge Bible Man.
So much for ‘community.’ Many of you would kick poor old Bible Nan right out of your inclusive, tolerant, open-minded community.
One thing I can say for David’s Bible Man, he seems to be standing on solid ground, and I notice he has no head———–I intreprete that as Bible Man understanding that Jesus is the Head of His Church. That is a nice affect. I like that.
fishon
I see a head. It’s just a bit smaller than the stomping feet and the crushing arms. Maybe it got squished from bearing the weight of the world! What I can’t see is a heart. I hope there is one in there somewhere…
“If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.”
I Corinthians 13:1-8
(Sometimes Scripture can be whispered instead of shouted; sometimes it can be offered instead of slammed.)
Why does this remind me of the rumblings coming out of Westminster Theological Seminary this week? Hmm…..
ttm,
For some folks, scripture spoken, in the blogs case, written, is offensive in any case.
(Sometimes Scripture can be whispered instead of shouted; sometimes it can be offered instead of slammed.) Now that sounds really nice. Can you help me with that. Can you help me understand how to write what scripture says, and satisfy your concept on not ’slammed?’
I am serious. How does a person use the Word of God in a discussion and not be ’shouting’ in your opinion?
fishon
fishon,
This stuff is all fun and games until somebody loses an eye! ( my Mom used to say that)
Actually, it is fun, and it gets us a thinking. We can still have faith and think!
I really do believe that God uses imperfect tools to get the job done. He uses us !!!
That’s why in my mind it really is no big deal and quite logical that people in certain places and certain times with a limited knowledge of the world and universe around them, could be quite useful tools in God’s quest to create faith in people and save some of them.
It did take some doing to get me to this point. But now that I’m here I really do feel liberated from the strict demand that there be no errors or the whole thing is no good. Good uses earthen vessels. He loves cracked pots! I are one!
Talk to ya all in the mornin’ –
steve
Steve,
Error! I am the King of errors.
When you have someone [friend] stand up in the middle of your sermon and tell you she doesn’t agree, well that tends to keep you humble. Or when you get home, the wife says, do you know what you said? Or have a 15 year old ask you…, and you have no answer.
Oh, I agree. God has used some of the most unlikely characters to bring people to faith.
Sadly, some people equate having confidence in your faith and a willing to defend it as being in bondage. Liberated–man, praise the Lord, I am free, indeed, I am just about the most liberated guy I know. But then, isn’t that what Christ does for us!
fishon
Westminster Theological Seminary
Never heard of it.
I guess I better google it.
fishon
fishon,
My paranthetical sentence didn’t just sound nice; it is nice. I wasn’t trying to act nice or add some fluffy words to a whole bunch of sharpened ones to soften the blow; those specific words poured out of a place that is a mystery to me.
I am genuinely sorry that I don’t know how to “help you with that.” Please don’t misunderstand me here and read sarcasm into a serious statement. I don’t know how to help someone else learn to speak with love and gentleness. I am not big enough or wise enough or good enough. And I am not strong enough be bashed to bits while trying to help.
Sometimes I think that this kind of gentleness can only be learned from experience. I think the gentlest people are the ones who have experienced tremendous brutality, have themselves become brutal, and then have been forced to lose some very precious things before understanding why God insists that we be soft and gentle with each other. (i.e., King David, Saul/Paul, Martha, me)
I wish I could help you with that. You’re on your own.
But not really. There is a Gentle One–way bigger, wiser, better, and stronger than me (or you)–who might light the way to a place where Scripture is not a defense, an offense, or any kind of fence. Someday, I hope to meet you there.
“You know, fishon, you got me a thinking…what about the early Christians…for 500 years they didn’t even have a Bible. How did they manage? They had the Living Word of God, and that’s what we have too.”
I thought they used the Old Testament as their “Bible” then?
All these discussion about which version to use and etc… Sigh… If we’re so concerned, why not all we Christians, learn Greek and Hebrew and Chaldean, and only use the untranslated Scriptures instead?
LOL!!!!!
Thanks AnneDroid!
Saved me just in time.
Would’ve drowned in a sea of pericopes trying to outrun Bibleman!
Phew!
I thought Daleks were bad!
I think fishon is glad to have his freedom, but unwilling to let others have it.
Snd since this came in my e-mail today:
“The best way to be more free is to grant more freedom to others.”
-Carlo Dossi, author and diplomat (1849-1910)
Zefi, fishon,
The early Church used the old testament, but in much greater respect to Jesus, used the letters of the apostles and Paul’s epistles and other manuscripts, many of which would later be canonized into the Bible. Much of what they used did not make it into the Bible. Even then, the process was very messy. For example, the book of Revelation barely made it in, with hottly contested opposition from many of the clergy and theologians. Many books that could have made it in, did not.
fishon,
I agree with you whole heartedly that we make errors and God still makes good use of us. That is why I say that it is no different with scripture. Where there are errors (and there aren’t that many) God has no problem making the scriptures work to accomplish His will.
Remember, I still believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. Textual inerrancy and Biblical infallibility are two different animals.
Thanks!
– Steve
Roland,
YOU WROTE; I think fishon is glad to have his freedom, but unwilling to let others have it.
—–Now that is a really big accusation, “…unwilling to let others have it” [freedom}.
Might you give me one example of me taking away, or even HINTING of taking away others freedom?
And while you are at it, explain what you mean by the word ‘freedom.’
If you mean I would take aways someones freedom to yell “fire” in a crowed room where there is no fire, Yep, I would take that freedom away; however, if you see me debating and defending what I believe with someone who thinks different, and you define that as not willing to let people have freedom, then you misunderstand the concept of freedom. So, my friend, what do you mean “freedom?”
fishon
ttm
YOU WROTE; I don’t know how to help someone else learn to speak with love and gentleness….I wish I could help you with that.
—-ttm, no bashing here, but an honest question.
Writing is one form of communication. I write words on here that to you are harsh and not gentle. I offend you, either by what I say or how I say it. Thus, harsh.
Now I would ask you to consider another form of communication. A powerful form of communication. It is called ‘Art.’ It can carry with it a picture of hope, joy, loss, saddness, pain and ecstasy. Art can be brutal or gentle as a picture of a kitten.
I would ask you to go back and look again at some of David’s art on this blog. And I would ask you to use the same criteria you use to judge me harsh, unloving, not gentle, in his form of communication.
I take the above artwork of David, Bible Man. David is using that drawing as a form of communication of his ideas and believes about real people, for “Bible Man” is a depiction of real people. Now ttm, how gentle, how soft is that picture along with the words to describe it, as written by David.
I am not trying to make this about David verses me, it is his blog, he wins. But I am asking you to consider….
fishon
Again, fishon, I suspect that any answer I offer to you will not be sufficient for you.
Out of respect for what seems to be your genuine desire to understand, I’ll try to answer. This particular cartoon is not what I would call gentle and soft. The words that follow are not what I would call gentle and soft. But from participating in this forum hosted by David, I have come to believe that David himself IS a gentle and softhearted man.
I believe this is so because of how he treats those who comment here.
He does everything possible to maintain an open forum where every voice might be heard. He expresses compassion to those who are hurting. He offers virtual hugs and clinks of the mug. He does not simply rush past expressions of pain or anger or doubt with a quick Scripture or a platitude to “fix” it. He understands that HE can’t fix it.
He may not (I”m sure he DOES not) agree with everything voiced, but he allows those commenting to maintain their dignity. He might disagree with an idea, an opinion, a method, or an ideology, but I have not seen him “rough up” the spirit of people here. Now maybe in real life…maybe years ago…maybe in his most secret of “I will defeat the bastards” fantasies…I’m kidding! :^) What I’m trying to say is that David does not SHAME people for what they think or who they are or where they are.
On the other hand (and I apologize in advance for how harsh this sounds–but you seem to believe that the most loving people ARE harsh so maybe you will get what I mean) you seem NOT to be gentle and softhearted. You seem to use the vulnerability expressed in this forum as a way to prove yourself doctrinally correct and therefore more acceptable to God. You seem to want to place everything and everyone into a win/lose frame. Frankly, it’s hard to like you sometimes. But I want to. I want to learn just as much from what you say as I learn from what David says and what the many brilliant commenters here offer.
I feel sad that someone with so much to say is conceding so many opportunities to demonstrate the LOVE and GRACE and PEACE of God.
Does that make any sense to you?
Like I said, I’m not expecting it to.
But I still hope it does.
You’re ‘free’ to figure it out, fishon.
Darnest thing I ever saw.
“Please don’t judge me,†but it is ok for me to judge Bible Man.
So much for ‘community.’ Many of you would kick poor old Bible Nan right out of your inclusive, tolerant, open-minded community.
So if someone is free to think this, why do you wish to push down their freedom and coerce them into thinking they are not tolerant.
I’d let Bible man into any church. But just like the fox, you don’t put him in charge of the chickens.
“AND YOU ARE STILL ALIVE?”
Just barely.
Oh, and the other poster named Fred (the one with the KJV post) is not me. It’s just someone who’s using my name
Clever — yeah I’ve met “Bible Man” before — he is scary — and he/she shows up in all shapes and sizes. It is like the Bible becomes God to these people — they actually worship the book — it is a simple kind of life — it cuts out any thinking or discernment.
Richard Mullin
Steve:
I don’t know why the explanation, but I think that goes without saying?
Once in a while, I would try to imagine myself being in the early church’s era, wondering how it would feel.
And the only Scriptures to point to Jesus is, of course, the Old Testament, which is not “old” actually.
And of course they would use the apostle’s letters. I mean, imagine if you ‘built’ a congregation somewhere, and all you have is the Old Testament. When the Church there has a problem, they would turn to you asking for guidance, and the advices would of course be dearly treasured. If it’s the current age, even your emails would be regarded as such (which over time would even be regarded as Scriptures???), because you are basically the one who knows Jesus in the first place!
And how did the guidance came up in the first place? We dare not rule out the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but first and foremost, it is from their knowledge of the Old Testament, interpreted in the light of the work of Christ, and understanding all these. They did not just quote the Scriptures blindly without truly knowing them, like we often do these days. They truly understood them not only in the head, but also in the heart. I mean, you don’t find “don’t eat meat if it stumbles your brother” in the Old Testament, right?
I feel that these days we’re doing the Bible injustice. The words are there so that we’d come to know our Father better, so that we know of His heart, His plans and His love. But we’ve become so grossly infatuated with the letters, words, sentences and translations that we’ve turned the Bible into an idol that we worship. I think it’s prolly from our desire to be as accurate as possible, which is good. But are we so obsessed with the trees, that we missed the forest?
This is getting out of topic I guess. I shall stop here.
Bibleman sure is popular…
There is a real Bible Man. Your’s is scary but I think this one is more frightening because I don’t sense any sarcasm here. yikes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Jsm2v8TJ-8
[...] http://nakedpastor.com/archives/1935 [...]
The word of God in the bible is knowledge and this knowledge mean understanding to your fellow which mercy, justice and faith.
eyes2eyes.wordpress.com
I just watched that youtube link called “Bible Man”. I liked it — in the proper context of course. I like the whole Batman/Joker parallel — what a great idea for a Sunday school class or a vacation bible school. Elementary school kids would eat this stuff right up. This is a neat way for kids to learn bible verses.
I guess the problem is when big people act like “Bible Man” all the time. But it is a handy persona to keep in the back of your mind when you experience trouble in life. Kind of like the same way people use the Frank Peretti novels to imagine spiritual warfare which encouraged people to pray. I would not encourage a whole theology based on his novels but it does get you thinking in a “prayerful” direction.
Because we only “see through a glass darkly” all we have is different types of allegory to help us along in our journey.
Richard Mullin
[...] Borrowed from The Naked Pastor, who’s sometimes makes extremely funny and to the point cartoons. [...]
The Bible is errant, and it provides a way to compensate for that fact.
The Bible twice declares that it is errant. The first declaration is Matthew 13:33 which reads, “Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” The second declaration is Luke 13:21 which reads, “It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”
The Bible thrice mentions a way to compensate for the errancy. The first mention was at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” The second was at Matthew 18:16 which reads, “But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” The third mention was at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Their commonality, which is the way to remove the leaven, reads, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”