Myth, and Three Philosophies of the Bible

As it pertains to Bible philosophies the word myth would, to the fundamentalist, be irrelevant.  To them the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, given to man by the inspiration of God.  It is their belief that each story in the Bible is based on fact and therefore should be taken literally.

The liberal believer is also convinced that God inspired the Bible, but used human authors to relate His message in a way that was most meaningful to them.  They feel these human authors used various literary methods to relay the word of God.  At times the method used was the myth.  This method was used by the author the to explain his beliefs by writing as though he was recounting an actual historical event.  According to the liberal this does not take away from the importance nor the impact of the message.  It is simply a way for the human author to get God’s message to man in a way that man can comprehend.

The humanist believes as does the liberal, with one important distinction.  Many humanist believe in the Bible as a book of good teachings, but see no proof in its many stories, poems, and myths that God is the author of the Bible.  They do not even see any evidence in the Bible that proves the existence of God.  To them the myths of the Bible are simply each author’s way of  relating their beliefs in such a way as to win converts to their way of thinking.

Passages From the Bible as Explained by a Fundamentalist, a Liberal Believer, and a Secular Humanist

Issac and His Sons (Genesis 25:19 - 27:40)

Fundamentalist:  This is the actual story of how Jacob became father of the chosen race of Israel, and his brother Esau became the ancestor of a second nation.  Throughout this story we see how Jacob, even though he was younger, was able to receive the blessings and inheritance that should have gone to his brother Esau.

            Esau, in anguish, begs for a blessing from his father after realizing Jacob had stolen his through deception.  Isaac gives the blessing but adds that his people will be in submission to Jacob’s people for a long time.  Thus the hatred and conflict between the two nations.

Liberal Believer:  Yes indeed there has been conflict between these two nations.  And it is certainly possible that the lineage of each can be traced back to a common ancestor.  But this is only a myth told to make the point that two nations, or two people, can have the same heritage, but take entirely different paths in their lives.  Through this myth God is saying that only by choosing the godly path does one receive the benefits and blessings of God.  Greed and weakness will only bring destruction and loss of everything you hold dear.

Secular Humanist:  Choosing a good path often has the natural result of blessings and benefits.  When one becomes greedy and self-centered one usually loses much of what he or she already has.  This is not proof of God, rather a well constructed story to show just how the choices people make can affect their lives.

Balaam’s Donkey (Numbers 22: 21 - 41)

Fundamentalist:  God told Balaam not to go Balak.  At first Balaam agreed, but when money was offered he decided to seek God’s direction one more time.  This time God told him to go with Balak’s messengers, but he was displeased with Balaam who was enticed by the promised rewards.   Rather than believing God meant what He said , Balaam went back to him in the hope that he heard Him wrong the first time.  Because of His displeasure God used a donkey to speak to him and show him that he was foolish not to believe God the first time.  God was showing Balaam that even a donkey has enough sense to know God when he sees Him, and He used the donkey to humiliate Balaam.  God’s will will be done no matter how we might try to change it.  Sometimes we suffer humility when we go against His will.

Liberal Believer:  God does require us to follow His will.  There is always a price to pay when we go against that will.  Although this story is not based on an actual event it is God’s way of telling the reader that He is a powerful and mighty God.  His will cannot be changed by man; and, when man does try to change he will often be placed in a humiliating situation.  A situation designed by God to both show His sovereignty, and to bring the unbelieving back to a right relationship with God.

Secular Humanist:  Donkeys do not talk.  It is a physical impossibility.  This story is nothing more than a means by which those who wish to hold people in line can show that if they try to go against the so called word of God they will be humiliated.  They have crafted this somewhat ingenious story to convince fellow followers that one cannot change the will of God so you shouldn’t even try.  This type of story is a very clever way of getting believers to follow their leaders no matter how strange or unconventional the path they wish to take.

The Flood and the Beginning of Races (Genesis 7:1 – 10:32)

Fundamentalist:  There actually was a flood, and God instructed Noah to build an ark that served to save him, his family and the various animals of the earth.  All else was destroyed by the flood.  Therefore, after the flood, only Noah, his three sons, and their wives were left.  Obviously all of mankind can trace their descendents back to these three sons since they were the only ones who could procreate and once again inhabit the earth.  Chapter ten of Genesis is the account of the descendents of the sons of Noah.

Liberal Believer:  God is the creator of mankind.  All men are equal in the sight of God.  What better way to show that equality than through a myth that says that all races came from the seed of one man, Noah. 

Secular Humanist:  All men are equal, but that does not prove they were created by God.  If it were possible to trace each person’s lineage we would all be surprised by who some of our ancestor’s are.  This story is a very simple but effective way to show us that we all can very easily be related to the very people we may hold prejudices against today.  Equality is a fact of mankind.  Again, however, that does not prove that mankind was the creation of God.

Peter Walks on the Water (Matthew 14:28 – 31)

Fundamentalist:  Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore can rule over the laws nature and physics.  He truly did walk on water, and Peter was a witness to that act.  Upon seeing this miracle Peter too wished to walk on the water.  When Jesus told him to “come” Peter jumped at the chance and began walking toward Jesus.  This took an act of faith, but the faith was shallow.  When he actually got into the water his faith began to falter, and as a result he began to sink.  Jesus did chastise Peter for doubting, but the event underscored for all present that Jesus truly was the Son of God.

Liberal Believer:  It is not necessary to believe that Jesus actually did walk on water; or that Peter began to do so, but began to seek when he actually felt the wind and the waves.  The point of this myth is that our faith must not falter.  Often we find it easy to have faith when things are going well, but once trouble starts brewing, and the wind and waves start to overcome us, then we tend to lose our faith.  By adding to the story Peter’s plea to save him, and Jesus’ reaching out his hand to do so, the writer of this story points out that God is always there for us.  Our faith does not need to falter.

Secular Humanist: This is not a story about God actually walking on water.  Rather this is a very inventive story to get people to hang in there when the going gets tough.  It does not prove the existence of God, but shows us that man has within him the resources to get through the tough times.

Paul and Silas Freed From Prison by an Earthquake (Acts 16:16 – 34)

Fundamentalist:  Paul was a man of God, and God had a purpose for his life.  This particular prison experience was God’s way of showing the prison guard, and all he talked to thereafter, that God is real, and that He wishes all to be saved.

Liberal Believer:  There may or may not have been an earthquake that freed Paul and Silas.  It is not necessary to take this story literally.  It is only necessary to see that by believing in God one can be freed from the chains of sin.

Secular Humanist:  Once again a ingenious storyteller has come up with a story that serves to encourage people to follow his way.  The implication is, “If you believe as I believe you will not suffer the chains of defeat, sorrow, and so forth.  This story also points out that when one keeps on smiling, or singing as did Paul and Silas, you will get through the tough times.  They won’t seem as much a burden as they would if you maintained a defeated attitude.

Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1 – 11)

Fundamentalist:  This is a true story recounting the Church coming together and sharing their possessions.  This was a voluntary act by all involved.  In other words they gave as they felt led to give.  Some gave more than others, but no one measured one’s giving against another’s.  Yet this is what Ananias and Sapphira did.  They wanted everyone to believe they were giving all the proceeds from the property they just sold.  This was a slap to God’s face because He did not ask them to give it all.  They were attempting to attain righteousness through lies and deceit.  For that reason God struck them both dead on the spot.

Liberal Believer:  The Church was coming together at that time, and they were no doubt sharing their possessions with each other.  After all that is what much of the New Testament encourages believers to do.  God did not strike these two dead where they stood.  Rather there was a more universal point to this myth.  We as Christians must be careful what we promise God we will do.  If we say we will give of our time and flaunt our “holiness” by  bragging about how much we give, then waste our time on other things, we may have to account for that promise at the judgement.  Eternal death, as opposed to eternity in heaven, will be the result of this kind of deceit.

Secular Humanist:  It is true that we should mean what we say and we say what we mean.  Only heartache and disappointment comes from lies and deceit.  This does not prove the existence of God.  It is only a story to emphasize a fact of life.

Time Magazine

Agree

1)         I agree with Phil Beck, who on page 78 of the Time Magazine article was quoted, “If you start questioning it [the story of Jonah], where do you stop?”  The story in the Bible is one of the love of God shown through His plan of redemption.  This plan is revealed throughout the Bible from man’s fall, to the saving sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God.  This is the Christian’s hope.  This is hope is based on the truth of His Word.  If any part of His Word can be questioned, then that hope is lost.  The truth that the Bible presents must be entirely the truth.  If any verse is doubted then every verse in the Bible can and must be viewed with the suspicion that they too may not be true.  One cannot pick and choose what he or she wants to be true.  To maintain a realistic hope one must maintain a belief in the absolute truth of the Word of God.

2)                  “What is the reason for the revival today of such fierce fundamentalism?  Perhaps the cause is an increased need for spiritual security in a troubled world.” (Time, p. 78)  Once again the Bible offers hope to those who find no hope in a world where nothing is absolute.  Whereas the world’s moral and ethical standards no longer merely fluctuate with each generation, but do so with each passing whim or what is politically fashionable, the Bible offers a rock solid standard that has not changed throughout history.  It does indeed offer security in a troubled world.

Disagree

1)                  “Some critics suggest,  [the wise men’s] existence is questionable, possibly merely a preaching device use by the evangelist to suggest the import and universality of the astonishing event: God became man.”  (Time, p. 77)  This leaves out some facts about these wise men.  Why did they go to Herod?  And why did they feel it important to return home without reporting their findings to Herod, as they promised?  This detail of the story does not add to the idea of the “universality” of the event.  It does, however, give credence to the story.  Why would Herod be interested in this birth?  And why would three wise men make fools of themselves in front of Herod if they did not believe they were following a star that was leading them to this holy birth?

2)                  “An occasionally fallible Bible, therefore, is a Bible that paradoxically seems more authentic.”  (Time, p. 78)  How can one believe in the Bible if they believe there is a possibility that any part of it is fallible?  Certainly one could argue that, as an historical document, mistakes in the Bible would not diminish the overall accuracy of the story.  However, if one is to read the Bible as a story of man’s fall and redemption, and take that story as a means of personal hope of redemption, then fallibility must necessarily diminish that hope.  Otherwise how can one be sure God sent His Son to redeem man?

Newsweek Magazine

Agree

1)                  “…knowledge of the historical Jesus is inadequate for salvation without faith in the crucified Christ.”  (Newsweek, p. 50)  If one reads the Bible for its historical fact, he or she has done nothing more than read fine literature.  This includes the story of Jesus.  To overlook the meaning of his death on the cross is to overlook the common thread that weaves its way through the entire Bible.  Jesus came, not as an historical figure, but as the culmination of God’s plan of salvation.

2)                   Professor Carl Holladay said, “But scholars must leave it up to believers to evaluate the claim that [the miracles of Jesus] were really the work of God.”  (Newsweek, p. 52)  Ultimately this is where the responsibility to either accept or reject the message of the Bible must be placed.  Scholars, theologians, ministers and teachers can expound on the Bible unendingly, but if the individual does not accept the God of the Bible then all their rhetoric is meaningless.

Disagree

1)                  “…while there were eyewitnesses to his public ministry, it is highly unlikely that any of them can be identified with the authors of the four Gospels, which were written 40 to 60 years after his death.”  (Newsweek, p. 48)  In the Book of John, Chapter 21, verses 20 through 24, we read that Peter asked Jesus a question concerning one of the other disciples who happened to be “the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper….” (verse 20, New International Version)  In verse 24 we see that this person is the one who wrote this book.  “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.”  (Verse 24, NIV)

2)                  “Nicodemus, a secret admirer, does not understand that disciples, too, must be ‘begotten from above’ – a reference to Divine election that modern evangelists still sometimes interpret, instead, as requiring ‘born again’ experiences.” (Newsweek, p. 52)  God is both a loving God and a just God.  He cannot be both and divinely select a chosen few.  He can, however, be both by requiring a born again experience.  By this method He has given mankind the freedom of choice, while at the same time offering a way of redemption.  This plan also allows Him to be just by condemning the sinner, and loving by allowing the sinner to choose away to escape that condemnation.