<\/p>\n
Conservative Evangelical Bible scholar <\/font><\/span>Dr. Bruce Waltke has resigned from his This <\/p>\n Biblical First,<\/b><\/span> historically the language of poetry and myth has Second,<\/b><\/span> there has always had a tension between scripture’s Once readers of a text have put a text in other words, however, Since “Because Being I <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Conservative Evangelical Bible scholar Dr. Bruce Waltke has resigned from his teaching position at the Reformed Theological Seminary. He made the mistake of saying the evidence overwhelmingly supported evolution. Many of his co-religionists are unforgiving. Ken Hamm, CEO of the ‘Creation Museum,’ objected, “I believe what he [Waltke] is saying ultimately undermines the authority of God’s…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science-and-technology","category-spirituality"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nteaching position at the Reformed Theological Seminary. <\/span>He made the mistake<\/a> of saying the
\nevidence overwhelmingly supported evolution. Many of h<\/span>is co-religionists are unforgiving. <\/span>Ken Hamm, CEO of the ‘<\/span>Creation Museum,’ objected, “I believe what he
\n[Waltke] is saying ultimately undermines the authority of God’s word.” Other spiritual egotists made similar assaults on Waltke’s intellectual
\nhonesty. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nspat is of little concern to Pagans.
\n<\/span>But it exposes the irrational core at the heart of so-called “Biblical”
\nreligion within which many of us had our initial religious roots, an
\nirrationality that is infecting our entire society with attitudes inimical to
\nfreedom and democracy. <\/span>Those who
\nreject reason and evidence about the most important things will sooner or later
\nreject it about other important things.
\n<\/span>We live today with the consequences.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nscripture considered as a sacred authority have two basic weaknesses. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nbeen used in religion to try and illuminate the meanings in reality, meanings
\nthat cannot be put adequately into words.
\n<\/span>So myths take you as far as words can go, and launch you a little
\nfarther, like poetry. <\/span>Many
\nChristian traditions are open to this kind of interpretation – but not
\nso-called conservative “Biblical” Christianity. <\/span>There that approach has been eliminated in favor of
\nliteralism, thereby shifting religious discussion to science’s turf – a turf
\nthat cannot identify internal meaning because it focuses on what is observable
\nand measurable. Insofar as they are rational, Waltke’s habits of thought that he used in Biblical interpretation also led him to recognizing the reality of evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nreporting of others’ real or claimed experiences of the sacred, and the
\nexperiences people are having today, be they their own encounters, or simply
\nthe evidence that lies around them.
\n<\/span>In addition, writing scripture always takes place in a particular time
\nand place, and addresses a particular audience. <\/span>To explain such a text we HAVE to put it in our own words
\nand the farther removed we get from that time and place, the more difficult it
\ncan become to grasp the writer’s intent.
\n<\/span>In his book <\/a>Misquoting Jesus<\/a><\/i><\/span>,
\n Bart Ehrman who started out in life as a “Biblical” Christian, writes (p. 217)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthey have changed the words. <\/span>This
\nis not optional when reading; it is not something you can choose not<\/i><\/span> to do when perusing a text. <\/span>The only way to make sense of a text is
\nto read it, and the only way to read it is by putting it in other words. .
\n. <\/span>And so to read a text is, necessarily,
\nto change a text.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthese folks have rejected myth, which offers a poetic kind of interpretation
\nfocusing on meaning, and replaced it with modern science’s standard of
\nobjective and impersonal data, they make themselves hostage to science. <\/span>Having done so, when their allegedly
\nliteral facts are no longer supported by the facts as science identifies them,
\nthey have no choice but to fall back on the will to believe. <\/span>That is all they have left.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nI believe it, this is God’s message.”
\n<\/span>No other reason exists as to why someone should prefer one version over
\nanother. This is all that is left to “Biblical” Christians confronting the problem that their argument for only literal interpretation means that, when the evidence is examined, taken literally the Bible is wrong. <\/span>This is narcissistic
\negoism tarted up in sacred garb.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nitself irrational this kind of religion lacks the capacity to respond
\nrationally to different points of view.
\n<\/span>It can think only in terms of denunciation and suppression. And so, <\/span>hidden in its core, is the threat of
\nviolence, a violence that always surges to the surface when the opportunity
\narises. <\/span>Its adherents believe
\ntheir message applies to everyone but they lack the tools or evidence to make a
\nrational case that this is so. <\/span>Nor
\ncan they make a poetic\/mythic case.
\n<\/span>And they confuse their limited human understanding with the will of
\ntheir god. <\/span>This is an explosive
\nmixture of ingredients, one that has killed millions in the past. Like
\nIceland’s Eyjafjallaj\u00f6kull Volcano, they are dangerous neighbors.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthink only religions that focus on the experiences of their practitioners
\ntoday, and that find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above
\nit can coexist amicably with science, democracy, and freedom. Those that reject
\nthese approaches are at best volcanoes, waiting only adequate power to explode,
\nspreading death and destruction all around them. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n