Bibliolatry, the Rainbow & Evangelicals

Andy at Enter the Rainbow asks this question:
“Is a thing true because the Bible says it is, or does the Bible say a thing because it is true?”
Andy follows up the discussion by asking the question:
What's Wrong With Sturking?
These are really good questions and get to the heart of bibliolatry. For many years I often didn't engage my brain (and really my heart) when it came to the bible. My "biblical" views about life, church and the world were very narrow ... those views caused to me live an arrogant and unloving life. I am growing these days in love and beginning to understand how little I know of love, humility and the bible.

Michael at Addison Road explains Why I am (still) an Evangelical. In it he presents these views about the bible:

The evangelical hermeneutic rests on this assumption - that if God is omnipotent, present, and interested in revealing things about himself, we can expect His revelation to have certain basic characteristics. Things like:

1) Inspiration - God was involved in the production of the texts.

2) Infallibility - the texts do not err in their purposes.

3) Historicity - the texts were written at a place and time in history, by people situated in history, and as such, they are products of their historical/cultural perspective.

4) Textuality - text as text: the normal tools for interpreting meaning in any text are the appropriate tools for interpreting meaning in biblical texts. In other words, when we read “Joseph was lowered into the well”, the meaning is conveyed by the content of the words “Joseph”, “lowered” and “well”, just as it would be if those words were written in personal letter, a historical footnote, or any other work outside of the biblical canon. Attempts to use “secret codes” or numerological sequences to unlock the “true” meaning of the text are therefore inappropriate to interpretation (think Kabbala, or “The Bible Code“).
I agree with what Michael writes - it is a balanced view ... a view that presents the bible in a way that makes sense ... in a way that shows that the bible points to God ... in a way that does not incarnate the bible as God.


  1. Oh, now that is precious, KB!

    The whole subject is great and the "sturking" argument is awesome.

    Originally, I was the type of Christian who used the circular arguments to justify my faith, and I was bewildered that anyone would not see the wisdom I was applying to my arguments.
    I have been fortunate enough to have some really nerdy-geeky, scientist brothers really close to me and they have taught me how to actually apply thought to my Bible study.

    My arguments, though not perfect, are much more acceptable to thinking people now.

    (By the way, if I have sturked anyone here or anyone else, let it be known that I humbly apologize for my foible against them.)

  2. I agree... But I like to broaden the conversation to include the WORD (He's been since the beginning) the SCRIPTURES (they've been around since Moses) and then the BIBLE (it's been in book form since Guttenberg).

    This helps us extend beyond a "Bible" conversation and see Gopd's story with even more depth.

  3. One thing missing from the list, is that the bible is then read. It is read by a sinner like me. How many church wars are fought over a few words?

    My wife once said, well, what about the bible that gets translated into Chinese? From her understanding there are not words to always properly translate it. For example, there is no such word as agape love. What does that mean, if you read a Chineese bible you are off to hell? I don't think so. Surely our Father's love goes beyond the translation of words.

    I think God cares about one's heart, not about our ability to be the best apologist.


  4. Hey! Who's the new guy? Did KB's dad come here and take over?


    Just kidding. Based on the hair/shirt combo in the last photo, I was hoping it was not too recent.


I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply.
You can click here to see my comment policy.