• Mike

    I like the idea of being guided by truth. My question would be: how do we know having a biblical world view is the same as having a truthful world view?

    If God cares about all cultures and every generation, why would He choose to reveal truth only to one small tribe in the Middle East and withhold it from every other culture?

    It seems to me that when one says they hold a biblical world view they mean a biblical literalist world view. And thereby exclude any other sources of truth.

    One thing that seems unique to this generation is the global and ubiquitous source of information. For me, the choice between truth in the Bible and truth outside the Bible is a false dilemma.

    Sure, strengthen your biblical world view. But also strengthen your epistemology and be humble enough to question your assumptions.

    • Iamsecond

      I agree, being humble enough to question your assumptions is a good start. For example, you questioned why God only expressed His truth to a small Middle-Eastern tribe, and yet I’m guessing you’re not part of that tribe? Yet you’ve still heard of the Bible, whether you have read it or not, and that is the case for most people in the world over the past two millennia.

      The fact you can even express an opinion on it shows you are aware of it, and that shows the truth is not as confined as you think.

      • Mike

        1 John 4:1 says “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

        How I am to know that the canonized text of the New Testament is not written by false prophets or the interpretation of the text offered is by false prophets? Paul also wrote in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse.” Paul himself seems to state even the apostles could get the gospel wrong.

        The presupposition that the Bible is God’s word seems to follow the same logical fallacy the Mormons use when they quote Moroni 10:4 as a means to test whether or not the Book of Mormon is true:
        “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

        I’m having a hard time finding justification to hold the plain, literal interpretation of the canonized Scripture as the standard to go by. It’s circular logic, the same reasoning given by the Mormons. I have to agree the text is true first in order to prove the test given in the text is true.

        Let me give you a practical example I’ve wrestled with. 1 Timothy 2:12 states “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” It seems pretty clear in this context Paul means this to be binding for all cultures, not just Timothy’s local church because he later references Eve (i.e. womanhood) as being deceived.

        This flies in the face of the narrative given in modern Western culture. Women are not to be seen as sub-equal to men but rather equal and opposite. So which narrative is correct? When I think logically about it I think whoever has the gift of teaching should teach, regardless of their gender. That makes the most sense to me.

        So does that make Paul wrong? Does that make the literal interpretation wrong? Or is our culture wrong?

        It seems there’s a bit of tension here but to “a-priori” decide the Bible must be correct in this matter elevates Paul (or at least his writings) to the level of infallible deity.

        Does that make sense? How do you handle conflict between the conscience of our culture and the literal interpretation of the Bible?