What Does the Bible Really Teach?
This is the title of a book published by Jehovah's Witnesses. The book itself is intended as a simple introduction to what Jehovah's Witnesses really teach. It is used in "Bible Studies" with individuals who consent to "study" with the Witnesses (in their own homes, the first step towards conversion) but it is much more widely used by the Witnesses themselves, either in family or congregation study (it is currently being studied at the Tuesday night "book study").
Now, questions of the need for Witnesses to study their own basic beliefs to one side, I'd like to (as with the "Creation" book in my last blog) consider the title of the book itself. It tells us a lot about the Bible, the Witnesses, and religion in general, I think. OK, here's what I want to say:
The fact that you can ask "What does the Bible Really Teach?" shows that the Bible teaches nothing at all.
That's a bold statement I know, but let me explain. I'm only refuting the claim, hidden in the title of the book, that the Bible as a book (as a complete work) teaches something, that it has an overall "lesson" or truth. I'm not disputing that we can learn many things from the sayings ascribed to Solomon or Jesus, I am disputing the claim that there is an obvious teaching in "The Bible" that contains these sayings (and lots more besides).
As an example, if you finished reading a textbook on the biology of the human body and could ask yourself "what was that book really teaching?", then you haven't just been (really) reading a textbook on biology. You couldn't say that about such a book. Or if you went to a lecture on, say, the history of the printing press, you couldn't in all seriousness walk up to the lecturer afterwards and ask him "what were you really teaching?" So what I'm saying is, the fact that you can ask such a question about the Bible means that it's not a textbook or a lecture on anything, for if God is the writer or the lecturer, surely he, more than any earthly writer or lecturer, could make it clear what he is really teaching? So the hidden assertion in the title of the Witnesses' book is wrong, and obviously the question framed around this assertion is wrong, or nonsensical, too. In my view it may as well be called "How high can pigs really fly?".
I think wanting the Bible to be a neat package, a neat and tidy message from "our Father who art in heaven" is natural, but wanting it doesn't make it so. A little personal study reveals what the bible really contains and - the more difficult discovery - what it doesn't. Unless you're prepared to be inventive, or to suppose that the Creator's message is as hidden in the Bible as the Creator is from the world itself, for some reason hidden from the majority of his children, I can't see a way round the Bible itself, to God. It seems to me rather to stand in the way, rather than show the way to that One. The plethora of religions using this same book but believing widely different things is another sad testament (no pun intended) to it's ambiguous nature.
I don't think I am being unfair in using the Witnesses own question against them - I mean, it is written that Jesus did the same. And the thing is, the Witnesses do view the Bible in this way - as a textbook, a manual on life. They say things like "If your car is broken, what do you do?" and the answer is "consult the car's manual". You know what they're saying - we're all broken, we need to consult the Bible. OK. Thinking about what I've said though, and thinking about what the Bible really contains - if car manuals in this world were anything like the Bible, you would have every car that ever got repaired by it's owner consulting it's manual repaired differently from every other car that ever got repaired by it's owner consulting it's manual. Perhaps many of them would share one thing in common - they started off as cars and ended up as tanks. I'm not joking.
Again, if God meant the Bible to really teach anything, it would surely surpass any crystal mark standard in use today, so that all his children could understand. "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" with it's simple language and logical development, chapter by chapter, probably would reach such a standard. It's just the Bible itself that wouldn't.
Now, questions of the need for Witnesses to study their own basic beliefs to one side, I'd like to (as with the "Creation" book in my last blog) consider the title of the book itself. It tells us a lot about the Bible, the Witnesses, and religion in general, I think. OK, here's what I want to say:
The fact that you can ask "What does the Bible Really Teach?" shows that the Bible teaches nothing at all.
That's a bold statement I know, but let me explain. I'm only refuting the claim, hidden in the title of the book, that the Bible as a book (as a complete work) teaches something, that it has an overall "lesson" or truth. I'm not disputing that we can learn many things from the sayings ascribed to Solomon or Jesus, I am disputing the claim that there is an obvious teaching in "The Bible" that contains these sayings (and lots more besides).
As an example, if you finished reading a textbook on the biology of the human body and could ask yourself "what was that book really teaching?", then you haven't just been (really) reading a textbook on biology. You couldn't say that about such a book. Or if you went to a lecture on, say, the history of the printing press, you couldn't in all seriousness walk up to the lecturer afterwards and ask him "what were you really teaching?" So what I'm saying is, the fact that you can ask such a question about the Bible means that it's not a textbook or a lecture on anything, for if God is the writer or the lecturer, surely he, more than any earthly writer or lecturer, could make it clear what he is really teaching? So the hidden assertion in the title of the Witnesses' book is wrong, and obviously the question framed around this assertion is wrong, or nonsensical, too. In my view it may as well be called "How high can pigs really fly?".
I think wanting the Bible to be a neat package, a neat and tidy message from "our Father who art in heaven" is natural, but wanting it doesn't make it so. A little personal study reveals what the bible really contains and - the more difficult discovery - what it doesn't. Unless you're prepared to be inventive, or to suppose that the Creator's message is as hidden in the Bible as the Creator is from the world itself, for some reason hidden from the majority of his children, I can't see a way round the Bible itself, to God. It seems to me rather to stand in the way, rather than show the way to that One. The plethora of religions using this same book but believing widely different things is another sad testament (no pun intended) to it's ambiguous nature.
I don't think I am being unfair in using the Witnesses own question against them - I mean, it is written that Jesus did the same. And the thing is, the Witnesses do view the Bible in this way - as a textbook, a manual on life. They say things like "If your car is broken, what do you do?" and the answer is "consult the car's manual". You know what they're saying - we're all broken, we need to consult the Bible. OK. Thinking about what I've said though, and thinking about what the Bible really contains - if car manuals in this world were anything like the Bible, you would have every car that ever got repaired by it's owner consulting it's manual repaired differently from every other car that ever got repaired by it's owner consulting it's manual. Perhaps many of them would share one thing in common - they started off as cars and ended up as tanks. I'm not joking.
Again, if God meant the Bible to really teach anything, it would surely surpass any crystal mark standard in use today, so that all his children could understand. "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" with it's simple language and logical development, chapter by chapter, probably would reach such a standard. It's just the Bible itself that wouldn't.
posted by John Doran-Armstrong at 9:52 AM
4 Comments:
Try reading the book.
The assertion "What does the bible really teach?" is not what you say it is.
What it's saying, is that there are many misconceptions about what is biblical. Many people believe in the immortality of the soul, yet Ezekiel 18:4 states, "The soul that is sinning, it will die." If souls were immortal, how can they die?
Many people believe that Christ Jesus is equal to God in Divinity, yet Christ Jesus himself, when accused by the jews of making himself equal to god said, "Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner." John 5:19
Doesn't this show that the bible teaches things contrary to many doctrines of religion? That is why we talk about what the bible really teaches.
How can the book's title not be saying the Bible teaches? The very question "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" presupposes the statement "The Bible Teaches" Something, and what you are disputing is what that something is. This is what I was saying - and by quoting scripture to support it's (your) "teaching" you are unwittingly proving my point!
In my opinion, the assertion in the title is what I say it is, because it couldn't be what you say it is otherwise.
I made the point that there are many religions using this one book, but many views on what the book is actually saying. I'm sure you are well aware that a Catholic, for example, has their own views on what the Bible really teaches - your "truth" is his misconception, and vice-versa. Is this because Satan has led him astray, but God has blessed you? Or is there a more obvious answer?
My analogy of the Biology textbook was meant to show this: there could be no argument over what such a book was teaching. Would you get books along the lines of "What does 'Human Biology'really teach?" to be handed out to students doing a biology course (using that book)? No! And if such books were needed, you would doubt the teaching ability of the books author. This would be all the more so if there were vast disagreements over what the book were teaching - lot's of "What does 'human biology' really teach?" type books, for students to pick and choose from - and hopefully get the right one!! I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. The poor Catholic mentioned above is only doing exactly what you're doing - picking and choosing verses (perhaps he would refute you by picking and choosing Luke 20:37,38 and Col 2:9) and saying "this is what the (whole) Bible teaches". If the Bible taught anything clearly, you wouldn't need to pick and choose at all, do you see? To answer the immortal soul question would be as easy as picking up your book and turning to the Chapter 6, "Where are the Dead?" No, the Bible "are many, it contains multitudes".
The fact that you feel that you need another book to say "what the Bible teaches" (a mediator between the Bible and you) show's (at least to me) that it's not teaching anything with clarity at all.
I have read the book, by the way, and it's predecessors too.
I have to agree with you. Especially the bit about you being wrong. Or was that me? Or everyone? ;-) Don't use the A word here by the way (and I don't mean Arse).
There's an interesting article that was published on the same day as this blog in Canada's "National Post", entitled "Islam: a religion of peace?". In it we find this paragraph, which is saying the same sort of things I was saying about the Bible (italics mine):
"When the Koran is cited by Muslims in response to questions about violence, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. One or two mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses. But the Koran -- literally "recitation" -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet."
Now, Sean, would you agree with the above criticism? Is it being levelled at the Koran or those who use it? I would say that it doesn't matter: the Koran's ambiguity is the cause of its own (mis)use and therefore the book itself is to blame for its own (mis)use. Do you not see that the same thing(s)can be said about the Bible?
Post a Comment
<< Home