My take-away from your first explanation is that “imprecatory” prayer (i.e. wishing ill on another) is more about the brokenness of the psalmist/pray-er than a doctrinal defense of this kind of prayer. As such this sort of prayer should not be taught as the sort that moves God to hurt people but a way to cathartic-ally interact with him. Of course I might counsel one who consistently prays in this manner to seek help

Regarding genocide and the idea that “some of which was explicitly instructed by God” – I think that one is on shaky ground to always take a literal approach to passages where it is reported that “God said”. I find that approach to take literalism to places where it need not go. It is one thing to historically report that the Israelites committed genocide because they believed God ordered it.. it is yet another thing to interpret those passages believing that God actually ordered the events. IMO it takes literalism to an unnecessary extreme.

Overall I agree with your approach to the scriptures. I appreciate your high regard for content and context. I am enjoying the dialog.

Blessings, Bob

My take-away from your first explanation is that “imprecatory” prayer (i.e. wishing ill on another) is more about the brokenness of the psalmist/pray-er than a doctrinal defense of this kind of prayer. As such this sort of prayer should not be taught as the sort that moves God to hurt people but a way to cathartic-ally interact with him. Of course I might counsel one who consistently prays in this manner to seek help

Regarding genocide and the idea that “some of which was explicitly instructed by God” – I think that one is on shaky ground to always take a literal approach to passages where it is reported that “God said”. I find that approach to take literalism to places where it need not go. It is one thing to historically report that the Israelites committed genocide because they believed God ordered it.. it is yet another thing to interpret those passages believing that God actually ordered the events. IMO it takes literalism to an unnecessary extreme.

Overall I agree with your approach to the scriptures. I appreciate your high regard for content and context. I am enjoying the dialog.

Blessings, Bob

Regarding the phrase, “actual words of God”: 2Tim 3:16 (NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. This means that historical records are perfectly accurate, prophetic passages are equally infallible, doctrinal statements are always internally consistent, and instruction for living reflects the nature and intentions of God for creation.

1) Let us examine Psalm 3:7 (NIV) Arise, O LORD! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. Taking this as a representative sample of the behavior you describe, let us examine the proper way to teach from this passage.

a) Do not divorce the verse from the whole of it's passage. As has been said, “A text without a context is a pretext”.

b) Consider the passage according to it's literary intent.

c) Compare the results to other portions of scripture.

In this case: a) the passage describes King David in need of deliverance, with the reputation and legitimacy of divine authority of God at stake; b) the passage is poetic, describing David's state of mind at the time; c) David calls for the administration of justice and divine protection, both of which are consistent with the revealed nature of God. Surely the lesson here is that we should never be afraid to express the depths of our emotion to God, and to pray in accordance with the nature of God. Remember also that the purpose of temporal judgment is to drive individuals to repentance and reconciliation with God. David's prayer here was granted because of the righteousness of his cause; Balaam, also an acknowledged prophet of God, had his prayers refused by God. We need not fear that our private malice or misunderstanding will persuade the Lord to act improperly.

2) Let us examine Joshua 6:21 (NIV) They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. The sacking of Jericho surely involved the slaughter of infants and children, as well as the destruction of many resources that could have been put to good use.

Following our established pattern: a) The Israelites are in a state of war, conquering new land they intend to inhabit for themselves. b) The passage is historical in nature, describing events without apologizing for them. c) The conquest of other portions of Canaan also involved this kind of behavior, some of which was explicitly instructed by God; at other times, God explicitly forbade acts of genocide or the plundering of cities that would result in non-combatants being unable to provide for themselves. If you wish to make a moral lesson involving God's stance on genocide from this material, it will be difficult indeed. Perhaps the easiest conclusion to reach would be that in the absence of prophetic revelation, the rules of war must be extrapolated from those governing legal affairs. “Not in vain does authority bear the sword.”

I hope this speaks to the discussion in the manner you requested.

1) Some preachers feel that it is in accord with the scriptures (especially the Psalms) to prayer imprecatory prayers asking God to harm people like President Obama who they do not see as a Christian (see http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_con…).

2) Some believe that genocide (i.e. the killing of innocent infants) is sometimes in accord with God's will because they read parts of the OT and believe that God literally commanded genocide at times.

Just a few examples of how some interpret the phrase “actual words of God”. I would appreciate your perspective on the two examples above with regard to the phrase “actual words of God”. Thanks much.

Sounds about right.

I enjoyed reading your contribution. I don't really have much to add or critique.

That Biblical text is to be taken or rejected as a whole is also taught by Paul in 2Timothy 1:13-14, where Paul instructs Timothy in the pattern of biblical teaching. This statement must then be understood in light of verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids the qualitative addition or subtraction of material to the Mosaic text. In order for biblical text outside of the Pentatuch to be eligible for canonicity, it must match in substance the original divine text handed to Moses.

The modern Christian Bible comes to us through a rigorous process of selection by the church fathers, who began with the Hebrew texts and then compared manuscripts for these qualities – evidence of divine revelation, and concurrence with original material. This process led to the exclusion of many popular texts (such as the Books of Enoch and Maccabees) and the inclusion of texts not so popular or accepted (such as the Letter to the Hebrews).

Interpretation of the Bible is not simplistic, and the structure of biblical text is such that extremism is discouraged in favor of specificity – which bears much of the same appearance. Interpretation of the Bible must always be done in light of the principles above outlined, and in conjunction with an understanding of the purpose of the portion of text currently under consideration. Let's consider solely the Gospels, while all three Gospels are in part a biographical record: Matthew is primarily an exposition of Old Testament prophecy and law; Mark is a dramatic biography; Luke is a historical record; John is a theological treatise. Of the Old Testament: much of it is historical record, much of it is poetry, much of it is prophecy.

And all of it is internally consistent, demanding to be recognized accepted as such – in whole and not in part.

“The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.”

This seems to be a very simplistic and extreme statement and presents a very narrow view of biblical interpretation. Interpreting the scriptures is more than reading everything as “the actual words of God”.

That is not to say that adherents to those religions aren't saved. They may well be. That is for God alone to judge.

I will say though, that I feel like the blanket statement about world religions using the Bible comes off as a little bit elitist- not dissimilar to the Baptist environment I grew up in, which questioned the legitimacy of the salvation of the members of the Baptist church down the street…