The kind of "fear" [Hebrew "yir-aw,"] spoken of in Job 28: 28 and Proverbs 9: 10 is not the kind that refers to being scared or petrified with fear but of the sort that means reverence and awe.(See Hebrew lexicons.) It's the ground of faith in God. Notice that the parallel line in Proverbs 9: 10 refers to "knowledge," showing the close relationship between those two.

When I said the Bible was poorly written, I meant from the standpoint of explaining what is true. I wasn't talking about poetry, myths, morality tales, etc..

I believe that it is essential to teach the stories of the Bible because it is so embedded into our cultural assumptions and provides much of the language we use to dialog about ethics. It is needed to simply be informed of western culture. Even Richard Dawkins the celebrated atheist says this. This, however, doesn't make it a great book as a whole.

It's ethical systems are largely iron age thinking. And they provide a contrast to the shift in world view that Jesus brings, with his exploration of empathy, in contrast to law.

Now if you want a triumph of logic and an almost miraculous breakthrough in understanding, Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" is absolutely amazing. As an achievement it supersedes the Bible in so many ways and yet Newton never claimed it to be inspired.

The point is that if God was trying to communicate to us the truths of the ages it should at least exceed Newton's work in scope and insight. Instead it requires us to make sense of an iron age penal code handed down by a capricious and jealous god.

Well then perfect love casts out all reverence and awe. :)

Ordinarily when something is said to be "poorly written," the reference is not to questions of whether it is true or false or even whether it is easy to understand. There are many excellent books that are neither true nor easy to understand. Two such are James Joyce's Ulyssus and Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.

But I'm glad you explained that you're talking about the fact that you don't think the Bible does a very good job at persuading you that it's true.

When you say it is not a great book, it makes me wonder what your standards are. I'm sure that if any other book was as popular and influential and considered "great" by as many good writers and thinkers as the Bible is, you would probably have little problem conceding its greatness.

But of course, whether a work of art, or a book, is great, is, after all, somewhat of a subjective decision. T. S. Eliot once wrote a well-known essay in which he gave his judgment that Shakespeare's play, Hamlet, was a terrible failure. Eliot, however, wasn't referring to its literary style but to its presentation as psychological drama.

I would appreciate very much if you'd give some examples from the Bible of what you consider "iron-age thinking." I can think of some things you are probably referring to, but I want to be sure I understand you. Naturally, it's important to consider the circumstances under which it was written. There's no doubt that if it was written today, it would be a much different book. Sometimes students who are studying the Greek plays or stories such as the Odyssey have similar difficulties trying to make sense of the value system and the ethical standards of the characters in those stories. That can make it hard to appreciate, for sure. And it can also prevent people from being persuaded of the truth of what they're reading. Much depends, too, on the emotional state of the reader whether he will be persuaded or not.

The statement in Proverbs about fear being the beginning of wisdom and the statement in the NT about love casting out "fear" are talking about two different kinds of fear. In the NT, it's saying love casts out all fear of punishment, whereas the verse in Proverbs is talking about reverence.

Of course the word used in Proverbs is not the same word that is used in the NT. But it is common for words to mean different things depending on the context. You can probably think of many words in the English langauge that do not mean the same thing every time they're used. This causes my Spanish-speaking wife no end of problems trying to understand English.

John,

The Bible does not explain what it is saying very well. The issue of how to be saved is so confusing that we now have 40,000 different versions of Christianity, each claiming to know The Truth. It is not just confusing to me. And it has nothing to do with my emotional state.

If this god is asking us to make an eternal life and death decision I would think the conditions would be more clearly laid out. This is not the case.

As far as iron age thinking, the whole need for Jesus to die for the sins of the planet is iron age eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth thinking. This is not the advanced ethical insight Christians seem to be claiming.

The second commandment which basically prohibits sculpture is not really the 2nd most moral imperative of all time. Almost anything would exceed that, like don't abuse your children, or even don't eat high fat foods. I think it would take a lot of sculpture to be harmful to anyone.

And one simply can observe that the death penalty is handed out for everything from adultery to gathering sticks on the Sabbath. This is much like the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland bleating "off with their heads" for every offense and minor irritation. Life under the rules outlined in the OT would be overbearing and menial.

This is hardly the existence I would want to "enjoy" for all eternity.

May I suggest that you focus your attention on the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses first and foremost? If you will do this then you will NOT be confused and will join with the FEW of us found in Revelation 3:4 who have been united in the real truth as Jesus prayed for in John 17.

Dr. Rich,

Really? That would make it 40,001 versions. And this is considering that Jesus talked in parables and even admits that he talks vaguely because people wouldn't accept him if he talked plainly. This is OK, but we don't have the version of the Bible where Jesus talks plainly.

One version says we only have to believe. It doesn't say believe what, and we have many different views of what that belief entails.

And if it's so simple how come only a FEW understand this?

Vague replies only reenforce my statement that the Bible is not very clear.

cardw - The Bible isn't necessary. All that is necessary is faith in Jesus, God in the flesh. Without that, all we have is the main message of Ecclesiastes, all is for nothing.

oldsailer,

I'm not sure how you would know about Jesus without the Bible, but the idea of having faith in Jesus is pretty vague as well. I don't think you are going to find a lot of agreement about what that means exactly.

Plus, this pessimistic attitude that all is lost reflects a fatalism related to the inability to find meaning in life without a fantastic story of redemption.

I feel at peace because I have accepted the fact that I don't know and if there is a god out there that is informing us in some way that I don't know about, then I'm sure if it's that important I'll know in this life or some life to come. If not, then there is still much to be had day to day in relationships around me.

If I happen to show up to some form of god after I'm dead, then at least I will not be a hypocrite by claiming to know things I can't possibly know.