Biblical Inconsistency

[Sunstone]

NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. If you are unsure of the difference, please consult this thread: Debate v Discussion: What's the Difference?​

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
​

Do Emerson's observations have any relevance to the issue of the Bible's consistency? Or rather, inconsistency?

Why do you think Emerson took such a dim view of consistency? Do you think it had anything to do with the sheer complexity of human nature and the world?

Hypothetically speaking, roughly how much longer would the Bible need to be to (1) contain the same ideas as it presently does, and yet (2) show their underlying unity, if any such unity exists? Would you expect it to at least double in size? Triple? Quadruple?

Do you agree with me that a Spring rain and the smell of leather are better than any religion?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Do you agree with me that a Spring rain and the smell of leather are better than any religion?

Spring rain? Yes.
Leather? Depends on who is wearing it.

 

[sun rise]

Why do you think Emerson took such a dim view of consistency? Do you think it had anything to do with the sheer complexity of human nature and the world?

You answered your own (rhetorical) question pretty well.

There's a balance between being totally rigid and being totally flexible. Either extreme is a problem. To me Emerson was commenting on one of the poles.

Do you agree with me that a Spring rain and the smell of leather are better than any religion?

Spring, yes. But, oh heretic, leather? What a sin that is. The real divine smell is the bacteria-caused wonderful smell of some dog's feet. So repent of your folly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Inconsistency is an issue if, and only if, one views scripture as Holy Writ.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do Emerson's observations have any relevance to the issue of the Bible's consistency? Or rather, inconsistency?

No, not to the Bible, I don't think.

Why do you think Emerson took such a dim view of consistency? Do you think it had anything to do with the sheer complexity of human nature and the world?

I think, just from those words alone, as I haven't read them in context, that Emerson understood that tomorrow will not be like today, and that therefore it is most likely that we will need new responses to it. Such is the nature of life.

Hypothetically speaking, roughly how much longer would the Bible need to be to (1) contain the same ideas as it presently does, and yet (2) show their underlying unity, if any such unity exists? Would you expect it to at least double in size? Triple? Quadruple?

I think, with a really good editor (that's not me) that providing humans with enough framework to permit ethical behaviour and unity among us could be done in under 20 pages. Very likely, even fewer.

Do you agree with me that a Spring rain and the smell of leather are better than any religion?

Had you ever gone wilderness camping with a boyfriend in May, you'd know the answer in your gut, as I do.