Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain?

This post is going to be a bit of a departure from what I'm usually writing in here, but since I haven't written anything for quite some time, posting at all seems to go against the current trend, I suppose.

Earlier today, I received a comment on an old post, and I responded to it as I just about always try to do. While I was responding, though, as I also often do, I looked through previous comments on the same post. I came across a comment from good ol' Anonymous (back in those days, Anonymous had time to read religious blogs, because he wasn't so busy trying to defend Julian Assange and take down the capitalist system), a comment I had responded to with a question that never got answered. Anonymous said:

The problem with the bible is that different people have different beliefs about what it says.

To this I made the following reply:

Is that a problem with the Bible, or a problem with us? I don't ask that question rhetorically, either; I'm curious what you think about it. Isn't it a fact of life in the way language, intelligence, and communication work that the transfer of information between two beings is always limited? Sure, some people have insisted that a book written by God should transcend this tendancy (and maybe you yourself are trying to assert that position), but how do we know this is so?

No reply was forthcoming, but as I said, I was really quite curious as to people's opinions on the matter. As a Christian, I of course believe that God is perfect, and as a perfect being, He would have made the Bible exactly as it needed to be. That being said, can we say that the Bible is exactly as it needed to be?

Now it may depend on what you believe the Bible needs to be, of course. If you think the Bible should be completely without factual error in content or technical error in reproduction, you're probably going to have a hard time showing that the Bible fits the bill. If you believe that the Bible was a document that spoke in an important moral and metaphorical fashion to the ancient Israelites, you'll find it easy to show the Bible fits that niche. I'm pretty sure that most people who believe that the Bible has value at all fall somewhere in between these two extremes. But if the Bible doesn't fit your expectation for a divinely-inspired book, do you change your mind about the Bible's worth, or do you reexamine your expectations? (And it's important to note that neither of these is necessarily wrong; in science, when scientists find data that doesn't fit the prevailing theory, they are probably more likely to revise the theory than assume the theory is garbage.)

The second point that I'm going to try to emphasize--and then stop writing before I go too far in answering the question rather than just asking it openly--is that I believe there is something in the nature of communication itself that makes it impossible to communicate abstract concepts perfectly. If this is true, then since most of what the Bible has to teach us is largely abstract in nature, perhaps it can't be perfect.

Here's a story that may not be necessary in order to convey the concept I'm trying to explain; I read this as a logic puzzle many many years ago. So there's this army that wants to go and invade a town that lies on the other side of a valley. They send a scout ahead to observe the town and message back to the army when the town appears to be entirely asleep. Since this whole story is taking place a few hundred years ago, the army is not using radios to send signals, but rather they have a code system by which they send messages through waving a torch in particular ways. Now, both the main mass of the army and the scout have been ordered by their king that since they are using this form of communication, they are not to proceed with the raid until they are sure all messages between the scout and the army are verified received by the other party. Here's the trouble: When the scout realizes the timing is right, he goes out into the open on his side of the valley and sends the signal for, "Attack now." Needing to verify this message, a communications officer on the other side sends the signal "Message received." Can the attack proceed? No, because the scout has just been sent a message, that message being, of course, "Message received." Since this is a message, the scout must signal back, "Message received." Ready to attack? Nope, the army needs to send a confirmation of receipt of the scout's second message. If the army and the scout obey the order of the king to the letter, the attack will never happen and the two parties will spend the whole night standing on either side of the valley waving their torches until they burn out.

My take from this story? Communication of complete and fully-understood ideas is, in some ways, absolutely impossible. My question restated? What does the nature of communication between imperfect people and a (supposedly) perfect God through the Bible say about God, the Bible, and the way we perceive Him and/or it (whether He exists or not)?

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin (2Kings 2:23-24)

Not really a post here, but a link to a guest post in Dwindling in Unbelief.

Is not this the son of David? (2Sam 7)

Chapter 7 is extremely significant, and the reason it is significant is also the reason that the SAB is wrong about failed prophecy in this particular case.

David comes to be speaking to the prophet Nathan one day, and he says that he feels bad that the ark is kept in a tent while he lives in a palace, hinting that he would like to build a temple. Nathan thinks this is a great idea, and encourages David. It's worth noting that Nathan says "for the LORD is with thee", because later, God seems to speak to him in a dream and correct him; since the idea sounded good, Nathan assumed that God would agree. Although the SAB did not mark it as such, some might be tempted to think of this as failed prophecy, but it's rather a failed prophet.

God gives a message to David that he is not to build a temple, but that a descendant of David's would instead build a temple, and God would establish the kingdom of that descendant for ever. The SAB says of this passage, "God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt." This is only half right.

Yes, Solomon's kingdom only lasted about 400 years after Solomon, but that's not the point. The prophecy concerns a descendant of David, but it doesn't say which descendant. The assumption that it's talking about Solomon may seem reasonable, since he inherited the throne of David, but there is something deeper here, and while you may have already guessed where I'm going with this as a Christian, I do think that even Jews accept this interpretation with the exception of the specific fact that I claim here: this prophecy is concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew 1:32-33 says of Jesus, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Acts 2:30 says of David, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" Sound familiar? This prophecy is not of Solomon, but of the eternal kingdom of the Messiah that is to come some day, Christians of course believing that person to be Christ Jesus.

The SAB asks, "Does God lie?" Well, the issue is not so pressing in this case, as David is not necessarily making a blanket theological statement so much as affirming that he believes in this prophecy. I'll leave the larger issue of God's willingness/ability to lie for a another time.

The LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD (2Sam 6)

In chapter 6, David decides that it's time to send for the ark and bring it to Jerusalem. This prompts a question of timing of this event, about which I have already given an opinion.

Now, the manner in which this happens is important. As the Philistines did when they had the ark and wanted to get rid of it, the Israelites get a new cart, load it up, and bring it along. This is a problem. When the ark is to be moved, the proper method of transport is supposed to be having it carried on foot by Levites. The Philistines, between the fact of their being (relatively) ignorant pagans and perhaps the more important fact of them not having Levites were able to get away with loading the thing on a cart. For the Israelites, handling the ark of God in such a cavalier manner led to God's wrath striking down Uzzah.

Where exactly was it that Uzzah was struck down? I don't see this as a problem the way the SAB does. While we are given two names for the location of this event, the fact that this account and the one in 1Chronicles 13 were written far apart in time may mean that the place was known differently at the later date. Childon was probably a descendant of Nachon, and both of them at various times owned a threshing floor at the place called Perezuzzah.

So eventually, they seem to get it figured out, and they transport the ark on foot, making sacrifices to God along the way. David comes along with the procession, dancing as it goes. Now, I'll admit that what's going on here is not completely clear, but I don't agree with the SAB's reading, neither that there might have been something wrong with David dancing, nor that David was somehow nude. Note that it does not say that David was naked, but rather that he was clothed in an ephod, which was a priestly garment. I think Michal was simply, for some reason, feeling that David was making a fool of himself by the way he was acting, which she felt was improper for a king. David's reply is that he doesn't care what people think, he just loves God.

Now the final note of this chapter says that Michal "had no child unto the day of her death." The SAB makes a surprising evaluation of this fact, calling it a contradiction (which I don't think it is, more in a moment) but not marking it with "Injustice" or "Women", which I probably would have. The Bible seems to be suggesting that Michal was made infertile as a punishment for arguing with her husband, which seems a bit extreme to me, but maybe there's something to this story I'm missing. (It might be that David simply never had sex with her again.) As for the contradiction, I assume that the children that Michal is reported to have had were all born before this incident.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself (2Sam 5)

Finally in chapter 5, David becomes king over all of Israel, and remains king for 40 years. This prompts the SAB to see a possible contradiction in certain events that occur in the reign of David, particularly the eventual rebellion of Absalom. I don't think I buy the logic here; if anything, it almost seems worse than the SAB is insinuating. 2Sam. 15:7 says "And it came to pass after forty years..." I say, counting from when? In the immediate context, it sounds like Absalom spent 40 years kissing up to the people, which could have happened starting before David became king, or a long time afterwards, as one might wonder how he could be doing the stuff described in that chapter while his father was on the run from Saul. On the other hand, the 40 years in the context in this chapter could mean that David was king for 40 years until he was deposed temporarily by Absalom. In any case, I don't see any of this dating to be clear enough to base a contradiction on.

Apparently, one of the first things that David has to deal with as king is some sort of challenge on his authority by the Jebusites. On the face of it, it does sound fairly cruel, but I'm not sure what's going on here at all. Are the Jebusites telling David he has to kill his own people? Are they using their own disabled population as human shields? I don't know, so I'm not sure how to comment on it. The SAB calls it violent and unjust, and I'm inclined to agree that far.

David builds himself some sort of palace, and takes more women, neither action being commented upon here, but I believe the latter being condemned elsewhere. With more women come more children, and a list is given here; the SAB points out this list doesn't match other lists, and once again, what can I say but they sure don't match. It may be that none of the lists is meant to be exhaustive, but then one might ask why, and why the particular names on each list? I certainly don't know.

So the Philistines come up and move in on David, and David inquires of the Lord if he should respond. God says yes, and vows to help, exactly as the SAB says. As I've said before, if the land is being invaded, why shouldn't they defend themselves and why shouldn't God help them do so? And when they find the Philistines' idols left behind, why shouldn't they burn them?

The Philistines come back, and this time God gives David some tactical advice, which for some reason the SAB finds absurd, but who would be better at giving tactical advice than an omniscient being?