Billy Graham Library

Strangely, Franklin Graham is actually far more conservative and exclusivistic in his views than his father is. Billy, in several recent interviews, expressed a healthy agnosticism about who goes to heaven or hell, a respect for other religions, and a more flexible view of the Bible. Franklin, on the other hand, sometimes seems to be angling to be the next Falwell – though I still do appreciate support his work with Samaritan’s Purse.

I actually used to work for people that were family friends of the Graham’s and served on Billy’s board of directors and, in their words, “Franky’s a nice boy and he means well, but he just doesn’t have his father’s gift.” Nor his father’s approach to faith apparently.

Hemant, you said:

…many (though not enough) Christians understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally …

I think you’ve bought into the apologia offered by semi-enlightened religionists who can’t stomach much of the nonsense in their holy book. But where in the bible does it say that the bible is not meant to be taken literally?

Having something from the 2nd or 3rd century is like having a copy that was written last month of an oral account of a certain prophet during the American Revolution that was passed down for at least one generation, maybe more, before being written down, and was written by people who either were assuredly not eyewitness (as some of the authors admit), or who claimed to be eyewitnesses in an era when writing pseudonymously was quite common. There are a flood of other books claiming to be written by one apostle or another from later (all rejected from the canon eventually) that indicates (if nothing else) that claiming authorship to gain authority was a common practice in early Christian communities.

The copying since the 2nd/3rd century has been fairly good, but that does not necessarily mean the copying (or the original source of the material in the books) was accurate beforehand.

Clarence sez:
“I believe, if you look into it, the bible has quite an extensive collection of ancient manuscripts to back its claim of authenticity. Some manuscripts I believe date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.”

Clarence,
The oldest *complete* handwritten copies of the entire Bible are the Codeces Siniaticus and Vaticanus, both 4th century. Everything before that is papyrus fragments. They are helpful, but only in bits and pieces. Here is a great site that catalogs them.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/papyri.html

Ehrman’s “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” shows how many of these ancient documents disagree with each other on key doctrinal issues. Ehrman does a great job of mapping each of these corruptions as a response to some ‘heresy’ (as opposed to what eventually became orthodox) in the very early Christian Church. Even the most reliable documents out there have strikeouts and corrections and re-corrections in the margins of the text!

So checking our Bible word for word against the earliest documents just would not be that simple. Which document would you use, and why?

I grew up watching and listening to Billy Graham in my home. My dad thought a lot of Billy Graham, though he didn’t agree with Graham’s baptist belief of ‘once saved, always saved’. My dad thought that Billy Graham was the one baptist minister whom he could listen to without cringing. Dad is an old-fashioned, faith walking, bible thumping, tongue talking, pew hopping holy roller – very much of the Pentecostal persuasion. We attended the Assemblies of God for many years (1979 and on), and we were of the Nazarene denomination prior to that (From my birth in 1964 to 1979).
I love my dad a lot, but, as an atheist (since 1998), I always find his views of those of other Christian denominations amusing.
My dad likely thinks the $27,000,000 is a great investment in the Christian faith both in terms of the museum and the library. I humbly disagree – I think of that $54,000,000 as wasted money that would have been better spent on charitable causes or on actual education.
Even Christians should eye such spending with disdain if they read their bibles closely enough – after all, the ‘word of god’ commands that the full tithe be brought into the storehouse so that there is food in the temple. I don’t see too many people receiving much needed food out of tithe money. I see lots of architecturally stunning churches, schools for christians, and now museums and libraries. Of course, it could be argued that the food in the temple is the food of the word of god – openess to interpretation is one of the problems with the bible – which leads me to conclude that money is not the only thing being wasted in religion, words are also wasted.

Any thoughts on the animatronic evangelizing cow?

The twenty-first century version of the golden calf?

Any thoughts on the animatronic evangelizing cow?

Aren’t they afraid someone will think it’s bull?

Strangely, Franklin Graham is actually far more conservative and exclusivistic in his views than his father is.

Franklin reflects the cultural occasion in which he grew up and lacks the many groundbreaking cross-cultural experiences that his father had. Billy emerged at a time when there was more consensus about his faith, and more public support. Franklin is reacting somewhat to the benign neglect of moderate belief, the shrinking world, and the creeping secularism of a material culture like ours. Billy was doctrinally strict but never an asshole about it. Billy was battle tested and wise in ways his son just could not be. To take off from Loyd Benson, I knew Billy Graham; Billy Graham was a friend of mine: Rev. Franklin, you’re no Billy Graham.

It’s still hard for me to understand how certain Christians can condemn anyone who dares to question the authority of Scripture. I understand that the Bible is “God’s Word” and all that… but when we don’t have the original scriptures (I’m currently reading Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus and it is excellent) and many (though not enough) Christians understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, shouldn’t questioning the authority of the Scripture be welcome by pastors who want people to take an interest in the faith? Questions are only asked by people interested in the subject. Believing in the divinity of Jesus and questioning scripture don’t have to be opposing ideas for Christians, do they?

What Christians do or don’t do has little to do with the shaping of their view of Scripture or their interpretations of it. Belief, once developed, reinforces practice, and practice follows the variously-originating initial belief. Not having the original manuscripts doesn’t mean a thing. If we had them (like the Mormons), would it make a difference to doubters or believers? The Bible does not prescribe the method of its interpretation. Believers do that; and believers come in all kinds. “Believing in the divinity of Jesus and questioning scripture don’t have to be opposing ideas for Christians,” because not all Christians believe they should derive their doctrines solely from the Bible, or at least not in variance with it, as do the fundamentalists and many evangelicals.

If there are any followers of Jesus left in the world, I would like to know where they are. I have seen none among the popular preachers; I have seen none in our Congress; I know there are none that hang around the Oval Office, and set our nation’s policies. All I see is what Jesus saw: Pharisees and Hypocrits—the outside is painted to look clean, but the inside is full of rottenness.

The Bible itself says “Don’t take me literally!” Notice how the Bible starts off. On Page 1 is the notorious Six Days of Creation saga. On Page 3 is an entirely different creation tale. Don’t believe it? Just pick up the Bible and carefully read the first 3 pages. Jot down the order that things are created in each tale. The Bible contradicts itself every step of the way. One or both creation stories must be false. They can’t both be true. Anyone who says the Bible is inerrant and literally true obviously hasn’t read beyond the first page.