Tags
Do I believe the Bible is true? Yes! Absolutely. Do I believe in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy signed into being in 1978? No, not at all.
Not only do I not believe in it, I think the fruit of it is even worse, often all smelly and rotten. People seem to believe that if they scream “Biblical inerrancy” it will somehow stop gay marriage, end homosexuality, and prevent transgenderism. Well, how is that all working out???
What it actually does is teach people they should not think critically about their Bibles, not internalize what they are reading, and not incorporate it into their personal lives. It does absolutely nothing to convince people that they better “submit to the facts.” In fact, whenever I hear that phrase myself I assume you’re a small minded moron with an ego five stories higher then your IQ.
One of the tragic side effects is that we have created a kind of intellectual faith, all in our heads, and completely devoid of the heart. It cuts us off from the poetry and music of the Bible and it prevents us from letting the Bible speak to us as individuals, which requires a bit of subjective experience and artistic participation.
Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart...” Deuteronomy 6:4, “you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart..” Matthew 22:37, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.“
Well, if one is going to insist all those multiple passages mean one should only use one’s intellectual, fact based, objective interpretations, with no heart, well, one has just violated one’s entire notion of Biblical innerancy. The Bible is full of poetry, metaphors, parables, and instructions to use your heart.
Ironically, it is the innerancy of the Bible that speaks to us about that very thing. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word is a Person, not a flat, two dimensional set of markings on a page. Those markings do not carry any meaning in and of themselves, without an observer interpreting them through the personhood of Jesus Christ.
How do you prevent the Bible from saying whatever you want it to say? Interpret it through the eyes of Christ and not your own.
For a few thousand years of Christian history these things were discussed and fought over, debated and argued, which is clear evidence that the matter was not, “settled throughout all of church history.” In fact the Catholic church didn’t even come up with their own version of something similar to “Biblical inerrancy” until around 1965. Their version is actually less problematic, somewhat more sensible.
Speaking of Catholics, I don’t even know what to do with a bunch of protestants who actually came into being by going against the grain and questioning the text. To be “reformed” indicates one must have wanted to “reform” something. Catholics often have a few extra books in their Bibles today, which seems to indicate somebody challenged the text at some point. When I read John Calvin’s commentaries, not only is he challenging the text, he is correcting punctuation and wording and critiquing what he is reading. And shoot, Martin Luther hated the book of James and several others, and argued in favor of their outright removal!
I saw a hat the other day, cute baby blue thing saying, “God knows.” Just two words! So I automatically assume it means God knows your struggles, God knows your heart, God knows what you’re going through. This is a Hat of Comfort, of encouragement. That is my subjective judgement of just two little words. But au contraire, a bazillion people were offended by the hat on account of the fact that it represents a kind of stalker God out to get us, not unlike Santa Claus, “He knows if you’ve been good or bad…” For many people it felt threatening as if “God knows”…. what a creep you are. God knows…. what you did last summer….
How in the world do we take just two little words and come up with such completely different interpretations?? Well, needless to say, I believe my interpretation is more reflective of the actual personhood of Christ. I can’t really prove that with facts, you kind of have to get to know Him and feel it, see for yourself. And tragedy of all tragedies, a lot of the people objecting to that hat, were actually Christians who seem to believe this God of judgement and condemnation who hates us, is a good thing! The hat was too kind, too loving! Sheesh.
The condition of one’s heart is going to impact what we see in the very same two words of text. It is reflective of our own relationship with Jesus. Hollering about “objective reality” and the “innerancy of the Bible” really does nothing to fix that. In fact, it makes things even worse because now you’re a complete lunkhead and nobody wants what you have lurking in your own heart.
So there you have it. That’s how I feel about the whole thing. There is a lot of stuff that came into existence within modern American Christianity beginning in the late 70’s that was far more about reacting and responding to politics then it was about faith and several of those things, rather then helping, have done a lot of harm.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“if they scream “Biblical inerrancy” it will somehow stop gay marriage, end homosexuality, and prevent transgenderism. Well, how is that all working out??? ”
The problem with people is not what they do, the problem is they are not honest about why they do it.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
That’s why just eschewing gayness and being transgender won’t save anyone’s soul.
But, the other issue, whilst lesser than the spiritual issue, is the viability of society and civilization otherwise in general. It seems obvious to me that the sexual libertines and deviants do not care as much about the future health of future generations, why would they? People without sexual boundaries will also tend to be frivolous and irresponsible in other areas of life. So of course the more religiously orthodox will seem to the perverts to be oppressive and narrow minded when it comes to sexual expressions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was chatting about rights the other day, how we used to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Today you have the right to remain silent, the right to be a drug addict, the right to kill your offspring, the right to surgically mutilate your children. These rights have all been sold to us as good things, as great blessings, but they are actually kind of horrifying, not life affirming at all. You have to at least have some life affirming concepts going on if you want to ensure the viability of society and civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really enjoy hearing the old rabbis speak of scripture ( Torah to them, the Old Testament) as they unfold God’s word as they know it. Mind you, apart from Christ they have limitations, but sadly they have more respect for Genesis than we who have the whole book.
Matters of the heart as you say are very true in capturing WHY ‘he that is without sin cast the first stone,’ yet, creation in its fullness demand we engage the mind first. Many things need no interpretation, they just need believed. ‘He made great whales’ for example. The most cold or hard hearted can believe this.’
There is also a subtle trick that many use to disparage the Word, ie, many translations, as if there is any ambiguity: ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Sure it may be worded differently, but it’s the same point. Read ten different versions of the first 5 verses, and any honest person must admit it all started from God, not some train wreck of accidental serendipity.
And this is where your heart condition is revealed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I also really enjoy listening to many rabbis, Colorstorm! They know the text really well and they know the language. Genesis is exceedingly important and so many issues going on today go right back to our inability or unwillingness to really study Genesis.
For much of Jewish culture the most important commandment was actually, “be fruitful and multiply.” So have literal children, but also constantly cultivate new life. Do life affirming things. Jesus even says, “I come that they might have life and life abundant.” And “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This truth resonates with me more today on account of the fact that our culture has kind of become a death worshipping cult in all sorts of ugly ways.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The dullest wits like to shout the loudest about how we need to come to God with logic instead of emotions. I honestly believe God wired us to be instinctual and emotional first so that we can experience him in a real way, by our every instinct, followed by tears of joy or similar. These instincts have been handicapped by our choice to sin, and so we compensate with inferior logic. Jesus repaired our relationship with God. That should repair our God instincts too. But humans are a complex mess of favoring the stronger muscles and living out of balance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said, Jill. LOL, I liked that, “dullest wits.” Some of us who have some genuine intelligence, no bragging intended, can really see the truth in passages like, “lean not into your own understanding” or “there is a way that seems right to a man…” Human intelligence and our ability to reason is not the end all, be all, of all things, in fact it is often deeply flawed. I really like the little saying, “rational-lies.” Wisdom requires some humility and a willingness to not build an idol to our own brains.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen and ditto! Out hiking so can’t say much more but looks like I can’t add to it! ⚓️✝️💜🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How do you prevent the Bible from saying whatever you want it to say? Interpret it through the eyes of Christ and not your own.”
Currently reading a book which has as its central point/theme this very idea of seeing/interpretting all scripture thru the person and character of jesus. Brilliant
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sis, I love how you aren’t afraid to “tell it like it is!” God Bless!
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB
You are doing a pretty good job of illustrating why we have to balance our emotions with reason and vice versa.
We are all sinners. We all live in glass houses. We all have to be careful of throwing bricks.
Are there Christians with all the faults you are complaining about? I suppose so, but how did they get to be that way? Does it have anything to do with Pride or the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?
Is there anything wrong with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Since human beings wrote it, there is bound to be something wrong with it, but does it make Christians behave poorly? No. The point of the document is to assure Christians that we can TRUST the Bible as God’s Word with all our HEART. The document was never intended to stop anyone from thinking critically about the Bible. Before we will trust the Bible, we have to satisfy ourselves that we cannot find anything wrong with it.
Did you know Martin Luther eventually came around to the fact that the Book of James was part of the Bible? He struggled with the idea. Luther was not some sort of Mr. Spock on Star Trek. None of us are.
John Calvin critiqued translations of the Bible. He was one of the foremost theologians of his time, and during his era people were struggling to translate the Bible into their native language. People are still doing that today, and those of the Reform tradition don’t object.
Are you criticizing either Luther or Calvin? No, but you are using comparisons these two heroes of the faith to criticize a straw man. Yet both Luther and Calvin believed in Biblical inerrancy.
Why do those of the reform tradition call themselves reformed? Other than Jesus Himself, the Apostles were the most trustworthy preachers of God’s Word. They set the standard. Hence the object of the Protestant REFORMATION was to return to that standard.
Have those of the Reform Tradition perfectly returned to that standard set by the Apostles? Are there are human beings who can do something like that perfectly? No. Nevertheless, Reform has always been about theology, what we should believe about God.
Beliefs are ideas. God is three persons in one. That is an idea. To worship God properly, we must have the most correct theology we can get. That requires reason. It is the glory of what we can reason about God that motivates us — gives us the heart — to worship God.
Even if we think it inerrant, should the Bible be our object of worship? No. We worship God, but the Bible tells us about God. If we believe the Bible is full of errors, then the Bible is useless to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remain unconvinced that either Luther or Calvin believed in Biblical innerancy. For one thing, the term wasn’t even really used until around 1978. Also, from their writings they were clearly objecting, criticizing, and analyzing the text.
You said that the point of the Chicago statement was to assure Christians they could trust in the Bible. Well, you’ve heard the saying, “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions?” Has it worked? Was it effective? Do we now have more people trusting in the Bible?
You also said, “If we believe the Bible is full of errors, then the Bible is useless to us.” That right there is kind of the heart of the conflict. Is a love letter full of errors? Perhaps, but it’s value is not in it’s perfection. We ourselves as people are full of errors! Does that make us useless? No, not according to Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. Luther and Calvin never used the expression Biblical inerrancy.
You do realize we can look this stuff up easily. Luther just said the Bible never errs, and Calvin called the Word of God infallible.
Has the Chicago statement worked? I have no idea how I would measure the effectiveness of the Chicago statement, but I do believe we have bigger problems.
We have put the education of our children in the hands of educators and politicians who want nothing to do with Jesus. So, how many people do you know of who have even heard of the Chicago statement?
In what sense is the Bible inerrant? The original documents were inerrant. The copies were not, and the translations most certainly contain errors. Therefore, the scribes copying the Old and New Testaments had to be extremely careful, and the historical record makes it clear that they were careful. In addition, when we study the Bible, we need to compare various translations and commentaries, and we need to consider the context of what we are reading. Otherwise, we can easily misunderstand what we are reading.
Therefore, your comparison to a love letter is not entirely unreasonable. The One who loves us does not make errors, but those He love do make errors. We cannot perfectly preserve and understand His Word. Nevertheless, because God is merciful and full of grace, even though we do make errors He still loves us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we are pretty much in agreement, relatively speaking, Tom. 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
True.😀
LikeLike
“How do you prevent the Bible from saying whatever you want it to say? Interpret it through the eyes of Christ and not your own.”
Huh?? Isn’t that the whole idea of the Bible and reading it in the first place… to take from it what God wants and expects because we are only human, so how could any of us expect to understand what He sees without being told? Golly… it’s bad enough I have to contend being human with other humans but the only way I might interpret the Bible is to do that through His eyes??
I nearly spit my Communion wine all over the screen on that one, IB. So, what you are saying.. the next time I have a problem I should just ask myself, “How would God solve this?” (I dunno.. twitch His nose… assuming He has one?)
I spent my childhood being taught the Ten Commandments, and I’m spending my adulthood being told about all the exceptions to the rules… and what the Bible really means.. and not take it literally. Now you are saying that all I gotta do is think like God and that’s the answer?
Ahh.. I said I wasn’t getting involved with this stuff… that just struck a nerve. Sorry. We believe how we believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! Well yes, that kind of is what I am saying, Doug. Another way of saying what you just did, “How would God solve this?” would be, “what would Jesus do?” Remember those corny bracelets, “WWJD?” If we’re going to try to imitate someone, it might as well be Jesus!
But actually, I meant reading the Bible though the lens of Jesus. Jesus is central to the entire story and much of the Bible is very prophetic, not literal or material. So in Genesis we have, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” That is not God cursing humanity, (or cursing Eve) that is a promise that Jesus will come down the bloodline, be born, and rescue humanity.
LikeLike
To your last sentence there… I’ve always wondered that if God was infinite enough to have His choice of all of human millennia to send His Son into the mix, He picks a time with so few humans to inspire, no advanced science and technology to enhance the temptations, widespread illiteracy, no Tucker Carlson.. it’s almost like He was avoiding us and took the easy way out. Heck, maybe His Son would’ve lived.
LikeLike
One more impetuous thought… ever give pause to the the wonderment that spiritually we adhere to religious verse written in grammatical prose used 2,000+ year ago, and we adhere to a Constitution written some 250 years ago, also in an outmoded grammatical form… and we think it a mystery that we have trouble interpreting the meaning of both that everyone agrees to?
You’d think given humanity’s present level of sophistication and scientific achievement we might be able to conjure up an original concept on our own we could all actually understand. I mean, I’d even settle for ChatGPT.
LikeLike
The ‘Blessings of liberty…..,’ and ‘domestic tranquility.’
Doug- if we the people- took to heart scripture in its fullness, we would as decent human beings, seek blessing and not cursing.
But people want decadence. They want perversion. They want power over others. But the very idea of Any constitution- is rooted in the innate government of God.
2000 years ago? Heck, try + 4000. And it’s still around and charming peoples hearts, because it’s good.
And domestic tranquility? Yeah, all govt. and media is compliant in this disgrace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, again, I can only answer for myself.. or question for myself… and by nature of statistics and sheer numbers alone, I am sure I am not the only one on the planet with these questions/observations. My point was rather about, just because something is old and has been around for 250 years or thousands of years should not make it automatically an object of unquestionable wisdom given the language used to write it is difficult to understand and is obsolete. It’s not my place to challenge what’s in the writings… but I can challenge the variety of interpretations as a result of an ancient grammatical form.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think one problem is that people are kind of lazy and so we want cut and dry certainty enshrined in rules so we don’t have to think. Both the US Constitution and the Bible give us a set of ideals and principles, some tools to work with, not a computer program.
We have art work from thousands of years ago and music a few hundred yrs old and nobody tries to suggest that’s outdated art, written in the wrong language, or doesn’t communicate to us because we have allegedly evolved beyond the need for such things.
LikeLike
Well, in fact, art.. or rather, art form, can indeed become outdated as the various art forms have evolved over time. But what you are suggesting is sensory communication; the ability to transmit feeling, mood, awareness through the five senses. Acquiring direct knowledge seems limited to interpretations of sight and sound (feel as with Braille)… of which the Bible.. and the Constitution qualify. I’m not debating the content of the Bible, or the Constitution… but rather observing that language itself can be its own barrier to understanding.
LikeLike
unquestionable wisdom? Well, maybe if it just sits there collecting dust. But after 40 plus years of intensive study, i would say, yes, it is exactly that.
I would add doug that questions are good. Read Job 38 for example and consider GOD’S questions.
You may change your tune about HOW His questions are far better than ours, and by so doing, give solid answers that make us people of foundation and certainty.
Btw, what would you consider to be obsolete or difficult to understand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Btw, what would you consider to be obsolete or difficult to understand?
If you are asking “in general” I am saying it’s the prose, language, grammar. After that, then it’s context, generally provided in the previous verses or following verses not indicated in the quoted verse.
Often there are quotes posted in here and I am often left with the usual, “What the hell does that mean?” if I can’t meander through the grammar, or I don’t see context of verse before or after… and I am certainly not going to look it up to de-cypher a quoted verse’s meaning.
If you are asking me that to be the interpreting Samaritan of a specific verse.. that really doesn’t solve my issue in getting past the complexities of the Bible on my own. I shouldn’t have to be a theologian or a Biblical scholar, as that seems to defeat the purpose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do agree that we should not have to a theologian to understand scripture. Spot on, and guess what? We don’t have to be.
It has been my experience that the ‘lowly’ ones of the world, the farmer, the carpenter, the roofer, etc, the salt of the earth if you will, have more comprehension of God’s word than the ‘professionals,’ and even in this, scripture agrees.
Amos was a farmer, Paul a tentmaker, David a shepherd, and their lives and writings are proof that what i am saying is true.
I do think we have to be completely committed- starts with the right heart. Then we get here a little, there a little, but the depth of scripture has so many layers that none of us can comprehend God’s mind in its fulness. But the more we learn, the easier it is to understand.
my ..02
LikeLiked by 1 person
I couldn’t have said that better myself. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Specimen of the deep thinking on spiritual issues in our postmodern era:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nashville-christian-school-shooting-leftists-mock-prayer-community-reels-tragedy
The problem is we’re trying to explain metaphysical concepts to populace where over half don’t even know that milk comes from cows, and believe that gender is something that doctors determine at birth.
LikeLike
Yep. I do think that a big part of the problem is that many of us have become very out of touch with nature. Much of the Bible is written to farmers, fishermen, people who know where food comes from, with the assumption that you are going to understand the analogies being used because they were common to us all, up until very recent history, anyway.
There’s a meme going around about a bit of advertising where they’ve named the cows that produce our yogurt. Naturally they are all female names which caused some outrage about gender bias. Some smart alec decided to ask, “Okay, so who among you wants to eat yogurt from a bull??”
LikeLike
Rather defines the state of our national politics, does it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug: And therein lies a conundrum that I confess that I have no idea how to solve. Our form of Government is premised on an educated public which elects people to uphold and enforce laws that guarantee freedom for all over selfish vested interests who seek to maximize power and profit for themselves. When you have a population made up largely of ignorant narcissists they turn around and elect leaders like themselves or go along with would-be totalitarians like the WEF clique who promise them a few privileges in exchange for letting them run things. In that sense, our Democracy is ‘working’ in that it gives the people what they want, but it’s defeating its stated purpose for existing.
If you read editorials in the Chinese Media, they point this out regularly with commentary along the lines of “See! We told you that populist Democracy doesn’t work! This is why we need a Party dedicated to the good of the people, above these partisan squabbles and immune from capitalist exploitation!” That’s certainly debatable, but it is rather difficult to hold the modern US up as much of an alternative to Communism. The fact that we have the freedom to choose between 100 different flavors of pot at the 420 Store and the Chinese don’t hardly carries a lot of weight.
Ultimately, I do believe that the Great Reset will fail, but we’re in for some hard times before it happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Night Wind, I prefer to give humankind… especially American humankind, a bit more hope in the ability to reach some political resolve. Admittedly a rather bleak outlook on the short term, we will weather this…. and here’s my reasoning.
In spite of the pride we have in our form of democracy, and our propensity to want to impose all this “good” upon the world… it just ain’t perfect, nor was it even meant to be. So far, given the last 250 years of political diversity, world wars, and misguided foreign policies to export the “American way”… the Constitution still works. Oh for sure one side of the political spectrum always presumes the other side wants to “destroy” the Constitution… that’s just politics. Yet in the end we all seem to continue to utilize the Constitution; we play by its rules of the road. I’ve been never more prouder to have our Constitution than with the election of 2016… and the events of the last 24 hours.
I didn’t/don’t like Trump as President (much less as a human being)…. but… he was the elected by choice at the time according to our Constitution. The people spoke. Sure it was not the popular vote, but that’s not how our Constitution works. To acknowledge that our form of government allows even a total buffoon to be elected, according to the will of the people, is what is ultimately important. We may not like the results sometimes…. but we accept the results, thus paying homage to “We, the people…”
In the last 24 hours our justice system, as dictated by our Constitution, has presented that even a former president is not above the law… and as evidence may present itself, he will have his day in court to defend himself.. according to our Constitution. No one person made an arbitrary political decision to present evidence for an indictment…. and he will not be convicted or acquitted on the basis of one person. Unlike Russia or China.. no one will just disappear in the night at the whim of government.
So while our current politics is as gawd-awful divisive as ever, it seems to me our Constitution remains solid… because all sides seem to want it that way. As Gen. Milley told his Chinese counterpart when the world was holding their breath at the unfolding events of Jan. 6th, “Democracy can sometimes be sloppy.” Honestly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.
LikeLike
IB: I recently read a book by a Dead White Male who argued that the Pharisees were what we would call today Churchians who were out of touch with Nature. He argued that Jesus taught that the Pharisee/Churchian rules and restrictions were unnatural to man; and that the simple faith of artisans, farmers, fishermen, and even children were closer to God because Nature is not far from Him.
On the same vein, I remember reading some of the Freethought literature from the Enlightenment Era, and most of them were running with the same idea. Reading between the lines, you could tell most of them were anti-Churchian more than anti-Christian. It’s almost sad reading some of their ideals for the future: they actually believed that Science—since it was an extension of Nature—would replace Religion and draw more people closer to God and make us more moral and heighten our ability to govern ourselves in accordance with God’s Will. If they actually saw what Scientism has done, they’d probably all be at a Revival Meeting within a couple of weeks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reactionary church is scary to me, because I have no idea what it will look like in 50 years. Say what you will about the Orthodox Church, but it survived 600 years of oppression under the Turks and the entire Soviet era and came out as a recognizable institution holding on to the same faith it had started with. I have my doubts that today’s Evangelical church could accomplish that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a good point. Reactionary is never a good idea, instead we should respond. When we react, we fool ourselves by thinking it’s our quick reflexes or our instincts at play, but it’s actually just the other guy pulling our strings and making us behave in a certain way.
In modern America a great deal of our evangelical church is built far more around politics and commercialism, than around Jesus. People get cranky when I say that, but it’s not just the moral majority and conservatives I’m talking about, but also rainbows, social justice, and progressivism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. There was a very imoral ad campaign a few months ago which I heard addressed from the pulpit, complete with pictures on the PowerPoint. I hope the ad agency was paid well, cause that is some serious reach! On the other hand, I saw a sign on very liberal church lately that said “God is Still Speaking.” Aw, so you are giving yourself license to disagree with the Bible’s explicit teaching on homosexuality while claiming that your opinion is the actual word of God. Well done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help thinking that this discussion really needs to come out of the church and into the realm of science. I see a lot of problems with Biblical innerancy, but let’s just talk about “evolutionary innerancy,” instead. The theory of evolution is driven by sex selection which is a virtually impossible concept to hang onto if you are going to be endorsing homosexuality and/or transgenderism. Without sex selection going on, there simply is no evolution to build theories upon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We will clone Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen’s children and turn them into Cyborgs with supercomputer brains. There is no need for biology to progress beyond it’s natural apex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, as usual, IB. While not actually wanting to point out a typo, I’d like to point out out a typo… 🙂 In a few places you have typed inerrancy instead of inerrancy. I like it!! I believe our relationship with God and His Word should absolutely be a matter of INNERancy! I.e., hiding His Word in our hearts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Auto correct! You typed innerancy…
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! It’s a grand computer conspiracy to keep us from spelling the word properly. Autocorrect simply will not let me fix it. That’s okay, I think I like you “inner-ancy” much better. 🙂
The Bible in Proverbs 7:3 says, “Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.” It’s not meant to be literal, material instruction carried out in the physical world, because that would be weird. It’s spiritual, it’s poetry, it’s an analogy. Also, it’s really good advice!
LikeLiked by 1 person