God's Desire to Save Everyone and Predestination

[RBerman]

On what basis do you say that the Bible was written to us???? We weren't even in existence! The "for" takes care of the idea of God preserving His word for future audiences.

The Bible was written by God, for his elect people across time. It had a primary audience at the time it was written, but we also ought to affirm that it was written to us as well.

I mean just think about it....is the Bible better understood within the cultural context in which it was written, or in our modern cultural context?

Clearly the Bible needs to be understood within the culture in which it historically appeared. One can go too far with that line of thought, however, and neglect God's overarching design for his Church across time.

[Phat8594]

The Bible was written by God, for his elect people across time. It had a primary audience at the time it was written, but we also ought to affirm that it was written to us as well.

I agree with almost your whole statement...until you say "it was written to us as well."

Sure, it was written for us (for our teaching, edification, etc.)...but what basis do you have to say that the Bible was written to you? For example, RB, would you claim that 1 Timothy was written to you?

Clearly the Bible needs to be understood within the culture in which it historically appeared. One can go too far with that line of thought, however, and neglect God's overarching design for his Church across time.

Sure, but thats the whole idea of following the proper hermeneutical process. The point of hermeneutics is to understand the Bible within the culture, and context in which it originally appeared....AND THEN!...undertand what it then means for us today. We must cross the exegetical bridge to understand what it means in the culture, but then we must also again, cross it back to our time.

The goal of understanding the Bible within original context should be to find the proper way to apply it to us today. Those who only seek to undertand without proper application, have only gone halfway, and IMO have neglected the most important part (living it).

A good example of this "for us but not to us" concept is the idea of a Holy Kiss; you yourself said that the church today expresses the idea in a different way than when the letter was written. IF that's the case, then you yourself are showing that the letter was not written TO you...but was written FOR you. You are fulfilling the spirit of the command of greeting your brother with a Holy Kiss, in a way that is culturally relevant to today; BUT you are not fulfilling the actual command to greet your brother with a Holy Kiss....why not? Because at the heart of it, you understand the Bible was not written specifically TO you...but rather FOR you.

Its a distinction, that IMHO, is important to make.

[RBerman]

I agree with almost your whole statement...until you say "it was written to us as well." Sure, it was written for us (for our teaching, edification, etc.)...but what basis do you have to say that the Bible was written to you? For example, RB, would you claim that 1 Timothy was written to you?

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "written to us" and "written for us." Clearly Paul wrote it to Timothy. But if God intended it for the church's edification as well, then I affirm a secondary sense in which it's to the church.

Sure, but thats the whole idea of following the proper hermeneutical process. The point of hermeneutics is to understand the Bible within the culture, and context in which it originally appeared....AND THEN!...undertand what it then means for us today. We must cross the exegetical bridge to understand what it means in the culture, but then we must also again, cross it back to our time.

The goal of understanding the Bible within original context should be to find the proper way to apply it to us today. Those who only seek to undertand without proper application, have only gone halfway, and IMO have neglected the most important part (living it).

A good example of this "for us but not to us" concept is the idea of a Holy Kiss; you yourself said that the church today expresses the idea in a different way than when the letter was written. IF that's the case, then you yourself are showing that the letter was not written TO you...but was written FOR you. You are fulfilling the spirit of the command of greeting your brother with a Holy Kiss, in a way that is culturally relevant to today; BUT you are not fulfilling the actual command to greet your brother with a Holy Kiss....why not? Because at the heart of it, you understand the Bible was not written specifically TO you...but rather FOR you.

Its a distinction, that IMHO, is important to make.

What you're calling the "for us but not to us" distinction is what I'm describing as primary and secondary audience. I won't quibble with you over the terminology.

[siliconwafer]

I agree with almost your whole statement...until you say "it was written to us as well."

Sure, it was written for us (for our teaching, edification, etc.)...but what basis do you have to say that the Bible was written to you? For example, RB, would you claim that 1 Timothy was written to you?




Sure, but thats the whole idea of following the proper hermeneutical process. The point of hermeneutics is to understand the Bible within the culture, and context in which it originally appeared....AND THEN!...undertand what it then means for us today. We must cross the exegetical bridge to understand what it means in the culture, but then we must also again, cross it back to our time.

The goal of understanding the Bible within original context should be to find the proper way to apply it to us today. Those who only seek to undertand without proper application, have only gone halfway, and IMO have neglected the most important part (living it).

A good example of this "for us but not to us" concept is the idea of a Holy Kiss; you yourself said that the church today expresses the idea in a different way than when the letter was written. IF that's the case, then you yourself are showing that the letter was not written TO you...but was written FOR you. You are fulfilling the spirit of the command of greeting your brother with a Holy Kiss, in a way that is culturally relevant to today; BUT you are not fulfilling the actual command to greet your brother with a Holy Kiss....why not? Because at the heart of it, you understand the Bible was not written specifically TO you...but rather FOR you.

Its a distinction, that IMHO, is important to make.

Today, we greet one another with a holy handshake, not a holy kiss.

[Phat8594]

Today, we greet one another with a holy handshake, not a holy kiss

precisely my point. If the letter was, in fact, written TO you....you would be disobeying that command. But since you recognize that it was written to a specific people....you understand that it was not written TO you, although it was written FOR you.

[Phat8594]

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "written to us" and "written for us." Clearly Paul wrote it to Timothy. But if God intended it for the church's edification as well, then I affirm a secondary sense in which it's to the church

The distinction is in how vernacular typically communicates. When you say something was written TO someone...the TO indicates a direct recipient. When you say something was written FOR someone, it does not indicate a direct recipient, but rather an intended reader of the message at somepoint.


So although I understand what you are saying in terms of a primary sense and a secondary sense, I think it lacks clear distinction in communication since the word "to" typically denotes the primary sense. And I think even you admit this much when you say that the book of 1 Timothy was not written to you. Rather to say its written to someone else, you have to qualify the word "to". Not very clear to me.

What you're calling the "for us but not to us" distinction is what I'm describing as primary and secondary audience. I won't quibble with you over the terminology.

Sure. But feel free to respond if you change your mind.



As a side note:

One reason I think this is so important is because of what people hear when you say "the Bible was written to us." People take it to literally mean "the Bible was written to me"...so that when they read something, they immediately take it to be speaking to them directly. A great, and unfortunately real, example of this is a student who was in a beginning discipleship program to learn more about the Bible. He read Hosea, and the story about Gomer. He took this as a message to go out and marry a stripper. No joke. See, the problem was that he saw God's message to Hodea...as one that was directed TO him. Its almost too ridiculous to believe...but this stuff happens more often that we'd like to think.

[RBerman]

The distinction is in how vernacular typically communicates. When you say something was written TO someone...the TO indicates a direct recipient. When you say something was written FOR someone, it does not indicate a direct recipient, but rather an intended reader of the message at somepoint. So although I understand what you are saying in terms of a primary sense and a secondary sense, I think it lacks clear distinction in communication since the word "to" typically denotes the primary sense. And I think even you admit this much when you say that the book of 1 Timothy was not written to you. Rather to say its written to someone else, you have to qualify the word "to". Not very clear to me.

One reason I think this is so important is because of what people hear when you say "the Bible was written to us." People take it to literally mean "the Bible was written to me"...so that when they read something, they immediately take it to be speaking to them directly. A great, and unfortunately real, example of this is a student who was in a beginning discipleship program to learn more about the Bible. He read Hosea, and the story about Gomer. He took this as a message to go out and marry a stripper. No joke. See, the problem was that he saw God's message to Hodea...as one that was directed TO him. Its almost too ridiculous to believe...but this stuff happens more often that we'd like to think.

"For you but not to you" requires explanation, as "primary vs secondary audience" does as well. You're certainly correct that problems will ensue if people don't think carefully enough about the context of the text they're reading.

[theblueprint_Ni]

On what basis do you say that the Bible was written to us???? We weren't even in existence! The "for" takes care of the idea of God preserving His word for future audiences.

I can say that on the basis of God being the author of Scripture. He meant the Bible for His people across the ages, not only one particular group at one particular time. For instance:

1 Cor 10:1-11

.For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[a] that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown[b] in the wilderness.
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ[c] to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

It seems to me that you are in a way setting up a straw man....its not as if the Bible is some clouded mystery that can never be understood without scavenging through historical records from all the different cultures from throughout time.

Is the italicized portion supposed to be your rendition of my straw man? The syntax is a little confusing...

Whatever it is, I wasn't really responding directly to anything you've said per se. I don't know your exact position on the importance of history in Biblical interpretation, but I gather that you probably put more stock into it than I do.

With that being said, I still do not understand how you can be saying that the Bible was written to us. Understanding the context in which the Bible was written is of utmost importance. Many misunderstandings of the BIble come from not understanding context in which they were written. Pardon me, if this sounds harsh (cause I dont mean it to be), but it seems somewhat arrogant to think the Bible was written TO us

I agree that misunderstandings can result from not understanding certain historical elements. Of course, my view is that much more error has resulted from the presumption that our understanding of ancient history is reliable, and therefore qualified to interpret Scripture even counter to the plain meaning of the text. The Bible is largely self-contained and doesn't require any outside sources to understand the bulk of its corpus. 1 John, again, doesn't require that anyone know anything about Gnosticism. We don't even know if John was talking about Gnosticism. It's a hypothesis, albeit a credible hypothesis, based on some indirect sources. Our primary element of interpretation is the actual text of 1 John, not the possibility that he might be referring to a mystery religion. The mystery religion should be made subject to the text of 1 John, not the other way around. The point is that the "context" you're referring to is historical, which, outside of Scripture itself, has not been divinely preserved. In essence, it was written to us by the fact that the text by itself is sufficient to discern its meaning.

... I think you would be hardpressed to find anywhere in the Bible that would support such an idea.

Obviously, none of the sacred books were addressed with my name on it. However, the passage above captures the spirit behind what I'm trying to say. I know you might think that it doesn't disagree with what you've said. What I'm saying is that what has been written is sufficient.

I mean just think about it....is the Bible better understood within the cultural context in which it was written, or in our modern cultural context?

It's our philosophy concerning the Scriptures that are apparently at odds.

There's a lot of post-modern, philosophical tenets bound up in that question. The metanarrative of Scripture transcends culture. Therefore, I don't need to strive to understand ancient culture in order to understand John, or Paul, or Peter, or the Psalmists, or Solomon. It can be helpful for purposes of emphasis or to what degree certain actions might influence honor and shame, but the bulk of meaning doesn't require it. For one, it's not even accessible. It's hard enough to understand our own culture and every subculture therein, let alone ancient culture. So it's not a matter of which cultural context, as if the truth of Scripture is largely determined by the difference. It's a matter of what the Bible is trying to say within its own context.

[Phat8594]

I can say that on the basis of God being the author of Scripture.

Divine inspiration doesn't change the original audience.

He meant the Bible for His people across the ages, not only one particular group at one particular time. For instance:

Meaning it FOR and writing it TO, are two different things.

agree that misunderstandings can result from not understanding certain historical elements. Of course, my view is that much more error has resulted from the presumption that our understanding of ancient history is reliable, and therefore qualified to interpret Scripture even counter to the plain meaning of the text.

Misunderstandings come from not understanding the author's original intent, whether they are based on one's opinion of history, or based on one thinking the text was written to them, when in fact it was written to a specific people at a specific time. Obviously, a person who tries to use history to distort the plain meaning of the text is misguided to say the least.

The Bible is largely self-contained and doesn't require any outside sources to understand the bulk of its corpus.

The fact that the Bible doesn't NEED outside sources to understand it for the most part, does not take away from the fact that it was written to specific people, at a specific time, in a specific culture. We can surmise a lot about the culture and people if we read the text honestly. Other sources can often times give us further insight...given they line up with the Bible. After all, the Bible, itself is a historical document.

In essence, it was written to us by the fact that the text by itself is sufficient to discern its meaning.

The fact that we can discern from a letter, what was going on at the time of the letter with the people its addressed to does not make the letter "in essence" written to us.

For example, you can read a letter written a hundred years ago from Joe C to Bob L. In it Joe C tells Bob L to be patient with his trials, and to beware of the false teachers, etc., etc. If someone reads this letter, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand some of the issues Bob L was dealing with. Of course, just because person today who reads the 100yr old letter can understand what was going on with Bob L, that does not mean that the letter was written to the person 100-yrs later.

Obviously, none of the sacred books were addressed with my name on it. However, the passage above captures the spirit behind what I'm trying to say. I know you might think that it doesn't disagree with what you've said. What I'm saying is that what has been written is sufficient.

Again, big difference between written FOR us, and written TO us. Just because we can understand most of the truths of the Bible without "outside" sources, doesn't mean that it was written to us. If anything, it shows that the Bible is well written...not suprising if we hold to divine inspiritation.

It's our philosophy concerning the Scriptures that are apparently at odds.

My philosophy is the the Bible needs to be understood in the context in which it was written. Do you disagree with this?

There's a lot of post-modern, philosophical tenets bound up in that question. The metanarrative of Scripture transcends culture. Therefore, I don't need to strive to understand ancient culture in order to understand John, or Paul, or Peter, or the Psalmists, or Solomon.

Sure, the truths of scriptures transcend culture. However, the Bible was written in a specific time to a specific people, within a specific culture. And the truth is that we live at a specific time within a specific culture. The way we understand something (a word picture, or euphemism for example) will be completely different from what the receptor culture would have understood. So without the understanding of the culture, we can completely miss the point. The question is not just "what the Bible literally says", but why is it saying it, and to whom....


What do you think about tattoos? Are they sinful? What about animal sacrifice, or other OT law? Why do we follow some, but not all? What about head coverings for women, and men with long hair? How about the fact that in one part of the OT, God tells people to not inter-mate with other cultures, and in another place he tells them to live and take wives amongst the other cultures? If the Bible was, in fact, written to us...why do we not follow all of the commands?...or "claim" all of the promises?

The truth is that although the truths of the Bible are timeless, they were recorded for us in a particular time.

[Phat8594]

For you but not to you" requires explanation, as "primary vs secondary audience" does as well.

Absolutely. However, my point was to contrast it against the saying "The Bible was written to me" or "The Bible was written TO us"


See, the problem with these statements, IMO, is that they are predisposed to misunderstanding (if one means to say "The Bible was written to me, but only as a secondary source).

Most people, I think, would interpret it to mean that the Bible was written to us, in the same way it was written to the original audience.


HOWEVER, the statement "The Bible was not written to us, but it was written for us" begs for further explanation, because it goes against the typical assumption in Christian circles that all Christians are the primary audience. Furthermore, it encapsulates the idea of primary and secondary audience idea without the ambiguity and possible misunderstandings that come from the statement "The Bible was written to us". In other words, although the statement "for us but not to us may need further explanation initially, it is able to stand on its own without qualification, while the statement "to us" absolutely needs qualification, lest somebody mistakenly think that they are the primary audience of the Bible.

The truth remains that although God is timeless and his truths are eternal, God expresses Himself (and His truths) in time, and all that time entails...and I am happy that we can agree on this.

[siliconwafer]

Divine inspiration doesn't change the original audience.




Meaning it FOR and writing it TO, are two different things.




Misunderstandings come from not understanding the author's original intent, whether they are based on one's opinion of history, or based on one thinking the text was written to them, when in fact it was written to a specific people at a specific time. Obviously, a person who tries to use history to distort the plain meaning of the text is misguided to say the least.






The fact that the Bible doesn't NEED outside sources to understand it for the most part, does not take away from the fact that it was written to specific people, at a specific time, in a specific culture. We can surmise a lot about the culture and people if we read the text honestly. Other sources can often times give us further insight...given they line up with the Bible. After all, the Bible, itself is a historical document.




The fact that we can discern from a letter, what was going on at the time of the letter with the people its addressed to does not make the letter "in essence" written to us.

For example, you can read a letter written a hundred years ago from Joe C to Bob L. In it Joe C tells Bob L to be patient with his trials, and to beware of the false teachers, etc., etc. If someone reads this letter, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand some of the issues Bob L was dealing with. Of course, just because person today who reads the 100yr old letter can understand what was going on with Bob L, that does not mean that the letter was written to the person 100-yrs later.




Again, big difference between written FOR us, and written TO us. Just because we can understand most of the truths of the Bible without "outside" sources, doesn't mean that it was written to us. If anything, it shows that the Bible is well written...not suprising if we hold to divine inspiritation.






My philosophy is the the Bible needs to be understood in the context in which it was written. Do you disagree with this?




Sure, the truths of scriptures transcend culture. However, the Bible was written in a specific time to a specific people, within a specific culture. And the truth is that we live at a specific time within a specific culture. The way we understand something (a word picture, or euphemism for example) will be completely different from what the receptor culture would have understood. So without the understanding of the culture, we can completely miss the point. The question is not just "what the Bible literally says", but why is it saying it, and to whom....


What do you think about tattoos? Are they sinful? What about animal sacrifice, or other OT law? Why do we follow some, but not all? What about head coverings for women, and men with long hair? How about the fact that in one part of the OT, God tells people to not inter-mate with other cultures, and in another place he tells them to live and take wives amongst the other cultures? If the Bible was, in fact, written to us...why do we not follow all of the commands?...or "claim" all of the promises?

The truth is that although the truths of the Bible are timeless, they were recorded for us in a particular time.

Does the Bible itself say which commands apply to all people in all places at all times?

There is a reason why God told certain people at a certain time to not marry people from other cultures. It is because people from those cultures were worshipping false gods. God was saying that you should not marry someone who worships a false god.

[Phat8594]

Does the Bible itself say which commands apply to all people in all places at all times?

I am not aware of where the Bible itself makes an explicit claim as to which commands apply to all people in all places at all times. Of course, the Bible isn't a list of commands, promises to claim, or a textbook on systematic theology. It is God's timeless truths revealed in time.

There is a reason why God told certain people at a certain time to not marry people from other cultures. It is because people from those cultures were worshipping false gods. God was saying that you should not marry someone who worships a false god.

Sure, but what you did was just prove my point again. The Bible may be FOR us, but it is not TO us. You realized that a particular command was for a particular people. You then looked into why the command was made in the first place to understand the principle behind the command. Once you understood the principle you brought it back to apply it to your life today.

Granted, I think the Babylonians also worhsipped false gods....but I still think your analysis is correct as to the heart of the command.

[Phat8594]

The fact that the Bible doesn't NEED outside sources to understand it for the most part, does not take away from the fact that it was written to specific people, at a specific time, in a specific culture. We can surmise a lot about the culture and people if we read the text honestly. Other sources can often times give us further insight...given they line up with the Bible. After all, the Bible, itself is a historical document

I just realized that this statement should be qualified with a "[once translated]", because the fact remains that outside sources need to be used in order to render a good translation that accurately encapsulates the meaning of the original language at the time of writing.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Divine inspiration doesn't change the original audience.

Depends on what you mean. The dynamics of Divine inspiration operate on a different plane than do normally written letters.

Misunderstandings come from not understanding the author's original intent, whether they are based on one's opinion of history, or based on one thinking the text was written to them, when in fact it was written to a specific people at a specific time. Obviously, a person who tries to use history to distort the plain meaning of the text is misguided to say the least.

I don't think John's original intent can be much distinguished from what the text itself is teaching. Discovering John's "original" intent by digging into history doesn't alter the meaning in the slightest. 1 John is one of the clearest books of the Bible. He constantly repeats the same thing over and over essentially using the same vocabulary. Whatever exactly John was referring to really doesn't matter because he makes his point clear enough without it. John's point transcends the single issue of the mystery religion.

The fact that the Bible doesn't NEED outside sources to understand it for the most part, does not take away from the fact that it was written to specific people, at a specific time, in a specific culture. We can surmise a lot about the culture and people if we read the text honestly. Other sources can often times give us further insight...given they line up with the Bible. After all, the Bible, itself is a historical document.

Right, but what is the culture, the people, the time? You're presuming to know things beyond our reach and applying them to your interpretation of 1 John. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being informed about circumstances surrounding any of the epistles. I happen to think that God's intention with the letters renders them sufficient for doctrinal understanding and noncontingent upon extrabiblical historical context.

The fact that we can discern from a letter, what was going on at the time of the letter with the people its addressed to does not make the letter "in essence" written to us.

For example, you can read a letter written a hundred years ago from Joe C to Bob L. In it Joe C tells Bob L to be patient with his trials, and to beware of the false teachers, etc., etc. If someone reads this letter, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand some of the issues Bob L was dealing with. Of course, just because person today who reads the 100yr old letter can understand what was going on with Bob L, that does not mean that the letter was written to the person 100-yrs later.

I'd agree with you if the Bible was fundamentally human.

My philosophy is the the Bible needs to be understood in the context in which it was written. Do you disagree with this?

It depends on what you mean by "context".

Sure, the truths of scriptures transcend culture. However, the Bible was written in a specific time to a specific people, within a specific culture. And the truth is that we live at a specific time within a specific culture. The way we understand something (a word picture, or euphemism for example) will be completely different from what the receptor culture would have understood. So without the understanding of the culture, we can completely miss the point. The question is not just "what the Bible literally says", but why is it saying it, and to whom....

I agree that it's useful to understand euphemisms, what it means to be a 1st century shepherd, etc. Not understanding the culture might deprive you of some depth and a minor point, but completely missing the point is often a mistake of bad hermeneutics, not being uninformed about extrabiblical history.

What do you think about tattoos? Are they sinful? What about animal sacrifice, or other OT law? Why do we follow some, but not all? What about head coverings for women, and men with long hair? How about the fact that in one part of the OT, God tells people to not inter-mate with other cultures, and in another place he tells them to live and take wives amongst the other cultures? If the Bible was, in fact, written to us...why do we not follow all of the commands?...or "claim" all of the promises?

I think the NT sufficiently answers all of those questions. OT discrepancies like the marriage issue can be understood with a wholistic view of the OT, specifically by taking a closer look at the Biblical record of time before Moses.


Had I not read some of your views about 1 John I may not have disagreed with anything you've been saying. You said something to the effect that John was cutting at the heart of Gnosticism and not so much trying to relay a spiritual principle about what true Christians look like. I say the plain text of 1 John is much more in favor of the latter, not the former. And even if the former is true and John had Gnosticism in mind, I think it's obvious that John was making universal truths about Christian character that would have been equally true even if he had not been referring to Gnosticism at all, making our awareness of what John was directly addressing inconsequential to gleaning doctrines from his letter.

Even now its hard to say how much we actually agree or disagree. Though I think we do have a real philosophical disagreement about the interpretation of Scripture, to what degree this is true is difficult to measure because of how indistinct and subtle our contention really is.

[Phat8594]

Had I not read some of your views about 1 John I may not have disagreed with anything you've been saying. You said something to the effect that John was cutting at the heart of Gnosticism and not so much trying to relay a spiritual principle about what true Christians look like

I sure hope that is not what I said or at least relayed in my writing. What I am saying is that, yes, John is relaying a spiritual principle about what true Christians look like....but he is doing it because of the issues at the time. The issues he brings up are directly applicable to the situation at the time.

So yes, John is relaying a spiritual principle about what true Christians look like, but this needs to be read in the context it was written.

What I am trying to say is this: The Bible is Gods word....no doubt.....but it is also important for us to understand the nature of the Bible. The Bible is both divine and human. In other words, it is divinely inspired, but it was written in the words of men....it is not as if God just faxed it down straight from heaven. But rather God used human words, and human situations to express His truth. Putting too much emphasis on either one or the other, I think, can lead to a misunderstanding the Bible.

I agree that it's useful to understand euphemisms, what it means to be a 1st century shepherd, etc. Not understanding the culture might deprive you of some depth and a minor point, but completely missing the point is often a mistake of bad hermeneutics, not being uninformed about extrabiblical history

There are a lot of things that would be misunderstood without understanding the culture or situation.....think head coverings, braiding of hair, women speaking in church, etc.

These of course are not essential issues either. I would agree that all the essentials can be clearly understood with or without much other context.

I'd agree with you if the Bible was fundamentally human

See above: The Bible is both human and divine. It is a compilation of writings written at a particular time, to a particular people, etc. (they dealt with very real situations). To neglect the human side of the Bible, IMO, would be a mistake.