Is the Bible literal, precise, and accurate?
I have a problem with the concept of Biblical inerrancy. There are many arguments as to why the Bible is or is not the inerrant, authoritative, and infallible. To quote one source:
The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth, etc. make it quite impossible to prove that a particular passage in an English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be interpreted.
But before we argue about what color carpet to get, I want you to convince me I need carpet in the first place. In other words, why are we wasting our time trying to prove whether or not the Bible is inerrant? Why is either side engaging in a debate over a conclusion built on an assumption?
I have yet to see anyone establish that it matters. This argument rages onward about whether we should read and interpret the Bible literally, or if it’s little more than a collection of literature which happens to contain the occasional positive message.
Doesn’t the term Christian simply refer to “a follower of the teachings of Christ?” So couldn’t you continue to be a good Christian even if you ripped out 90% of the Bible and just kept the parts in red? I argue that you’d be a better one.
The difference is important, of course. It’s monumental. If you believe in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God, then you must believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days, was completely wiped out in a worldwide flood shortly after, and then, over the ensuing 5000 years (give or take), we managed to repopulate the entire planet with animals and insects and birds and trees and flowers — in spite of scientific evidence saying the earth is billions of years old, and that all life evolved from a common genetic pool… and that at no time in the entire history of the world was there ever a flood to cover the entire earth.
If you believe the Bible is a literal, factual account of history, you have to believe that people used to live to 900 years old, even though the Jewish calendar wasn’t invented until thousands of “years” after those accounts were told. You also have to believe in talking donkeys, talking bushes, giants, miracles, and resurrection after death… all of which was apparently commonplace, and yet as soon as written history began, no evidence of any such business was recorded.
If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallable, authoritative word of a higher power, then you have to explain this list of 388 examples of verses in the Bible that contradict each other. Why can’t God get his story straight?
But nevermind all of that. That all goes on the assumption that it is necessary to prove that the Bible is or is not 100% literal and accurate. I haven’t seen that done. Not anywhere. People believe it because they’re told to believe it. And then later, when they’ve built a system of beliefs around it being true, they find themselves willing to defend its trueness because having it proven untrue would unfix their beliefs.
The only reason it matters whether or not the Bible is a good story book, or it’s the exact written instruction book of the big invisible man in the sky, is because if it is, in fact, completely literal and accurate, it would mean that our science is wacked and useless, it would mean that slavery is okay, it would mean that women are lesser beings and it’s okay to rape them. And pardon my bluntness, but it would also mean that this God fellow is a real asshole.
Who ever made it necessary that the Bible was inerrant? Certainly it had to be some homophobic, racist, misogynist prick who wanted to own slaves and beat women. No? Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one’s interpretation of it..
The burden of proof is on the person proposing the idea. From what I’ve seen, the only proof offered that the Bible is inerrant is… wait for it… quotations from the Bible! It’s a circular reference!
You can’t simply propose that a thing is true, and then use the fact that the thing calls itself true as evidence of its trueness! That’s utter crap.
If you’re a believer in Christ then be a believer in Christ. Forget all that other nonsense. All you need are the parts in red, which are just as good to a non-Christian.
Tags: religion
October 11th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I find your postings on religion very interesting to read but could you explain to this 3rd generation atheist what the parts in red are?
October 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
A common feature in Bibles is the “red-letter” edition, in which all the words spoken by Jesus are written in red to distinguish them.