        |
|
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions
Argument #
2: The
Bible is inerrant and contains no contradictions. Its 66 books
are
harmonious and its 40+ writers agree on what they wrote.
This doctrine of
Biblical
inerrancy is the central claim of Christian fundamentalist
apologists.
Though extreme, it is necessary to support their extreme doctrines and
preachings, giving them unquestionable authority. Without it,
their
doctrines would not have the foundation required to keep the faith
going.
However, despite the Fundamentalists’ obsession regarding
Biblical inerrancy,
the fact is that the books of the Bible are nowhere near as adamant
about
it. In fact, most books of the Bible don’t even
claim to be God’s word.
Davis D. Danizier made some excellent bottom line points about this in Putting
the Bible in Perspective:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
“But
the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own
"infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing. The Bible in its current
compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last
book was
written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship
of a
book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of
specific
portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but
not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of
separate
writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by
individual
religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be
considered divine. They are just like modern writers, making commentary
and
analysis, who
just happened to have their works
assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their
words. They
refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized
before
their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old
Testament
prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or
whatever
will be added to the canon. Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that
the
established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim
It
is not necessary for good Christians to accept the Bible as the
infallible Word
of God in order to understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of
universal
compassion. After all, the early Christians themselves did not have an
"infallible Bible" to carry around with them -- it wasn't even
compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain insights and
understanding from
modern writers and commentators of today, without claiming that they
are divine
and infallible, we can gain insight and understanding from ancient
writers, as
long as we consider their works for what they are, with critical
thinking and
common sense -- not just blind faith.
We
should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational,
but many
times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical
relic, and
the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western
world has
developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on
their
merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be
anything
more.”
Christians are also
fond of
adding that “The word of God cannot have contradictions
because God cannot
contradict himself.” Again, it’s done
with the a priori
belief
that it must be so since it was divinely inspired by God.
Despite all
logic and reason, fundamentalists will hold steadfast to this
doctrine.
The book Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks explains
well why this doctrine is so appealing to
the believers and their faith: (page 26-27)
“Fundamentalists
normally do not treat the doctrine of inerrancy as simply one
explanation among
others for the nature of the Bible. Rather, to them, the
doctrine of
inerrancy is more like an unquestionable law than an explanatory
theory.
So treated, the doctrine leads most fundamentalists to feel confident
that each
Biblical verse can be easily understood and applied to life’s
problems.
Fundamentalists view the Bible as the final authority on all matters of
important in their life, and many believe that it is reliable only if
it is
entirely
inerrant…
It is, then, the apparent simplicity of Biblical
inerrancy that is appealing to many fundamentalists, and that
simplicity is
basic to their approach not only to the Bible but also to the world
around
them. To many people, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and
the
fundamentalist system of thought in which it is embedded are enormously
attractive... Systems of thought that
generalize about the world, then, can
simplify, or at least seem to simplify, an otherwise chaotic
world... A system
of thought that denounces all alternative ways of thinking is often
enormously
attractive, especially in times of widespread moral and religious
uncertainty. It offers an anchor in the whirlpool of cultural
change. By requiring uncritical acceptance of black-and-white
definitions, such systems of thought can appeal to millions of people,
who find
ambiguity and ambivalence disturbing.”
It also describes
the
drawbacks that such thinking can have on people as well:
“The
intellectual difficulties associated with the doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy
lie not in its adherents’ generalizations per
se but rather in the
unwillingness of its adherents to abandon certain generalizations in
the face
of contrary evidence. (page 28)
The
major hazards in Christian fundamentalism, and thus the major causes of
the
doubts and frustration that many fundamentalists feel, are woven into
the
fundamentalists’ approach to the Bible. People who
hold the presumption
that all the Bible must be ‘perfect’ may sacrifice
the ability to recognize
Biblical implausibilities and inconsistencies, and that is a
fundamental
hazard. For when they are unable to detect a biased
statement, a
fantastic story, an unjust act, an implausible feat, or a contradictory
law,
they place their faith in God in a precarious position. (page
149)”
While such ways of
thinking
can be emotionally comforting to the believer, there are big obvious
drawbacks
as well. For one thing, it closes one’s mind
drastically, making them see
the world in black and white, ignoring the real complexity and
diversity of the
world. It gives the believer a mentality that puts everyone
in the world
into two categories – believers and non-believers, or the
light vs. the
dark. And it also stunts any intellectual growth or learning,
because
anything that doesn’t fit within the belief system is
rejected as unwholesome
or evil. In addition, this also leads to the inability to
relate to those
who don’t share your belief system, thus alienating them from
you. Here’s
an example of what this kind of thinking could lead to in the worst
case
scenario: (Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks,
page
28)
“Indeed,
by overgeneralizing and not questioning assumptions and definitions,
entire
systems of thought can inadequately describe the world and fail to do
justice
to its complexity. Perhaps the most tragic example of
oversimplified
thought is Naziism, which relied on uncritical definitions of Jews and
the
uncritical acceptance of the idea of the Germans’ being a
chosen people.”
In addition, here
are some
examples using foolish historical quotes, of what religious
fundamentalist
closed system thinking can do to people’s minds.
It’s kind of scary, but
it’s real.
"The
good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make
empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have
made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man
in
the bonds of Hell."
-
"The
Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No
one
may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the
Catholic
Church. No book is authoritative unless it has received the
papal
sanction..."
-
From the Dictatus of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085)
"We
should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white
is
really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides."
-St.
Ignition of Loyola, Exercitia Spiritualia
"If
the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it."
-
William Jennings
"To
assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo in 1615.
"When
the non-Christian scientist or philosopher begins to reason in the
field
of philosophy or theology, the very nature of the subject matter,
dealing
as it does with the ultimate causes of the universe, makes it
impossible
for him to reason correctly. The distortion brought about by
the
fall of man into sin completely blocks the intellectual channels of
the
non-Christian thinker and prevents him from reasoning correctly."
-
Floyd
Row,
(Now
the one above clearly shows a tenaciously circular, closed-loop system
of
thinking!)
Now let’s
begin
and look at
the facts here.
1) No one who
looks at the Bible objectively
without any bias or beliefs to defend would think that it is totally
harmonious
and without errors or contradictions. The book Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks
put
it well
on page 86:
“Any
person who reads the whole Bible, without being told I advance that it
is a
work that is supposed to be entirely
true, entirely
in agreement,
and nowhere
contradictory, would have to conclude that it is a
collection of strands of thought that sometimes conflict. The
books of
the Bible were written over more than a thousand years, and reflect the
views
of various cultures and numerous writers.”
However,
that is to be expected, since the Bible is not really one book, but 66
books
written by over 40 authors. If you picked out 40 different
books at a
library or bookstore, would you expect their claims and ideas to all be
harmonious and without contradictions? Of course
not. And you
should expect no less from the Bible, though it may contain words of
wisdom.
2) Second, if the
Bible were truly God’s word verbatim,
then why would there be stylistic differences among the different
authors? (in
addition to differences in content and ideas) Even
Christians acknowledge the individualistic differences in writing
styles
of the authors of the Bible. But in doing so, they face a
contradiction
that they don’t even realize. While they
acknowledge that the 40+
writers of the Bible were using their own style of writing in their
books, they
are at the same time saying that every word in the Bible comes directly
from
God! But if every word of the Bible were from God, there
wouldn't be
different styles and points of view. How can God
have different
styles of writing?
Now
even if the Bible writers were “inspired” by
something such as some higher
wisdom, higher consciousness, or even a part of their own spirit, they
still
are interpreting the "inspiration" that they're getting with their
own minds, which makes them fallible still. They would
be using
their own human minds to interpret their feelings and inspirations (no
matter
what the source of them) in the same way that artists, sculptors,
writers,
poets, etc. are doing as well. What this means is that since
their own
minds are doing the interpreting of their "inspirations" we can only
view most if not all of the Bible as symbolic
or allegorical rather than
literal. They become
like the stories contained in Aesop's Fables and
other parable stories, which are symbolic allegorical tales with
lessons and
morals to learn from.
3) Third, if the
Bible was God’s word and an
accurate historical account, then it would not use literary techniques
such as
the following used by fictional writers.
Use
of foreshadowing
The
Bible often uses a technique called foreshadowing, which is used by
literary
fiction writers, not by writers of historical documents. Here
are some
examples.
a) They say that
Moses' deliverance of the
Israelites is a symbolic foreshadowing representation of Christ's
deliverance
of the believer's from the world of sin.
b) They say (Jesus
says it in the New Testament
too) that the story of Jonah being in the belly of the whale (or fish)
for
three days is a symbolic foreshadowing of Christ's descent into hell
after his
crucifixion for three days and nights before he rose again.
c) They say that
Abraham's attempted sacrifice
of Isaac to God as a test of his faith is a symbolic representation of
Christ's
sacrifice thousands of years later.
These
are just some of the examples of foreshadowing used in the
Bible. Now, just
why would God need to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice in the New
Testament with
events in the Old Testament? What practical value would that
serve?
We've all been taught in English class that foreshadowing is a
technique used
by writers of fiction and literature. It's not a technique
used to write
historical or actual accounts though.
Furthermore,
we have no reason at all to believe that the writers of the Old
Testament
originally intended to make their stories foreshadow Christ's
crucifixion. The New Testament writers seemed to just use
those Old
Testament stories to suit their purpose obviously.
Literary
dialogue
The
dialogues in the Bible are all structured and in complete sentences,
which is
the way people talk in dramatizations, but not the way people talk in
real
life. If you read the dialogues in the Bible, you'll find
that people in
it talk in complete sentences, without interruptions or
phrases. Each
line spoken is in response to someone or something. Now
that's obviously
how plays and dramatizations are written. People in real life
don't talk
like that. In real life, people talk in phrases and get
interrupted. They use informal language, and don't have such
a logical
and clear purpose behind everything they say. Also, the
dialogues and
the plots in the Bible just seem kind of wooden and contrived, it
doesn't flow the way real dialogue does.
Contradictions
and
discrepancies
4) Fourth, the
Bible may contain good and bad parts,
true things and false things, etc. but it is definitely not
inerrant. In
fact, the Bible is not only full of contradictions too numerous to
list, but
also contains differences in theology between the Old and New
Testaments, a
series of unfulfilled prophecies, prophecies in the New Testament which
don’t
exist in the Old Testament, false scientific facts, deliberate
manipulation by
the New Testament writers, etc. (We will go into these more
later.)
The
list of Bible contradictions is too vast, tedious, and beyond the scope
and
purpose of this book to get into, but if you wish, there are many
websites
which get into them. Here are some examples:
Biblical
Errancy - The most comprehensive
list of Bible contradictions, by Dennis
McKinsey
A
List of Biblical Contradictions
by
Jim Merritt
Biblical
Errancy
by
Jim Merritt
The Argument from the Bible by Theodore Drange
New
Testament Contradictions
by
Paul
Carlson
A
list of Biblical Errancy links can be found at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.shtml
To
see how tedious debating Bible contradictions can become, see these
transcripts
of public debates on the issue.
Is
The Bible The Word Of God? (Debate)
Asa
and Archer: Does the Bible contain errors?
Paul
Tobin, a former Christian, has put up an excellent site debunking
Christian
fundamentalism that exposes critical errors and contradictions in the
Bible: The
Rejection of Pascal’s Wager:
A Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity.
For
books in print about this subject and that counter fundamentalism, you
can find
a list of them at Books
about Biblical Errancy
A review
of the above articles will show you that the debate over Bible
contradictions
is a never-ending tedious battle over semantics and translations that
never
really gets anywhere, with each side seeing what it wants to
see. That is
why I do not need to get into it here. They usually devolve
into a
tedious debate over the correct translation of the meaning of Hebrew or
Greek
verses of Bible transcripts. Without a background in Hebrew,
Greek, or a
study of ancient Bible manuscripts, one cannot even engage in such
debate. But even amongst themselves, Christians will debate
differences
in theology or doctrine in the same way, arguing their different
interpretations of various verses, and over correct translations of
Hebrew or
Greek manuscripts.
One
way Christians attempt to resolve alleged Bible contradictions is by
stating a
common guideline that you have to look at each verse in its context,
meaning
that any interpretation or conclusions you draw from the verses must be
consistent with the verses in the rest of the Bible. However,
the problem
is that one can easily choose their own interpretation of a verse, and
reinterpret all the other conflicting verses to agree with it, or vice
versa. For example, one dispute among Christian denominations
is the issue
of whether water baptism is required for salvation. Those who
believe
that water baptism is required for salvation will quote John 3:5 which
says:
“Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
They
take the word “water” literally to mean H2O
water. On the other hand,
those who believe in a salvation purely by faith and not of works (they
consider the act of water baptism to be of “works”)
will cite Ephesians 2: 8-9
“For
by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift
of God: Not of works, lest any man should
boast.”
The
proponents of the grace through faith salvation will claim that the
“water” in
John 3:5 must be interpreted as referring to the word of God, because
elsewhere
in the Bible, the term “water” has been used to
refer to the word of God.
And furthermore, since the verse in Ephesians said that salvation was
purely
through grace and faith, then that’s the definition of
“water” that must be
used in John 3:5. In addition, the “grace through
faith” believers will
cite the example of the salvation of the thief on the cross (Gospel of
John),
who was given immediate salvation by Jesus while they were both
crucified,
without being water baptized. However, believers in water
baptism as a
requirement will claim that since the thief did not have the chance of
being
baptized by water, that God made an exception in his case but that in
normal
cases it is still a requirement. Another verses dealing with
this same
issue is:
Mark
The
water baptism people say the word “baptized” above
refers to water baptism
while the grace through faith proponents claim that it refers to the
spiritual
baptism of the Holy Spirit when one becomes saved.
There
are thousands of other verses like this which are disputed within the
Christian
community between believers and denominations. And it can
often get a lot
more elaborate than in my example above. You see how tedious
and
pointless this kind of debate over Bible interpretation gets?
Another
way Christians attempt to resolve a contradiction is by looking for any
loophole they can find to harmonize contradictory verses. In
the New
Testament, for instance, we have two accounts of Judas’
death. In one
account, he kills himself by hanging himself. In another, he
dies of a
fall.
"And
he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and
went out
and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
“Now
this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling
headlong,
he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed
out.” (Acts
Christians
attempt to resolve this contradiction by claiming that Judas hung
himself at
the top of a hill first, and then somehow the rope broke and he fell
down a
slope. They will go to any extreme to resolve a
contradiction, as you
might expect.
In any
case, the fact is that there are countless of contradictions in the
Bible. Of that there can be no doubt. Even
Christians themselves
admit that if you take the Bible literally, then of course there will
be
contradictions in it. Therefore, they maintain that some of
it is literal
and some symbolic or figurative. But of course, which verses
are literal
and which are symbolic is a source of constant doctrinal debate among
Christians, and has always been. The thing they do is try to
rationalize
away any contradictions or discrepancies to maintain the belief that it
is
divinely inspired and harmonious. They have many ways of
doing this, one
of which is to label any verse that contradicts a doctrine you hold as
symbolic
and therefore not literal enough to cause a contradiction.
Another is to
reinterpret the meaning of any contradictory verses which
doesn’t support the
doctrines you believe in. As you might have guessed, the
variety of ways
they can do this is countless and never-ending. (It is not in
the scope
of this book to address every single doctrinal issue and verse being
debated
in the Christian community though.)
Some
of the most significant discrepancies and theological differences in
the Bible
are:
a) The Old Testament writers
tell of a coming messiah
(the Jews like to use the term “Moshiach” though,
see http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm)
who will establish a political national kingdom in Israel and bring it
to
become the center of world government and power (Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3;
Hosea
3:4-5; Isaiah 11:11-12; 2:2-4; 42:1) whereas the New Testament writers
claimed
that their messiah, Jesus Christ, is a messiah of a spiritual kingdom
(spoken
of often in Matthew 9-13) rather than an earthly one, consisting of the
body of
believers and their churches. Therefore, the central figure
of the Bible,
the messiah, is portrayed as having a completely different mission in
the Old
and New Testaments. And this difference is a huge
one. So much for
harmony. (See the section Why
Jesus could not
be the Messiah of the Old Testament)
b) During most of the Old
Testament era, followers of
God did not believe in a literal heaven and hell. You can
check this out easily
by simply looking at the books of the Old Testament itself, as the
concept is
not mentioned until about the book of Daniel. And that book
was written
in the era when
c) The writers of the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and
Luke clearly teach and believe in a salvation by works, while the
writer of the
Gospel of John, written much later, preaches that salvation is by faith
and
belief on the cross and in the atonement. For example, in
Matt. 19:16-18,
Jesus is asked how one can go to heaven and have eternal life.
"And, behold, one came
and said unto him, Good
Master,
what good thing shall I
do, that I may have eternal
life? And he said
unto him, Why callest
thou me good? there is none
good but one, that is,
God: but if thou wilt
enter into life, keep the
commandments. He saith
unto him, Which? Jesus
said, Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not
commit adultery, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
bear false
witness, Honour thy
father and thy mother: and, Thou
shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. The
young man saith unto him,
All these things
have I kept from my youth
up: what lack I yet? Jesus
said unto him, If
thou wilt be perfect, go
and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor,
and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: and come and
follow me."
Now
that was a simple rule to follow for going to heaven, loving your
neighbor and
God, and keeping the commandments. However, it evolved into
much more
later when we get into the book of John, which was written much
later. In
fact, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that John is very
different from the other three Gospels, known as the Synoptic Gospels,
in its
emphasis of the doctrine of Atonement, which is that one must be saved
through
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Rather than just
loving your neighbor and
God, the doctrine now was that you had to believe
that Jesus died for
your sins in order to be saved. Our modern Evangelical
Christianity is
based on the Gospel of John, and that’s why if you look at a
Christian Gospel tract
or literature, you will see it always quoting verses from the Gospel of
John. For example:
John
3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son, so that
whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.”
John
John
John
14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And
then of course, the Apostle Paul reinforced this doctrine of Atonement
in his
letters (some theorize that Paul created the version of him in
organized
Christianity).
Romans
10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.”
(See
the section entitled Evolution
of the Salvation Doctrine in the Four Gospels)
And
with regard to the four Gospels describing Jesus’ ministry,
there are key
contradictions and discrepancies as well. For instance:
1) Mark is
regarded by Biblical Scholarship to
be the oldest of the Gospels, followed by Matthew and Luke, and finally
John. It is agreed that Matthew and Luke took Mark's
narrative and
expanded on them, and using another source which scholars believe to
have
existed and label the “Q Gospel”. Then
John then took the first three
Gospels and added even more to them to create his comprehensive
Gospel.
Now, if these Gospels are the word of God, why does God have to expand
on his
own words over and over again? Why can't an all knowing
omniscient God
write the perfect final draft the first time, instead of making so many
rough
drafts first? Also, if the gospels are eyewitness testimony,
then why is
91 percent of Mark contained in Matthew? Why would anyone
need to copy
their own eyewitness testimony from someone else?
2) In
John’s Gospel, Jesus talks about being
"born again" in order to enter the
3) Nothing in the
Gospel of Matthew and Luke
describe of any kind of salvation by faith. And nothing in
them warns
about the consequences of not believing in Jesus. The last
chapter of
Mark which states: “He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16) has been
shown to be an
interpolation since many of the earliest manuscripts of Mark don't
contain that
verse in the last chapter, so Mark probably didn’t say
anything about salvation
by faith as well.
4) In Mark Jesus
goes around everywhere and
casts out demons. In John he never does this once.
5) Matthew says
there were forty-one generations
from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. The
names in their
genealogies are also completely different.
6) Matthew says
Jesus was born when Herod was King
of Judea. However, Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was
Governor of
Syria. Both can’t be true though. Herod
died in the year 4 BC, and
Cyrenius, who in Roman history is known as Quirinius, did not become
Governor
of Syria until ten years later. Therefore, Herod and
Quirinius are
separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew
and
Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years as to
the time
of Christ's birth.
7) According to
Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus'
ministry covered about one year. But according to John,
Jesus' ministry
covered about three years.
8) John tells us
that the event where Jesus
drives out the money-changers from the temple occurred at the beginning
of his
ministry, while Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that it occurred near
the end of
his evangelization ministry.
9) There are also
three types of Christs in the
Gospels. According to Mark, Christ was a man.
According to Matthew
and Luke, he was a demigod, while John insists that he was God himself.
10) Matthew says
that Jesus was born in
Rather than
rationalizing
them away or ignoring them, perhaps the best way to understand these
contradictions and discrepancies is given in Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks:
(page148)
“There
is a satisfactory explanation for many of the inconsistencies and
implausibilities found in the Bible; it requires acknowledging that the
Biblical authors were influenced by the beliefs prevalent in their
culture and
the historical setting in which they wrote.”
The
"read
the Bible in its context" argument
A
popular
counterargument by Christians against those who point out discrepancies
in the
Bible is to claim that one has to "read the Bible in its
context". They even use this argument against other
Christians when doctrinal disagreements
arise. This rule states
that any interpretation drawn from any Bible passages should take into
account
the verses and chapters around it, and in the rest of the Bible
too.
What
this
Christian solution falsely and naively assumes is that everyone who
honestly
reads the whole Bible in its context will come to the same
conclusions.
Anyone who isn't deluded or deprived of common sense knows
that this is
the most unrealistic expectation they can have. It also
assumes that
there exists a single true and exact interpretation of the
Bible.
They
couldn't
be
more wrong. Even if one exercises perfect logic in
reading the
Bible, one can still come up with differing interpretations on
many issues
and passages. Especially when the verses, chapters, and books
of the
Bible contradict or don't make sense when taken hyperliterally, one
still has
to make judgment calls on which verses to emphasize, and which
to
reinterpret to fit a particular conclusion. As mentioned earlier in the
water
baptism issue, one can easily
choose
their own interpretation of a verse, and reinterpret all the other
conflicting
verses to agree with it, or vice versa.
Sometimes,
they
try to claim that the Holy Spirit in the true believer will correctly
interpret
the Bible for him/her. The obvious problem with that is that
lots of
"true believers" do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible,
even within the same denomination. And of course, they can
easily claim
that the other "true believers" who disagree with them are either not
true believers or not being guided properly by the Holy
Spirit. But that
is just getting insane.
As
one reader
of
mine commented on this issue:
"Wu,
I agree with you completely, as do 4.5 Million Orthodox believers.
First, consider how 10,000 different "literal" interpretations of the
same Bible (a minimalist one, since these groups do not accept various
books
included in the traditional Scriptures) can be!
There cannot
logically be more than one out of the myriad of disagreeing
interpretations
which is correct--and there doesn't have to be even
one! Each group
claims that it has got the right set of (literal)
interpretations--however
non-literal much of what they interpret is and of course ignoring that
the
Bible was finally assembled and canonized by the Orthodox Church--and
not until
in the latter fourth century.
Second, if you reject the interpretations set forth by the disciples of
the
authors of the Gospels and Epistles and their successors in the first
two
centuries of Christianity, and if you permit everyone to interpret the
Scriptures according to one's individual whims (Luther's "sola
scriptura" and the "universal priesthood of believers") instead
of being guided by the holy patristic tradition, it follows that
"Scripture
alone" is for all practical purposes a consummately empty
slogan--there being no objective way to select the fittest
interpretation from
the different individualistic opinions on each point. This
leads to moral
reletavism and a sense that "God will sort it all out in the end."
The Holy Apostle Paul said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15. One must understand and experience the
patristic
tradition of the Church to experience the fullness of Christ.
The
epistles alone will never do it.
Modern
Fundamentalist lack control--like the holy
tradition--which, having tried out every possible answer to every
mooted point,
sifts them and selects (to hang on) the only one that does no
harm to the
entire system of belief inherited from the Apostles and their
disciples. These traditions, given by word and by
epistle, have stood the test of two millenniums. The
Orthodox
believe that the Church was guided by the all-holy Spirit (John
John"
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page