---------------------
It's not often you come across an atheist who quotes the Bible, expounds on the ideas contained in those quotes, and then draws reasonable and discuss-able conclusions from those ideas, all without excessive mocking or derision. Such is the author of today's article.
His presentation is not without its flaws. Ultimately, the author deems the Bible to be unremarkable and unprovable. But such a standard is one not possible for any document from antiquity.
For example, we cannot prove the Constitution was written by James Madison. We have no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses to interview, no photographs. All we have is historical documentary evidence. It is unprovable, therefore, that James Madison wrote the Constitution.
So of course we can't prove that God inspired the Bible. We can only read it for ourselves, study the original languages, read apologists and critics, and reach our own conclusions. We think the average person who retains a balanced and unbiased approach to the Scriptures, will conclude they are indeed unique, worthy of devotion, and quite possibly the answer to all the questions of life.
-------------------
Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.
This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw.(That may indeed be the implication in the author's mind, but it's not the only thing that can be inferred. Other reasonable inferences are
Now these are huge assumptions for one thing. It would take A LOT to prove or even demonstrate such outlandish claims literally. (The author has not demonstrated that these are outlandish claims. And in fact voluminous scholarship has been undertaken over the centuries to demonstrate these very things. The field is apologetics, sir.)
However, not only do Christian Evangelists make these assumptions, but they just assume it to be true as well without any real basis. (The author has not demonstrated Christians are making assumptions, nor has he established that there is no basis. So far, he has only made summary statements.)
In general, the issue is not questioned or analyzed in the church as to whether the Bible is God’s word or not. It is simply ASSUMED to be so. It’s a GIVEN. (Another summary statement. As we mentioned, there is a substantial field of study in Christian apologetics.)
And it rests on a very shaky foundation, much more so than they could imagine. What most Christians don't realize and never think about is that God himself never actually told them directly that the Bible was his word. (Undocumented assertion.)
Fallible imperfect human beings did!
To demonstrate this, here's an interesting and simple test that you can try. Go to a church, and ask ten people the question "How do you know that the Bible is God's word?" From most of them you'll get a look of confusion or puzzlement, and some of them will just say "Because it says so." offering no other reason. Of course, a few more knowledgeable ones will use some of the arguments in this article that I refute. But what you can learn from this experiment is that most Christians don't know why they should believe that the Bible is God's word. You see, they've been socially and psychologically engineered to assume that it's a given fact that it is. They've been unconsciously taught that it's a simple fact just like the sky is blue and the grass is green. That's why in their normal line of thinking they would never question why they should believe that the Bible is God's word. (This may or may not be true, but it does not come to bear on the topic. We are not interested in what hypothetical unnamed Christians may or may not believe.)
You may wonder why Christians never questioned the inspiration of the Bible upon first being introduced to it. (Unsupported assertion. The author will continue to expound on these hypothetical Christians.)
Well I think that one of the main reasons they don't question the Bible's divine inspiration upon their initial conversion into Christianity is due to the incredible promise of eternal life that they are promised upon conversion. (A theory offered without basis is mere speculation.)
They are so overjoyed and amazed at the offer of eternal life in heaven, offered to them for free just for believing, that their left brain never stops to analyze what they've been preached. Another reason is that preachers and evangelists often use sentiment, emotion and touching stories to convert people, rather than reason. (Unsupported assertion.)
Or if they were raised by Christian families, then of course as a child they wouldn't initially question their religious theology, since children generally assume that what their parents tell them is true.
Now, here’s the big shocker. What followers of Christian fundamentalists don’t know and never realize is: NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim to be God’s word. (The internal claims of a document is not evidence. What something asserts about itself is not evidence.
It's not often you come across an atheist who quotes the Bible, expounds on the ideas contained in those quotes, and then draws reasonable and discuss-able conclusions from those ideas, all without excessive mocking or derision. Such is the author of today's article.
His presentation is not without its flaws. Ultimately, the author deems the Bible to be unremarkable and unprovable. But such a standard is one not possible for any document from antiquity.
For example, we cannot prove the Constitution was written by James Madison. We have no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses to interview, no photographs. All we have is historical documentary evidence. It is unprovable, therefore, that James Madison wrote the Constitution.
So of course we can't prove that God inspired the Bible. We can only read it for ourselves, study the original languages, read apologists and critics, and reach our own conclusions. We think the average person who retains a balanced and unbiased approach to the Scriptures, will conclude they are indeed unique, worthy of devotion, and quite possibly the answer to all the questions of life.
-------------------
Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.
This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw.(That may indeed be the implication in the author's mind, but it's not the only thing that can be inferred. Other reasonable inferences are
- The Bible is filtered through the personalities of the writers, yet is still inspired and trustworthy
- The Bible captures the essence of what God wanted humankind to know and is sufficient for communicating His purposes towards us
- The Bible is wholly written by man, yet God moved through those writings
- A combination of any of these.)
Now these are huge assumptions for one thing. It would take A LOT to prove or even demonstrate such outlandish claims literally. (The author has not demonstrated that these are outlandish claims. And in fact voluminous scholarship has been undertaken over the centuries to demonstrate these very things. The field is apologetics, sir.)
However, not only do Christian Evangelists make these assumptions, but they just assume it to be true as well without any real basis. (The author has not demonstrated Christians are making assumptions, nor has he established that there is no basis. So far, he has only made summary statements.)
In general, the issue is not questioned or analyzed in the church as to whether the Bible is God’s word or not. It is simply ASSUMED to be so. It’s a GIVEN. (Another summary statement. As we mentioned, there is a substantial field of study in Christian apologetics.)
And it rests on a very shaky foundation, much more so than they could imagine. What most Christians don't realize and never think about is that God himself never actually told them directly that the Bible was his word. (Undocumented assertion.)
Fallible imperfect human beings did!
To demonstrate this, here's an interesting and simple test that you can try. Go to a church, and ask ten people the question "How do you know that the Bible is God's word?" From most of them you'll get a look of confusion or puzzlement, and some of them will just say "Because it says so." offering no other reason. Of course, a few more knowledgeable ones will use some of the arguments in this article that I refute. But what you can learn from this experiment is that most Christians don't know why they should believe that the Bible is God's word. You see, they've been socially and psychologically engineered to assume that it's a given fact that it is. They've been unconsciously taught that it's a simple fact just like the sky is blue and the grass is green. That's why in their normal line of thinking they would never question why they should believe that the Bible is God's word. (This may or may not be true, but it does not come to bear on the topic. We are not interested in what hypothetical unnamed Christians may or may not believe.)
You may wonder why Christians never questioned the inspiration of the Bible upon first being introduced to it. (Unsupported assertion. The author will continue to expound on these hypothetical Christians.)
Well I think that one of the main reasons they don't question the Bible's divine inspiration upon their initial conversion into Christianity is due to the incredible promise of eternal life that they are promised upon conversion. (A theory offered without basis is mere speculation.)
They are so overjoyed and amazed at the offer of eternal life in heaven, offered to them for free just for believing, that their left brain never stops to analyze what they've been preached. Another reason is that preachers and evangelists often use sentiment, emotion and touching stories to convert people, rather than reason. (Unsupported assertion.)
Or if they were raised by Christian families, then of course as a child they wouldn't initially question their religious theology, since children generally assume that what their parents tell them is true.
Now, here’s the big shocker. What followers of Christian fundamentalists don’t know and never realize is: NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim to be God’s word. (The internal claims of a document is not evidence. What something asserts about itself is not evidence.
But since the author is on this topic, let's actually examine the claim. What does the Bible say about itself?
OT:
And NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim to be infallible.
(OT:
Fundamentalists love to cite 2 Timothy 3:16; however, the “Scriptures” referred to in that verse refer to the Old Testament, and the term “inspiration” does not mean “word of God” either. (i.e. if a tree inspires me to write a poem about it, is that poem my words or the tree’s words?) (Perhaps the author might consider the biblical meaning, and not something he simply makes up? The Greek word used here is θεόπνευστος, which means "God-breathed.")
In any case, NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim that all 66 books in it are infallible. Nowhere. Period. (Hmm. Since the Bible is a collection of books, letters, poetry, prophecy, and history written by dozens of men over 1500 years, it would be surprising indeed if there were some claim contained therein that all 66 books were together infallible.)
That’s something Christians say, not the Bible or God. In fact, many of the authors of the Bible had no idea that their books would be canonized into an “infallible word of God” book. Even in Paul’s epistles, he made it clear that he was writing personal letters, not dictating whatever God was telling him to write down. He even says literally in three verses in his epistles that these are his words, and not God’s! (see below examples) (Paul also says:
OT:
- Ge. 15:1 After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision...
- Nu. 3:16 So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the LORD.
- 1Sa. 15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel...
- 2Sa. 7:4 That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan...
- 1Kg. 6:11 The word of the LORD came to Solomon...
- 2Kg. 7:1 Elisha said, “Hear the word of the LORD.
- 1Ch. 22:8 But this word of the LORD came to me...
- 2Ch. 11:2 But this word of the LORD came to Shemaiah the man of God...
- Is. 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD...
- Je. 1:2 The word of the LORD came to him...
- Ez. 1:3 the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest...
- Ho. 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea...
- Joe. 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Joel...
- Am. 7:16 Now then, hear the word of the LORD.
- Jon. 1:1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah...
- Mi. 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah...
- Zep. 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah...
- Hg. 1:1 In the second year of King Darius, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the LORD came through the prophet Haggai...
- Zec. 1:1 In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah...
- Mal. 1:1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
- Ac. 8:25 When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem...
- Ac. 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.
- Ac. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
- Ac. 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
- Ac. 19:10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.
- 1Pe. 1:25 but the word of the Lord stands for ever.” [Isaiah 40:6-8] And this is the word that was preached to you.
And NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim to be infallible.
(OT:
- Jo. 23:14 “Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.
- Ps. 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
- Ps. 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless.
- Ps. 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.
- Pr. 30:5 “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
- Ro. 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.
NT:
- He. 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith...
- Ja. 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
- Ja. 1:25 But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it — he will be blessed in what he does.
Fundamentalists love to cite 2 Timothy 3:16; however, the “Scriptures” referred to in that verse refer to the Old Testament, and the term “inspiration” does not mean “word of God” either. (i.e. if a tree inspires me to write a poem about it, is that poem my words or the tree’s words?) (Perhaps the author might consider the biblical meaning, and not something he simply makes up? The Greek word used here is θεόπνευστος, which means "God-breathed.")
In any case, NOWHERE in the Bible does it claim that all 66 books in it are infallible. Nowhere. Period. (Hmm. Since the Bible is a collection of books, letters, poetry, prophecy, and history written by dozens of men over 1500 years, it would be surprising indeed if there were some claim contained therein that all 66 books were together infallible.)
That’s something Christians say, not the Bible or God. In fact, many of the authors of the Bible had no idea that their books would be canonized into an “infallible word of God” book. Even in Paul’s epistles, he made it clear that he was writing personal letters, not dictating whatever God was telling him to write down. He even says literally in three verses in his epistles that these are his words, and not God’s! (see below examples) (Paul also says:
- Ro. 9:1 I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit —
- 1Co. 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
- 2Co. 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
- 2Co. 11:10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine.
- Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.
- Tit. 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness...
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Notice that Peter, an apostle, calls Paul's letters Scripture!)
Furthermore, even if the Bible did claim to be God’s word or infallible, that wouldn’t make it so either. (Duh. But it is the author who raised the subject...)
I could take any of the millions of books in the world, and write in somewhere, “This book is the word of God. It is infallible.” But would that make it so? (As we mentioned, the internal claims of a document is not evidence.
Ironically, the author will now appeal to some Scriptures as if they were absolutely true and we should believe them.)
There are two vague verses though, that Christians use to attempt to prove that the Bible is God’s word. These two verses though, pose problems and raise more questions that preachers don’t address, cause they can’t. Let’s look at them now. Here’s the first one.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
First of all, the term "All Scripture" could easily and logically refer to the Old Testament or the Ten Commandments because a) Jesus used the word scripture many times to refer to the Old Testament canons, so to be consistent we must assume that here as well, and b) at the time this verse was written, the New Testament as we have it today was not even put together yet! Now, since modern Evangelical Christian theology is based mainly on the teachings of the New Testament of course, that means that this verse doesn’t really support the core Christian theological teachings of today! (Well, we have heretofore supplied dozens of other verses. And while we acknowledge that Paul was specifically referring to the OT, there is no reason to accept that such agreement means that the NT is not Scripture.)
Second, just because someone was “inspired” by something to write does not mean that that which caused the inspiration wrote it directly verbatim. That’s not what the word “inspiration” even means. For example, if a beautiful sunset inspired me to write a poem, that doesn't mean that the sunset itself wrote the poem, only that the sunset motivated me to write it. The definition of the word “inspire” obviously is not that the “inspirer” is dictating their words verbatim as if it were their own. Here is the definition of “inspire” from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
2. To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.
3a. To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus. b. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.
4. To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect.
5. To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.
6. To draw in (air) by inhaling.
7. Archaic a. To breathe on. b. To breathe life into.
(As we noted above, it would serve the author better to use the biblical definition. The Greek word used for "inspired" is θεόπνευστος, which means "God-breathed.")
Third, no matter what this verse referred to, one verse out of over 33,000 Bible verses does not make all the verses divinely inspired, (A facile assertion. Apparently the Bible must contain 33,000 claims of inspiration to be inspired.
There are two vague verses though, that Christians use to attempt to prove that the Bible is God’s word. These two verses though, pose problems and raise more questions that preachers don’t address, cause they can’t. Let’s look at them now. Here’s the first one.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
First of all, the term "All Scripture" could easily and logically refer to the Old Testament or the Ten Commandments because a) Jesus used the word scripture many times to refer to the Old Testament canons, so to be consistent we must assume that here as well, and b) at the time this verse was written, the New Testament as we have it today was not even put together yet! Now, since modern Evangelical Christian theology is based mainly on the teachings of the New Testament of course, that means that this verse doesn’t really support the core Christian theological teachings of today! (Well, we have heretofore supplied dozens of other verses. And while we acknowledge that Paul was specifically referring to the OT, there is no reason to accept that such agreement means that the NT is not Scripture.)
Second, just because someone was “inspired” by something to write does not mean that that which caused the inspiration wrote it directly verbatim. That’s not what the word “inspiration” even means. For example, if a beautiful sunset inspired me to write a poem, that doesn't mean that the sunset itself wrote the poem, only that the sunset motivated me to write it. The definition of the word “inspire” obviously is not that the “inspirer” is dictating their words verbatim as if it were their own. Here is the definition of “inspire” from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
2. To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.
3a. To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus. b. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.
4. To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect.
5. To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.
6. To draw in (air) by inhaling.
7. Archaic a. To breathe on. b. To breathe life into.
(As we noted above, it would serve the author better to use the biblical definition. The Greek word used for "inspired" is θεόπνευστος, which means "God-breathed.")
Third, no matter what this verse referred to, one verse out of over 33,000 Bible verses does not make all the verses divinely inspired, (A facile assertion. Apparently the Bible must contain 33,000 claims of inspiration to be inspired.
We either accept the claim made by 2 Timothy 3:16 and the others we have documented, or we don't. There is no burden on a pagan to accept the Bible or any part of it.)
especially the verses of the other books of the Bible which don’t always even agree with each other. (No evidence provided.)
So the idea of one verse out of one book proving divinity in all 66 books is completely absurd and non-sensical. (A conclusion not justified by the author's presentation.)
And as we know, words are just that - words. They don’t create reality or fact. Therefore, just because a verse like this implies that the Bible is the word of God doesn’t make the whole Bible the word of God. In fact, the majority of the books of the Bible do not even claim to be the word of God. Not even Paul claimed that his letters and epistles were the word of God. (Again, this is false. We have seen numerous verses that support the divine inspiration of Paul.)
But nevertheless, even if hundreds or thousands of verses in the Bible said that they were the word of God, that still wouldn’t make it so either. I could take any book in the world, and pen in them somewhere the words, “All words in this book are given by inspiration of God…..” but would that make them God’s infallible word?! (Of course not. But, it is the author who has chosen to explore this avenue, and at quite some length!)
Although the Bible claims to contain the words of God when it says "The Lord spoke" or "Thus sayeth the Lord", even if God really did say those things, that doesn't mean that when Paul said "I say" this and that, that it is the same thing. Nor does it mean that all the verses where God speaks directly reflect what he actually said either. (That is, the claims of an author may or may not be true. This is so obvious that one might be starting to wonder about the author's thinking skills.)
Now, here’s the other verse they use to claim divine inspiration of the Bible.
2 Peter 1: 20-21
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Again, it obviously is referring to the prophecies of Old Testament prophets and perhaps scriptures, not to the whole Bible. Therefore, the three problems above apply to this verse as well. And as mentioned, Christian theology and teaching is based primarily on the Church’s interpretation of the New Testament. (If this were all the Bible had to say about the issue, the author's point would be acceptable. And if we could only rely on the Bible, but didn't have extra-biblical references of contemporary historians, extensive archaeological evidence, and the existence of a multitude of manuscripts that are dated very close to the time, the author's claims would have weight.
But the fact is, the events of the NT are among the most reliably attested to of any events of history. The Bible is found to be eminently reliable in nearly every detail. We should be very slow to dismiss its other claims without sufficient reason to do so.
especially the verses of the other books of the Bible which don’t always even agree with each other. (No evidence provided.)
So the idea of one verse out of one book proving divinity in all 66 books is completely absurd and non-sensical. (A conclusion not justified by the author's presentation.)
And as we know, words are just that - words. They don’t create reality or fact. Therefore, just because a verse like this implies that the Bible is the word of God doesn’t make the whole Bible the word of God. In fact, the majority of the books of the Bible do not even claim to be the word of God. Not even Paul claimed that his letters and epistles were the word of God. (Again, this is false. We have seen numerous verses that support the divine inspiration of Paul.)
But nevertheless, even if hundreds or thousands of verses in the Bible said that they were the word of God, that still wouldn’t make it so either. I could take any book in the world, and pen in them somewhere the words, “All words in this book are given by inspiration of God…..” but would that make them God’s infallible word?! (Of course not. But, it is the author who has chosen to explore this avenue, and at quite some length!)
Although the Bible claims to contain the words of God when it says "The Lord spoke" or "Thus sayeth the Lord", even if God really did say those things, that doesn't mean that when Paul said "I say" this and that, that it is the same thing. Nor does it mean that all the verses where God speaks directly reflect what he actually said either. (That is, the claims of an author may or may not be true. This is so obvious that one might be starting to wonder about the author's thinking skills.)
Now, here’s the other verse they use to claim divine inspiration of the Bible.
2 Peter 1: 20-21
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Again, it obviously is referring to the prophecies of Old Testament prophets and perhaps scriptures, not to the whole Bible. Therefore, the three problems above apply to this verse as well. And as mentioned, Christian theology and teaching is based primarily on the Church’s interpretation of the New Testament. (If this were all the Bible had to say about the issue, the author's point would be acceptable. And if we could only rely on the Bible, but didn't have extra-biblical references of contemporary historians, extensive archaeological evidence, and the existence of a multitude of manuscripts that are dated very close to the time, the author's claims would have weight.
But the fact is, the events of the NT are among the most reliably attested to of any events of history. The Bible is found to be eminently reliable in nearly every detail. We should be very slow to dismiss its other claims without sufficient reason to do so.
Further, the OT contains enough information about what would come that it in itself is sufficient for salvation, apart from the NT. 1Co. 15:3-4:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
Ro. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God — 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures...
2Ti. 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.)
Three verses that say the Bible ISN’T God’s word!
Now, here’s the kicker. There are THREE verses in the New Testament that claim that the Bible is NOT the exact word of God! Here let me show you!
1 Corinthians 7:12
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."
The Apostle Paul clearly says here in the first sentence "speak I, NOT the Lord". He is saying that these words he is about to say are from him and not God! It’s in plain language. This alone technically invalidates the fundamentalist doctrine that every word in the Bible is uttered directly by God. It alone shatters this absolute claim of theirs. There is no defense. However, there are two more similar verses like it to shatter the doctrine even further beyond what’s necessary. Later on in the same chapter, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."
You see here how Paul is saying that he is using his best personal judgment, and that what he's saying is not directly from God? He is telling you that he is writing his own opinion. Then, in Paul’s next letter to the Corinthians, he says:
2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."
Again, the same claim by Paul.
Christian apologists, when countered with these verses, usually respond by claiming either that 1) Paul was adding to Jesus' commands, or 2) Paul was being inspired without himself knowing it. Now those are very bizarre explanations indeed, which don’t even address this issue. Either way, even if those two explanations are true, they still shatter the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. (Well, no. Paul was writing a letter to a church. His intent is to encourage, correct, and instruct them. In this letter he speaks his opinion and directly tells us it his opinion. That ADDS to the its veracity. Paul felt it necessary to tell his readers the truth, and his proviso has survived to present day!
But... Prior to this, Paul writes, 1Co. 7:10: To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
That is, he specifically asserts he is speaking the very command of God! He continues on and later writes, 1Co. 7:40: In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is — and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. Hmm. So on one hand he states an opinion, but then immediately documents the weight of this opinion by appealing to inspiration!
What we are seeing here is the wonderful humanity of Paul showing through, His letters are full of concern for his readers' well-being, honesty about his struggles, bursts of anger, sarcasm, and all sorts of other emotions. Truly this adds to the truthfulness of the prose. For if a later editor had wanted to, all these things could have been redacted, and Paul would be a super-hero figure.
But Paul is not only human, he's painfully honest, logically nuanced, and eminently readable. We have absolutely no reason to dismiss anything he has written.)
And furthermore, in regards to the second explanation, why would God "inspire" Paul to say that his words were NOT from God?!
Now add up the score. ONE verse versus THREE! This extreme doctrine is shattered three times over. It’s been disproven by 300 percent! Game over. (Ha! Three statements of Paul's opinion, and hundreds of verses of powerful, insightful writing by Paul and several other notable minds from the first century. Game over, indeed.)
In addition, all one has to do is to take a look at the opening line of the epistles in the New Testament by Paul and other writers, and you will easily notice that the author is addressing his “letter” to a specific church or group of people at the time. This means that it is obvious in clear language that they were writing a letter for certain people or congregations, to either instruct them or give them encouragement, and not writing some infallible scriptures to be placed in a Bible to represent God’s word verbatim to all mankind! (An insightful observation. But the author immediately dismisses the idea of inspiration based on the idea that a letter written by someone means it isn't inspired.
Now, here’s the kicker. There are THREE verses in the New Testament that claim that the Bible is NOT the exact word of God! Here let me show you!
1 Corinthians 7:12
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."
The Apostle Paul clearly says here in the first sentence "speak I, NOT the Lord". He is saying that these words he is about to say are from him and not God! It’s in plain language. This alone technically invalidates the fundamentalist doctrine that every word in the Bible is uttered directly by God. It alone shatters this absolute claim of theirs. There is no defense. However, there are two more similar verses like it to shatter the doctrine even further beyond what’s necessary. Later on in the same chapter, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."
You see here how Paul is saying that he is using his best personal judgment, and that what he's saying is not directly from God? He is telling you that he is writing his own opinion. Then, in Paul’s next letter to the Corinthians, he says:
2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."
Again, the same claim by Paul.
Christian apologists, when countered with these verses, usually respond by claiming either that 1) Paul was adding to Jesus' commands, or 2) Paul was being inspired without himself knowing it. Now those are very bizarre explanations indeed, which don’t even address this issue. Either way, even if those two explanations are true, they still shatter the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. (Well, no. Paul was writing a letter to a church. His intent is to encourage, correct, and instruct them. In this letter he speaks his opinion and directly tells us it his opinion. That ADDS to the its veracity. Paul felt it necessary to tell his readers the truth, and his proviso has survived to present day!
But... Prior to this, Paul writes, 1Co. 7:10: To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
That is, he specifically asserts he is speaking the very command of God! He continues on and later writes, 1Co. 7:40: In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is — and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. Hmm. So on one hand he states an opinion, but then immediately documents the weight of this opinion by appealing to inspiration!
What we are seeing here is the wonderful humanity of Paul showing through, His letters are full of concern for his readers' well-being, honesty about his struggles, bursts of anger, sarcasm, and all sorts of other emotions. Truly this adds to the truthfulness of the prose. For if a later editor had wanted to, all these things could have been redacted, and Paul would be a super-hero figure.
But Paul is not only human, he's painfully honest, logically nuanced, and eminently readable. We have absolutely no reason to dismiss anything he has written.)
And furthermore, in regards to the second explanation, why would God "inspire" Paul to say that his words were NOT from God?!
Now add up the score. ONE verse versus THREE! This extreme doctrine is shattered three times over. It’s been disproven by 300 percent! Game over. (Ha! Three statements of Paul's opinion, and hundreds of verses of powerful, insightful writing by Paul and several other notable minds from the first century. Game over, indeed.)
In addition, all one has to do is to take a look at the opening line of the epistles in the New Testament by Paul and other writers, and you will easily notice that the author is addressing his “letter” to a specific church or group of people at the time. This means that it is obvious in clear language that they were writing a letter for certain people or congregations, to either instruct them or give them encouragement, and not writing some infallible scriptures to be placed in a Bible to represent God’s word verbatim to all mankind! (An insightful observation. But the author immediately dismisses the idea of inspiration based on the idea that a letter written by someone means it isn't inspired.
But the author does no work to explain the process of his conclusion. He doesn't tell us why these letters can't be inspired because they are letters. These writings are sublime and deep. The author has supplied us with no reason we should dismiss them.)
What is odd is that while the Evangelists and Apologists emphasize this doctrine of Biblical infallibility so strongly and obsessively as if it were the central issue, the Bible itself doesn’t even do that. In fact, these Apologists only have two vague verses they use to justify this core doctrine of theirs. (As we have seen, this is quite false.)
If this doctrine of Biblical infallibility was so central and core to Christianity as they claim, then why are there only two vague verses about it, out of over 33,000?
As mentioned before, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility was not a central tenet of Christianity until early in the 20th century when the theory of evolution began to be taught as fact in classrooms. (Undocumented claim.)
It was then that the Christians countered with this doctrine. Not only did it protect Christian tenets from the danger of Darwinist teachings, but it served other purposes as well. You see, without the doctrine that the Bible is infallible and that every word of it is of God, it would put question marks on every verse. Anyone could then pick and choose which parts of it they wanted to be God’s word and which they didn’t, and that would greatly undermine the authority of it. So this doctrine is necessary to keep the religion intact. Otherwise, Christians themselves would not be able to feel secure and confident that every verse in the Bible could be trusted. (Undocumented claim.)
For an eloquent rant about the Bible that brings up many good points, read the essay About the Holy Bible (1894) by Robert Ingersoll, a religious critic from the 19th century.
Also from Ingersoll is an extensive article that lists discrepancies and absurdities in the books of Moses. It is a very amusing read as it is both eloquent and humorous at the same time. Some Mistakes Of Moses (1879) By Robert Ingersoll
But even before Ingersoll’s time, Thomas Paine, a great eloquent religious critic, already debunked the Bible and Christian theology in his treatise The Age of Reason
Also check out The Argument from the Bible (1996) by Theodore Drange (We did, analysis found here.)
For a site similar to this one and nicely packaged, see The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity (Apparently the author is unaware of the many rebuttals and refutations of these writers. The issue is by no means the slam-dunk the author thinks it is.)
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
What is odd is that while the Evangelists and Apologists emphasize this doctrine of Biblical infallibility so strongly and obsessively as if it were the central issue, the Bible itself doesn’t even do that. In fact, these Apologists only have two vague verses they use to justify this core doctrine of theirs. (As we have seen, this is quite false.)
If this doctrine of Biblical infallibility was so central and core to Christianity as they claim, then why are there only two vague verses about it, out of over 33,000?
As mentioned before, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility was not a central tenet of Christianity until early in the 20th century when the theory of evolution began to be taught as fact in classrooms. (Undocumented claim.)
It was then that the Christians countered with this doctrine. Not only did it protect Christian tenets from the danger of Darwinist teachings, but it served other purposes as well. You see, without the doctrine that the Bible is infallible and that every word of it is of God, it would put question marks on every verse. Anyone could then pick and choose which parts of it they wanted to be God’s word and which they didn’t, and that would greatly undermine the authority of it. So this doctrine is necessary to keep the religion intact. Otherwise, Christians themselves would not be able to feel secure and confident that every verse in the Bible could be trusted. (Undocumented claim.)
For an eloquent rant about the Bible that brings up many good points, read the essay About the Holy Bible (1894) by Robert Ingersoll, a religious critic from the 19th century.
Also from Ingersoll is an extensive article that lists discrepancies and absurdities in the books of Moses. It is a very amusing read as it is both eloquent and humorous at the same time. Some Mistakes Of Moses (1879) By Robert Ingersoll
But even before Ingersoll’s time, Thomas Paine, a great eloquent religious critic, already debunked the Bible and Christian theology in his treatise The Age of Reason
Also check out The Argument from the Bible (1996) by Theodore Drange (We did, analysis found here.)
For a site similar to this one and nicely packaged, see The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity (Apparently the author is unaware of the many rebuttals and refutations of these writers. The issue is by no means the slam-dunk the author thinks it is.)
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
No comments:
Post a Comment