I'm sure there's many people calling themselves Christians that like to believe the Bible is perfect, that its infallible. On the other side we have plenty of agnostics and atheists that say if there be just one mistake in the Bible then it is proven wrong. These two sides seem to be the two loudest voices on the subject, and unfortunately they drown out good sense, along with the correct view. The Bible is not infallible and the Bible is neither wrong.
First I must show that Bible is not perfect. This really is a simple matter that anyone with a Bible, who knows where to look, can find unanswerable contradictions. An easy example is 2Samuel 10:18 and 1Chronicles 19:18. In Samuel it says 'seven hundred of their charioteers', but in Chronicles it says 'seven thousand of their charioteers'. There are other examples like this one. Here's an atheistic site giving you their list of contradictions: http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra. Here's an apologetic site giving you their explanations: http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm. The atheists and agnostics will say that there are all kinds of contradictions. What they call contradictions, though, are not all contradictions. There are many paradoxes in the Bible, and many contradictions that can easily be explained. But not every contradiction can be explained; there are some that are actually valid contradictions. To say that the Bible is simply infallible makes a person sound simply ignorant. To say that the Bible is infallible in its original autographs sounds like rationalism. But to say that the Bible is very good but not perfect, that to me sounds reasonable.
As I have mentioned already (and anyone that knows me will already know), the Bible is accurate and trustworthy. To a Christian not inclined to call it infallible, calling it the best revelation of God is very close to the mark. Whatever mistakes there are in the Bible are insignificant in their meaning, just like the one mentioned above. The Bible has evidential support in many ways. There is more manuscript evidence supporting its authenticity than any other historical document. The consistency of all the manuscripts is remarkable, with about a 97% consistency out of thousands of manuscripts. There is a story and a meaning that stretches throughout all 66 books. Archaeology has confirmed numerous background details. And prophecies have been fulfilled. I could go into further detail with all that, but it wasn't my plan to do so with this note. Suffice to say, I strongly believe the Bible. I'm sure, though, some ignorant literalist will think I'm a kind of heretic or whatever.
This leads us to a very important question: If the Bible is true but not perfect, then why would an omnipotent God make the word of His revelation imperfect? He has the ability to make it perfect, so why not? There's a very reasonable answer to it, the kind that makes people go 'oh'. If the Bible were perfect, then people would worship it instead of God. Only God is perfect. None of God's creations are perfect, including the Bible. And we all know that idolatry is a sin of the worst kind. So it makes sense that God intentionally made it so that the Bible is not perfect, and it makes even more sense when considering a few other relevant facts. As mentioned before, the Bible is 66 books (the number 6 has meaning in the Bible). As mentioned elsewhere, the Bible is written by men, fallible men. God did not write a single letter of even the original autographs. God did write, by His finger, the Ten Commandments on stone, but those, after being placed in the Ark, were mysteriously lost (at the time of the first siege of Jerusalem). It doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me, but I'll leave it to your imagination. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear that I do have good reason to say that the Bible is not perfect. It seems that many Christians consider it tantamount to attacking Christianity or the Bible altogether. That is not what I am doing. If anyone is inclined to suggest that I am, I will be glad to show that I can Bible battle with the best of them (at least put up a decent fight). I can even use the Bible to show that there are good grounds to say that the Bible is not perfect, nor was it meant to be.
First I must show that Bible is not perfect. This really is a simple matter that anyone with a Bible, who knows where to look, can find unanswerable contradictions. An easy example is 2Samuel 10:18 and 1Chronicles 19:18. In Samuel it says 'seven hundred of their charioteers', but in Chronicles it says 'seven thousand of their charioteers'. There are other examples like this one. Here's an atheistic site giving you their list of contradictions: http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra. Here's an apologetic site giving you their explanations: http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm. The atheists and agnostics will say that there are all kinds of contradictions. What they call contradictions, though, are not all contradictions. There are many paradoxes in the Bible, and many contradictions that can easily be explained. But not every contradiction can be explained; there are some that are actually valid contradictions. To say that the Bible is simply infallible makes a person sound simply ignorant. To say that the Bible is infallible in its original autographs sounds like rationalism. But to say that the Bible is very good but not perfect, that to me sounds reasonable.
As I have mentioned already (and anyone that knows me will already know), the Bible is accurate and trustworthy. To a Christian not inclined to call it infallible, calling it the best revelation of God is very close to the mark. Whatever mistakes there are in the Bible are insignificant in their meaning, just like the one mentioned above. The Bible has evidential support in many ways. There is more manuscript evidence supporting its authenticity than any other historical document. The consistency of all the manuscripts is remarkable, with about a 97% consistency out of thousands of manuscripts. There is a story and a meaning that stretches throughout all 66 books. Archaeology has confirmed numerous background details. And prophecies have been fulfilled. I could go into further detail with all that, but it wasn't my plan to do so with this note. Suffice to say, I strongly believe the Bible. I'm sure, though, some ignorant literalist will think I'm a kind of heretic or whatever.
This leads us to a very important question: If the Bible is true but not perfect, then why would an omnipotent God make the word of His revelation imperfect? He has the ability to make it perfect, so why not? There's a very reasonable answer to it, the kind that makes people go 'oh'. If the Bible were perfect, then people would worship it instead of God. Only God is perfect. None of God's creations are perfect, including the Bible. And we all know that idolatry is a sin of the worst kind. So it makes sense that God intentionally made it so that the Bible is not perfect, and it makes even more sense when considering a few other relevant facts. As mentioned before, the Bible is 66 books (the number 6 has meaning in the Bible). As mentioned elsewhere, the Bible is written by men, fallible men. God did not write a single letter of even the original autographs. God did write, by His finger, the Ten Commandments on stone, but those, after being placed in the Ark, were mysteriously lost (at the time of the first siege of Jerusalem). It doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me, but I'll leave it to your imagination. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear that I do have good reason to say that the Bible is not perfect. It seems that many Christians consider it tantamount to attacking Christianity or the Bible altogether. That is not what I am doing. If anyone is inclined to suggest that I am, I will be glad to show that I can Bible battle with the best of them (at least put up a decent fight). I can even use the Bible to show that there are good grounds to say that the Bible is not perfect, nor was it meant to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment