8:25am: Oh, come on!
As I mentioned in a previous post, the more I learn about the various different Greek and Hebrew manuscripts upon which our English Bibles are translated from, the more I think the concept of Biblical Inerrancy is one founded primarily on ignorance. Biblical Infallibility (or "limited inerrancy") is a bit more palatable, but I don't think I could logically uphold the latter dogma while being so vehemently opposed to the former.
For those who don't know: Inerrancy is the doctrine that states that
all matters referred to in the Bible are factually true. The world was created in seven days. Rabbits used to chew cud. The sun stood still in the sky, as opposed to the earth standing still in its movement around the sun. (Though I'll admit that you don't hear this one argued much anymore. This is one of the times that even people who argue for inerrancy will say, "That was how it looked from their point of view." The difference between heresy and common sense is completely dependent upon what
you personally think, apparently.) Infallibility, on the other hand, simply holds that the Bible is factually correct on all spiritual matters. This helps a bit to explain those pesky problems that inerrancy generates, where rabbits apparently chew cud (Deut 14:7), or where the Bible declares
pi to be exactly 3 (1 Kings 7:23).
Anyway, I know that I am very young, as far as my Biblical scholarship goes. There are many who know
much more than I, and many of those people hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. They hold to this doctrine while knowing that there are more than five thousand extant Greek manuscripts that contain part of the New Testament, while knowing that almost
none of these manuscripts are exactly the same. How do you hold this belief concurrently with this knowledge? What logic do you use to support this?
The answer, apparently, is
completely insane logic.
I stumbled upon this
argument between a KJV-only adherent and an opponent. The KJV-only guy maintains that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible that can be considered Inerrant. He holds that it is superior not only to the later translations, but to the earlier Greek and Hebrew texts. He says that God guided the translation of the KJV, and thus it is superior to any other. It is superior to later translations because God did not guide those translations. It is superior to earlier Greek and Hebrew texts
because of the fact that many different texts are extant in those languages. Since there is only one "real" KJV, it is obviously the only possibility of truth.
Please note that there are five different versions of the KJV. Apparently the "real" one is the
second one that was made. It's not even the first KJV that he's defending!
His opponent is arguing, in return, that the Greek is superior. Because the New Testament was revealed by God in the Greek. And thus, when God "keeps his Bible alive," he does so in the Greek. So the Greek is inerrant. Since there are so many different manuscripts, then, they must be carefully analyzed and then, by using a process of textual criticism, the "original" can be found. But wouldn't this introduce a margin of error? No! Since the Greek is protected by God himself, then as long as only faithful Christians perform this reconstruction, then the "original" which is found will be factually inerrant.
Even more troubling is the upside-down moon-logic that the two seem to
agree on. The KJV-only adherent says, to support the KJV, that "It tends to translate things in a God glorifying manner, supporting Trinity, divinity of Christ, [by faith alone], etc." His opponent simply replies that there are better translations that also do this.
What!? Ok. I can buy someone's belief that Scripture must always be the final word in all things. I don't necessarily agree (in fact, I
definitely don't agree), but I can see where they're coming from. Statements like the one above, however, do really weird things to the "Scripture is the final word" dogma. In fact, the whole concept of Scripture is redefined. Scripture is the final word, but the only Scripture that I will accept as the final word is one that
conforms to what I already believe.
This is what most religions do, honestly. (Scripture is the final word. What is Scripture? The thing that my parents told me was Scripture.) At least it's not this obvious, in most cases, though. If Scripture is only Scripture when it conforms to what I believe, and Scripture is the final word on all things, then logically,
my personal belief is the defining force of the universe.
Let's say that I was at an archaeological dig and miraculously found a preserved Genesis scroll from 2000 BCE,
far older than
any other extant text. Would it be accepted as Biblical? That depends
entirely upon whether or not the scroll conformed to the standards of Christianity that were established a few thousand years later.
Similarly. what if I found hand-written letters from Jesus himself. Would these be accepted as authoritative? Only if they didn't argue with the things that Paul wrote. Heck, they'd be dismissed even if they just disagreed with the book of Hebrews, which few serious scholars have thought was actually written by Paul
since the second century! Who wrote it? Some guy! And some other guys used it for Christian sermons! And a couple hundred years later, some other guys decided it should be in the Bible! This rigorous method of authorization is the sole principle that people base their entire universe and salvation on?
I don't want to imply that the "some other guys" I mention above were just random people who paid no attention to what they were doing. Nor do I want to imply that they were not intelligent, or that they did not work on the Bible as hard as they could. The point that I'm trying to drive home is this: if you believe in Biblical Inerrancy, then you must also believe in the inerrancy of those individuals. You must also believe in the inerrancy of people like Martin Luther, who, if you are Protestant,
wildly influenced the way in which you interpret the books that
are in the Bible.
(It bears mention here that Martin Luther, in defense of his belief in justification by faith alone, argued forcibly that the Epistle of James should be
completely removed from the Bible. Why? Because James specifically says that one cannot be justified by faith alone. "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone . . . for just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead" (James 2:24, 26). Like the opponents arguing over the primary authority of either the KJV or the Greek texts, Luther will only accept as Scripture those texts which
agree with what he already believes.)
Honestly, I can't say that I entirely disagree with that method. I've argued before that any connection with God through the Self must be infinitely more true than a connection with God formed primarily through a book. I have argued many times that the things that I
know to be true are more true than any "truth" described to me through
any text. Text can reveal to me a truth, yes. I can read a thing and realize, "Wow. That's exactly right." However, if my Self and my soul disagree entirely with the doctrine put forth in the text,
the text must always lose. So I am not arguing that the people cited above are wrong for doing this.
I am arguing that they are wrong for doing this
while maintaining that they look to Scripture only. By hiding behind the veil of, "Scripture Alone," they defend themselves entirely from any dissenting point of view. They never have to really listen to another argument, because they
know they are right. They know it because "Scripture" told them. If they were forced to admit that they only accept Scripture (or Scriptural interpretation) that agrees with the precepts they
personally hold, then they would suddenly have to defend themselves! There would be no more magic wall of Scripture to hide behind, because
they would have to defend their choice of Scripture. They could no longer say things like, "Hey, it's not my fault that homosexuality is a sin. God said so, right here in Scripture!" They would have to defend
why they accepted that Scripture as authoritative.
And trust me, "Well, I accept it because 1700 years ago, the Bishop Athanasius listed that Scripture as one that should be considered canon," is
not a good answer.
It's even more of an insane answer if you're one of those Protestants who think that Catholics were always evil. Pst! The Catholic church is the one that
decided what Scripture you read!Edit: I'll probably edit this later (it turned into a bit of a rant) and post it to my Religious blog.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
