The impact of fundamentalism

[Cootie Brown]

Dr. Bart Ehrman, among many other religious historians, notes that evidence confirms the Bible people have in their possession today has been edited, redacted, & sections completely rewritten, to quote Ehrman, "More times than there are even words in it." In other words present day Bibles are forgeries.

And of course historians know for certain that no one named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote any of the gospels that have their names on them. Those names were added to un-named manuscripts for identification purposes only. The author or authors of the 4 gospels are unknown.

Eusebis, an early church father wrote, it is permissible to change the text, even if such changes are not true, as long your intentions are honorable.

An innerant Bible is a tradition not a reality. So the c of c approach to scripture is a very flawed doctrine.

[ena]

In other words present day Bibles are forgeries.

I am aware that he is aware of changes. Some are rather large.

An innerant Bible is a tradition not a reality. So the c of c approach to scripture is a very flawed doctrine.

We agree. The intention is better than the reality. Humans cannot judge others fairly. The worst are those that think they have it nailed. It is the beam that Jesus talked about. Those blinded by their own self righteousness fall in the ditch and miss truth. I have seen it many times.

[Cootie Brown]

It seems a perfectly innerant Bible is only crucial for fundamentalists aka Bible literalists. Apparently mainstream & liberal Christians can find theological myths (symbolism) sufficient to support & maintain their faith.

The Bible indicates Jesus taught using parables, so there is some precedence for symbolism being an acceptable alternative to literalism & historical accuracy.

[ena]

It seems a perfectly innerant Bible is only crucial for fundamentalists aka Bible literalists. Apparently mainstream & liberal Christians can find theological myths (symbolism) sufficient to support & maintain their faith.

The Bible indicates Jesus taught using parables, so there is some precedence for symbolism being an acceptable alternative to literalism & historical accuracy.

Many in even other Churches believe in a Bible without errors. They are many issues.
1. You don't know who the author is. Even if the book is signed by Paul you don't know Paul wrote it.
Forgery was known even in the ancient world.
2. Even if it is in the canon, Should it be there. Some books were left out that some Christian groups would have included. The Gospel of Peter for instance. I am not referring to Gnostic books. They are interesting to read but often 2nd century works. The Gospel of Jesus' wife is a fragment where Jesus said "My wife ..." you can see it of the link. Coptic is an Egyptian language. This fragment is such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife

3. Paper did not exist in the Western World until the 1300's. The only manuscripts before printing press were copied by hand. Errors were made. Some manuscripts have correction because of missed sections. The most common error is spelling. There was no quality control for copies. The Jews were much better in this regard.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... haccuracy/

4. Many texts say different things in the Greek. Which one is right?

5. I believe errancy is provable. The geneaology in Matthew has the count off by one name. Put it in text editor and eliminate duplication. His count is off by one. Don't count Joseph.

[Cootie Brown]

If a person comes to the conclusion that both the Bible & the Christian Faith have human origins then all of these issues are easily resolved. Obviously that isn't an option for a believer, so they are left to resolve these problems in their own ways & they have been able to do that to the satisfaction of their followers.

[agricola]

No, Cootie - those issues are not easily resolved FOR THE FUNDAMENTALIST believer. Liberal Christians have experience and understanding, and a 'theology' which allows faith without 'inerrancy'.

The allure of the 'inerrancy' approach and a literal reading is that it is SIMPLE. Nobody has to actually THINK, especially - at least not very deeply - about what scripture 'means'. It is rife with abuses because it is a very authoritarian (do I mean authoritarian?) kind of approach. It is the kind of reading of scripture and the kind of understanding of faith that produces the bumper sticker I see more often than I'd like:

'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it'

When of course, it doesn't settle anything, because, after all, what DID 'the Bible' say?

I see two major groups who hold to that approach: fundamentalist Christians, and militant atheists.

[Cootie Brown]

What led you to believe the words "if a person" meant fundamentalists or only fundamentalists? Yes, I agree, there are indeed militant atheist. And yes I agree a Christian fundamentalists would never agree the Bible & Christianity have human origins. If they did hell might actually freeze over.

As far as I can determine no religion can defend its beliefs, traditions, & dogma with indisputable evidence & facts because they have none, that is why religion is based on faith aka belief without evidence. Although some believers apparently dispute that definition even though that's how the Bible defines faith.

I noted in another post if a believer tells me they believe just because they choose to believe I have no quarrel with that. We are all free to believe whatever we want. I go into defensive mode when religious folk tell me they have proof their sacred writings are innerant & inspired by a supernatural invisible deity & I'm going to hell if I don't believe that. Show me that proof & if you can convince me I'll repent & return to the fold.

Aside from those noted "minor" differences I agree with the thoughts in your post.

[agricola]

The attitude that the Bible is inerrant and 'easy' to understand is pervasive in - and only in - so called 'fundamentalist' circles:

When someone tells us the Bible just “says what it says,” the natural rejoinder is: “But what does it say?” When someone tells us that a passage in the Bible just “means what it means” the natural rejoinder is “But what does it mean?” All those assertions (“I just go by what the Bible says”) are nonsense and question-begging. They are really meant to cut off discussion and prevent disagreement. They are often code for this sentiment: “You are no longer questioning my views or interpretations, you are really questioning God himself and what God has written.” How does one respond to that? Those types of statements come from a deep insecurity, fear, and the need to control others. They do not arise out of a real effort to humbly converse, to learn from, and engage another person in good faith.

Second, when we are reading, whether the Bible or any other text, we are always interpreting. There is no direct, one-to-one correspondence, between my reading and my assertion regarding what the text means, as if I had some inside line to the very mind of the writer. Unless the writer is literally and physically present to correct us or tell us exactly what they meant, we are always interpreting, which means there are layers to our reading. We are never just letting the Bible speak for itself–if that were the case there would be no need for sermons or teaching.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamen ... content=57

[ena]

If a person comes to the conclusion that both the Bible & the Christian Faith have human origins then all of these issues are easily resolved. Obviously that isn't an option for a believer, so they are left to resolve these problems in their own ways & they have been able to do that to the satisfaction of their followers.

God chose to use humans to tell about his son for a very interesting reason. When God tried to be head of Israel, Hr was rejected as ruler because they wanted to have a King like everyone else. Did they need a King? Humans are famous for wanting something then not wanting it when they find what what the negatives are. He let them them have their way. Because they would learn over time that that did not work. He presented Israel with a messiah an did they accept him? No. What we have here is a grand demonstration on a cosmic scale. He has more things to show. You will see it all eventually, Realize that you are in the hands of an infinite being that awareness of details beyond you can know come into play. God is patient in terms of thousands of years. When you are eternal you will look at things differently because your perspective is different. That is the best I can explain it. Some in the CoC try to judge others by how well they tow the party line. Maybe they are right about the party line but is the party line right? Often no or can you even tell. Logic can cut a thousand ways. Your major premise can wrong. Your minor premise can be wrong. Or what most Christians engage in is a circular logic where both major and minor premises fed off each other to the point that they are not independent. Basically one proves the other and backwards too.

[ena]

No, Cootie - those issues are not easily resolved FOR THE FUNDAMENTALIST believer. Liberal Christians have experience and understanding, and a 'theology' which allows faith without 'inerrancy'.

The allure of the 'inerrancy' approach and a literal reading is that it is SIMPLE. Nobody has to actually THINK, especially - at least not very deeply - about what scripture 'means'. It is rife with abuses because it is a very authoritarian (do I mean authoritarian?) kind of approach. It is the kind of reading of scripture and the kind of understanding of faith that produces the bumper sticker I see more often than I'd like:

'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it'

When of course, it doesn't settle anything, because, after all, what DID 'the Bible' say?

I see two major groups who hold to that approach: fundamentalist Christians, and militant atheists.

That is a good point. You can have faith without inerrancy. You have to think and feel more. Not every situation has a direct answer from the Bible. What if you need a divorce because your husband is a drunken wife beater. Is that in the Bible? If the CoC such a person would get a divorce and live celebate the rest of her life to tow the CoC party line. Is that right? I say no. Her husband has a type of unfaithfulness. Can anyone in the CoC see that? A few, but very few and those will not say anything. I have seen it. Is it OK to heal on the sabbath?