Posted on 12/08/2011 2:01:52 PM PST by OneVike
Atheistic attacks on Christianity typically focus on philosophical issues concerning theism, or evidential attacks on the Bible. It occurred to me the other day that the latter plays upon a certain view of Christian theological methodology and ecclesiology that is flawed.
The issue, as I see it, is that these attacks are relying on an unspoken assumption that Christianity is relying on the Bible for its existence. This assumption is certainly fair, as it seems that many Christians think along the same lines. Even if Christians of this persuasion are not in the majority, it is without doubt that this is the case with popular Christian apologists. It is not much of an oversimplification to say that the two most popular approaches for defending the faith either begin by defending the Bible (Evidentialism), or conclude with its defense (Classical). The biblical text is then used to support Jesus’ claims / the gospel / the resurrection etc.
But what if the Bible could not be demonstrated to be trustworthy? I do not think that this is the case, but it is worth thinking about for at least these two reasons: (1) most skeptics think the Bible has not been defended sufficiently, and (2) even if it has been or can be, the case for Christianity will be even stronger if it can survive the failure of these biblical defenses.
When a skeptic argues against the Bible it is not usually the book(s) that are being attacked per se. Rather it is the ideas communicated by the book(s). Skeptics do not, for example, typically attack the wisdom sayings in the book of Proverbs or the basic morality of Jesus’ sermons. And I don’t think many skeptics really are concerned over how many generations there are between Adam and Jesus, or how many angels were at his tomb. What skeptics want to call into question is Christianity itself. Since the Bible is assumed to be the foundation of Christianity, calling its historicity, manuscript transmission, scientific awareness, etc. into question is seen as tantamount to calling Christianity into question. Two popular responses have been made by modern Christians.
Inerrancy
The first is to dig in and affirm the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and fight tooth and nail for every biblical affirmation no matter its nature (e.g., historical, scientific, moral), sometimes even down to use of correct grammar. This is necessarily joined by an equally fervent defense of a trustworthy manuscript tradition – for as all (except perhaps some confused folks in the KJV-Only crowd) acknowledge, inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts (which we do not have). The copies of those inerrant original that we do have do not agree perfectly with each other, however. Thus, even inerrantists must concede the fact of transmission distortion. Their apologetic strategy, therefore, usually concerns limiting the significance of these distortions (e.g., that the quantitative and/or qualitative aspects of these distortions are inconsequential). This approach can be appreciated for its theological respect for, and upholding of, God’s word – but it also paints a large target on the Bible for skeptics fire upon.
Infallibility
The second approach is to trade in the doctrine of inerrancy for its softer cousin, infallibility. Affirming the doctrine of infallibility only commits one to holding that the Bible is successful in communicating truth in matters of faith and practice, regardless of the accuracy of its delivery system (like an imperfect map that nonetheless will always get you where you need to go). Thus, textual errors are only considered significantly problematic if they touch on theology or morals. This approach has the benefit of making the target a lot smaller, but it suffers from its inability to provide an objective means of determining how the theology of the text can still be trusted when the text itself is at issue.
What both of the above approaches assume, however, is that Christianity suffers corresponding effects of biblical attacks. Thus, for the inerrantist if even one biblical statement can be decisively shown to be false, Christianity loses its foundation (I am not suggesting that no mediating positions are available, or that there is no way out for an inerrantist – indeed there is always the easy claim that the error was not in the originals. But this assumption seems to drive the apologetic effort at least at the front end). For the infallibilist the effects of error discovery are not nearly as dramatic, but (as stated above) the position suffers from its own questionable principles. If nothing else, it becomes a practical issue: in the real world the trustworthiness of Christianity and that of the Bible is often seen as equivalent by skeptics. Thus the infallibilist position will often come across as ad hoc.
The good news for the Christian apologist is that if Christianity is not coextensive with the Bible, then attacks on the one are not necessarily attacks on the other.
What if the text critics like Bart Ehrman, or Islamic / Mormon / Secular apologists were proven right in their claims that the Gospels were not written by the traditional authors, that many of the NT books are spurious, or that significant error is present in the Bible? What actual purchase would be lost by Christians? Given the above apologetic strategies and theological positions shared by most Christian apologists, one might well conclude that it would be “game over” for Christian believers.
I suggest that this is not the case. I will argue that even if we lost the Bible completely, Christianity would remain undefeated. That is a bold claim, but I think it can be demonstrated rather easily.
Basically the argument goes like this:
The form is valid (per Modus Tollens), and the first premise seems self-evident, thus I need only support the second for the argument to be proven sound. There are facts both historical and speculative that show the second premise to be true.
First, it is entirely possible that Christianity’s message could have been communicated verbally – and only verbally – forever. There is nothing inherently problematic with such a thing occurring. In fact a simple thought experiment will show that this is the case: suppose some atheistic world dictator succeeded in destroying every copy of the Bible in existence, and then somehow made it impossible to create additional texts of any kind. Would Christianity disappear from the earth? Would humans no longer have access to the saving gospel? Of course not. So, at least in theory, there is no problem with these two propositions being true at the same time: (1) Christianity exists, and (2) no Bible exists.
Second, the above theory has been shown to be true in reality. Receiving the gospel message is the requirement for becoming saved (1 Cor. 15:1-5), and this message was not initially communicated in written form (1 Cor. 15:1), yet those who heard it believed and became saved (becoming part of the Christian church – 1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, Christianity preceded the written message.
Third, it is an historical fact that Christianity preceded the writing of the NT. The earliest NT writings are typically considered to have been written in the mid-to-late 40’s (whether the first book is the Gospel of Matthew, the Book of James, or Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is debated). This means that even with a late date of Christ’s death / Pentecost (of A.D. 33), there is at LEAST a decade gap between the beginning of the Church and the VERY first NT writing. The point is even more strongly made when we consider that Paul’s writings (which are, at minimum, among the earliest NT writings) were letters addressed to already-existing churches. Add to this decade more time for delivery and distribution, and I think it is easy to see that the Church had to go for quite some time with no (NT) Scriptures of its own.
Fourth, Christians existed and continue to exist without possessing the NT. Even when the NT started to be written, its contents were not in the possession of the average believer. Besides the above mentioned delivery and distribution time lags, people simply did not have easy access to copies. Further, the NT was written in a time when most of the population was illiterate. Finally, it would be another 1,500 years or so before the invention of the printing press made Bible’s widely accessible even to literate people. (Thus, this is not just an Ancient, Medieval, or Reformation age issue). Even in our own time, people from many parts of the world become Christians when the Bible is forbidden or inaccessible in their own language. This certainly represents a hindrance to Christianity, but it is hardly destructive.
So even if the skeptic were successful in showing the Bible to be untrustworthy, he has not really gained much ground – at least if he is using that untrustworthiness as an attack on Christianity itself. For even if we give up the entire Bible, Christianity remains.
The Christian apologist Gary Habermas has an interesting method that he uses when defending the historicity of Christ’s resurrection – he calls it the “Minimal Facts Approach.” What Habermas does is agree to use only the most academically respected sources (both Christian and secular) in support of his contention that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. In doing so, he avoids the Gospels, many of Paul’s letters, and several other NT books that do not enjoy nearly universal “authentic status” among professional historians. Using only the minimal facts that can be gleaned from whatever historical documents are left, Habermas proceeds to argue that the resurrection remains the best explanation of the data. It’s a great approach, and his protégé’, Michael Licona, has been very successful with his version of it as well.
As I considered the implications of the typical skeptical attacks on the NT, and the results they hoped to achieve, I wondered whether I needed to keep ANYTHING from the NT in order to defend Christianity. If it is the case that, logically, the Bible is not necessary for Christianity, then I wondered what could been done apologetically with the Bible entirely absent. If we took the minimal facts approach to what is certainly an absurd extreme – without reliance on anything in the Bible (“Zero Facts” approach?), what would we have left over from Christianity?
As it turns out, pretty much everything.
The arguments for the reliability of the Bible include an impressive array of evidence that, by a rather shockingly large margin, prove the Bible to be the most trustworthy of all ancient writings. Part of that evidence is the fact that even if we had no ancient manuscripts from which to derive our current Bible translations, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the NT just by reading the Church Fathers (some of which overlapped the writing of the NT).
Until recently I simply relegated this impressive fact to just another reason to think we know what the original manuscripts said. Now I have come to realize how much more significant this fact is. This is because it is not simply the case that the early Church Fathers quoted a bunch of Scripture – they quoted it while discussing theology. Theology they already knew. They quoted it while writing letters back and forth between churches. Churches that already existed. And they were able to quote Christian Scriptures and discuss Christian theology in Christian churches because Christianity already existed.
But guess what did not exist back then? The New Testament! (Well, sort of.)
I have written on the issue of NT canon formation elsewhere on this site, but in a nutshell: the actual collection of books that make up the NT were not even listed in their present form until the 4th Century, and even long after that several books remained in question. So, technically, what we call the NT is a collection that was not recognized as such for hundreds of years. But this is a minor issue considering the implications of all the above issues concerning availability and literacy rates. The significant point is that what kept the Church going during this time was its own teaching – teaching that can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers.
In other words, before the NT was canonized, Christianity already existed. Before the NT was completed, Christianity already existed. Before the NT was even begun, Christianity already existed. Thus, most of the issues skeptics have with Christianity remain even if the Bible is taken out of the equation. At minimum it is clear that the message that brought people into Christianity was from the very beginning that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he died, was buried, and rose again ( a.k.a., the Gospel! See (Acts 2 and all Acts sermons cf. 1 Cor. 15).
This was the message the apostles died (often horribly) for.
This was the message the early Church suffered persecution for.
And it was this message, promoted by 12 simple men from the insignificant and faraway land of Israel, and believed by social outcasts who worshiped in catacombs, that two centuries later brought the greatest empire on earth to its knees.
As Habermas and others have shown, even if skeptics were successful in calling most of the Bible into question, the historical facts surrounding the miracle of the resurrection would remain. But even if we gave in to the skeptics arguments concerning the resurrection, they would then have to deal with historical facts that would now be even more difficult to explain. The very existence of the Church seems miraculous – especially if the resurrection did not occur!
Thomas Aquinas argues that God has indeed proven His word via miracles, and yet the existence of the Church itself is an even greater miracle:
“Without violence of arms, without promise of pleasures, and, most wonderful thing of all, in the midst of the violence of persecutors, a countless multitude, not only of the uneducated but of the wisest men, flocked to the Christian faith, wherein doctrines are preached that transcend all human understanding, pleasures of sense are restrained, and a contempt is taught of all worldly possessions. That mortal minds should assent to such teaching is the greatest of miracles.” (SCG 1.6)
Why should the existence of the Church be considered so miraculous? Are there not thousands of competing religions in existence that could claim the same thing? The reason for this is that it is how the Church came into being that must be explained. Anyone can make up some attractive lies and gain followers for gain. But the opposite is not the case. Lies for gain are one thing, lies for loss are quite another.
Perhaps the skeptic will argue that this is a case of begging the question – arguing in a circle that the Church proves the Church? Not at all. The argument is not that the Church says she is true, therefore she is true. Rather, it is the nature of the facts surrounding her birth – so unusual that they beg for a miraculous explanation. To quote Aquinas again:
“This so wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is so certain a sign of past miracles, that they need no further reiteration, since they appear evidently in their effects. It would be more wonderful than all other miracles, if without miraculous signs the world had been induced by simple and low-born men to believe truths so arduous, to do works so difficult, to hope for reward so high.” (SCG 1.6)
Far from merely providing additional credibility to the reliability of a book, the history of the Church might itself be considered miraculous. How else can such a bizarre turn of events be explained? In John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent, he considers Gibbon’s alternate explanations for the rise of Christianity. Gibbon considers five: “the zeal of Christians, inherited from the Jews, their doctrine of a future state, their claim to miraculous power, their virtues, and their ecclesiastical organization.”
Newman responds:
“1. As to zeal, . . . how did party spirit tend to transplant Jew or Gentile out of his own place into a new society, and that a society which as yet scarcely was formed in a society? . . . Christians had zeal for Christianity after they were converted, not before.
2. Next, as to the doctrine of a future state (i.e., the fear of hell) . . . now certainly in this day there are persons converted from sin to a religious life, by vivid descriptions of the future punishment of the wicked; but then it must be recollected that such persons already believe in the doctrine thus urged upon them. . . . give some Tract upon hell-fire to one of the wild boys in a large town, who has had no education, who has no faith; and instead of being startled by it, he will laugh at it as something frightfully ridiculous. The belief in Styx and Tartarus was dying out of the world at the time that Christianity came in, . . . the thought of eternal glory does not keep bad men from a bad life now, and why should it convert them then from their pleasant sins, to a heavy, mortified, joyless existence, to a life of ill-usage, fright, contempt, and desolation.
3. As to the claim to miracles . . . heathen populations, who had plenty of portents of their own, [and] Christian miracles are not recited or appealed to, by early Christian writers themselves, so fully or so frequently as might have been expected. . . . A claim to miraculous power on the part of Christians, which was so unfrequent . . . can hardly have been a principal cause of their success.
4. The “sober and domestic virtues” of Christians, their “aversion to the luxury of the age,” their “chastity, temperance, and economy,” [are simply too dull] to win and melt the hard heathen heart, in spite too of the dreary prospect of the barathrum, the amphitheatre, and the stake? Did the Christian morality by its severe beauty make a convert of Gibbon himself? On the contrary, . . . How then were those heathen overcome by the amiableness of that which they viewed with such disgust? We have here plain proof that the Christian character repelled the heathen; where is the evidence that it converted them?
5. Lastly, as to the ecclesiastical organization, . . . how could it directly contribute to its extension? Of course it gave it strength, but it did not give it life. . . . It was before Constantine that Christians made their great conquests.”
Further, Newman notes that Gibbon “has not thought of accounting for their combination. If they are ever so available for his purpose, still that availableness arises out of their coincidence, and out of what does that coincidence arise? Until this is explained, nothing is explained, and the question had better have been let alone. These presumed causes are quite distinct from each other, and, I say, the wonder is, what made them come together.”
Finally Newman states,
“The real question is this,—are these historical characteristics of Christianity, also in matter of fact, historical causes of Christianity? Has Gibbon given proof that they are? Has he brought evidence of their operation, or does he simply conjecture in his private judgment that they operated? . . . Christianity made its way, not by individual, but by broad, wholesale conversions, and the question is, how they originated? . . . It is very remarkable that it should not have occurred to a man of Gibbon’s sagacity to inquire, what account the Christians themselves gave of the matter.”
Newman then goes on for several pages noting the incredible stories of the martyrs who died for “the idea of Christ” – and not simply dying, but going to their deaths in such a way that that the historians of the time cannot but marvel. SO amazing was the testimony of the martyrs that sometimes their very captors and torturers converted (only to be killed along with them).
“Thus was the Roman power overcome.”
Thus it is not enough to admit that history lends evidential support to Christianity. Rather, history cannot be easily explained without Christianity. Whatever gain may be found in attacking the written record of the Christian religion, even a wholesale skeptical victory would not overturn the fact of the birth of the Church based in its belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without this event, Christianity is false (1 Cor. 15:12-19) – and history becomes explainable only by absurdity.
The present, also, remains difficult to explain:
“Here, then, is One who is not a mere name, who is not a mere fiction, who is a reality. He is dead and gone, but still He lives,—lives as a living, energetic thought of successive generations, as the awful motive-power of a thousand great events. He has done without effort what others with life-long struggles have not done. Can He be less than Divine?”
None of the above should be taken to suggest that we abandon defense of the Bible. This approach is not a reductionist attempt to shield the Bible from legitimate criticism. There is no need – for the evidential arguments for the reliability of the Bible are extremely strong (so much so that if they are thought to fail the Bible then, to be consistent, all of ancient history goes with it). If nothing else, it is difficult to imagine that God would bother inspiring hundreds of pages of communication only to have it lost before it could be disseminated!
Rather, what I am suggesting is that we apologists can benefit from a shift in our focus. Instead of moving from defending Realism (that truth and reality exist and are knowable), then Theism (that a personal, creator God exists), and then the Bible, perhaps it would be better to defend the movement that produced it. This approach opens the door to even more clear, available, and accepted evidences. If needed, it can also be used to neatly sidestep issues of biblical transmission, inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility (these textual issues can be dealt with scientifically, philosophically, or theologically, instead of apologetically). Given this approach the skeptic’s target becomes both smaller and more difficult to hit – all without threat to Christianity’s teachings (which, after all, are the skeptic’s real prey).
Amen! Let everything that hath breath praise the LORD! Praise ye the LORD! (Psalm 150:6)
For many years (since back in the 60’s) I have had thoughts that Christians would be thrown in jails and prisons, and would no longer have access to His Word, and other Christian fellowships.(We seem to be closer that every day).
I knew a very godly man that was in his 50s when the doctors told him he soon would be blind. He began memorizing the New Testament,(and much of the Old testament)
When I met him he was in his 70s, you ask him to say, quote Matthew chapter 18, he would stop and think a little while, then quoted the whole chapter.
Luk 24:25-27 KJV - [25] Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
When Jesus Himself teaches about those things concerning His appearance by referencing the Scriptures, I take that as a rock solid sign that we're to do the same when witnessing to the lost. Jesus didn't pull any punches, He went straight to the Law and the Prophets for His authority. Now that we have the New Testament record of these events, that's just one more level of authority on top of the Old Testament.
I have to respectfully disagree.
Jesus and Paul had the old testament to rely on.
Jesus needed the old testament to prove who He said He was. Prophesy is nearly a third of the bible and that is for a reason.
Peter called Paul’s writing “scripture.” Without scripture, there is no gospel. Without the gospel to preach, there is no salvation.
I could come up with a wacky doctrine and orthodox Christians would have no defense without the scripture to show I was wrong. The bible is essential!!!
>> “I could come up with a wacky doctrine and orthodox Christians would have no defense without the scripture to show I was wrong. The bible is essential!!!” <<
.
Definitely.
This article makes a sound example of why a young person seeking to be a pastor should be discouraged from going to a so-called Bible college. The colleges are where the errors are being generated. Reading the word is God’s college.
Thanks for the ping!
The passage cited in Jeremiah regards the House of Israel AFTER the Great Tribulation, during the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ here on Earth over he House of David.
During the Church Age, at present, He is brought into our hearts by the ministry of God the Holy Spirit by faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
The Bible today, provides each and every believer a tremendous educational tool, by which we may read His Word. While we are thinking that Word, God the Holy Spirit is free to sanctify our thinking in our soul via our human spirit. As we continue to think through His Word, we also bring that Word into our mind (soul) where it may be used in our memory in recall, to address future situations by faith (doctrine).
Removing the Bible, removes one of the greatest tools and blessings God has ever given man.
The POW in places like the Hanoi Hilton were at first —not allowed to have a Bible .But the Bible exists. It is not God -it is the standard of our faith. The memories that helped the POW survive being told We can keep you forever— was those memories -and buttressed by shared memories of what is written
Before there was a written Bible there was oral tradition.Memory was cultivated. The written word had every word ,every symbol counted for an exact copy.The Bible is not God Never claimed to be. But it is the standard of our faith.IT is the cross reference to Truth.
Thanks, that was a very well thought out response to the question at at mom.
Sadly, in my many back and forth comments I may have come off as supporting the idea that Christianity could be fine without the Bible. However, like you the Word gives me comfort and I gain knowledge that is beyond anything else. We need the Word, or God would not have blessed us with it.
That being said, Christianity would have survived and thrived without it, but we would not be nearly as informed as we are with it. Also, I do not believe that Christianity would have influenced secular society as much with out it. After all, our very constitution is based upon the beliefs encompassed within the pages of the bible.
Mankind as a whole probably still be living in the dark ages without it, because it was the very idea of spreading the word to the masses that gave rise to the printing press. It was the ability of the common man to read the word that fueled the reformation also.
Along with the Renaissance and the reformation, mankind was catapulted into the modern age we are now enjoying. So for many reasons I thank God every day that I have the bible to open up.
Thanks for your 2 cents. It was well worth it, and while the question was posed, I do agree the word is needed, but we would have survived without it. Although it would have been much more difficult.
Well stated.
These excursions into human intellect, and academia, always seem to lead away from God. So-called Bible colleges have led far too many into destruction.
The Bible is not given for information, but for sanctification. Please do not take my post as being adversarial. Let's consider what God has provided us regarding His Will on the topic.
Consider Eph 5:26 below in context.
Eph 5:23-27
(23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
(24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
(25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
(27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
What we call the Bible is what has been identified as the Canon of Scripture. The word 'canon' derives from the Greek word 'KANON' meaning ruler or measuring rod. The Canon of Scripture self contained as a measure of God's revealed Word to mankind.
The Word of God is provided in written form as Scripture contained in the 66 books we call the Bible. The Word of God has always existed. In the Hebrew, MEMRA existed long before the New Testament. The Word of God is also identified with the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, (John 1).
During the Church Age, a time before Jesus Christ rules all kingdoms on the face of the Earth with a rod of iron and after His Resurrection and before God removes the Church, His Body and Bride from the Earth, ....during this Church Age, ...God the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God circulating in our thinking to sanctify our souls.
A supposition to remove the Bible insults the Plan of God for the sanctification of the Body of Christ and diminishes the glory He is due.
It should also be noted that for unbelievers, the Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword, such that those who are called will respond. Those who reject His Word, and have never accepted it are dead and condemned already.
Our God is a Living God.
Christianity is a spiritual life, not an academic study, nor a religious persuasion.
No man has the ability to convert his fellow man to Christianity. Influencing the thinking of another person is not Christianity. God the Holy Spirit baptizes an believer into the Body of Christ. Christianity is the ongoing sanctification of believers through faith in Christ.
Consider Eph 4-16.
Eph 4:4-16 (4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (7) But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) (11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
We are commanded to give a witness and minister throughout the world in the Great Commission.
Mat 28:18-20
(18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
1Co 10:21-24
(21) Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (22) Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? (23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (24) Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
If we were to remove the Bible, we would remove the greatest blessing most sorely needed by unbelievers, the Canon of Scripture identified with His Word.
And I totally agree with you. We would lose the greatest tool in our arsenal of battling the enemy, and the greatest tool for understanding and getting close to God next to prayer.
many seem to think I want the Bible, or think we would be fine without it. We would survive, but I would rather not find out.
There are parts of the Bible which I could not hope to defend in a debate; there are other parts such as the flood story and the story of Uzzah in which you have to separate the story itself from the religious language and interpretation i.e. I could defend the story of Uzzah electrocuting himself by putting his hand on something which amounted to a crude capacitor but I could not defend the idea of God killing the guy for saving his (God's) own device from falling off a wagon and breaking; and there are stories I could defend quite well and surprisingly this includes the three major ghost stories in the bible, Jesus' own Resurrection, the tale of Lazarus, and the story of Saul, Samuel, and the "witch of Endor". Those three stories are all entirely ballpark for the paradigm which Julian Jaynes described. I don't subscribe to the idea that such things were shared hallucinations, I believe the phenomena Jaynes wrote about are the way the spirit world works.
Amongst the things I could not hope to defend in a serious debate, the worst is the book of revelations. The thing starts off saying "these things shall shortly come to pass"; there is no rational definition of "shortly" which means that two thousand years later whatever it is still hasn't happened, and reasonable people are standing around saying "Any day now, any day now!!!"
The book of revelations apparently was included in the Bible by some sort of a 5/4 vote and in my estimation the five guys got it wrong and the thing should be removed.
You’re not a believer.
You are lost eternally if this post is really how you see things.
well said. the WORD of God is Jesus Christ, we must not forget that and become worshippers of a book, we worship Christ.
Christianity can’t simply be reduced to a book otherwise we become like the Pharisees who knew a lot about rules and regulations, but they didn’t live according to the spirit of the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.