Views on the Bible

It’s amazing how perspectives change when one moves from Christianity to being an apostate. While I’ve never particularly liked the word “apostate,” I suppose I now fit the term. I have mentioned in previous posts that during my Christian years, I engrossed myself in apologetics so I could then have “a reason for the hope that lives in me.” Well, in all actuality, I know that for quite some time I was pursuing apologetics that I might buttress my own faith in the Bible and Christianity.

Now, I find myself in the interesting position of reading blogs that I could have written as little as three years ago. There is no shortage of blogs expounding the virtues of the bible, defending its “truths,” and urging people to believe. I understand this, and I understand the point. I also understand the feeling that many Christians have that they need to “witness” to the “lost” (another term I hate, I hated it when I was a Christian too). I’ve had no shortage of comments on my blog written with the intention of getting me to re-convert, admit my sins, and let me know that god still loves me. That’s all well and good, but please remember, a blog isn’t going to change anyone’s mind on spiritual matters (see my entry on apologetics).

Here’s my take on the bible. For many of you, this may be old news; for others, you may be surprised. I believe the bible is pretty accurate! (and a great hush fell over the room) I am speaking in terms of historocity. I do not see it as accurate when describing creation or any of the supernatural events, but in terms of locations, archeology, etc… yeah, I can see it being a pretty reliable source.

I have had many bible conversations with Christians over the past couple of years. Usually, when it comes to trying to convince a person of the inspiration of scripture, the accuracy of the bible is the first point to be brought up. The fact that archeology confirms the scriptures to be true is often emphasized. Just on my blog alone, I have had more than one person take this route to “proving” the bible to be inspired. I don’t believe anyone can prove the inspiration of the bible. I think that’s too tall an order for any human. I do think there is a lot of archeological evidence pointing to the historical accuracy of people and events in the bible, but this evidence does nothing for me in proving the inspiration of it. There is a problem finding evidence that Pontius Pilate existed at one time, as Prefect of Judea, and using that evidence as evidence not only that Jesus existed (which I believe he did) but that he was also the son of god. I realize this is an extreme example, however, this is the type of leap that is often made when considering the archeological evidence of the bible. There are a number of findings showing certain biblical characters and cities existed, but this is a far cry from inspiration.

Another area often cited to prove the inspiration of scripture is in the area of science. Again, there are a number of citations that make the bible sound very accurate in its scientific knowledge, however, then there are so many more that are off. Yes, Isaiah talks about the “circle of the earth,” yet Genesis refers to the sky as a “dome.” Isaiah 11 talks about the “four corners of the earth,” presumably indicating the belief in a flat earth (which makes sense when you consider the “dome” sky from Genesis). In addition, Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Matthew all speak of the moon being its own source of light. One last area, Genesis talks about Woman being formed from the rib of the man. Perhaps this is metaphorical, I don’t know. However, my understanding is that the female sex is the default sex at conception. It is not until later that the Y chromosome comes into play after around 40 days. When this happens, the male testes begin developing. If this doesn’t happen, those sex organs will become the ovaries of the female.

Please remember, I don’t claim to have scientific expertise, however there are a number of places in the bible that make scientific sense while at the same time there are many places that we know are scientifically ludicrous. I also know that one can argue that some of these examples could be literary device rather than scientific statement in the bible, but which ones do we believe? Jesus himself talked about the moon not giving its light Matthew 24. Sure this was prophecy, but come on.

I don’t write this entry to change minds. That won’t happen. I am instead writing to say that when archeological and scientific “proofs” are made, there are many others that aren’t nearly as friendly. Also, the point is that if the creator of the universe decided to use this collection of books (bible) as its revelation to humanity, one would think that there would have been much more focus on accuracy. Sure, the bible was written by 40+ authors over 2000 years, so I understand the argument that they didn’t know how to explain some of their visions. However, my argument is that these authors were “inspired,” and to me inspiration means there should be a pretty heavy focus on accuracy.