"I am only interested in what the Bible has to say on the subject, anything else is 'suspect'."
This amused me because I can't imagine a more unreliable source! Let me explain why.
(I'm going to quote extensively here from the Wikipedia.)
- There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist. Ever heard of the Apocrapha? These are the books that were rejected by the Council of Trent in 1545–1563 as being "not correct". But there is no universal agreement among Christians worldwide as to which of these should be 'in' and which 'out'. So, depending on which Christian church you belong to, you get a different Bible.
- There is precious little original text in the Bible. What we have in the Bible that most Christians on St. Helena would recognize is an English translation from a collection of documents written in a variety of other languages, not one of which is demonstrably attributable to its original author. Take, for example, the Gospel of Matthew. Supposedly written by one of Jesus' disciples, but apparently not! "Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. According to the majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source." The Gospel of Mark is no better. "Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative." NOTHING was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus, let alone interacted with him!
- The old testament is no better. Most of the events it portrays happened many centuries before they were written down. What we have is based on hearsay - not one word of it would be accepted in court as evidence!
- When King James I in 1611 set out to create his Authorized Version England was in religious turmoil. Henry VIII had abandoned Catholicism and set up the Church of England, then his heirs kept switching the country back and forwards between Protestantism (Edward VI), then back to Catholicism (Mary I) and then back to Protestantism (Elizabeth I). The country was, to say the least, divided. So what James 'authorized' was based far more on political expediency than it was on any sincere religious belief. And yet all our modern translations of the bible are based on it.
I could go on but I think I've proved my point. You could probably argue that the Bahai's are the only ones with demonstrably valid holy texts - their prophet was around in the middle 19th Century so what he said and did was documented at the time and even appeared in newspapers.
Pastor Beckett would probably say that the bible is inspired by God so it must be prefect, but that seems to be a circular argument:
- I know of God through the bible
- God created the bible so I could know about him
As Luke 1 puts it: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."[my emphasis]
The bible isn't an objective document. It was written by people who believed, to convince others to believe also. It cannot possibly be considered a definitive source.
No comments:
Post a Comment