Posted by
Jack Fisher on Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:07:51 PM
Many times when non-believers debate believers on any major issue, believers turn to the assumed inerrency of the bible. They will throw out any number of bible quotes that they say proves their claim. They use it to condemn homosexuality, evolution, women's rights, etc. And many quotes are fairly well known. There are parts of the bible that do condemn homosexuality when literally interpreted, most notably in Leviticus. Evolution does counter the literal reading of the Genesis story. And the literal reading of quotes from Corenthians does suggest strong opposition to gender equality. But this idea that the bible is completely inerrant and should be taken literally not only defies reason, it completely misses the point of the bible.
Most people don't realize that the idea of bibilical literalism is a very new concept. For most of the history of Christianity, biblical literalism was not endorsed. It was only during the Protestant Reformation that the idea started to emerge and it was only around the late 19th and early 20th century that it became firmly entrenched. The reason for this has to do with how society has evolved. Up until the 20th century, the vast majority of people were illiterate. The only way they knew the bible was through what their priest or paster told them. And it was a given that priests and pastors were not immune from putting their own spin on things. The whole reason the reformation took place was because Catholic Church was abusing this power to justify its own corruption and shortcomings. And now that society has evolved even further with the vast majority of people being able to read on some levels and the modern use of mass media and printing, everybody has a chance to read and interpret the bible. And that opens the door to some unintended consequences.
Most people do not know the history of the bible. They don't understand how it emerged, how it was compiled, and in what context it was written in. Some don't even understand the difference between the New Testament and Old Testament. There is a great deal of historical, cultural, and even politicial context surrounding the bible and it's origins. Many don't know that it has been changed and edited over the years as well as translated many times over. It becomes even more convoluted when one considers that the bible was written down in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). And any linguist will affirm that there is no such thing as a perfect translation from one language (especially languages centuries old) to another langugae. And when that isn't taken into account, ignoring context and content, it's easy to misjudge and misconstrue the true meaning of the bible.
Believers will cite quotes as evidence to vindicate their morals, but they fail to understand that there is a difference between what the text reads and what it means. Taking the words at face value completely ignores the context. It also ignores the situations for which the culture that wrote these texts were dealing with. Passages against homosexuality and pre-marital sex reflected what was vital to their culture, which at the time was very ridged. Any out of wed-lock births caused a lot of conflict when dealing with passing down family names and inheriting property rights. And homosexuality hindered the production of offspring at a time when populations were dwindling and infant mortality was high. But times have changed and the cultures of the modern era deal with a different set of circumstancs. And it is unreasonable and irrational to apply the same standards of Bronze Age cultures with modern cultures.
Anybody who reads a book at a 5th grade level understand that there is context and there is meaning behind the words of any book. Biblical literalists never rise above that 5th grade level, taking only the words as they appear and using them to pursue their agenda. Biblical literalism has been used to condemn homosexuality, science, and minorities and promote violence, prejudice, and bigotry. But that doesn't mean this is what the bible promotes. That's just what the words mean at face value. There are many other deeper meanings to the stories of the bible and like any book, it is subject to interpretation. The way a white middle class man reads the bible is going to be different than how a poor working class black woman is going to read the bible. No one interpretation is true and anybody who claims otherwise is guilty of idoltry. They don't worship god or any supernatural deity. They worship a book full of stories about god and supernatural deities.
Even if the bible is inspiried by god, there is no denying that it was written down by the hand of men. And for a book that has been edited and re-translated as many times as the bible, it is impossible avoid the inevitable emergence of spin and personal interpretations. As a non believer, the bible is just another book of myths and folklore to me. To others it is an inspirational text of the divine. But to those who use the bible as if it were a god itself, they do a great dis-service to their faith and other faiths like it and their reckless use of irrational quote mining is a major threat to a free society where the freedoms to believe are protected, but not the freedom to impose.