anontheist

I use to believe that the Bible was the "Word of God."

I do not believe this any more. The difficulty is attempting to convey what changed my mind. What was the evidence that lead me to believe otherwise?

Another difficulty is dealing with all of the evidence presented that suggests that the Bible is the "Word of God." Not because it is insurmountable and that there are not answers, but because it can be convoluted and very extensive, and sometimes very technical as well.

I believe that the problem stems from how one begins the process of examination. What are the assumptions and suppositions held to and made before one approaches any book, but particularly the Bible. Allow me to explain...

Some of the assumptions about the Bible are:

1. The Bible is perfect, therefore any supposed mistakes or contradictions are in error.

2. The concepts and ideas of the Bible is consistent throughout. So there is harmony between one author and another.

3. If literal interpretation leads to problems then it is obviously allegorical or must be interpreted figuratively.

For a more detailed list, see my post Apologetics vs. Scholarship Now this is not a problem for the more liberal scholar or someone who calls themselves Christian but does not hold to the more conservative perspective; in other words, people who are not conservative fundamentalist or evangelical will not have the same problems I did.

Now as a Christian, when confronted with, say, the Qur'an or The Book of Mormon, I would already have a certain skepticism, because the Bible said in Revelation that no one should add nor take away from this book. And believing that "this book" meant the entire Bible, anything other than the Bible was seen as some sort of addition. So, it was looked on as dubious.

The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and the other Gospels were looked on, by me, in the same way.

But I never considered doubting or being skeptical about the Bible in the same way I did other writings. But what if I had, would I still hold to the belief that the Bible was the "Word of God"?

Being a believer makes it very hard to be objective.

Objective - (adj.) 1. free from personal feelings, prejudice, etc.; unbiased. 2. pertaining to what is independent of the mind; real. 3. treating of or stressing actual phenomena, as distinct from inner or imaginary feelings and thoughts. (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary.)

Why? Because for me, I had a "Salvation Experience" which is difficult to deny, and I already believed, (for what ever reason) there was a God.

So, if there is a God, then surely "He" must have wanted to communicate to us.

And so, the Bible is his word; His means of communicating with humans.

I read many conservative scholars that attempted to undermined some of the conclusions that are brought up by other scholars. (Those damn liberals.) But what if I try to approach the Bible without prejudice or bias? What would I believe then? Let me consider some of the facts and try to look at the Bible from a perspective of someone who has never heard of the Bible or God, as difficult as this may seem.

Fact - (n.) 1. something that actually exists or has occurred. 2. something asserted to be true or to have happened. 3. reality or actuality.

1. Except for some of Paul's letters, no one knows who wrote any of the books in the Bible. It is simply speculation. A number of books are pseudonymous. The names to the books were added by the Church or names were placed on the writings by the author to give the book some authority.

2. The Gospels were written at least 40 years after the events of Jesus life. Some scholars speculate that the Gospels were most likely written during or after the 90's. So, there was a long and perhaps convoluted oral tradition.

3. There are no original documents. But even if we had the original documents there is no guarantee of these documents are true. Also, no two (2) manuscripts are alike.

4. The Gospels were written in Koine Greek, an ancient and died form of Greek. Translation can be difficult and contentious. Translation into English can have a number of variables. The people of the land during this time spoke Aramaic. It is possible that some spoke Greek. But some scholars think this is unlikely in the area of that Jesus is said to have come from.

5. Contemporary scholars know that the church altered some of the documents. For example, the added ending to Mark. There are other verses in all of the canonical Gospels that are thought to have been altered and/or changed, but these are in contention.

6. We do not know what counter evidence there may have been to the Christian beliefs of that time, because documents critical of early Christianity were sought out by the Church and destroyed.

7. The Gospels are not independent accounts of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree, Mark was first and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. None of the Gospels claim to be eyewitnesses.

8. Neither Mark nor Luke were Disciples. And it has been suggested that Matthew and John (the disciples) were not the authors of the books with their names on it.

Now if I approach the Bible without any bias or prejudice then there sure does seems to be problems with the Bible. (At least with the claim that it is the word of God.) But if I already believe the Bible to be the word of God, then any explanation to these problems will simply be accepted as true. (The people that respond to this post will, I am sure, give plenty of examples of these explanations.) There are other difficulties that come up, (not for the more liberal scholar), just examples of why we cannot simply attempt to harmonize the Bible.

For example:

In Matt. Jesus is said to have been born in the days of Herod the King. Now we know Herod the King died in 4 B.C.E. So, Jesus, according to Matt., was born on or before this time.

Luke says Jesus was born when Cyrenius (or Quirinius, same person, different language) was governor of Syria. He became Governor of Syria in 6 C. E. (A. D.) So, Jesus was born on or after this time. Luke also suggests that Jesus was born during a Roman census. The census may have been around 6 C. E. because Palestine was not a part of the Roman Empire until 6 C. E.

This is a difference of at least 9 years between Matt. and Luke's account of when Jesus is said to have been born.

Now here is the problem. If I am simply trying to understand all of the issues concerning the Bible, then these "problems" will not matter much. But if I want to believe that the Bible is the word of God, then I must find answer to these problems and accept that these answers are true. No matter how weak this evidence is or what counter evidence exists.

What I have presented are the conclusions of many scholars, not the evidence nor their arguments and reasons for these conclusions. That will come as the explanations for these problems get posted.

But again, it all depends on the starting points, because the only reason someone will debate these issues is that they already assume the Bible to be the word of God and the word of God cannot be mistaken.

anon

Chris Weimer

:wave: Welcome to the boards! And congrats on your process of deconversion.

Chris Weimer

Just wanted to point out that there was never a world wide census from Rome.

Godfather

Hello anontheist, I really enjoyed your post. I personally do not like reading long posts but I found yours articulate and informative. I seem to come across a new reason not to believe the Bible every time I come to these forums.
I was intruiged by what you said about Herod and the um. . . Q guy. their dates not matching up was something I have never heard of before. thank you for the info. I forsee another sleepless night surfing the web searching for evidence to substantiate these claims. Or maybe I will just have my christian friends try to refute it. . . . . . . :devil1:

Chris Weimer

That's the best way to get them, but make sure you check your facts first, or else present it to them like you don't know... Oh Socrates...

Roland

Another reason to question the validity of the Bible revolves around the Gospel of John. Christians want us to believe that the four gospels were written as independent, individual accounts of Jesus' life. Yet, if that were the case, how could three of them agree so closely in so many ways and the fourth be so different? This is particularly striking when you note how totally different the quotes are that John assigns to Jesus from those assigned to him by Matthew, Mark and Luke. How could Matthew, Mark and Luke have missed ALL of Jesus' famous "I am" declarations? Heck, they didn't even think to write down John 3:16, THE verse of all verses for modern day Christians, the verse that supposedly encapsulates Jesus' whole purpose for coming to earth better than any other. I guess Matthew, Mark and Luke never spent time in the stands of a professional sporting event, or they would surely have been familiar with the quote.

The Gospel of John is as good a reason as any to reject the notion that the Bible is in any way historically infallible.

Kosh

Agreed. Succint and Logical. Straight to the point without too much fluff.

I'll bet he's a software engineer...

Chili

There still is even today. Never heard that "all roads lead to Rome?"

gurugeorge

Bravo! An excellent, well-reasoned post, and it gives some insight into how one might argue cogently with someone who does believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

One thing I'd just say: you don't necessarily need to deny the validity of your "salvation" experience just because you've ditched the literalness thesis. Indeed, seeing how the Bible is constructed could lead you to the conclusion that the sorts of things the early, non-literal creators of the Biblical texts were on about was more like the kind of personal experience you had, than it was the revelation of the historical world of God incarnated once, and once only, on Earth.

In fact, it offers the possibility of recovering what might well have been the original Christian message, preserved (perhaps accidentally) in the words of Paul: Christ within. Perhaps the real, original "good news" was simply that we are all chips off the old block!

Killer Mike

Welcome to the club :wave:
If you like you can check out "Prometheus Books". It is a book company specifically designed for humanists. There are books written by university professors in everything from Bible criticism to philosophy. Also PBS recently held a four part four hour long documentary titled "From Jesus to Christ" interviewing scholars from Harvard, Yale, and Brown. You can purchase the videos directly from PBS.

Glad you are here. My story is similar having grown up in a fundamentalist home. Hope you enjoy Internet Infidels!!