Two Statements That Drive Me Nuts

Over the weekend, I heard two statements that I hear quite often in discussions arguments with ultra-conservative, Fundamentalist Christians.  And to be quite honest, these statements irritate me.

The Bible is the Word of God.

Now where in the Bible does it say that?  The Bible says Jesus is the Word.  Since Jesus is not the Bible, we can infer that the Bible is not the Word of God.  The word of God maybe, but not the Word.  If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, congratulations, you’ve just turned the Bible into an idol.  Christians worship the person of Jesus, not a book.

 The Bible is completely true from Genesis to Revelation, and totally without error in the original autographs.

Really?  And where are these autographs?  Are we talking Codes Sinaiticus or Vaticanus or Alexandrinus?  If that’s the case, then the Bible we are using today is missing a few books!  Or what if the autographs refer to Mary as the Theotokos?  If you don’t hold that that, are you ready to change your beliefs based on the autographs?

The fact is, we don’t have the autographs, so don’t go around making stupid statements like that.

Feel free to disagree with me, but it’s going to take some convincing on your part if you want to change my mind.


6 thoughts on “Two Statements That Drive Me Nuts

  1. I think you might be reading too much into a capital letter. Yes, “word” should ideally not be capitalized if one merely wants to talk about inspiration. At the same time, it seems unfair to blame people for bad typography when the relevant distinction would not be found in the manuscripts. I agree that biblicism goes too far, but we should be charitable in how we interpret what people say. I don’t think the average person who uses “Word” would confuse Jesus the Word of God and the Bible as the “word of God”, capital letter notwithstanding. If anything, the capital letter is used as a heightened reverence for what is perceived as God’s word.

    I also wouldn’t say that that believing that the autographs were inerrant is “stupid”. That seems unnecessarily dismissive. Your objection has very little bearing on what most inerrantists believe since they tend to take a primarily deductive approach which starts from what they regard as the character of God and the purpose/origin of the BIble. The objection that one cannot see the original autograph would only be operative if someone suggested using an inductive approach. I agree however that the concept of autograph is often a cop-out that is (mis-)used to “solve” problems when there is no good answer.

    • You might not agree with my approach to talking about this…that’s fine. But I’ve had enough of these voices who claim to be speaking the “truth” overpowering those who dont hold the same views. Sometimes, things need to be said to catch people’s attention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s