The most aggravating thing about reading the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy is that the author takes 15 pages to say what can be said in 2 pages. After reading the first two pages, my eyes began to gloss over the whole thing. I stopped highlighting, put the chapter away and called it a night. But I did make a lil' promise to get this all done, so I picked it all back up in spurts.

I could go on insulting our subject's writing, but that would be a little too easy :)

Our subject approaches scripture with a readily visible bias, seemingly looking to interpret even the most lofty and noble of teachings into something alledgedly underhanded, subversive and inherently suspect. Of course, he makes the three 'classic' misinterpretation mistakes in most of his scripture references. For the purpose of the reader being aware, I'll classify them breifly before getting into the analysis of our subject:

1. Selective Citations. Cults do it, other religions do it and everyone who wants to twist the Bible to teach something they want it to does it. They approach scripture with their beliefs and then select which scriptures they want to use to support their point and cite only those, conspicuously ignoring those that contradict what they believe. A perfect example is found at the Christadelphians' 'Wrested Scriptures' website. In preparing so-called answers to those who believe in the Deity of Christ, they have a list of scriptures commonly cited in support of the Deity of Christ with replies, while quietly passing over others which blatantly teach the opposite of what they believe. One that caught my eye in particular was John 5:19-24, which they do have listed (with a convoluted counter argument), but they conspicously ignore John 5:18 which flatly teaches that Jesus, by calling Himself the Son of God was 'calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:18).

2. Inadequate translation citation. Throughout, our subject constantly quotes from the Today's English Version (TEV). Of course, from using one particular English translation (which our subject does) and basing his assumptions and interpretations on what that ONE particular ENGLISH translation ALONE says, he can come up with any number of whacked out interpretations, since the TEV isn't one of the grade A translations out on the market today. If our subject were serious about Biblical Interpretation, even in his absence of knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek text, he'd use a variety of translations before coming to whatever conclusion he does.

3. Not reading the text in it's literary context and it's social/cultural context. I've been told that our subject simply blows off anyone who makes this argument toward him whenever he cites a passage of scripture and wrenches it out of it's historic and cultural perspective. I've also viewed e-mail correspondence between him and other believers in which he does the same. Does it matter how the culture was in relation to certain verses of scripture? Of COURSE!!! We must NOT read the Bible with a 20th century eye and impose our culture on the reading of the text (an error of many sincere believers in Christ as well as many unbelievers)- we must instead, using available evidence for the time period, read the Bible within it's context- cultural, literary and social. When discussing, for example, the practice of marriage in the NT, we need to have knowledge of the Jewish marriage customs so that we understand why the groom and not the bride, is the center of attention.

Another aspect of 'context' reading the verses surrounding a particular verse- for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses in their book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, quote Romans 6:7 and state that a person who has died no longer has any sin and is free to be resurrected. Far from teaching this, in context, the verse refers to those who have been baptized into the name of Lord Jesus and that baptism is a representation of our idenfication with Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Believers were literally baptized into his life, death and resurrection (vv. 1- 5, 8-11). Rather than teaching a particular doctrine on the fate of the deceased, the verse is a passing statement in a paragraph. That's almost as bad as folks taking the second half of Ps. 14:1 and saying that the Bible teaches atheism!!

A third aspect of context involves the overall teaching of scripture on a particular issue. For example, the conditions for salvation in the New Testament are belief (trust, faith in) Christ based upon His sacrifice of Himself for sin (John 3:16). This is presented repeatedly as the only condition for salvation- nothing else need be added. So for many groups to include baptism as a necessary means of salvation (usually based off of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38) is fallacious. Furthermore, from the textual data, the authenticity of Mark 16:16 is questionable[1]. A particular doctrine should never be based upon one passage, especially one whose authenticity is questionable.

I discuss these issues early because they are necessary in any discussion of the Inerrancy of Scripture and any critique of such. They also show where the author's pressupositions lie in regard to the issue (that would be me). Because I have pressupostions, that does not necessarily make my argument invalid- indeed,there is no way to completely approach any given issue concerning the Bible 'objectively'- the question is whether or not the pressupositions we all hold toward scripture taint the evidence or cause us to minimalize or treat unfairly, the evidence which opposes our position. Once these things are brought into the light, our discussion can begin honestly.

Prologemena out of the way, let's move to the text.

Chapter 23 of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (EBE) is quite amusing- "Acceptance, Submission, Rejection of Wealth, Expectation of Reward, Closed-Mindedness, Human Nature, Fostering Slavery" - since it betrays the preconcieved biases against the NT & the Christian Faith. In fact, a major problem with some members of the so-called "Errancy Movement" is that they are not searching for truth, but merly for an excuse to reject the Christian faith. This is aptly demonstrated in the often virulent invective spewed forth against Christians, Christianity, Jesus and anything related to the historic Judeo-Christian faith in general. They are not objective nor honest in their evaluation or research of NT evidence, nor the majority of their critiques.

This refutation is not intended to try and win any 'errantists' who continue to force their misconceptions upon scripture in search of a contradiction. Rather, this is written toward the honest seeker of truth who hasn't heard the answers to the objections to the Bible so that he/she can judge for themselves. With that, we begin.

The Main Thesis

"Criticism of the press, radio, television and other media is considered acceptable, while criticism directed toward Christianity in general and the Bible in particular has been considered anathema. For too long, the grevious effect of biblical teachings upon millions of people has been either ignored or treated lightly. But Scripture should be no more immune from exposure than any other instrument of the power elite. "

 

"The negative and regressive essense of the New Tesament in particular has often been looked upon as a temporary deviation from an otherwise correct path and not indicative of Christianity and the Bible as a whole. Few beliefs are more in conflict with reality. Statements, teachings and concepts within the New Testament, combined with two thousand years of Christian history, prove beyond any doubt that the Bible has been effectively employed to the advantage of dominant groups with tragic effects upon the history of humanity." [2]

With this, our subject's pressupositions, misconceptions and transfer of blame are laid bare at the onset of the chapter. A lot of what he has said here sets the tone for what he devotes an entire chapter to. Our subject builds up a very subtle 'strawman' (which we all know is fallacious form of argumentation). His beginning statements are to establish that any criticism of the Bible, Christianity, or anything related are 'anathema' (that is, accursed and the person making the claims needs to be burned at the stake). Truth be told, no one likes to be criticized. The humanism movement doesn't appreciate criticism anymore than some of those calling themselves 'Christian' do, especially when their particular approach to a subject matter is seemingly biased or with malicious intent.

The question is not whether such criticism is welcomed or not, but whether or not it is legitimate. The question is not whether criticism and claims against Christianity make a believer uncomfortable, but whether or not such criticisms have any merit to them. For example, earlier in this century, many who named the name of Christ with their lips actively supported segregation, racism and discrimination with their actions (or lack thereof). This served as a severe source of criticism for Christianity as a whole and still has left a wound upon this country which has not healed. By the same token, many true believers in Christ actively opposed racism and segregation (some paid with their lives). We must never forget that in all cases, it is necessary to compare the person professing Christianity with what the belief system actually says and teaches. In many cases, you will find inconsistencies in the lives of those claiming the name of Christ- the fault lies with the person, not the system.

Now there are those who would say this is a 'cop-out'. Not so. Christianity teaches that the true mark of a believer is love for his/her fellow human being- if a person claiming to be Christian supports segregation and racism, I personally would call that person's faith into question, since they profess Christ with their lips, but do not follow His teachings. This is common sense which anyone can simply make a comparison.

Our subject continues:

Statements, teachings and concepts within the New Testament, combined with two thousand years of Christian history, prove beyond any doubt that the Bible has been effectively employed to the advantage of dominant groups with tragic effects upon the history of humanity.

Many individuals will doubtless view such a contention as sacrilegious, irresponsible, and erroneous, while others will see it as oversimplified, distorted or deceptive. A few will probably contend that the New Testament is being misinterpreted and phrases are being taken out of context. The latter response would have some validity if most of the New Testament were as mystical and esoteric as the Book of Revelation. It would be difficult to know what was intended, since one interpretation would be as plausible as another. But much of the New Testament, on the contrary, is quite vivid. Clarity is provided through simplicity of speech and repetition in slightly altered form.[3]

Bringing the slavery thing up again, I can perfectly agree with the second half of our subject's first sentence. I can even agree with the first portion to a minor extent. But his attempt to blame the NT and not the people misusing the NT is utterly futile. His claim is partially true, but the fault lies not in the text, but those who misused it! I know I'm being repetetive (in slightly altered form...ha ha ha), but it's a point that needs to be stressed. Partial citations, ignoring context, imprecise translations and malicious intent of its abusers who hypocritically claim the name of Christ have left many with a wrong impression of Christianity.[4]

It must equally be stated that even in the face of wrongdoing by professed believers, many true believers still chose to stand for truth, despite whatever else was going on around them. It was British Christian abolitionists who helped overthrow slavery in England and convinced the government to put up a blockade of ships to stop the Atlantic slave trade. Observations like these are conspicuously absent from most of the writings of so-called 'truth seekers' and 'honest, non-biased' critics of the Bible.

Killing the Argument in the Cradle

Our subject has had his errors called out before from his obvious attempt to circumvent any responsibility for his accusations against the NT. Of course, anyone looking beyond this thinly veiled attempt to blow off his critics, will see that he purposely ignores basic rules of literary interpretation in order to 'find' a contradiction. Primary among these, when studying ancient material, or material from ANY time period prior to the one we live in is that we not impose our culture and intepretations upon it. Instead, even in those instances when we believe we understand the meaning of the documents, we need to check them against the cultural and literary writings, culture and customs of the time period in question.

To get long winded like Carsten Theide, let me give you an example. Date: early 1980's, place the Hollander Ridge area of Baltimore City in Maryland in the USA. My friends and I are hanging out, and he plays a tape of a new rap artist. I reply to him (after listening) 'Yo, dat was fresh!! Those lyrics were DOPE!!! I wonder where they thought them up?' In context and cultural setting (I'm African-American, if you haven't figured by now), 'fresh' was street vernacular for 'superlatively excellent' as was 'dope' although something 'dope' was one level above something 'fresh'. The culture- specifically the language of the hip hop culture back in the 1980's- helps to determine the definition of the word, in its cultural setting. Whether images of fresh fish, or unopened packages of food came to mind when you read the phrase, illustrates my point perfectly.

Imperfect translations will almost ALWAYS occur with translations to another language. For example, the above phrase in french would be, word for word ""Yo, celui était frais!! Ces lyrique était DOPANT!!!Je me demande où ils l'ont imaginé?" which re-translated to english would turn out as 'Yo, that was fresh!! These lyric was DOPING!!! I wonder where they imagined it?'[5] For this reason, the culture, social context and setting are ESSENTIAL in one's understanding of the text. Every literature class in high school always gives a little exposition about Elizabethan culture, for example, before reading works by Shakespeare. Likewise, I recall expositional data on Hellenistic culture being given before my high school class studied Sophocles so many years ago.

These things provide a proper framework for interpretation of the data. Our subject's refusal to do so is scholastically dishonest and dileberately taints his interpretation of the data. Please keep his second statements in mind- "much of the New Testament, on the contrary, is quite vivid. " We will see him contradict himself in the next paragraph.

Superficially, the Bible propogates humility, peace, love, and brotherhood.. These are repeated themes as subsequent quotes will show. In reality, however, these themes are a blueprint for bondage. Appearances would lead most individuals to believe that any work teaching the importance of love, peace and humility is contributing to the creation of a better world. But exteriors are often decieving. Deception lies in the fact that a society of peace, love, and brotherhood will never emerge until people obtain greater control of their lives, which can never occur as long as they direct peace, love, brotherhood and humility towards their leaders. In other words, peace, love, and brotherhood can sometimes only be established by practicing the exact opposite for a period of time.[6]

Okay, which is it? Are the readings of much of the NT quite vivid or are those superficial exterior teachings often deceiving? Isn't that tacitly agreeing that in some cases, we need to dig below the surface of a given teaching to understand it in context? Or is the NT clear when our subject wants it to be clear and only superficial when he wants it to be?

Furthermore, our subject is left with another problem of sorts- anticipating the answer of the above query to be "this is from a general, direct 'cold' reading of the NT' - such statements as those presented in Matthew 22:34-40 seem to teach exactly the opposite of what our subject is suggesting it teaches. A simple answer to his entire argument can be found thus- if the NT teaches humility toward leaders and the remainder of humanity in general and putting others ahead of yourself, what if, instead of adopting a hypocritical 'you do it, and I won't' attitude, all of the leaders of nations adopted the same philosophy?

On the flip side, if our subject said we must dig deeper (beyond the 'superficial exterior reading') to find the 'real meaning' (since exteriors are often deceiving), then he is forced to concede that in some cases, more than just a surface reading is required to understand the text. This , of course, opens up the door for the argument that the social and cultural context of the passage (which he alludes to in a negative fashion) DOES play a role in determining the proper understanding of an NT passage.

Much more could be pointed out about the flawed logic behind the second portion of this statement: Peace need not necessarily practice the opposite of peace, love, humility and brotherhood toward their leaders for a period of time in order to establish the same. In fact, in many cases, the practices of peace, love, brotherhood and humility toward leadership have influenced leadership and toward the remainder of humanity has changed the hearts of others to follow the same pattern- non-violently. Martin Luther King, for example, resisted segregation passively and his actions, combined with those of his supporters influenced others to begin to practice equality, peace, love and brotherhood.

But this is neither here nor there.

The Golden Key

Sounds like an extra item you collect on Super Mario Brothers, but no, it's the final portion of the basis of our subject's argument that will aid us in reviewing and refuting Chapter 23 of the EBE. It's directly related to the last portion of text, and of course, it's one more piece to seeing and understanding HOW he views the NT. Reminiscent of Jack T. Chick, Gail Ripplinger, Bob Larson, Steve Cokely and other great semi-conspiratorial thinkers of the 20th century, our subject says:

Most people look upon creating peace and brotherhood by initiating dissension as self-defeating and contradictory. They erroneously believe that society is composed of one big amorphous mass of people who are failing to exercise sufficent self-control, brotherly love, and peaceful intent toward their neighbors. They fail to see that society is in fact often composed of basically two groups, the stronger of which, a minority, manages society and foments disunity among the other group, the majority, as one means by which to dominate it. The mateiral aspects of society exercise the greatest influence upon people and are directed by the minority in such a manner as to keep them divided. Since the minority's interests are served by dividing and factionalizing, there will be no peace, love brotherhood, and humility throughout the land (depsite the most extensive teachng and preaching to the contrary) as long as such a minority excercises disproportionate control. Preaching love twoard all only serves to maintain the existing- often exploitive- state of affairs. Christians are taught that love and mercy should guide their relationships with others; yet, without distinction as to rulers and ruled, this can only lead to entrapment. In effect, preaching brotherly love perpetuates its opposite. [7]

I'm taking taking my boots off now, we're thru the thick of it. Again, the only way that our subject's scenario works out so that the 'ruling elite' are taking advantage of the regular folks is if the ruling class themselves do not follow the same principles they attempt to impose upon their subjects. If the ruling class practices peace and brotherly love toward their subjects and the subjects practice the same back to their rulers, our subject is left in his never-never land twiddling his thumbs through his TEV looking for a new way to find a contradiction.

Our subject's worldview, as warped as it is, dictates his interpretation of the text. Even the most noble Matthew 22:37-39, when run through the conspiracy filter, becomes a tool for those in power to take advantage of the 'weak' and 'powerless'. There's one major problem- the base of our subject's argument is built upon a misuse (and a rather OBVIOUS ONE at that.....), not what the canon of scripture actually teaches. Once this is pointed out, his entire argument falls apart like a house of cards.

This concludes part one :) In our next section, we'll examine some of the chapter's direct arguments and dismember...er.. dismantle.... uhmmm.... discuss them! :)

ENDNOTES********************************

[1]. Mark 16:9-20 is present in almost every manuscript of Mark, but is marked with obeli (an asterisk) by many scribes with footnotes in the margin of the manuscripts, indicating the questionable nature of the passage. Furthermore, there are several other 'endings' (some shorter, some longer) of Mark which appear in some ancient manuscripts as well- the multiplicity of readings combined with the vocabulary of the passage (which is, in some cases, very non-Marcan) are the primary reasons why many Bible translators reduce to passage to footnotes in some translations, or mark it with textal notes to inform the reader. For a more detailed study of the issues involved in selecting textual readings and Bible translations, consult Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (3rd edition) pages 226-229, 296-97 and Norman Geisler and William Nix's A General Introduction to the Bible.

[2].Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. p. 447, emphasis mine.

[3].EBE p. 447-448, emphasis mine.

[4].Ironically, some of the same things our subject himself is guilty of. Read on- you're about to see him contradict himself one paragraph later.

[5]. Courtesy of Digital's universal translator located at http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com .

[6].EBE ,448

[7].Ibid.