Over twenty years ago, I had my first-(of several)-debates with fundamentalist Christians.
The one thing, that struck my mind so forcefully, was that no matter how thorough I was in my explanation, they would always have some rationalization; in favor of their literal interpretation. For example: If I disproved what a given "proof-text" really meant in Hebrew, and its original historical context, then the "believer" would say that they still have another 50, 100, or 300 scriptural verses. The whole point of this circular logic is 50 x 0=0, 100 x 0= 0, etc...
In other words, for a text to be considered inerrant, we must at least know what it is.
Otherwise, the affirmation that it is inerrant is utter nonsense. As a result, I have been called Satanic, ("Satan can quote scripture") and a "lake of fire bound infidel."
But all of this bespeaks a dim realization of the truth: that the dumbing-down of American culture has helped fundamentalism grow exponentially.
There are several problems with the argument for inerrancy. First, the manuscripts used in translation of the Bible-(in English)-contain numerous grammatical mistakes, unhistorical lies, forced translations, and mistranslations. Consider the following:
Where in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that a messiah would come once, be killed to serve as an atoning figure, and return again in a "second coming"? The answer is simple: nowhere. The whole idea of a god-man who sacrifices himself in order to atone for the sins of mankind is alien to the spirit and tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures (Torah); as well as the normative Judaism of Jesus’s day. It is here that fundamentalists lay great stress on the fact that Torah prescribes blood as atonement (Leviticus 17:11). They claim that without the blood of Jesus, there can be no remission of sin. The truth is that there is no place in the Torah that blood is the "only" means of atonement. Closer examination of the chapters on sacrifice show that the sacrificial blood was only prescribed for a small category of transgressions. In its original context, Leviticus 17:10-14 is dealing with dietary laws, not human sacrifice. This section, in particular, is discussing the Jewish manner of slaughter of animals whereby "blood is not to be eaten," (Hebrew, shechitah).
So, where did the concept of a dying-and resurrected "saviour" figure come from? Its origins lie in the primordial past of humanity. Originally, this was a fertility cult in which human sacrifice was practiced to increase the fertility of the earth for crops; as well as serving as an explanation for seasonal changes. After the death of Alexander the Great, and the fall of Athens, these cults were no longer associated with fertility, but with the renewal and salvation of the individual soul. They were still concerned with the death and resurrection of a god-( be it Dummuzi/Tammuz of Sumer/Babylonia/Phonecia, Mithra of Persia, Krishna of India, et.al.)-and the object of these mysteries was to enable the potential convert to take part in the god’s death and resurrection, and so attain immortality. Does this sound familiar?
Permit me another example:
Perhaps, the most widely used "proof-texts," used by fundamentalists is the famous 53rd chapter of Isaiah. In this chapter, there is a description of a suffering and despised "servant of God". Basing their "proof" on the "New Testament" interpretation, fundamentalists attempt to argue that this suffering servant is none other than Jesus. But closer examination will reveal that this is not true. First, the word for "My Servant" is Hebrew is ‘avdi; which means slave or worshiper. And it is referring to the exile of the Jewish people. The word ‘avdi is mentioned nine times in the previous chapters of Isaiah; specifically referring to the Jewish people. (See: Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1, 2; 21; 26; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3). The Jewish people were the ones who were "stricken, smitten of God and afflicted" (Is. 53:4). In the
|
