Whatever the reason, words mean what they say.
— William O. Douglas
Comment:
| Be suspicious | Criteria | J.’s e-mail | G.’s e-mail | Chris Stuhr | Original sources |
When reading religious literature, such as the Koran, the Bible, New Age material, etc., which is supposed to present a truth, and it says somewhere in it that:
(1) some things in it are beyond the understanding of man, but it is clear to God,
(2) some things in it are a mystery and leave it at that,
(3) some things in it cannot or are not understood in the present; you only have to
wait until it is revealed in the future,
(4) some things in it are above analysis and questioning (that is it is wrong to
analyze and question it),
(5) some things you must just accept by faith,
(6) some things in it are not what they actually say,
be extremely suspicious of the validity of that literature. Be extremely suspicious of a cover-up to fool people into accepting a lie, a deception, some trickery. This kind of literature is worse than useless because it can subjugate people into believing almost anything.
Some of my criteria
for the reliability of a book:
As you will see they depend on the kind of book.
I ask:
(1) Are there any contradictions?
If the book is claimed to be a message from God by God or ‘Holy’ then I expect it to
have none.
If the book is not claimed to be ‘Holy” I will allow for the possibility of
contradictions in it, note these, and in the next printing of the book expect the contradictions to be corrected as best as it is possible.
(2) Does the book agree with scientific knowledge?
If the book is claimed to be ‘Holy’ I expect it to fully agree with science and to
actually provide new knowledge that is scientifically correct and has not yet actually been discovered by science. It should be a book that promotes fast progress in the scientific process.
If the book is not claimed to be ‘holy’ I expect it to at least agree with present day
science; unless it is fantasy fiction; or an ancient man made book, then it would reflect the common knowledge of the past.
(3) Are there any flaws in it such as absurdities, misquotes, non-quotes,
misprints?
I would expect an all-powerful God to present his message without flaw and to ensure
there are no misprints, even if copied or written for God by men.
In a book that is not claimed to be ‘holy’ I expect there will be flaws
(4) Is it divisive?
If the book is claimed to be ‘Holy’ I expect it not to be divisive at all, unless God
is divisive. I expect it to be easy to read, to be to the point, to be easy for every person to
understand, to have no possibility of mis-interpretation. This means there should be no differences between versions of this message from the God of the Universe.
If the book is a message from God it must be straight forward
and anyone will read it easily without any controversy. You don’t need any books or pamphlets or “experts” to explain it.
However if it is written by man without guidance from God then yes you often do need books, pamphlets (and experts) to explain what is in it.
Which do you think the book is? Is it from God or man?
Do I need a book or pamphlet to explain it or not? Can the book not stand on it’s
own?
How can different versions of the book exist, if the book is God inspired absolute
truth?
A book that is purely man-made, I expect, can easily have flaws, may be difficult to
read, not understood by everyone, be mis-interpreted. With reprints of the book I would expect it to improve.
(5) For a ‘Holy’ book: I expect a message from an all-powerful God would be
plainly given to every person right from the beginning of time and throughout history.
A purely man made book is available whenever the person happens to write it, and would be available to all only through the effort of people to spread it to other people.
(6) Does it agree with my inborn humane sense of justice and reasoning ability?
(7) Does it promote ethical goodness, not evil? Good is what enhances life, and evil is what threatens it. Does it promote fairness?
For a ‘Holy’ book I would expect the ‘Good’ and fairness to be promoted.
For any other book I might expect a range from nothing on ethics (i.e. a Science
document) to completely on ethics (i.e. a philosophy book on ethics).
Quote from my Critical Analysis of the Bible pages:
I conclude that ‘The Bible is a book like any other ancient book. It is written by
people that saw the universe as was common in ancient times. Through Science people have found the universe to be quite different than the biblical description of it. As in any ancient document, one may find some useful information in the Bible. My examination of the Bible shows that modern Christians’ beliefs do not agree with most of the Bible as it is. Most Christians today are good people in spite of the bible.’
Some e-mail on what constitutes a “Holy”
Book?
J. writes:
> Firstly, yes I am firmly persuaded that the sixty-six separate books that have
been collected and codified into the biblos (the book), and reliably translated from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to be God breathed, and as such contains the consistent and singular (divine) message from God of the work of God to reconcile a people unto Himself. It is the sane message from Genesis to Revelation. The message that God so loved . . . that He created. The message of the Bible is one of a Bridegroom whose Bride continually betrays Him with other lovers, and though she is deceitful and disloyal, in His great love for her alone He forgives her.
The message is of a kinsman redeemer who pays the bail necessary to gain the freedom of his brother. The message is of murderous, degenerate, hateful, disobedient, unloving
children who filled with self-idolatry run off to fulfill every self destructive whim of hedonism, and when that son returns he is seated beside his forgiving Father and honored – in the abundance of the Father’s love. It is a message – a simple and uncomplicated message which has been continually rejected as being something it is not. The message of a God whose only desire is that we love Him (Like the profound love of an orphan for the man who took him from the orphanage and brought him into His own home.) If we accept that message of unearned love and forgiveness, who could we help but desire to adore the Father, and do all that He asks of us?
My comment:
To clarify the statement: From my study of the Bible I believe the Bible is an ancient
totally man made book reflecting the thinking of mankind at that time. My generalization is that there is no Holy Book (Holy as you define it) in existence. This includes the Koran, Bible, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad-Gita, or any other book.
J. writes:
>When I evaluate the writings of Plato, Homer, Philo, Josephus or Pascal – I have a
specific approach, a set of criteria to decide whether or not a particular text or codex is
reliable.
>What criterion do you employ to evaluate any particular books claims (religious or
not)?
G. writes:
>For instance, what is the ultimate basis on which you can make your statements? You have made several Biblical references in an attempt to establish creditibilty to your statement. Am I to assume that your position is to be founded on the Bible? If so, may I suggest that we have a similiar version. That is , the texts that you have referred are
in the King James version and it is not always the easiest to relate to today’s definitions
and the implied meanings differing can lead us in opposite views simple because it may not mean the same thing to me as it does to you. I suggest the New American Standard, or, the New International version.
My Reply:
If the bible is God of the Universe’s message to the world; God, being all powerful, would make all versions of it perfect. So it shouldn’t matter which version we use. I am comfortable with the King James version.
‘You would think that if an Almighty God wanted to communicate an urgent message in a
book, such as the bible, to all of mankind, this God would have done it in absolutely
clear text, understandable to everyone, without flaws, with no doubt about its meaning,
without possible controversy about its meaning; and it would have been given to all of
mankind at the beginning of humanity. This does not describe the bible (or the Koran or
the Mormon books).’
The following are Christian Stuhr’s criterion:
For my part, I classify books before I evaluate them. I ask:
Do they make factual claims?
Do they assert statements that are in principle verifiable?
If the answer is “yes”, I roughly classify them as non-fiction. The next
question I ask is whether those assertions are true or false.
But if the answer is “no”, they are something else — perhaps poetry,
fantasy, or claims on our emotions. For terminological convenience, I call these works “fiction”.
Now to the next step, evaluation. It does not seem fair to me to judge fiction by the
standards I apply to non-fiction, and vice versa.
Needless to say, I do not see essential religious claims as verifiable. This does not
mean that religious literature cannot inspire people or lay claims on their emotions. But they must not be confused with science.
This is separate topic about original
sources of the bible:
No one (including you and me) knows that any given interpretation of the bible is
correct — none of the originals exist. Because there are so many versions and interpretations of the bible shows that the bible is not a clear, straightforward message to all mankind — producing contention. This is a strong indication that the bible is not a message from a God of the Universe to all people.
Let me give a few quotes from some biblical apologists (supporters of the inerrancy of
the bible): We now know we don’t have copies of the originals. We have thousands of manuscripts that purport to be accurate representations of the originals. In “A General Introduction to the Bible” Norman Geisler states on page 252 that in the New Testament there are “over 200,000 variants in some 5000 manuscripts.” “this figure will increase in the future as more manuscripts are discovered.”
On page 44 in “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” McDowell states that there
are 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the NT, but only 50 are significant.
An example is 2 Tim 3:16. Some versions contend that it says: “All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God.” However, the ASV, the NEB and the Living Bible say, “Every
Scripture INSPIRED BY GOD is also profitable for teaching.” So only the Scripture that is
inspired is profitable to teach, which clearly implies that other Scripture is not. In his “Answers to Questions About the Bible” apologist Robert Mounce asks on
page 29:
‘If a knowledge of the original Greek clears up all questions then why are the experts
still arguing?’
In the book called “Perfected and Perverted” by Norman Ward states on page 6:
‘In discussing the text of the Bible the revisionists [those who do not believe the King James is the only Bible] will often use the phrase “According to the Original Greek.” This leads one to believe that they have access to the original autograph manuscripts. Nobody today has the original writings themselves. Let me repeat that; the original autographical manuscripts of the NT no longer exist.
They were written on perishable material and it is unlikely that they lasted more than a
few years, let alone 19 centuries.’ Later Ward writes: ‘Often the same people who refer to the original Greek will also refer you to the original Bible. There was no “original Bible.” At no time did the original autographical manuscripts of the 27 books of the NT ever reside between the covers of one particular book.
To say I believe in the verbal, plenary [complete], inspiration of the original Bible is
to say you believe in nothing, for no such book ever existed.’ Peter Ruckman in “Problem Texts” on page 53 states referring to revisionists: ‘None of them had a Bible. They had what they fondly call ‘reliable’ and unreliable ‘translations’ of some ‘original manuscripts’ that they never saw or read a day in their life.’
Ruckman continues: ‘When someone tells us “the way to learn the Bible is to
DISCOVER WHAT THE ORIGINAL SAYS, Wow! Isn’t this terrific?” ‘Is there anyone who can do it?
No! Has it ever been done in 15 centuries? No! Could you find the original if you wanted
to?
No! Then why say it?’
So what can we say? Essentially, it’s this: When somebody gives you a book, be it the
RSV, the KJV, the NIV, or what have you, all they are doing is giving you a writing that was
put together by a group of scholars who read some ancient manuscripts that purportedly are accurate representations of the originals, which no longer exist. That’s what you receive when you go to the store to buy a Bible. You cannot obtain a copy of THE BIBLE.
Now the OT: A major thorn in the flesh of biblical inerrantists is the many variations
in the Septuagint and Masoretic texts of the OT. As you probably know the Septuagint, a Greek version of the OT that was translated in the 3rd century B.C., has more than 6,000
variations from the Masoretic text, which most of the English versions were derived from. The oldest complete version of the Masoretic text dates from the late 9th century A.D., so this is a span of 12 centuries between the two versions. This many variations is a rather clear indication that substantial altering of the Hebrew text occurred between the 3rd century B.C. and the 9th century A.D. In cave 4 at Qumran the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered there were fragments (dated 2nd century B.C.) of Jeremiah that matched the Septuagint version of this book.
Naturalism and Religious Experience 