Before I get lambasted online by those 'who know God better,’ I was wondering if anyone here has heard the following points raised before, or answers/explanations to them?
I’m always wondering how 'Bible believing bigots' get around these, or better yet and worse for that matter, how they do not attempt to or even desire to get around them. I’m not attempting to trounce the Bible here, Just those who would use it to trounce others, and yes the 'irony' of
not considering the right-to-take-away-my-rights to be a
legitmate right IS lost on me.. (
now that's sarcasm)
So in regard to the use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to the claim of Biblical inerrancy in order to do so, I'm wondering what they say to things like:
-How is it possible for something absent malice to be evil?
-Is evil actually understood to be arbitrary and not exclusively the
love of evil?
-If God is Love, how can it
ever be evil to share?
-How is it possible to determine inerrancy without actually being inerrant?
-Where in the Bible does it even suggest that one’s interpretation of it should also be considered inerrant?
Most importantly and interesting to me, how can the Bible be assumed to be divinely inerrant when there’s a warning on the last page not to change it?
REV 22:18,19 (New KJV)
“A WARNING”
18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:
If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;” 19 and
if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” (
Italics and
bold mine)
Seems literal enough for me, but if the Bible, of which Revelations is a part, can ONLY be inerrant, then a warning not to cause error, would be an error. The only other explanation I can see is if the warning itself is an error, which of course, according to the concept of inerrancy, is impossible. Meaning that according to the Bible itself, it is impossible to consider the Bible free from the
possibility of error. Am I missing something?
And isn’t it called the King James Version because he’s the one who edited it to avoid breaking papal law? Where does that fit in to the inerrancy debate?
I'm thinking the problem lies in not recognizing the difference between believing one knows, and actually knowing, and I have no doubt I’ll get a different ‘simple’ convoluted explanation from every Jerry, Pat, James and Joyce I ask, I’ve just never heard these particular questions raised before.
The purpose of mentioning all this comes from the understanding that the Bible needs to be removed from or at least properly confronted in the general public debate. Much if not most of the prejudice against gays originates from the assumption that it’s not possible to be born gay, understandable until one learns better. Continuing such a position ‘because the bible says so’ is arbitrary and therefore irrelevant, yet many continue to cling to this position because it is thought to be ‘inerrant.’
Justifying bigotry as being in defense of religious freedom solely based on an assumption of inerrancy is an attack on MY religious freedom to believe otherwise. So I guess my question is, why isn’t the simple truth of
this argument being presented and discussed more in the mainstream debate?