Bible itself refutes the Fundamentalist view.

The Bible itself refutes the fundamentalist (literalist, inerrant) view of it.

That the Bible contains errors and inconsistences cannot be denied by anyone willing to look at its history or even the Bible itself. The historical approach is now standard in all seminaries and universities which have courses pertaining to the bible. It is also virtually universal in mainline Jewish and Christian churches. It does not contradict faith.

When one refuses to consider this reality, one is as blind as the Six Men from Indostan with six parts of the elephant, each believing they had the total view. One is also bound to mis-understand and mis-use the Word of God. One will also be reading from the “same page” as did countless Christians earlier who used the Bible to condemn, abuse and kill others. Because: “The Bible says so. . .” I gave specific examples earlier of how the Bible has been misquoted because the readers did not understand the form and context of the writings.

Nowhere does the Bible state we must believe every word of it. Such belief is not even included in its own statements of what is vital to religion. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus regarded the Two Commandments, the Decalogue and giving to the poor as basic religion (Mark 10:17-21; 12: 28-34).

Matthew 5: 17-19 and Luke 16:17 uphold the permanence of the law, and have been used to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. These passages are weak support for several reasons. First, they refer to only a portion of the Bible, the law or Torah. Second, Jesus explicitly disagreed with three passages in the law (Deut 24:1-4; Lev 19:12; Exod 21:24). If Jesus spoke these words, he certainly was not a fundamentalist.

If Jesus did not speak these words then the fact remains that a very major section of the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount, specifically and intentionally rejects three passages in another major section, the law.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever expected his audience to rely upon any authority at all–either his own or that of others. He expected his disciples to judge for themselves (Luke 12:57) and to read the signs of the times for themselves. (Luke 12:54 and Matthew 16:2-3). There is no evidence anywhere that he expected his disciples to accept whatever he said on “blind faith.”
In fact, surely one of the reasons he used some 32 parables was to invite the listener to come one by one to their own understanding.

The Bible is a library of many kinds of books, which include poetry, satire, debate, letters and fiction. Unless we consider the literary form of the writing, the context and the intention of the author, we are bound to mis-read and mis-interpret the Bible. We are bound to use the Bible against others as do many conservative evangelists, preachers and politicians today. That the Bible is inspired does not mean that some text can be taken from the Bible to prove any point. The Fundamentalist view cannot stand even in the light of the testimony of the Bible itself. Inconsistencies (and errors) are obvious for anyone who looks, as I have pointed out earlier.

Growth from fundamentalism to a more mature understanding of the Bible and the essence of Jesus teaching about true religion can be a painful personal experience. But it is well worth the cost. Many good books exist today. Another one is Albert Nolan: Jesus Before Christianity (before Christians gave him all those titles, who was he as a Jew?), now in its 25th year anniversary edition. (Orbis, Maryknoll press, 2003).

Paschal Baute, July 20, 2005
www.paschalbaute.com