Have you ever thought that only the Lord’s church has problems? Have you found yourself envious of the various denominations that preach love and unity? Have you imagined that with them all is harmony and peace? Stick around. The fairy dust for Never-Never-Land will be passed out shortly.
The fact is that most religious denominations have their fill of dissension and acrimony. The Presbyterians and the Episcopalians have been making the news this year over ordaining homosexuals. And the Baptists have had their hands full of controversy.
Here locally they were termed intolerant and not very Christlike for refusing to let a homosexual choir perform in their building. Their decision to boycott Disney (which is an excellent idea if you have noticed what Disney has been doing lately) has drawn a great deal of fire and a spate of letters to the editor. When they decided it would be a good idea to evangelize Jews (although they can’t do it because they don’t preach the true gospel), you’d have thought someone had suggested an updated edition of the Holocaust.
But to see how deeply rooted their problems really are, you have only to read the letter T. W. Thompson wrote to the editor of The Dallas Morning News. After identifying himself as a Southern Baptist, he takes issue with a statement made by the newly elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention about the Bible being inerrant.
He is referring to the “original manuscripts” (autographs) which living persons do not have and have never seen. The Bible commonly used today is an imperfect translation, based on an imperfect text which is based upon imperfect ancient manuscripts (June 17, 1996, p. 24A).
As Pat Paulsen used to say, “Picky, picky, picky.” Let’s analyze Thompson’s paragraph. Is it true that living persons do not have nor ever have seen the original manuscripts? No one NOW living has, but several brethren had seen them at one time.
Is the Bible used today an imperfect translation? Which Bible? Certainly the NIV is, as are most modern “translations.” Even the King James slipped up on “Easter,” which it inappropriately used for “Passover” (Acts 12:4). Although there may not be one perfect version, there are several that are accurate enough to teach us about salvation.
Is the Greek text imperfect? Actually, there are several Greek texts, and they do disagree with one another at various points. And the manuscripts themselves also vary. So then, are we agreeing with Mr. Thompson? We agree with the facts of the matter but not over the significance.
What is the point of this man’s letter?
To expect someone to call this commonly used Bible inerrant is either to be ignorant or a demagogue.
Garbled Gobbledegook
Since the man does not specifically state his conclusion, let’s state it for him. The Bible is full of errors. That’s not a misrepresentation, is it? If only a fool would call the Bible inerrant, then it must be errant. If it is errant, then there must be errors in it (which idea agrees with all of his caterwauling about “imperfect”).
But if the Bible is full of errors, then why should we fool with it? When it says to love God and one’s fellow man (Matt. 22:37-40), perhaps that’s an error. In fact, when it teaches that we can be saved from our sins, maybe some overzealous scribe just stuck that in there. My guess is that since he is a Southern Baptist, he definitely thinks Mark 16:9-20 does not belong–especially the part about “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Now if that’s judgmental of me, that’s okay because it just may be that Matthew 7:1-5 was inaccurately translated, too.
The point should be obvious by now. If the Bible is full of errors, if it is so unreliable, then we would all be at an utter loss to figure out which, if any, parts are valid. Make no mistake about it; Mr. Thompson would not know how to escape from his own dilemma.
But think what an errant Bible means: no certainty about any Bible doctrine (such as the hope of eternal life), no words of comfort for anyone, and no objective standard of morality. Mr. Thompson is no better off than an atheist. In fact, he can not know that God even exists because Genesis 1 could just be one of those imperfect parts (haven’t the evolutionists said so for years?).
The Power of God
At the risk of being called an ignorant demagogue, I affirm that the Bible is inerrant. Even with the second-hand manuscripts, varied texts, and mistranslations? Even so. And a person doesn’t have to become a postmodernist (one who has no problem accepting contradictions) to do it.
The Bible teaches that God is all-powerful. The Bible also teaches that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Scriptures, and that the words written down for us are the very words of God (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
Now, are we to believe that an omnipotent God who even put words in the mouths of His spokesmen (Jer. 1:9), was not able to then preserve that word for future generations? Was He surprised that the original parchments crumbled into dust? (“Whoa! I didn’t think the world would last this long.”)
Such is an absurdity. The variations in manuscripts are generally slight and always totally irrelevant so far as our salvation is concerned. Let the critic cite a passage or verse that would absolutely throw mankind into a quandary as to what we should do to please God. Thompson has not addressed this side of the issue at all-for obvious reasons.
The Southern Baptists may keep this fellow (we’re already plagued by Carroll Osburn). He and his fellow modernists are invited to stay right where they are and not infiltrate the Lord’s church with their faith-destroying doctrine. We’ll stick with the Book!