The problem with saying that the bible is perfect is that if somebody points out a glaringly obvious contradiction to you, you should have the integrity to concede that it isn't and move on. Denying it, wriggling out of it with semantic doubletalk or saying that this is man's imperfect understanding of god's perfect word just won't cut it.
Also, the particular contradiction I'm going to talk about today shines the spotlight on another problem that bible-believers face when claiming that their book is the literal truth. What about those passages that, if taken literally, lead to nonsense? What then? Let's move on and you'll see what I mean.
The book of Revelation is supposed to be the word of god, as written down by the apostle John. It should be a true and perfect description of the End Times, Judgement Day and the arrival of god's city, the New Jerusalem. But what this? John contradicts himself! Or is it that John faithfully writes down everything he hears and sees but it is
god
who contradicts himself? Read on to see what I mean.
Revelation Chapter 3, Verse 12. King James Version.
"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God which is the New Jerusalem..."
To explain what it all means...
John is writing down what he hears from the mouth of god. In this case god is talking about the christian church in Philadelphia. (No, not that Philadelphia. This is the original one that was in what is now modern Turkey. The City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection was named
after
the original one.) God praises the Philadelphian christians saying that if they overcome their trials and temptations he will reward them by "making them a pillar in his temple" This temple is located in his city, the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem will only appear at the end of time, after Judgement Day, when all things are perfected and renewed by god. This city will be the eternal dwelling place of god, his angels and all the saved christians.
Now go to Revelation, Chapter 21 and look at verse 22.
"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and The Lamb are the temple of it."
Follow the same link and click on Chapter 21 to see this in it's context.
This is part of a description of the New Jerusalem as seen by John and (supposedly) faithfully written down by him. John sees
NO TEMPLE
.
So there is no building in the city of god which functions as a temple. The reason given for this is that god himself and the Lamb (Jesus) are the temple. This is
not
a mistranslation, I have checked the New Testament Greek that the book of revelation was originally written in. One verse says there's a temple and the other says there isn't. Period.
Ok, let's recap.
The verses Revelation 3:12 and 21:22 appear to contradict each other, if taken literally. Both are written by the same author at the same time about the same subject - god's New Jerusalem. So how are we to understand what's meant here?
The usual christian apology for this is as follows.
Some things in the bible are meant to be taken symbolically, not literally. Others can be taken figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically, etc. God sends his holy spirit to guide us into all truth. He will show you what is meant to be taken symbolically and what is not.
Very nice, but isn't this just a licence to pick and choose what you want to take literally and what you want to take symbolically? Fundamentalist christians will assert that the Genesis account of creation
MUST
be taken literally, that Adam and Eve were created just as is described in that book. Then Jesus' death on the cross really does take away not just your own sins but also those you've inherited from Adam and Eve when they sinned in the garden of Eden. This is how christians use the literal reading of Genesis to show that their faith is based on real, historical events affecting everyone. Got that? Genesis is the literal truth.
Now go back to Revelation.
The contradiction between 3:12 and 21:22 is neatly resolved by saying that these things are meant symbolically, not literally. Nobody gets turned into an actual stone pillar in god's temple. That's nonsense. When you call a person, "a pillar of the community" you are refering to their strong moral compass and their behavior. The same applies in Revelation.
So does that mean that the Lord God Almighty and The Lamb aren't really the temple of the New Jerusalem? Perhaps. Does it mean that there's no need for a building to worship in because god and his son will receive the worship directly? Possibly. The catch is that if you say some things have symbolic value and are not the literal truth, while others do then you are operating a double-standard. On the one hand you say that the bible is the literal truth but on the other hand you reserve the right to interpret sections of it in a non-literal way. This is, at best, questionable behavior and, at worst, out and out bad faith.
Also, something that is literally true has a fixed, knowable value that is not subject to interpretation. The facts are the facts. The truth is the truth. When you say something should be taken figuratively or symbollically it's value is unfixed and open to debate. Something symbolic is not a fact. Something taken metaphorically does not have the same value as honest-to-goodness truth. Is god's word a treacherous quagmire of shifting, relative values or is it a firm rock on which to build your life?
To conclude I'd like to say the following.
To any christians reading this. Please reply and give this forum the benefit of your input on this matter. Surely the truth
does
matter?
To any athiests and skeptics. Why not tackle any christians you meet with this contradiction in the book of Revelation? Don't forget to come down hard on them if they try to use a symbolic or non-literal means of reading these passages. Remember. The bible is god's literal truth. He/she who interprets it as anything else does so at their peril! Genesis is the literal truth - why not Revelation too?
To anyone wavering or undecided. Look hard at Rev. 3:12 and 21:22. Is a perfect, almighty and truthful god going to contradict himself? If John
did
write down the wrong things when god was speaking to him, doesn't that one imperfection make the whole bible suspect? Don't shortchange yourself when you decide on these things. The truth matters.
Thanks for reading this,
BornAgainAthiest.
Eon Newbie First Class
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Stirling, Scotland
Posted:
Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:39 am
Just to play angel's advocate (to borrow an IG-ism), couldn't a Christian apologist argue that the Bible is both literal
and
figurative? As in "God literally spoke to his apostles with metaphorical language"?
Not sure I buy that myself, but I can see an apologist trying to argue something along those lines.
Just to play angel's advocate (to borrow an IG-ism), couldn't a Christian apologist argue that the Bible is both literal
and
figurative? As in "God literally spoke to his apostles with metaphorical language"?
Not sure I buy that myself, but I can see an apologist trying to argue something along those lines.
Yes, a Christian could certainly argue this way, but then it would be appropriate to ask, "how do you make the determination between literal and figurative?". I think BAA's post eloquently expresses this dichotomy.
BornAgainAthiest Confident Learner
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 78
Posted:
Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:42 pm
Eon wrote:
Just to play angel's advocate (to borrow an IG-ism), couldn't a Christian apologist argue that the Bible is both literal
and
figurative? As in "God literally spoke to his apostles with metaphorical language"?
Not sure I buy that myself, but I can see an apologist trying to argue something along those lines.
Hello Eon!
Yes, certainly a christian apologist could argue that, provided they kept the practice of their faith as a purely personal matter. How anyone chooses to live is a matter of individual conscience and in America we have the liberty to do so. It's when those who are convinced that their inner convictions are in fact absolute truthes, that the trouble starts.
This trouble takes two forms.
Firstly, there's the obvious strife caused by the clash of opposing viewpoints. I don't need to go into detail about this. The activities of religious fundamentalists (of any type) make for sad reading in the news.
Secondly, there's the trouble that they cause themselves by taking what was probably god's metaphorical language in a literal way. Take the description of the Creation from the book of Genesis. It's not going too far to say that ALL of fundamentalist christianity rests on this description being 100% true. Take this foundation away (by declaring any of it to metaphorical, not literal) and the whole edificie falls.
Genesis gives christ's sacrifice it's full meaning. No temptation of Adam & Eve means no original sin. No original sin calls into question wether humanity fell from grace at all. If we didn't fall is there any problem with our relationship with god at all? If there's no problem why did christ need to die on the cross? And so on...
Everything - God's creative power, his authority, our relationship with him, the role of his son in our redemption, the role of Satan, christianity's oppression of women (thru Eve's temptation) , the Law given to Moses, the role of the prophets and the apostles - everything stands or falls on taking the (probably) metaphorical language of Genesis as literally true.
As I've pointed out at the beginning of this thread, a literal reading of even a small part of the bible leads to nonsensical conclusions.
Ok then Eon, what if we accept that the bible is both literal
and
figurative?
This approach, as I said earlier, is fine if you want to keep your faith a private thing. Mixing literal and figurative understandings of the bible and then foisting this mix upon others leads to a new order of problems as you try to justify yourself. How can you be sure which parts are meant to be taken literally and which are not? If you want to draft and enact laws that are biblically-based you'll be tying yourself in knots over the correct interpretation of many, many passages in your book.
At this point I'll quote something by James Barr.
(See http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barr_(biblical_scholar)
Even if fundamentalists sometimes say that they take the Bible literally, the facts of fundamentalist interpretation show that this is not so. What fundamentalists insist on is not that the Bible must be taken literally but that it must be so interpreted as to avoid any admission that it contains any kind of error. In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non-literal interpretation...
What they mean and are constantly interpreted as meaning, is that the Bible contains no error of any kind - not only theological error, but error in any sort of historical, geographical or scientific fact...
(James Barr, Fundamentalsim)
So you see Eon, admission of biblical error is something that a christian fundamentalist (who believes in the literal truth of the bible) cannot accept.
The glaring contradiction between Revelation 3:12 and 21:22
can
be resolved by a metaphorical or figurative interpretation. So can other contradictions and inconsistencies. But as James Barr says, once you start taking some parts of the bible as non-literal you're in real trouble if you then claim that it's all literally true as well.
This makes life for us athiests and skeptics very easy indeed. All we have to do is to demonstrate
one
error in the bible to disprove everything they hold true. Once disproven their authority to dictate to anyone else what is moral/good/right is removed too - and that's why I intitiated this thread in the first place.
Everything - God's creative power, his authority, our relationship with him, the role of his son in our redemption, the role of Satan, christianity's oppression of women (thru Eve's temptation) , the Law given to Moses, the role of the prophets and the apostles - everything stands or falls on taking the (probably) metaphorical language of Genesis as literally true.
I totally agree with this. If we take biblical genealogy as truth it puts the age of the human species at more or less seven-thousands-years but all the natural evidence points to at least a one-hundred-thousand-year old species. This means either the Adam and Eve story is a myth or the biblical god left evidence to intentionally deceive us; with a myth being the most probable truth. If the story is a myth, the entire faith crumbles.
This is why most fundamentalists so adamantly reject evolutionary science, but there's much evidence beyond just evolution to suggest the story isn't true.
Eon Newbie First Class
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 42
Location: Stirling, Scotland
Posted:
Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:55 am
Just to set the record straight, BAA, I am an atheist, but I felt I ought to point out that possible argument, since it hadn't been covered in your original post.
Good response though. I'm really not sure how non-literalist Christians who accept evolution as a scientific fact can reconcile that with Biblical doctrine. If I was one, I might have better insight into their thinking... or maybe I'd just be even more confused.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file