THE BIBLE loses MUCH in the TRANSLATION. CREATIONISTS, get REAL!

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Vince Williams (about the author) Page 1 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

For OpEdNews: Vince Williams - Writer

Paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, biology, genetics, meteorolog, hydrology, physics, chemistry--ALL studies, ALL discoveries, are here discounted by those who worship Creationism, BUT CARE LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT THAT WHICH THEY CLAIM IS CREATED!!! And, of course, it's all to satisfy a "mystical and/or anti-iconoclastic wish" to be able to say (nay, even to PROVE) that the Bible and George W. Bush are infallible, or at least authoritative. But their attempt at explaining is so convoluted and is mere apologiae of what they wish to be true.* In fact, much of it looks as if it's been copy/pasted from a website written by an equally intransigent and inflexibly-minded sectary.

*Here's an example (among many) of their (forgive the word) "logic":
"Genesis 2:4-26, Is the story of the generations of the Heavens and of the earth in Hebrew poetical form using repeated introversion. The creation story is in Genesis 1:1. The purpose of Genesis is not intended to deal with everything God created but how it was destroyed in Genesis 1:2, and recreated in 1:2-31."
Well, now, let us ponder this for a bit: Are they trying to admit that GOD DIDN'T WRITE GENESIS?...SHAME ON THEM!!! They seem to be saying that it was written by Hebrews whom God permitted to write in POETICAL FORM and PURPOSELY GET IT WRONG? ...And, by the way, who is this AUTHORITY WHO DEIGNS TO say that the creation story is ONLY in Genesis 1, and who is it who hold themselves up to assert what is the purpose of Genesis? Well, the answer is pretty clear. It's some fundamentalist theologian whose explanations begin with NEEDING a plenary interpretation and, of course, to do this they MUST ADD, INVENT, ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY what (in another moment they will claim is WHOLLY WRITTEN BY GOD!) Well, by god, they need to read on.

AND, they'll have to do better than that. If we allow them to select a "truth", we must think God permitted contradictions in Genesis where we must blame it on Hebrew poets. In other words, they want to have it both ways: God wrote the infallible Bible, and those damned Hebrew poets got it wrong; but they wrote it in poetic form, which keeps it from being a contradiction. Right. By the way, let's look at the word "introversion" ... I think they are mis-using the word: an introversion is a looking inward or upon itself, and a psychological introversion is clinical shyness. In either case "repeated introversion" in poetry (you may take it from someone who has written much poetry) simply means "turning inward more than once". Umm. Wrong word, I think. Puzzling, at the very least, unless they are borrowing someone else's term here (which I do suspect). However, if not, then is the meaning that the Hebrews were allowed by God to contradict by poetically and repeatedly using subjective or "inward" and "obscure" phrases?

Oh.

No, all of their apologetics are merely APOLOGIES for Biblical contradictions: explanations that are tortured at best and fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. It is to be taken as a metaphor.
or
2. There is more to it, if not in this verse or Biblical location, then we can find it by looking elsewhere. . . in another Biblical text.
or
3. It can only be understood in context.
or
4. There was probably just a copying or writing error. i.e. "Hebrew poets", etc.
or
5. Since God can perform miracles, this is merely another example of a miracle.
or
6. God works in mysterious ways, and we can't understand all of the reasons . . .
or
7. Writers were inspired by God to write his perfect truth.

Well, now, let's have a look at these explanations:
1. "It is to be taken as a metaphor" In other words, what is written is not really what is meant. The only problem with this excuse is that, bottom line, it becomes the GOSPEL according to YOU. SINCE YOU decide what ISN'T to be taken literally and the absolute WORD OF GOD, what we see is it begins to just happen to conform with the particular thing the "interpreter" happens to want to be TRUE???

or

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was [a]" and another says "there was [b]," so it's YOU who decides there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere This seems to make you happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it ALSO doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." AND, it doesn't say there was SANTA CLAUS. But your logic makes about as much sense. This is often the same convoluted logic that insists THIS is the ONLY possible interpretation.

OR

3. "There's more to it and you can find the meaning by looking elsewhere in the Bible" This "apology" comes from the same crowd that likes to push TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set that is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH. If you add more to it, for example the following verse or chapter, it it suddenly becomes "out of context."

OR

4. "There was probably just a copying/writing error by the writers or poets" NO KIDDING???!!! This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. Sure sounds like the interpreter believes him/her self to have mind-reading skills here. [BUT, ISN'T IT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THE BIBLE IS IN ERROR???]

OR

5. "It's an example of one of God's miracles." Naturally. NOW, why didn't I think of that???!!! That is why it is stated as fact. The infallible Word of God is a series of contradictions that are miracles instead.

1 | 2 | 3

I was born when I was yet quite young, and was second-born in a litter of two. My twin sister and I are not now, nor have we ever been, identical as evidenced by our differing balding patterns: she has very little facial hair. If you look us (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.