The 'Battle for the Bible'

Roger Olson on “When did evangelicalism start to go wrong (right)?

The Battle for the Bible launched an evangelical heresy-hunt that reached epic proportions within just a few years.  …  One by one, evangelical and Baptist denominations and institutions imposed inerrancy statements on their employees and faculties.  Fuller is one evangelical seminary that did not give in to the pressure, although Fuller faculty members had to publish numerous defenses of their belief in the authority of Scripture to fight off the barbarians at the gates.  (I call them that because many of inerrancy’s advocates behaved like barbarians.  They were not interested in dialogue or understanding others’ actual views; they used the word “inerrancy” like a cudgel to beat up on people.)

Peter Rollins on “How to Cut Up the Bible Without Anyone Noticing

There have been various attempts by the liberal tradition within Christianity to remove parts of the Bible that they don’t agree with (e.g. the Jefferson Bible), something that conservative Christians have vehemently attacked. However the truth is that the conservative Christians simply engage in a different, more clandestine, form of deletion. One that doesn’t require physically cutting up the text: they do the cutting internally.

  • Consumer Unit 5012
    Do you have references to some specific instances?  Because I’d kind of love to see them.

    Some of the confessed ones are users like “Bugler”, “Auld Nick”, “Richard”, “SSchultz”, and “JacobB”.

    And _possibly_ “TK”.

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

  • Evilkate

    Gotta get used to the general well-informedness of folks here. Even though I’ve been reading along for a few years, starting at the old address, it’s something else to actually get involved in the comment back-and-forth :)

    It was supposed to go along a few possible paths:

    1A) Someone argues that those writings in the name of Peter are generally agreed not to be from the ‘actual’ Peter

    1B) I point out there are similar questions about some items attributed to John.

    1C) We arrive at a point where people are generally agreed that ‘some’ of the writings attributed to various authors are actually not theirs.

    1D) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given the Bible appears to attribute various writings to authors who did not write them.

    Or

    2A) Someone points out what you have eloquently outlined in your first paragraph.

    2B) I retort with your 2nd paragraph or the basic premise thereof.

    2C) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given interpretation is complex and can vary depending on the interpretors’ knowledge and background.

    OR

    3A) Someone does the research, or asks about the Aramaic origins of the terms ‘Sin’ and ‘Evil’ alluded to in my earlier post.

    3B) We have an interesting discussion about archery, missing the mark, missing the target, and how those views conflict with several claims in the Bible, which even conflicts with itself  across points on this matter.

    3C) Ergo – claims to innerancy cannot be founded, given translations alter meanings along with cultural and social variations over time.

    and there was a 4th stream, but kinda pointless – if you don’t get the maligned magnificence of my cunning log-term plan.

    Or at least it would have been in many forums … but no – not here. Here people have to keep skipping ahead and stuff. *lol*

    Thank you all. Firstly for a lesson in humility and secondly for a space occupied by so many people that can think critically, and who don’t confuse critical thought with criticism.

    I hope I didn’t seem too condescending to anyone – apologies if I did – I’m just very used to having to lead people though the forest to get to the “Clearing of point X” before heading onward to the next clearing.

    I shall stop doing that at once as I can see that, here, it is redundant. Which is not something I’ll be complaining about! :D

    Yay *does the happy ferret dancings*

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

    Fortunately, RationalWiki keeps a record of the redactions that Conservapedia does to ensure that the lulz of their wingnuttery is preserved for posterity.  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You’ll have to look them up on RationalWiki, though, since they’ve been rather thoroughly memory-holed on Conservapedia proper. (If North Korea tried to duplicated Wikipedia, it’d look like Conservapedia – just replace “Reagan” with “Kim Il-sung”.

    Fortunately, RationalWiki keeps a record of the redactions that Conservapedia does to ensure that the lulz of their wingnuttery is preserved for posterity.  

  • Anonymous

    A brilliant plan, Evilkate. Or rather, a brilliant series of multifaceted plans. (Memo to self: do not play chess with Evilkate.)

    So, since you’ve offered, yes, please, may we have 3A? Could you explain about the Aramaic origins and development of the terms for “sin” and “evil”? (Or rather, the origins and development of the Aramaic terms for “sin” and “evil”?) I know the Greek hamartia, but, I, for one, am a little Aramaic-poor, so to speak. Which is to say, I know it is a Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew, spoken by Jesus, and, …. I’m out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddy-Ohlms/1729860863 Eddy Ohlms

    Hmm, now there’s an unsettling thought. One must wonder what bizarre alternative universe a North Korean wikipedia would present us with.

  • Evilkate

    *lol* – rather a not so brilliant plan, in the company of some many quite brilliant commentors :P

    As for the sin/evil material – on the other side of some sleep. Should have gone to beddles hours ago, but had inspirational code moment … and a long night of code later, it works. Yay for code :)

    PS: to those who understand the reference … I hate race-conditions.

    Ninis :)

  • Anonymous

    The “marry a conservative” and “invisible hand of marriage” seem like pretty transparent Poe trolling,

    They do, except they’ve been up there for years, and widely mocked, and yet, no one removes them. Which makes me wonder if, regardless of the motivation of those who wrote them, Schlafly like them.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe this explains car fishes…

    Speaking of car fishes, yesterday my sister was wearing a T-shirt from the Catholic sports camp she went to. It has the fish on it. This is the first I’m aware of the fish being a Catholic thing as well as a Protestant thing.

  • Hawker40

    The Catholic Church has always been into the fish symbol.  Peter was a fisherman, and founded the Catholic Church… go to a church, look at the stained glass windows, one of them will have the fish.
    (Putting the fish on the car, not so much.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X