Evidence for the Bible is everywhere, including outer space. We just have to be willing to look for it in a credible manner that brings glory to God. He does not lie, and the presence of water in Space shows us that God does not lie about biblical events. We know God did it because he told us he did it, and the evidence comes to shore up Christian faith when the time is right. As Christians, we do not need physical evidence. We just need to believe God because he does not lie.
And this is why having a discussion or debate with an Evangelical Christian is usually a waste of time. Discuss and debate if you must, but you won’t win. Why? When shown their beliefs and practices are false, what do Evangelicals do? Do they admit they are wrong? Do they admit you are right? Do they deconvert? Do they admit to having serious questions and doubts about their faith? Of course not, silly boy. When cornered, Evangelicals run to the safety of the house of faith and the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible. Within the house of faith, all is ordered and well, and the Bible is true. Everything is right in this house. Of course, toking marijuana gives the same result — in my professional opinion. 🙂 It is only when Evangelicals venture outside the house of faith that change is possible. For it is in the world that they will find their beliefs and practices questioned, challenged, and overcome. Over the years, many devout Evangelicals and IFB Christians have stumbled upon this site, only to crawl away beaten and bruised, with more questions than answers.
Is my goal to evangelize for atheism? Nope. I don’t do it — ever. I am just one man with a story to tell. If my writing troubles someone or causes them to question or doubt, that’s on them. If they contact me, I will help them any way I can. I’m content to answer sincere questions and suggest books for people to read. Whatever they do with what they learn is up to them. Do some of them deconvert or move on to what I call “kinder, gentler Christianity?” You bet, and I am glad they did. Some sects of Christianity are more harmful than others. Evangelicalism, the IFB church movement, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Catholicism come to mind. These sects might be “right” about religion, but they sure cause a lot of harm, both physically and psychologically.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
According to Evangelicals, the Bible is the most important book ever written. The Bible, unlike all other books ever written, is a supernatural book written by a supernatural God through human instrumentation. Every word is true, without error or contradiction. The Bible is God’s blueprint for our lives, a roadmap that leads to life eternal. You would think, then, that Evangelicals would read and study the Bible every day, increasing in knowledge and understanding.
Think about it. If there was one book out of the 150,000,000 million or so ever written that told you everything you needed to know about this life and the life to come, you would likely read and study it every day. Nothing would be more important than what God said, right? Why, then, do most Christians rarely, if ever, read the Bible? Evangelicals talk a good line about God, Jesus, and salvation, yet most of them have never read the Bible through once. Most Evangelicals rely solely on what their pastors say from the pulpit or what they read in an apologetics book to define their beliefs.
As a committed follower of Jesus, I read and studied the Bible every day. I read both the Old and New Testaments through from the table of contents to the index many times. I thought it important for a born-again Christian to read, study, and understand the Bible. Yet, most of the Christians I knew, including some pastors, weren’t diligent Bible readers. They knew they ought to, but life got in the way.
I finally concluded that most believers sincerely wanted to read and study the Bible as their pastors did, but they simply didn’t have the time and energy to do so. Long hours of work and domestic obligations severely limited the time they had to devote to the “Word.” I was paid to pray and read the Bible, so, of course, I could leisurely devote myself to reading the Bible. The people I pastored didn’t have the freedom I did. They had to make time in their limited schedules to read the Bible. Sometimes, “life” got in the way of doing so. I know that my partner, Polly, had six children to raise and educate, and a busy husband to care for. When did she have time to read and study the Bible? She tried, but failed, and felt guilty for years over his lack of Bible reading. Years ago, I apologized to her for the blame and guilt I laid at her feet. Polly loves to read, but back in the day, she didn’t have the time to do so, and, quite frankly, she didn’t find the Good Book all that interesting — as I am sure many of you can attest.
That said, we show what we value by what we do. Based on their behavior, it is clear that most Evangelicals really don’t value the teachings of the Bible. They are content to live their lives according to the beliefs and pronouncements of parents, preachers, and teachers. They have what I call “borrowed beliefs/theology.” Rare is the Christian who devotes himself to reading, studying, and understanding the sixty-six books of the Christian Bible.
Are you are former Evangelical? What were your Bible reading habits? Did you read the Bible every day? Every week? Sporadically, if ever? Did you read the Bible from cover to cover at least once? Did you feel guilty when you didn’t read the Bible? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Most Evangelicals claim to be “people of the book.” The first church I worked for in the late 70s had an advertising sign located at a member’s home on Route 15 that said, “The Blood, the Book, and the Blessed Hope.” Park in front of a local Catholic church or a mainline congregation and observe how few members carry their Bibles to church. Do the same at a local Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) and you will see that MOST members, including children, bring their (KJV) Bibles to church. Granted, after church, many of those Bibles will be returned to the front dash, back window, or underneath the seats of their automobiles. Some members “store” their Bibles in their car trunks — safe and secure, ready for the next Sunday.
What most members DON’T do is regularly read/study the Bible. In fact, most Evangelicals haven’t read the Bible through once, yet they are “people of the Book?” Sure, buddy, sure. Imagine if I said I was a follower and worshipper of Harry Potter, the greatest wizard of all time, yet when asked if I had read all seven books in the Harry Potter series, I reply, “I only read book one and book four.” How could I be a follower and worshipper of Harry Potter and not read all seven books? Yet, hundreds of millions of people claim to be Christians without ever reading the Bible from cover to cover. If the Bible is THE book above all other books, and different from them in every possible way as the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, why do most Christians rarely read the Bible, and fewer still read from table of contents through concordance? The Bible commands Christians to judge others by their fruit (good works). Based on countless surveys and studies, Evangelicals may claim to be “people of the Book, but they are largely ignorant of what it says. And that includes more than a few preachers who do little, if any, Bible reading/study outside of preparation for their sermons. Worse, some preachers don’t read or study the Bible for their sermons either. Instead, they buy books of sermons or rip off sermons preached by big-name preachers. There’s no time for the Word of God when you have golf matches to play, hunting trips to take, and conferences and meetings to attend.
As a former Evangelical preacher, I worked my ass off ministering to church members and community residents. But, I never sacrificed my reading and study of the Bible, typically spending twenty hours a week preparing my sermons and reading devotionally. I was always troubled by colleagues in the ministry who were lazy, indifferent to the needs of others, and spent more time on entertainment and “family time” than they did on the actual, God-ordained work of the ministry.
Here’s the most dangerous thing Evangelicals can do: READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER. Take every book of the Bible as written. The Bible is not a univocal text. Careful readers of the Bible will quickly learn that it contradicts itself, justifies immoral behavior, and is littered with mistakes and errors. BY all means, consult interlinears, concordances, and other text tools, but avoid books written by Evangelical authors. Their goal is to indoctrinate and condition, rather than impart knowledge and understanding.
If Evangelicals truly become “people of the book,” it is likely they will stop being Evangelicals after reading and studying ALL OF THE BIBLE. Many of the Evangelicals-turned-atheists I know deconverted after reading the Bible. I encourage every Evangelical to read the Bible. Every book, every chapter, every verse, and every word. Don’t listen to your pastor. Remember, he has a job and salary to protect. Don’t rely on Evangelical apologists or devotional books. Use your mind, pondering what the text actually says. You will find that many Evangelical preachers play loose with the Biblical text, using it as proof for peculiar beliefs and dogmas. Have you ever heard your pastor claim that there are numerous prophecies about Jesus (the Messiah)? Most church members give a shout-out to Jesus without ever investigating whether their pastor’s claims are true. They aren’t.
To my Evangelical readers, I say, please read the Bible. All of it. I guarantee you that if you will do this, your life will dramatically change. Granted, you may become an agnostic or an atheist, but you will, at the very least, have truth on your side. You will no longer govern your lives based on what is uttered from the pulpit. You will no longer have a “borrowed” theology. Most preachers enter the ministry with a borrowed theology, and unless they do the necessary hard work in the study, they will never mature intellectually. And if they won’t do what’s necessary to be an educated man of God, their parishioners will remain stupid and ignorant too.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
According to Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s supernatural Word. Written by men divinely inspired by God, the Bible is a perfect book, free of mistakes, errors, and contradictions. Of course, this is nonsense. A cursory reading of the Bible reveals all sorts of errors. Sure, Evangelicals cook up plenty of explanations for these errors, but some of their explanations leave a lot to be desired, bordering on farcical.
God could have imparted his Word to humankind by writing it himself. A perfect God would write a perfect book, yes? So why in the Hell did God choose to impart his Word in such a way that has resulted in thousands of years of argument, debate, and fighting? Why choose fallible, frail, contradictory men to write the Bible instead of doing it yourself? There are thousands of Christian sects, each believing that their interpretation of the Bible is true and all other interpretations are false.
Imagine how much better it would be if God wrote the Bible himself. Not that he inspired the writers, but that he wrote every word, including punctuation and versification. If God had done this, any misunderstanding would be ours. As things now stand, Christians can’t even agree on basic beliefs such as salvation, baptism, and communion. The Bible says, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” but history reveals many lords, many faiths, many baptisms.
God could publish an updated version of the Bible, one that does away with the passages that make him look bad. No incest, no genocide, no slavery, no rape. Rewrite the Bible, put it on Amazon, and sell millions of copies. This sure would clear up a lot of problems. Instead, we are left with an ancient religious text that has little relevance today.
Come on, God, get your act together. It’s time for you to update the greatest book never read.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Most Evangelicals believe the following about the Bible:
The Bible is inspired (breathed out) by God
The Bible is inerrant (without error)
The Bible is infallible (true in all it says, free of mistakes)
Two words describe how most Evangelicals read the Bible, that is, if they read the Bible at all. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many Evangelicals rarely, if ever, read the Bible. And if Evangelicals do read the Bible, they do so selectively, often reading only the New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs.
Univocality (Univocality refers to the state of having only one meaning or voice, being unambiguous and straightforward. It contrasts with ambiguity or equivocality, where a word or statement can be interpreted in multiple ways. In essence, univocality implies a clear and single meaning. Google AI definition)
Literally (Reading the Bible “literally” means understanding its words in their most straightforward, ordinary sense, as they would be understood in everyday language, while also acknowledging the use of figurative language like similes, metaphors, and other literary devices. It’s about discerning the intended meaning of the text without imposing personal interpretations or allegorical readings that are not supported by the text. Google AI definition)
These words give definition to evangelical cliches such as: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me.”
The problem, of course, is that the Bible is NOT inerrant and infallible. Whether Evangelicals appeal to inerrant translations or manuscripts, it matters not; neither claim is true and can be easily rebutted. All one has to do is show one error, mistake, or contradiction for inerrancy to come falling down. The same goes for infallibility.
Bible inerrancy and infallibility are irrational claims that can be easily dispensed with by giving the Scriptures an honest reading. The errors, contradictions, and mistakes are easy to see IF you are not committed to inerrancy, infallibility, and univocality. Scores of sites on the Internet, including this one, list numerous mistakes, errors, and contradictions. Granted, Evangelicals have all sorts of novel, fancy, and, at times, irrational explanations for these problem texts. Their presuppositions demand they find some way to defend inerrancy, so Evangelicals go to extraordinary lengths to protect the Bible’s honor. Most often, all they do is either make fools out of themselves or show that they really do not understand the Biblical text. And this is to be expected. Many Evangelicals have a borrowed theology — that of their pastor. He’s the man of God, and they trust that he will tell them the truth. Unfortunately, many Evangelical preachers don’t tell the truth, either out of ignorance, or fear that if they tell their congregants the truth, the pews and offering plates will be empty and they will have to get a job at Home Depot.
When Evangelicals are confronted with errors, contradictions, and mistakes that they can’t explain away, what do they do? Admit defeat? Admit the Bible is not inerrant? Not a chance. Often, Evangelicals will make appeals to the Greek and Hebrew languages underlying various Bible translations. Oh, they can’t read Greek or Hebrew, but they own a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and an 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, and, in their minds, they have all they need to defend the inerrancy of the Bible and defeat “liberal” scholars who have spent their lives studying the Biblical text. I have watched countless atheist talk shows featuring Evangelical callers who think they know more about the Bible than the leading scholars of the day. When these defenders of the Bible meet their demise in the arena of debate, what do they do? Admit they were wrong? Not a chance. When backed into the proverbial corner, Evangelicals will always appeal to faith. Once they do this, no further discussion is possible. Faith is what people appeal to when they have no evidence for their claims.
Unless an Evangelical admits the obvious — the Bible is not inerrant, infallible, or univocal — it is unlikely that they can be convinced of the irrationality of their claims. Those of us who are former Evangelicals know that it wasn’t until the Bible lost its magical hold on us that we were able to see the text as it is: an ancient text written by fallible, frail men. God did not write one word of the Bible. From the table of contents to the index, the Bible is a manmade text, and Evangelicals cannot provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
Evangelicals are free to believe what they want about the Bible, but if they want to convince the unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines of the world that the Bible is the very words of God, evidence — not Bibe prooftexts — is required.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
Most Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. The Bible is a supernatural book written by a supernatural God; without error and incapable of being wrong. While Evangelicals have a variety of ways to explain these beliefs, to the person they believe the Bible is the very words of God. God used human instrumentality to write the sixty-six books of the Bible, but the words are exactly what he wanted written down. According to Evangelicals, the Bible is different from other books. It is the book above all books, in that its supernatural author, God, revealed to humankind everything pertaining to life and godliness. The Bible covers everything from the creation of the universe and the first humans, Adam and Eve, to the history of the Jewish people. We learn from the Bible that humans are sinners needing redemption, and 2,000 years ago, God took on human flesh in the personage of Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life, and then provided himself as a blood sacrifice for sin. Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days later, victorious over death and the grave. Jesus ascended to Heaven forty days later and hasn’t been seen since. According to Evangelical theology, Jesus promised that after he ascended to Heaven he would send his followers the comforter, the Holy Spirit — the third person in the triune Godhead. The Holy Spirit lives inside every believer, teaching, guiding, and directing them, convicting Christians of sin, and revealing exactly what the Bible says and means.
Most Evangelicals are woefully ignorant about how the Bible came into being, who its human authors were, and how it came to have sixty-six books. The Bible is littered with mistakes, contradictions, and errors, yet Evangelicals believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Cognitive dissonance keeps Evangelicals from knowing and understanding the history and nature of the Bible they believe is the very words of God. Take Revelation 22:18-19. Many Evangelicals believe these verses teach that it is a mortal sin to add to or take away words from the Bible. Little do they know, that in its 4,000-year history, numerous verses and words have been added to and taken away from the Bible. There’s no such thing as a singular inerrant, infallible Bible. Yet, Evangelical preachers will preach sermons from Revelation 22:18-19, warning congregants of the penalty for tampering with the Word of God.
When the words of Revelation 22:18-19 were written, there wasn’t a Bible per se. The New Testament would not be collated for another 200-300 years, and the book of Revelation was not considered canonical by some early church fathers. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther said that the book of Revelation was “neither apostolic nor prophetic.”
A clear reading of Revelation 22:18-19 shows that the text is not talking about the Bible as a whole. How could it since the Bible as we know it today didn’t exist when Revelation was written? At best, the “words of the prophecy of this book” refer to Revelation as a whole or prophetic parts of the book. The judgments warned of in this passage of Scripture refer to adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation.
Revelation is one of the most interpreted and explained books in the Bible. You would think if God wrote the book of Revelation, Evangelicals would be of one mind on what it says, but that’s not the case. Pretribulational. Midtribulational. Posttribulational. Prewrath. Preterism. Premillennial. Postmillennial. Amillennial. The events recorded in Revelation are prophetic and have not yet happened. The events recorded in Revelation are not prophetic and have already happened. Added to these broad theological positions are countless interpretations of what the various events in Revelation mean and who the entities mentioned are. In other words, virtually every Evangelical preacher adds to or takes away from the book of Revelation. And those who do this will face God’s judgment and end up in the Lake of Fire. Or so says the Bible, anyway.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.Psalm 12:6,7
Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. Every word is true, without error or contradiction. This position cannot be rationally sustained. Educated Evangelicals know about translation errors and contradictions, yet still maintain the Bible is somehow, some way, without error. How do Evangelicals, knowing that the evidence is stacked against them, continue to say that the Bible — be it at the manuscript or translation level — is inerrant?
Evangelicals invented out of whole cloth a new doctrine to cover their asses — the preservation of Scripture. The preservation of scripture doctrine asserts that God has preserved the Bible throughout human history so that the Bibles we have today are God’s very words; God superintended this process in such a way that error did not enter the text through the translation and copying process.
I spent fifty years in Evangelical Christianity. I heard countless preachers preach-up and defend the preservation of Scripture. What these preachers said sounded right, but none provided evidence for their claim. Instead, we were told that God is perfect — how could his Word be otherwise? If this doctrine is true, then Evangelical preachers should be able to produce evidence for this untainted line of Scripture — all sixty-six books. When asked for this evidence — crickets. And yes, I am aware some proponents of King James-onlyism have detailed charts they use to prove the preservation of Scripture (and to a lesser degree the purity of the Baptist church).
Remember, the goal is to protect the Bible from critical examination. Doubt is poison to Evangelical preachers, so they go to great lengths to inoculate congregants from anything that would cause them to question the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. One way to do that is to tell church members that God has preserved his very words, and they can trust that the Bible is authoritative, accurate, and true. Of course, any rudimentary understanding of the history of the Biblical text and the underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts shows that inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation cannot be rationally sustained. Inspiration is a faith claim beyond rational inquiry, but inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation can be critically examined. And when they are, the presuppositions underlying them fail.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Several readers have asked me to explain the belief that the King James version of the Bible alone is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God for English-speaking people. With this post, I hope to shed some light on what is commonly called King James-Onlyism; the belief that the only true Bible for English-speaking people is the King James version. While this system of belief is absurd and irrational, millions of Americans believe that the King James Bible is the one true Word of God. These same people, by the way, tend to be anti-evolution, young earth creationists. I grew up in King James-only churches, attended a King James-only Bible college, and believed, for many years, that the King James Bible was the perfect Word of God.
Engage in discussion with adherents of King James-Onlyism and you will hear all sorts of theological-sounding verbiage. Some preachers will tell you that the Bible that they use is the 1611 King James version, when in fact the version they actually use is most likely the 1769 revision. There are numerous differences between the 1611 and 1769 editions. These alone destroy the notion that the King James Bible is inerrant. All that it takes to defeat King James-Onlyism is one error, mistake, or contradiction. Inerrancy demands perfection, and that perfection does not exist. Bruce, what about the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? These original manuscripts don’t exist either, so there is no such thing as “inerrant in the originals.” That’s a faith claim, one that has zero evidence to back it up. Despite this fact, promoters of King James-Onlyism say that there is a pure line of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which the King James Bible was translated. You might hear preachers say that the underlying Greek text for the New Testament is the Textus Receptus (Received Text) or the Majority Text. All sorts of arguments are made for one manuscript family being inerrant and all others being errant, false, and Satanic. Again, remember that it only takes one error, mistake, or contradiction for the doctrine of inerrancy to collapse. This is why I promote Bart Ehrman’s books as I do. I know if Evangelicals will honestly and openly read his books, they will be disabused of the notion that the Bible is inerrant, be it at the manuscript or translation level.
Imagine translating a book from French to English and, when doing the translating work, you only use some extant French manuscripts for determining the meaning of certain words or terms. Wouldn’t a competent translator want to use all the manuscripts and texts at his disposal? Why would he ever want to limit his translating work to only a few manuscripts? So it is with the King James Bible. Translators ignored numerous manuscripts, choosing instead to use previous English and Latin translations and certain Greek New Testaments as the foundation of their translation work. According to Wikipedia:
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them. In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions, the Rheimish New Testament which in their preface they criticized); they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573. In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.
The translators took the Bishop’s Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop’s Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois’s [sic] notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and patristic sources; including explicitly both Henry Savile’s 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament, which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.
King James-Onlyism is, at best, magic and trickery. For example, one argument that King James-only believers make is that because the King James Bible has more words than other translations, this means modern translators are guilty of “taking away from the word of God.” After all, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18,19:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Countless other similar arguments are made to defend the inerrancy of the King James Bible. Some Evangelicals take King James-Onlyism one step further when they say the italicized helper words added to the King James Bible by translators are inspired and inerrant too. People who believe this are often followers of the late Peter Ruckman. Ruckmanites, as they are often called, believe that the italicized words are some sort of advanced revelation from God; God moved the King James Bible translators to put the exact helper words he wanted in the text. Amazing, right?
King James-Onlyism is widespread among Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) Christians. It is not uncommon to read church doctrinal statements that state unambiguously that the King James Bible is the only Bible translation allowed in the pulpit and the various church ministries. All other translations are considered errant and, in many cases, Satanic.
Readers may note that I use the King James version when quoting the Bible. I do this for several reasons. First, I love the poetic flow of the King James Bible. Second, my head is filled with memorized verses from the King James Bible. I spent much of my Christian life immersed in the pages of the King James Bible. Third, I use the King James Bible in my writing because many visitors to this blog come from King James-only sects, churches, and colleges. You know, when in Rome …
Were you raised in a King James-Only church? Please share your experiences in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
ObstacleChick asked, “What did you learn about the Bible as a college student?” Specifically, ObstacleChick wants to know what I was taught about the origin of the Bible, the existence of “other” texts, and why the Apocrypha was excluded from the Protestant Bible. ObstacleChick also asked what I taught congregants about these things.
Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. The college I attended, Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, believed the Bible was a divinely written, supernatural, one-of-a-kind book; a text by which all things were to be measured. My professors took one of two approaches to how the Bible came to be:
God dictated the exact words of the Bible to its authors.
God used fallible humans, with their cultures and experiences, to write the Bible, and supernaturally, through the Holy Spirit, made sure that what they wrote was exactly what he intended for them to write. (2 Peter 1:21)
Of course, appeals were made to the Bible itself to “prove” that the Bible was indeed what my professors claimed it was. In other words, the Bible was a supernatural book because it said it was; the Bible was inerrant because it said it was. There were no errors, mistakes, or contradictions in the Bible because its author, God, is incapable of making mistakes. This, of course, is classic circular reasoning.
These presuppositions were laws students were expected to obey without question. Questioning the nature of the Bible brought swift, certain expulsion. Midwestern was also King James-only, and only used certain Greek texts in its Greek classes. The premise upon which every class was taught was the belief that the Bible was inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
I can’t remember a time when one of my professors talked about non-canonical texts or variants. Many of my classes were little more than glorified Sunday school classes, a common problem found in Evangelical colleges to this day. The goal was to teach ministers-in-training how to properly preach and teach the Bible. The Bible, then, was viewed as a book of divine knowledge, an instruction manual for life.
The IFB church movement is inherently and proudly anti-Catholic. To many IFB preachers, the Catholic church is the great whore of Babylon described in Revelation 17; a false religion that will one day be used by the Antichrist to control the masses. Thus, the Apocrypha was rejected because of its inclusion in the Catholic Bible. It was not until much later that I learned the 1611 version of the King James Bible included the Apocrypha, and that many of the men who put together what is now the Bible were Catholics. Facts that didn’t fit the approved narrative were ignored or banned.
Most of the students at Midwestern came from Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches which had similar beliefs as those of the college. Thus, college classes reinforced beliefs students brought with them from home. The New International Version (NIV) came out in 1978, and students were not allowed to have a copy of it in their possession. Midwestern was a King James school — no corrupt, Satanic Bibles allowed. I remember having a discussion with the Greek professor’s son who was home on break from Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri. He had a brand spanking new copy of the NIV. I remember thinking of how “liberal” he was, and that if word got out about his use of the NIV it could cost his father his job. By the next academic year, the Greek professor was gone. Rumor had it he was dismissed because he refused to toe the party line on the King James Bible. (Keep in mind the Greek professor was Fundamentalist in every other way — and still is today — but his refusal to use only the King James Version of the Bible branded him as a heretic.)
I carried the aforementioned beliefs from Midwestern into the ministry, and I wouldn’t question them for many years. I expected congregants to embrace without question the belief that the Bible was a God-inspired, inerrant, infallible text. At the churches I pastored, we were people of the BOOK! Questions and doubts were viewed as tools used by Satan to lead Christians astray and to render churches powerless. Alleged contradictions were “explained” and those that couldn’t be were relegated to the land of Trust God. He never makes mistakes.
It wasn’t until the late 1990s that I came to see that what I had been taught about the history and nature of the Bible was a lie; that all translations had errors, mistakes, and contradictions; that there were no such things as inerrant manuscripts. My exposure to higher textual criticism forced me to conclude that the Bible was very much a man-made book; a fallible book used by God to convey truth. I believed then that God could use human means to convey his truth, even if the Bible itself was fallible.
As far as the churches I pastored were concerned, I never said anything from the pulpit that would cause people to doubt that the Bible was the Word of God. Toward the end of my time in the ministry, I would mention variants in the Greek texts and why some Biblical texts might not say what we Christians have traditionally thought they said. No one seemed to have a problem with these admissions. As is often the case in Evangelical churches, congregants trusted me. They believed that whatever I told them from the pulpit was the Truth. Of course, the truth I was preaching was shaped and molded by my presuppositions about the Bible. Telling congregants the REAL truth would have resulted in conflict and loss of faith. Can’t have that! Remember, most people attend church so they can feel affirmed and have their felt needs met. No one wants a pastor who casts doubt on the Bible and its teachings. Congregants want cheerleaders, not truth-tellers.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
All young-earth creationists are literalists, that is except when they aren’t. Let me illustrate this for you.
Six times in Genesis 1 the Bible says the evening and morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day. Young-earth creationists are emphatic that these days were literal 24-hour days.
In Genesis 2:1, the Bible states that on the seventh day God ended his creative work. According to other verses in the Bible, God rested on the seventh day. So God only rested one literal 24-hour day? I don’t know of any young-earth creationist who believes this.
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it, And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Did Adam eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Did Eve? Of course they did. Did they die on the very day they ate the proverbial apple? Nope. According to Genesis 5:5:
. . . and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Do you see the point I am making? Young earth creationists are literalists until it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, then all of a sudden Adam dying on the day he sinned is meant to be taken metaphorically, or the word “day” really means a period of time.
I will repeat what I have said countless times: no one, not even Ken Ham, takes every verse in the Bible literally. Whenever it suits them, or whenever it will bolster their arguments, Evangelicals are quite willing to abandon literalism.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
