Monday, August 08, 2005
The King James Bible: Infallible?
11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
13 and the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
14 and every raven after his kind,
15 and the owl, and the nighthawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,
16 the little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
17 and the pelican, and the gier-eagle, and the cormorant,
18 and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
The following observations are directed solely to those who contend that the King James bible is the infallible literal word of God. I suppose the foremost of these would be the esteemed Rev. Jerry Falwell, but include many many more. These true believers would have their views taught in science class across the nation and the current debate raging over evolution v.s. intelligent design is the newest permutation in their war on science. If on the other hand you agree that the King James bible is NOT the infallible word of God the following observations are not directed at you.
The above passage is word for word from the King James bible. It has not been edited or somehow twisted out of context. This clearly is a case where the bible places bats in the class of birds. Of course, the bible being infallible, we must now teach our children that bats are not mammals and the scientists who claim they are have misled us for many many years. It really is quite simple. Infallible = bats are birds.
Is there one among us who would claim that even the most dogmatic would accept this premise? Of course not. Then we must ask, where else does the infallibility of the bible take a hit? I mean at one point the church persecuted Gallileo for controverting the word of Jesus when he exorted the disciples to spread his word to the corners of the earth. Gallileo had the temerity to actually say the Earth did not have corners but was rather a globe! Jesus certainly would have been more scientifically correct to rather command that his word be carried around the globe. But the people of his time would not have understood this concept so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in using a figure of speech that meant something to those he was directing in this case. Too bad for Gallileo that the right wing of his time were so zealous in their pursuit of those who went against the grain and saw the true state of affairs.
I understand that if your reading this you probably know me and you understand a bit of my thinking in this whole regards. On the offchance that some stranger hits on this, my very 1st post on my very 1st blog in a veritable sea of bloggage, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I am not a godless liberal satan worshiping pagan. I am a liberal Christian, raised by an Assemblies of God preacher and somewhat aware of biblical teachings. I actually do believe in intelligent design. I just understand there is no scientific basis for said belief and therefore do not wish to see that belief taught in my local schools science class. I think the biblical account of creation fits very nicely with evolution if the reader doesn't take things literally. I dont believe the Earth is aproximately 10,000 years old. I do believe that the 1st things to come into existance were the heavens and the earth then the firmament and the waters followed by simple life and gradually culminating with mans appearance. I just dont think this took 7 days. So lets let science be science and dogma be dogma. I feel comfortable in teaching my beliefs to my child, letting our schools teach her the science and hoping she is has a good basis for understanding the state of things from these two sources.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]