I’ve been reading about the King James Version of the Bible.
And I am again amazed by the odd and uneven assumptions brought to the Bible.
Try this quotation:
the Pentecostal miracles when the Apostles were said to have been given the gift of many tongues. The English speakers were given the gift of this charismatic, self-contradictory, resonant, historical work.
In two sentences we read self-elevation and assumed suspicion of the biblical accounts.
The story of Pentecost is a said to have been type of event. That is, claimed by some, but 100% suspect.
On the other hand, the reader of the Bible is free to issue a judgement – not even a mere accusation – that the Bible is, of course, contradictory. Not ‘said to be’, nor ‘possibly, accused to be, thought to be’. It’s a simple fact that the modern reader knows. The corresponding fact is that all other readers – who might disagree – are wrong or uneducated or out-of-date.
The acceptable assumptions when approaching the Bible
- The Bible is fundamentally flawed. Treat with suspicion
- The modern reader is fundamentally trustworthy. Work on the assumption that what you think is true
I write this simply to identify the situation. I don’t want to ‘defend’ the Bible. I’d rather say, ‘Read it.’ The usefulness of identifying this approach is more for me, and other Christians, to be aware enough not to share the uneven application of doubt.