Please read the Relevant Magazine Article: 5 Things I Wish Christians Would Admit about the Bible first, then read my rebuttal here:
This article seems to be refuting claims almost no one actually makes about the Bible, and in each point, he makes many sub-points that often seem to have nothing to do with the bullet, and are often wrong:
1) Of course the Bible isn’t “magic”, a term no one uses to describe rather than what he’s really refuting, which is that it is Spiritual. But then, the author immediately goes into fun facts about the Bible not being The Good Book because it’s many small books. Would he then admit that the Bible are the Good Books? He doesn’t say, just simply that it’s not Good. If he would really like to be clear, he should say what books are literal and which are figurative. Surely Jews felt Psalm 22 was figurative poetry right up until Jesus was actually crucified exactly as described. But again, I’m still not sure what he’s refuting except perhaps some people who think a Bible scares off vampires.
2) I would argue the Bible is much clearer than we’d like it to be, and that’s why most people try not to read it literally (see bullet 1). Is fornication ok? Bible’s much clearer than we’d like to it be. Is bad language ok? Bible’s much clearer than we’d like it to be. Should we love our enemies, care for the poor, give away our excess, seek spiritual gifts of healing? All of these things are clear, but we as people want to move away from them for our own comfort. And as Christians, we should understand with complete clarity that the New Testament trumps the Old Testament (the word that is most often used of the NT isn’t actually testament, but covenant, which is the terms of a contract), so for any person who says Christians believe they should stone those not observing the sabbath day, or kill homosexuals, you need to simply ask them if that old covenant carried over to the new one.
3) Using the author’s own words against him, some places in the Bible are just inspired, some places are just history (possibly not inspired at all), but other places are clearly dictated by God directly. Were Isaiah’s visions just inspired, or John’s revelation, or some of David’s Messianic Psalms? An interesting thing happens in 1 Corinthians 7: Paul switches between speaking directly on behalf of God, and using his own inspiration. We must recognize that the Bible has both inspiration, and dictation, but it dilutes God’s word not to recognize this.
4) The very purpose of the Bible is to have an objective, outside source that prevents our own interpretations from straying too far. 2 Peter 1:20-21 reads, ” τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι” which literally means this first knowing that any prophecy of scripture of its own interpretation not is. not indeed by will of man was brough prophecy at any time but by spirit holy being carried spoke from God men, or reordered for the layman, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” You see, there is a source text (and there are variations of the source text, which a good Bible annotates for the reader), and we as readers of the Bible must realize two things: it wasn’t written by a man’s private interpretation, and we ourselves cannot approach it with our own interpretation but must read it as it was written, i.e. by the Holy Spirit.
5) Again, the author seems to be titling at windmills, as what thoughtful Christian believes that the Bible is either equal to God or is greater than God. John himself ends his Gospel proclaiming “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”
As an overarching comment about this article, I feel the author is actually undermining the Bible by first making statements no one really believes to make outsiders realize how stupid Christians must be for believing in a “magic” book that is God. I think the author then gets to pat himself on the back for saying how great a deed he did in condemning those stupid Christians publicly and setting the record straight.