How Evangelical Christians move the goalposts.

Some Christians, including most Evangelicals, move the goalposts in regards to what they claim the Bible says about, well, anything really, when evidence is presented that refutes one of their tenets they hold fast to^[1]. That is, at least, if they actually believe the evidence –  many people simply ignore it because they don’t like it. A common human failing, in fact.

It’s not that they don’t believe something; it’s more that they say ‘Well, that’s not what we meant!’ or ‘We’ve never believed that!’, rather than just admitting they were wrong. Again, a common human failing.

A great example is this.

Many Christian preachers used to say (and indeed some still do) that ‘Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven’.

When people found that a simple concordance search reveals this to be a lie^[2], they changed their tune, and claimed that ‘Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did about any other subject’.

When this too was shown to be false^[3] – and also incompatible with the previous assertion since if He spoke more about Hell than any other subject, then that would include Heaven, and we have already shown that to be false – they changed it yet again, to ‘Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible’.

That too is almost right, except that in the passages where they think of Jesus as speaking about Hell, He wasn’t speaking of Hell in the way we understand it today. In the one instance where it was actually there, it was being used as an illustration – the Rich Man and Lazarus story – and even that does not fit with modern Evangelical doctrine on just about any level.

But the point is that they change their tune. They move the goalposts. And the really irritating thing about all this is that those who listened to, believed and proclaimed the earlier claims have now completely forgotten about them. They went on to the next claim without a second’s thought. And so on down the line. For more on the ‘Jesus spoke more about Heaven than He did about Hell’ thing, check out my earlier blog post here.

Another funny one is where they say the Bible is inerrant, infallible, perfect and yada yada yada^[4]. Then, when they are challenged about the many different translations and how they say different things in some places^[5], they’ll say that the Bible is perfect in its original manuscripts.

Which means that:

1) Since no surviving original manuscripts have yet been discovered, we have no way of knowing what was actually in them; and

2) Since any translation of the Bible is neither the original manuscript, nor of course translated directly from an original manuscript (because none exist), then it follows that no Bible – modern or older – is completely perfect, inspired, infallible or any of the rest of it; therefore

3) The authority of the Bible cannot be held to be complete in its absolute sense, because such a concept is based on a premise that does not exist (there are no original manuscripts) and also because by them claiming that only the original manuscripts are perfect, then it follows that other manuscripts are not perfect;

4) Many believers also don’t know that in the passage in 2Pet3:16, Peter refers to St. Paul’s writings as ‘scriptures’, even though they hadn’t been widely published yet, and were certainly not part of any recognised canon. The Greek word translated as ‘Scriptures’ in that verse is the word γραφας (graphas) or ‘writings’, as it is in 2Tim3:16, and the word ‘writings’ is translated usually as ‘Scriptures’ – which is an inferred translation influenced by the translator’s personal leanings. So in that way, we can surmise that even back in Peter’s time, the ‘writings’ were seen as inspired and sacred, but not necessarily Scripture as such. The only Scriptures they really had back then were the Hebrew Scriptures, roughly what we would nowadays call the Old Testament;

5) Another logical flaw in this is one that I have stated in other places, which is that if it takes someone to tell us that the Bible is the absolute authority, then this is self-contradictory because we are relying on the authority of the person/organisation telling us that the Bible is the ultimate authority. In this way, their vouching for the Bible simply means that they themselves become the higher authority. Ultimate, supreme authority does not need anyone to vouch for it; we should not have to be told^[6]

6) Saying that the Bible is perfect and holds ultimate, supreme and absolute authority means that it is placed above God, Who alone is really the One with supreme, sovereign power and authority. This is in direct violation of the first of the Ten Commandments: You will have no other Gods before Me (Ex 20:3 and Deut 5:6), because the Bible is placed before God in order of authority.

So, in those ways, the Bible is not perfect. And it’s the reason why a) Jesus Himself contradicted Scripture (e.g. Mt 5:43) and b) Jesus sent the Holy Spirit in order to lead us into all truth (Jn 16:13). Only when He explains a given Scripture passage does it become ‘infallible’, which is fine because then it’s God Who is doing the teaching, yes using the Bible as a ‘tool’ or ‘channel’ for that teaching, but it’s Him Who does it.

Anyway I just thought I’d point out that ‘moving the goalposts’; thing.

Can’t let them get away with it, even if only because it needs to be reiterated that it’s about time Christians started using their brains!

Grace and Peace to you all!