I can see your point, Kate, but my argument is with
literary contradictions. Regardless of what the
interpretation is, the bottom line is that the bible doesn't say father-in-law, it says father.
One of my theses was entitled Compounded Extrapolation of Biblical Translation. The most likely cause for the bible saying "father" is the fact that in Greek there is no real word for "father-in-law." The translation in the first Latin texts weren't derived directly from the Hebrew, they were pulled from a conglomeration of the Greek and Hebrew. Over the centuries, the literacy level of most Catholic Monks and scholars was sustantial but inconsistent. It would have been easily overlooked, discussed in a committee, decided, or forgotten altogether.
The basic premise of my thesis was that examples like this lineage conundrum pose a potentially crippling problem with biblical contradictions. Since there is no word for "father-in-law" in Greek, how does one translate it even if they know he was the father-in-law? Do you translate word to word, or do you change it to reflect the current social terminology? Some get changed, others remain literal. Compounding the centuries of translation along with literacy and policy inconsistencies, potential for human agenda, and considering there are sometimes no words for direct translation, the possibility exists that the current texts are less accurate than we think. My basic point in the writing was that even if the original texts were god-breathed, as soon as you alter one fleck of it, it no longer retains the validity of the original.
Then you're left with thousands of generations unable to decipher the Hebrew texts, a book with hundreds of literal contradictions and a few hundred denominations, sects, and cults all interpreting the texts in their own way and the sanctity of the scripture becomes either A) open to interpretation by any society, culture, or individual, OR B) left to the indifferent masses of luke-warm sheep who will follow whatever the guy in the pulpit says they should believe. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone here IS one of those, but the bottom line (in my opinion) is that the literal contradictions of the bible create a void into which anyone can dump their judgement and claim godly authority.
Further evidence to this fact is how societies over the years have vastly altered the christian religion's target based on the "hot buttons" of the day; e.g. The Crusades, Witch Burning, Protestant Reformation, homosexual issues, war, etc. Right now one of the big christian issues is homosexuality; a phenomenon that has been occuring since the beginning of known recorded history, but with
society's apparent homosexual enlightenment of recent, the church has begun to focus on it. Certainly not with the fervor of the Crusades, but with notable emphasis. The homosexually-tolerant denominations quote biblical passages which support their views, and the non-tolerant denoms do the same. Their references may be literally contradictory, so the argument comes under the perview of interpretation.
Take you (Kate) and me for example; two people who have obviously studied the bible heavily and come to vastly different conclusions; each one claiming that their relationship with god is the "right" one.
Long story longer: This particular thesis (although well-supported and researched) was poorly received by my doctoral peers. That is a euphemism for, "lost my scholarship and asked to leave the seminary."
In my opinion it was the best thing that ever happened to me. That is when I did the bulk of my overseas study, and was rewarded with the experience of seeing just how wildly different foreign christians are and how their interpretations and hot buttons are nothing like American/Canadian christians. It was as if my Prefects told me that my thesis was blasphemy and I should go out into the world and see just how steadfast, unified, and perfect the christian church is, and all it did was prove my point. I spent my days travelling from cathedrals to churches to libraries examining sermons throughout history. As a gift, I sent the president of the seminary a copy of a book called "The New Dehli Report," which was a transcript of the 3rd assembly of the world council of churches. I told him I picked it up at the Vatican Gift Shop. He was at least amused by the gesture. If you get a chance you should read it, although its been out of print for years. Pretty interesting to see how religions viewed things throughout history.
Sorry... I ramble. Jeez, my sermons weren't this long.
