"The Bible Doesn't Say That"

Introduction

One of the most common charges leveled against Christians — particularly on social media — is that the Bible "doesn't actually say" what they think it says. The claim takes many forms: that modern translations have distorted the original meaning, that key theological terms have been mistranslated, that Christians are reading their own theology into texts that originally meant something entirely different, or that popular proof-texts have been ripped from context and made to serve purposes their authors never intended.

Some of these charges are legitimate. Christians do sometimes misquote the Bible, take verses out of context, or rely on translations that obscure the original meaning. But the charge is also frequently weaponized — deployed not as a corrective to sloppy reading but as a blanket dismissal of biblical authority. This lesson equips students to distinguish between genuine misreadings (which should be corrected) and rhetorical maneuvers (which should be identified and challenged).

The Translation Question

A common version of the claim asserts that key biblical concepts have been mistranslated from the original languages in ways that support later theological developments. Some frequently cited examples:

"Virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 — The Hebrew word almah means "young woman," not necessarily "virgin." The Septuagint translated it with parthenos ("virgin"), and Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint. Critics argue that the "virgin birth" is based on a mistranslation. The response: while almah does not require virginity, it typically refers to a young woman of marriageable age for whom virginity would be assumed. The Septuagint translators, who were native speakers of both Hebrew and Greek, chose parthenos deliberately. More importantly, the virgin birth is attested by both Matthew and Luke independently — it does not rest on a single translation choice in Isaiah.

"Homosexuality" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 — The Greek word arsenokoitai is debated. Some argue it refers to specific exploitative practices rather than homosexuality generally. Others note that the word is a compound of arsen ("male") and koite ("bed"), directly echoing the Septuagint of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and therefore refers to male same-sex intercourse. The translation question is genuine and requires careful linguistic work, but the claim that "the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality" oversimplifies a complex exegetical discussion.

"Hell" in the New Testament — The NT uses several different words that English translations render as "hell": Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom, associated with judgment), Hades (the realm of the dead, roughly equivalent to the OT Sheol), and Tartarus (used only once, in 2 Peter 2:4). Critics are correct that conflating these terms obscures important distinctions. But the claim that "the Bible doesn't teach hell" goes well beyond the legitimate point about translation precision.

The Context Question

A second form of the "Bible doesn't say that" claim focuses on context — the charge that Christians routinely rip verses from their literary and historical context to make them say things the original author did not intend. Again, the charge is sometimes legitimate:

Jeremiah 29:11 — "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." This verse is ubiquitous in Christian devotional culture — on coffee mugs, graduation cards, and Instagram posts — typically presented as a direct promise from God to the individual reader. In context, it is addressed to the Judean exiles in Babylon, promising national restoration after seventy years of exile. The verse does reveal something about God's character, but using it as a personal promise to individual Christians requires hermeneutical steps that are rarely acknowledged.

Philippians 4:13 — "I can do all things through him who strengthens me." In context, Paul is talking about contentment in all circumstances — abundance and want, plenty and hunger — not about athletic achievement, career success, or any generic aspiration. The verse is about the sufficiency of Christ in hardship, not about unlimited human capability.

Matthew 18:20 — "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." Often cited as a promise that Jesus is present in small group worship. In context, Jesus is discussing the process of church discipline and the authority of the gathered community to bind and loose. The verse has implications for worship, but its primary reference is to ecclesiastical authority, not group size.

These are real problems, and Christians should welcome the correction. Using Scripture responsibly requires attending to literary context, historical context, and authorial intent — skills that the church should be teaching more diligently.

When the Charge Becomes a Weapon

While some "Bible doesn't say that" claims are genuine corrections, others are rhetorical strategies designed not to clarify the text but to undermine its authority. Several patterns are recognizable:

The linguistic shell game — Pointing to the range of possible meanings for a Hebrew or Greek word and then selecting the meaning that best serves the critic's agenda, while ignoring context, usage patterns, and the consensus of scholarship. A word may have a semantic range, but that does not mean every meaning in the range is equally likely in every context.

The appeal to scholarly consensus that doesn't exist — Claiming that "scholars agree" the text doesn't mean what Christians think, when in fact scholarly opinion is divided or the claimed consensus is limited to a particular ideological school. The phrase "scholars say" is one of the most abused phrases in popular biblical criticism.

The genetic fallacy — Arguing that because a theological concept developed over time, it must be invalid. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was articulated with increasing precision over centuries — but the claim that "the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity" because the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the text confuses the absence of a term with the absence of a concept.

Conclusion

The "Bible doesn't say that" claim is sometimes a genuine and valuable correction, sometimes a rhetorical weapon, and often somewhere in between. The Christian response should be neither reflexive defensiveness nor uncritical capitulation but informed engagement: a willingness to examine the evidence, consult the original languages, attend to context, and acknowledge genuine misreadings while also identifying when the charge is being used to undermine rather than to clarify. Christians who know their Bible well — including its original languages, its literary conventions, and its historical context — are best equipped for this engagement.