Living in one of the holiest places on the planet — the “Bible Belt” — we can hardly overlook the influence Christianity has had on the on the wooded world that surrounds us.
With churches nearly as common as gas stations, the Word is without a doubt being spread. Meeting a man in Mississippi who says he is a Christian is like meeting a man in Alaska who says he is cold — even if he says he isn’t, he probably is or will be shortly. In Mississippi, the majority of these believers, according to statistics, are Southern Baptists, evangelical in doctrine and practice.
Southern Baptists believe in biblical inerrancy: a belief that the Bible is infallible. They also might believe in self-inerrancy — I have met quite a few experts (much like the uncertified psychologists) on this campus alone.
Now, I was raised for the better part of my childhood as a Southern Baptist, and, actually, my grandfather was an outstanding Baptist preacher at one of the largest churches in Arizona for many years.
So I in no way intend to attack the denomination — don’t start freaking out yet. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that there is such an emphasis on Biblical inerrancy, yet churches continually reinforce key Biblical figures and ideas that were created centuries after the book was written.
If the Mayans were right, then on Dec. 21, 2012, the world will end. Because of this prediction, there are countless eyes on the lookout for the Antichrist to make his appearance sooner than later. Chances are these eyes are looking for a suave, smooth-talking man in a position of power.
You can laugh but you better believe that the candidates up for election next year should really brush up on their anti-Antichrist qualities, because, mark my words, the public will be looking for them.
Here is the problem, though: this is all the Bible gives us for identifying the Antichrist — “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the Antichrist.” (2 John 1:7)
So, yes, your weird Intro to Biology teacher is the Antichrist. Along with Tom Cruise, Stephen Hawking and that dude who sits behind you in philosophy wearing the dog collar.
The Book of Revelation does describe a “Beast” that comes out of the sea with 10 horns, seven heads and 10 crowns, along with a slew of other body parts that in no way resemble a human (hopefully, this is all figurative so my Obama prediction is still a possibility).
This is the “Beast” associated with the number 666, and is a separate entity from the Antichrist. It was not until the Middle Ages that people began mixing the two together and making the beast a man, and so the iconic James Bond-like Antichrist was born. Pop culture has done nothing to discredit this and neither have the churches, with the backing of books such as the Left Behind series.
Other images that are poorly portrayed and played out among churches are that of angels. Since I can remember, angels, to me, have always been those winged human-like holy soldiers occasionally equipped with a harp or sword, who secretly fight for and protect the good of this world. These angels have been etched into my brain thanks to the innumerable stained-glass windows, children’s Bible storybooks and Passion plays that I so often encountered in my earlier years.
Unfortunately, there is not a single passage in the Bible that backs up this stereotype.
Two of the most important types of angels in the Bible are also some of the most inaccurately depicted today. A cherub, today, is a child-like angel often associated with Cupid. In the Bible (Ezekiel 10:14), however, the cherubim is describe as a terrifying four-headed creature that, along with the indescribable cherub’s face, also bore the face of a man, a lion and an eagle. I couldn’t find anything about a cute winged baby.
The seraph (seraphim), another surprisingly unrecognizable angel, actually does have wings. This creature has three pair of them, though. It uses these six wings to cover its body – it doesn’t want to accidently blind you, or make you spontaneously combust, which is a small possibility it seems.
Again, we can blame the painters and sculptors of old for taking artistic license to these holy characters, and turning them into the much more palatable angels we recognize today.
It is just hard for me to understand why a denomination that believes that the Bible is thoroughly and completely without error would choose to reinforce figures that are clearly no where to be found.
I understand many of these are just repeated now due to tradition, but it seems a little hypocritical to me. But then again, maybe I am missing something.   
Micah Green is a junior majoring in communication. He can be contacted at [email protected].