Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
::Sigh:: So sad. The Bible is a collection of God-inspired book that chronicle our species education about God, the prophesies of Christ, the fulfillment of the prophesies, the validations of Christ, and Christ's example and teaching of the TRUE NATURE of God, our barbarian ancestors' rejection of him and His death and rebirth as Spirit (resurrection) to connect us ALL to God eternally. But the Bible is neither inerrant, nor the Word of God. ONLY Christ is the Word of God Incarnate. The Bible just tells us of Him.
BTW . . . you do not have an option I can select.
Mams didn't have an option I could select either. I totally agree with what Mystic said here.
The burden seems to always be on me to show the Bible is the word of God. Those who don't believe it is the word of God have the same burden. .
RESPONSE:
On the contrary. There is no obligation to disprove an assertion until the person who made supplies evidence that it is so.
For example, if you claimed you saw an elephant flying, I would not be expected to refute the claim until you had presented credible evidence that your assertion was true.
Debating or even arguing about the Scriptures as being the Word of God should not be at the forefront of our religion. Besides, any debate on any subject requires an open mindset and a willingness to at least examine the counterpoint.
Your recent post to me, Mike555, saddens me: it is reminiscent of so many Christians who do NOT wish to empower the Gospel and put the Word of God into daily action. Your words embody the current world picture (caricature) of today's Christian: bigotted, self-centered, "I'm-right-and-you-are-going-to-hell," self-righteous, unforgiving, and quick to judge with "God's righteous anger" as if they alone possess the true power of God's authority.
We should, regardless of what anyone believes or does not believe, be asking ourselves of these questions:
How many people did we hug today?
How many Muslims did we hug today? Jews? Buddhists? Atheists? People who subscribe to a different Christian sect?
How many people did we "heal" today with a nod, a smile, a simple "hello," even a kind word?
How many people did we forgive today? Especially that driver who cut us off or that other driver who feels that "rules of the road" do not apply to him/her.
The business of a Christian is not the thumping of a book or even a collection of book.
"Even as you have done these things to one of them, you have done it to Me." That's the business of a Christian.
-------
As to your other statements,
Jesus spoke of the culture of the Jew. Since the Patriarchs were a part of Jewish mythology and a part of their distinctive status in the world apart from non-Jewish people, Jesus' reference to the Patriarchs does not validate the Patriarch's actual existence.
We modern people follow the same pattern: Honest Abe and Washington and the Cherry Tree. Even though we know that Abraham Lincoln was not always an honest man and that the cherry tree incident was pure fabrication, we accept the underlying morals and philosophy of thought behind these mythological tales. Repeating them do not give them any iota of validity as being historical.
As to heaven:
1. What is heaven? If you want to discuss heaven purely based on Scripture, then we must limit our discussion to what the ancients believed and how they depicted heaven.
Heaven is simply the stars. It may have been thought of as a mere canopy that separated the Earth from an abode beyond. But the common man thousands of years ago was aware of the philosophy that the gods came from the stars. Humankind desired to live forever among the stars and among the gods. No less a thought for the Jew, except that the Jew believed in the one God, the God above all other Gods. He yearned for a descension of the Kingdom of God that would settle on this physical Earth. Then, all Jews would live within the walls of this Kingdom of God, while all non-Jews would live outside the walls of the Kingdom. But to equate living outside the walls as some kind of hell is a Western misinterpretation of the Jewish concept of "Heaven."
2. We have inherited a Western vision of Heaven from the Middle Ages, one that mirrors Earthly life and caters to all the physical pleasures of the material world. None of which is Scripturally defensible.
We read of "mansions" and want to take this word literally. This is the fault of those theologians who either slept through most of their classes or skipped them altogether.
I am not going to some Never-neverland to live in a Garden of Eden and in a huge mansion, eat of the best foods ever plucked from a tree or a field, and enjoin in never-ending happy talks and gatherings with everyone I knew in this life and those who both came before me and after me.
First, I won't have a body. The "new body" that the NT talks about is not a literal form. It caters to the concept of the age, whereby people believed that they would have a carbon copy of a body in the afterlife. Some cultures also believed that those carbon copies would bear all the scars and wounds suffered in life and death, doomed for all eternity to carry around their decapitated heads or gaping abdominal wounds.
The "new body" is essentially spiritual and nothing more.
Second, I may have to be reincarnated back into this physical world. Who knows what God's plan is? There may be more work for me to do that could not be accomplished in one lifetime.
If the hope offered to me is a heaven that is no better than the Elysian Fields, I pass. That realm belongs to a very little god, not the God I know.
Judge not lest you would be judged.
Mike555, you have not walked in my shoes. Yet, your posts sound very much like pontification to me. You have judged me in your eyes, but not in the eyes or with the eyes of God.
What I fear you do not understand is that the Word of God extends much further than mere words of a Bible. As we were taught in theological school: the Word of God consists of three things: the written word, Jesus THE Christ, and the acts of God.
When God walks with me every nanosecond of life, I can regale life along with the mythological Patriarchs who had no Scriptures to follow or read. Which is better? The dusty old thoughts of people long dead (without denigrating their wisdom) or a living God who is a part of me every nanosecond of the day.
For me, I will choose having a living and interactive God over scripture any day.
Hello Wallisdj. I appreciate your taking the time to post here as your education in this matter probably far out-does 99% of the posters on this forum.
While I somewhat agree with your critique of alot of the posters here, I have a feeling this could easily turn into a "my theologian can beat your theologian" type discussion. You would have the unfair advantage since there is not likely a theologian on this forum who agrees with the fundamentalists that has your education level, but that is what it is assuming my assumption is right and we're still happy for your input.
I'm have a few questions though: as far as you know, did every theologian at your school graduate with same understanding or view of the errancy or inerrancy of the scriptures as you? If so, what do you think of other theologians (Perhaps William Lane Craig for example) who do view scripture as inerrant and what would you say is their biggest motive historically or perhaps agenda wise? In your opinion, is it realistic to say they have credible arguments for inerrancy?
Hello Wallisdj. I appreciate your taking the time to post here as your education in this matter probably far out-does 99% of the posters on this forum.
While I somewhat agree with your critique of alot of the posters here, I have a feeling this could easily turn into a "my theologian can beat your theologian" type discussion. You would have the unfair advantage since there is not likely a theologian on this forum who agrees with the fundamentalists that has your education level, but that is what it is assuming my assumption is right and we're still happy for your input.
I'm have a few questions though: as far as you know, did every theologian at your school graduate with same understanding or view of the errancy or inerrancy of the scriptures as you? If so, what do you think of other theologians (Perhaps William Lane Craig for example) who do view scripture as inerrant and what would you say is their biggest motive historically or perhaps agenda wise? In your opinion, is it realistic to say they have credible arguments for inerrancy?
As the furthest from a fundmentalist as possible . . . this is not my dogfight . . . but NO . . . a simple fact that cannot ever be disputed rationally . . . is that NOTHING in the hands of human beings is either infallible or inerrant, period.
The Bible is the absolute norm and standard of truth and is the ultimate authority because it is the word of God. God's message to man.
My reply was not intended as denominational bashing. The poster claimed that the Catholic church has ultimate authority over the Bible. I will rephrase my reply so as not to appear to be bashing. God has not given the Catholic church authority over the Bible. No church group, no denomination has authority over the Bible. The Bible is the word of God and therefore authority resides in God's revealed word. The Bible is the absolute norm and standard for truth.
Debating or even arguing about the Scriptures as being the Word of God should not be at the forefront of our religion. Besides, any debate on any subject requires an open mindset and a willingness to at least examine the counterpoint.
That the Bible is the word of God is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of absolute truth. The Bible is quite clear that it is the word of God.
Quote:
Your recent post to me, Mike555, saddens me: it is reminiscent of so many Christians who do NOT wish to empower the Gospel and put the Word of God into daily action. Your words embody the current world picture (caricature) of today's Christian: bigotted, self-centered, "I'm-right-and-you-are-going-to-hell," self-righteous, unforgiving, and quick to judge with "God's righteous anger" as if they alone possess the true power of God's authority.
The above comments stem from the fact that in post #46, I said you are in serious error. And that false teachers always attack the Bible in one way or another. And because in post #49 I said that you haved moved away from the truth. I also said that you have the right to do that.
Quote:
We should, regardless of what anyone believes or does not believe, be asking ourselves of these questions:
How many people did we hug today?
How many Muslims did we hug today? Jews? Buddhists? Atheists? People who subscribe to a different Christian sect?
How many people did we "heal" today with a nod, a smile, a simple "hello," even a kind word?
How many people did we forgive today? Especially that driver who cut us off or that other driver who feels that "rules of the road" do not apply to him/her.
The business of a Christian is not the thumping of a book or even a collection of book.
"Even as you have done these things to one of them, you have done it to Me." That's the business of a Christian.
Yes, but it's not the topic of the thread.
Quote:
-------
As to your other statements,
Jesus spoke of the culture of the Jew. Since the Patriarchs were a part of Jewish mythology and a part of their distinctive status in the world apart from non-Jewish people, Jesus' reference to the Patriarchs does not validate the Patriarch's actual existence.
We modern people follow the same pattern: Honest Abe and Washington and the Cherry Tree. Even though we know that Abraham Lincoln was not always an honest man and that the cherry tree incident was pure fabrication, we accept the underlying morals and philosophy of thought behind these mythological tales. Repeating them do not give them any iota of validity as being historical.
No, the Patriarchs were not mythology. They were real people. Though not neccessarily referring to the Abraham mentioned in the Bible, and though some have contested it, the Ebla tablets are said to mention the name 'Abraham' and 'Ur of the Chaldees - Abraham's birth place.
Also, according to 'Unger's Archaeology and the Old Testament', there were ancient cities and towns in Mesopotamia with the names of Abraham's forefathers ''Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah. Gen 24:10 refers to the city of Nahor.
Many people say that the Bible is not a history book. It is much more than that. The Old Testament is divided into the Law, the Historical books, and the Prophets. Where the Bible speaks of historical events, it is of course absolutely accurate. Scholars have often said that certain places mentioned in the the Old Testament didn't exist, only to be found wrong when Archaelogy did in fact uncover those places and proved that the Bible was right all along.
Quote:
As to heaven:
1. What is heaven? If you want to discuss heaven purely based on Scripture, then we must limit our discussion to what the ancients believed and how they depicted heaven.
Heaven is simply the stars. It may have been thought of as a mere canopy that separated the Earth from an abode beyond. But the common man thousands of years ago was aware of the philosophy that the gods came from the stars. Humankind desired to live forever among the stars and among the gods. No less a thought for the Jew, except that the Jew believed in the one God, the God above all other Gods. He yearned for a descension of the Kingdom of God that would settle on this physical Earth. Then, all Jews would live within the walls of this Kingdom of God, while all non-Jews would live outside the walls of the Kingdom. But to equate living outside the walls as some kind of hell is a Western misinterpretation of the Jewish concept of "Heaven."
2. We have inherited a Western vision of Heaven from the Middle Ages, one that mirrors Earthly life and caters to all the physical pleasures of the material world. None of which is Scripturally defensible.
We read of "mansions" and want to take this word literally. This is the fault of those theologians who either slept through most of their classes or skipped them altogether.
I am not going to some Never-neverland to live in a Garden of Eden and in a huge mansion, eat of the best foods ever plucked from a tree or a field, and enjoin in never-ending happy talks and gatherings with everyone I knew in this life and those who both came before me and after me.
The word of God mentions three heavens.
1] The first heaven is the band of atmosphere which surrounds the earth. 1 Kings 14:11.
2] The second heaven is the stellar universe. Deuternomy 4:19.
3] The third heaven is the throneroom of God. 2 Cor 12:2-4; Eph 4:10.
2 Cor 12:2 'I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3] And I know how such a man --whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--4]was caught up into Paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.
Ephesians 4:10 'He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.
Revelation chapters 4 and 19 show scenes in the third heaven.
Since you say you are a Theologian, I will provide some commentary from the theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary concerning 2 Cor 12:2-4. This is from 'The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty', John F. Walvoord and Roy Zuck General Editors, p.582. This is just the first paragraph concerning that passage.
'Paul's indirect reference to himself as a man in Christ showed that he regarded this great experience not as a consequence of inherent worthiness or spiritual excellence but because he was ''in Christ.'' As such it anticipated what everyone in Christ will one day experence, the presence of Christ in heaven.'
The Bible is more than clear about the reality of heaven and that the believer goes there when he departs from this life.
Quote:
First, I won't have a body. The "new body" that the NT talks about is not a literal form. It caters to the concept of the age, whereby people believed that they would have a carbon copy of a body in the afterlife. Some cultures also believed that those carbon copies would bear all the scars and wounds suffered in life and death, doomed for all eternity to carry around their decapitated heads or gaping abdominal wounds.
The "new body" is essentially spiritual and nothing more.
Second, I may have to be reincarnated back into this physical world. Who knows what God's plan is? There may be more work for me to do that could not be accomplished in one lifetime.
If the hope offered to me is a heaven that is no better than the Elysian Fields, I pass. That realm belongs to a very little god, not the God I know.
The word of God is clear that everyone, both believer and non-believer will be physically resurrected. The resurrected body of the belierver will be a glorified physical body like that of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever will be resurrected to disgrace and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Rev 20:5; )
Denying a bodily resurrection rejects a very basic truth of Christianity.
The word of God does not teach reincarnation. This is yet another departure from Biblical truth.
Quote:
Judge not lest you would be judged.
Mike555, you have not walked in my shoes. Yet, your posts sound very much like pontification to me. You have judged me in your eyes, but not in the eyes or with the eyes of God.
What I fear you do not understand is that the Word of God extends much further than mere words of a Bible. As we were taught in theological school: the Word of God consists of three things: the written word, Jesus THE Christ, and the acts of God.
When God walks with me every nanosecond of life, I can regale life along with the mythological Patriarchs who had no Scriptures to follow or read. Which is better? The dusty old thoughts of people long dead (without denigrating their wisdom) or a living God who is a part of me every nanosecond of the day.
For me, I will choose having a living and interactive God over scripture any day.
Stating the truth is not judging. I have not condemned you. You must answer to God, not to me. As I have said, you have the right to believe what you wish. I am simply pointing out that you are in error and that your teaching is false.
You say that you were taught in theological school that the Word of God consists of three things: 'the written word (This you have rejected), Jesus the Christ, and the acts of God.'
Now listen. The spiritual life of the church-age believer demands walking in the power (the filling of the Holy Spirit). Spiritual growth demands transferring from the written word into the soul of the believer, the doctrines and promises and principles of the Bible and especially the doctrines presented in the New Testament epistles, under the filling of the Holy Spirit who is the true mentor. And then applying those doctrines and principles and promises to the situations of life, also under the filling of the Spirit.
It is obvious that your beliefs differ from what is revealed in the word of God. And again, you have the right to believe what you want. I am simply telling you that you are in error.
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE OR MORE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE "PERFECT"
Quote:
"God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."
I think that when I was young, I was taught such logic and I probably made the same sorts of claims for the bible when I was young. However, as I gained knowledge and these simplistic claims were more obviously erroneous, I realized that part of the reason such claims exist is that they make us feel more sure about our faith when we lacked a firmer basis upon which to believe.
2) EXAGERATED CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO
Now, from the distance of a few more years and study, I am concerned that such claims are often counterproductive since agnostics and athiest at some point discover that such claims are erroneous and they repeat illogical and false claims as examples of poor logic and desperation among christianities who use them. For example, if we christians make the claim that “God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error.”, then this claim will be used by agnostics to show that there is no God due to the fact that bibles ARE tainted with errors.
The agnostics and athiests are not stupid. They realize that scriptures have multiple errors of multiple types. They realize that many of the scriptures were not written in their current versions by the namesake placed on the text (e.g. moses could not have written his death). For example : Religious scholars have argued publically for hundreds of years regarding who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews (whose author is yet unknown). It then it rings hollow when we then claim that we know that Hebrews was written by an apostle (or written by an unnamed christian who knew the apostles) when we already admit we do not know. In fact, all of our scriptures are pseudographical to the extent that we cannot prove the authorship of any of them but instead, we rely on strong tradition as to who wrote them. We cannot claim they are correct as the many errors are becoming ever more well known. Claims to biblical “perfection” often appear to agnostics to be a method of "self-reassurance", a "pep talk" meant to reassure one’s self against the dark and unknown facts when real faith has less need for such psychological accoutrements
I think agnostics will have a softer heart and forgive the claims of the child when he makes such claims just as they understand the kind and good motives behind the “my dad can beat up your dad” bravado of a small child. However, that sort of pride is less justifiable when applied to making false claims to show “my religious theory can beat up your religious theory”. In the face of christian pride and an attitude of christian superiority, The agnostic then feels quite justified in tearing false christian claims apart.
One harm is that the agnostic may then dismiss profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses the christian errors. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims. This damage caused by loss of credibility goes deep and has long-lasting effects. I have wondered if the damage of erroneous claims might go as deep as that of hypocrisy (I think the damage DOES go as deep if the claim is an obvious lie)..
3) THE AUTHENTIC TRANSLATOR(S) WHO IS THE CREATOR OF A VERSION OF A BIBLE REALIZES THAT HIS TRANSLATION IS IMPERFECT
When any translator and printer creates a bible for mass consumption the translator typically uses one or more of the early texts as a basis for the bible he is creating. All of the early manuscripts of which we are aware, contain discrepancies and errors.
The translator is also dependent upon his imperfect skill and best guesses as to what the early text meant in order to create his bible. The bible the translator creates is a reflection of the source materials available to the translator, the translators ability to translate (which is not merely his linguistic skill, but his historical background and objectivity as well), and the ability of a modern language to express an ancient concept from a differing set of different modern linguistic symbolism (e.g. english words).
4) THE TRANSLATOR(S) / CREATOR(S) OF BIBLES HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING ATTITUDES OF THEISTS TOWARDS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR WORK
For the biblical translator and biblical linguist, the reverence and worship of their book as a thing of perfection may border on idol worship. It may feel as though individual revere a book as much as they do the God the book attempts to chronicle and describe. Translators who create the bibles are often uncomfortable with the “deification” of their creation (which they know has errors).
During a question-answer period of a BAR meeting at the smithsonian institution in washington (oct 27, 1990), James Sanders (who served on the committee that had just put out the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) at that time spoke of how one could break the news to a relatively ignorant but good hearted group of christians, the “relativity” of translations so they could understand that the bible is a product of the TRANSLATOR(S), and is simply their best guess as to what the words meant.
James Sanders said :
Quote:
“I have dreamt of a Bible with translations of both versions into english. I wonder if lay folk would accept a Bible where there are doublets of this sort. .... There might be one translation on the top half of the page and the other on the bottom half of the page. I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”
There is a concern among translators as to how much truth about translation the “lay christian” can “handle”. What happens if the translator meets the “biblical perfectionist” in person and says “"Hi. I am the creator of the bible you think is perfect. My Greek isn’t perfect and I didn’t have a lot of good manuscripts to compare so I think I did a fair job, but I know that I translated a few passages incorrectly. Still, it’s the best I could do, given my limitations.” What would a lay christian who is a biblical perfectionist DO with this sort of revelation? What happens when a flat earth suddenly is declared to be made round?
James is not merely a translator on the committee producing the NRSV, but he wasTHE one called in to unroll Cave 11 Psalm Scroll; he edited it and he published it. He was president of the Society of Biblical Literature (which had a membership thousands of biblical scholars).
James said during this session regarding his own biblical translation (which many of us on this forum read as “the bible”) :
Quote:
“Must we continue to pretend that only our group is right denominationally and others are not right, and it is just too bad about others? After all, the Revised English Bible and the NRSV have the Hebrew Ester in the so-called canonical section and the full Greek Ester – all of it in its full integrity – in the Apocrypha....The Hebrew text is still in the process of standardization, but I wonder if it would not be proper for there to be an effort afoot to provide our people with the differences all along. I have been told by some that that would just destroy the Bible because lay folk still want to think of the Bible as somehow “inerrant.” The truth of the matter is that all biblical passages have been community property almost from the first repetition. It may well be that if there should ever be the possibility of discussing the text of Isaiah with Isaiah, he might very well say, “But I did not say that.” It has nonetheless become community Isaiah property and he might just have to live with it.”.
James, a translator who “creates” scripture is describing the fact that though some of the biblical text is incorrect, and the translators know it is incorrect, still, the community of Christians have in their mind that what is written IS what Isaiah actually said and that the Prophet Isaiah will just have to live with it since individuals cannot cope with any corrections.
The bible translator Erasmus, in creating the FIRST printed greek bible discovered this human frailty much to his dismay. When Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma (1 john 5:7-8), a spurious text which had made it’s way into the New Testament’s of the day. However, the outcry of the traditionalists was such that he brought the text back into the third edition (though he spends considerable, C O N S I D E R A B L E, space in the bibles forward, explaining why he did so, despite the spurious and erroneous nature of this text). Most translators realize the fickle nature of those who take the bible which is their creation, and endow it with properties it simply does not have, including “perfection”.
I believe Mystic’s description is generally accurate and can be applied to the various iterations and various versions of bibles that have existed throughout the centuries :
Quote:
Mystic in #9 : “... The Bible is God-inspired recordings chronicling our species education and attempts to understand God. They foretold of the arrival of the Word of God Jesus Christ and provided validation for Him. That makes them far more than stories . . . but it does NOT make them the Word of God nor does it make them inerrant.
Clear
neviackk
Last edited by Clear lens; 06-11-2011 at 10:22 PM..
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE OR MORE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE "PERFECT"
I think that when I was young, I was taught such logic and I probably made the same sorts of claims for the bible when I was young. However, as I gained knowledge and these simplistic claims were more obviously erroneous, I realized that part of the reason such claims exist is that they make us feel more sure about our faith when we lacked a firmer basis upon which to believe.
2) EXAGERATED CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO
Now, from the distance of a few more years and study, I am concerned that such claims are often counterproductive since agnostics and athiest at some point discover that such claims are erroneous and they repeat illogical and false claims as examples of poor logic and desperation among christianities who use them. For example, if we christians make the claim that “God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error.”, then this claim will be used by agnostics to show that there is no God due to the fact that bibles ARE tainted with errors.
The agnostics and athiests are not stupid. They realize that scriptures have multiple errors of multiple types. They realize that many of the scriptures were not written in their current versions by the namesake placed on the text (e.g. moses could not have written his death). For example : Religious scholars have argued publically for hundreds of years regarding who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews (whose author is yet unknown). It then it rings hollow when we then claim that we know that Hebrews was written by an apostle (or written by an unnamed christian who knew the apostles) when we already admit we do not know. In fact, all of our scriptures are pseudographical to the extent that we cannot prove the authorship of any of them but instead, we rely on strong tradition as to who wrote them. We cannot claim they are correct as the many errors are becoming ever more well known. Claims to biblical “perfection” often appear to agnostics to be a method of "self-reassurance", a "pep talk" meant to reassure one’s self against the dark and unknown facts when real faith has less need for such psychological accoutrements
I think agnostics will have a softer heart and forgive the claims of the child when he makes such claims just as they understand the kind and good motives behind the “my dad can beat up your dad” bravado of a small child. However, that sort of pride is less justifiable when applied to making false claims to show “my religious theory can beat up your religious theory”. In the face of christian pride and an attitude of christian superiority, The agnostic then feels quite justified in tearing false christian claims apart.
One harm is that the agnostic may then dismiss profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses the christian errors. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims. This damage caused by loss of credibility goes deep and has long-lasting effects. I have wondered if the damage of erroneous claims might go as deep as that of hypocrisy (I think the damage DOES go as deep if the claim is an obvious lie)..
3) THE AUTHENTIC TRANSLATOR(S) WHO IS THE CREATOR OF A VERSION OF A BIBLE REALIZES THAT HIS TRANSLATION IS IMPERFECT
When any translator and printer creates a bible for mass consumption the translator typically uses one or more of the early texts as a basis for the bible he is creating. All of the early manuscripts of which we are aware, contain discrepancies and errors.
The translator is also dependent upon his imperfect skill and best guesses as to what the early text meant in order to create his bible. The bible the translator creates is a reflection of the source materials available to the translator, the translators ability to translate (which is not merely his linguistic skill, but his historical background and objectivity as well), and the ability of a modern language to express an ancient concept from a differing set of different modern linguistic symbolism (e.g. english words).
4) THE TRANSLATOR(S) / CREATOR(S) OF BIBLES HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING ATTITUDES OF THEISTS TOWARDS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR WORK
For the biblical translator and biblical linguist, the reverence and worship of their book as a thing of perfection may border on idol worship. It may feel as though individual revere a book as much as they do the God the book attempts to chronicle and describe. Translators who create the bibles are often uncomfortable with the “deification” of their creation (which they know has errors).
During a question-answer period of a BAR meeting at the smithsonian institution in washington (oct 27, 1990), James Sanders (who served on the committee that had just put out the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) at that time spoke of how one could break the news to a relatively ignorant but good hearted group of christians, the “relativity” of translations so they could understand that the bible is a product of the TRANSLATOR(S), and is simply their best guess as to what the words meant.
James Sanders said :
There is a concern among translators as to how much truth about translation the “lay christian” can “handle”. What happens if the translator meets the “biblical perfectionist” in person and says “"Hi. I am the creator of the bible you think is perfect. My Greek isn’t perfect and I didn’t have a lot of good manuscripts to compare so I think I did a fair job, but I know that I translated a few passages incorrectly. Still, it’s the best I could do, given my limitations.” What would a lay christian who is a biblical perfectionist DO with this sort of revelation? What happens when a flat earth suddenly is declared to be made round?
James is not merely a translator on the committee producing the NRSV, but he wasTHE one called in to unroll Cave 11 Psalm Scroll; he edited it and he published it. He was president of the Society of Biblical Literature (which had a membership thousands of biblical scholars).
James said during this session regarding his own biblical translation (which many of us on this forum read as “the bible”) :
James, a translator who “creates” scripture is describing the fact that though some of the biblical text is incorrect, and the translators know it is incorrect, still, the community of Christians have in their mind that what is written IS what Isaiah actually said and that the Prophet Isaiah will just have to live with it since individuals cannot cope with any corrections.
The bible translator Erasmus, in creating the FIRST printed greek bible discovered this human frailty much to his dismay. When Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma (1 john 5:7-8), a spurious text which had made it’s way into the New Testament’s of the day. However, the outcry of the traditionalists was such that he brought the text back into the third edition (though he spends considerable, C O N S I D E R A B L E, space in the bibles forward, explaining why he did so, despite the spurious and erroneous nature of this text). Most translators realize the fickle nature of those who take the bible which is their creation, and endow it with properties it simply does not have, including “perfection”.
I believe Mystic’s description is generally accurate and can be applied to the various iterations and various versions of bibles that have existed throughout the centuries :
Clear
neviackk
You seem to be trying to give the impression that people are unaware of the fact that there are differences in the manuscripts and in certain Bible translations. A good Bible will have footnotes which point out for example that the earliest manuscripts had a variation with regard to some passage.
The principle of inspiration refers to the original autographs. The original autographs are God-breathed. There is no doubt that the manuscript copies have variations in word spellings, word order, words missing, words (even sentences) added. In some translations some parallel passages such as 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2 disagree on the number. The KJV says in 2 Kings 8:26 that king Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, while in 2 Chron 22:2, it says he was 42 years old. This was probably a scribal error that found its way into certain manuscripts. We can be sure that there was no such discrepancy in the original autograph between the two passages. The NASB which is not based on the manuscript used by the KJV does not have that discrepancy These are the kinds of ''errors'' you refer to.
However, None of those variations affect the message. No point of doctrine has been changed. No doctrines have been lost. And none have been added. The Johannine comma found in some manuscripts (1 John 5:7-8) for instance is generally recognized as not having manuscript authority. Nevertheless, what it says is doctrinally correct. It is not a false doctrine. The trinity is a doctine which is well established in the Bible.
For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
In my Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield noted that 1 John 5:7 was generally agreed has having no manuscript authority and has been inserted.
The following link shows which translations among those listed which have the Johannine comma and which don't. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: The commentary on the verse goes into some detail as to why the Johannine comma is probably not geniune.
These ''errors'' that you seem to think no one knows about except the translators and yourself, are hardly unknown. One of my NASB's has numerous footnotes about whether this or that is found in the earliest manuscripts or points out variations in a passage among some manuscripts.
God has promised to preserve His word forever. He has done so. People who attack the reliability of the Bible do not believe God.
Matthew 24:35 reads, ''Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away.''
1 Peter 1:25 'But the word of the Lord abides forever.
I hope that readers will take the time to refer to the following link which talks about these continuing attacks on the Bible with regard to it being the word of God as the above poster and so many others do.
You also made the following false claim...''In fact, all of our scriptures are pseudographical to the extent that we cannot prove the authorship of any of them but instead, we rely on strong tradition as to who wrote them.''
While it is true that the author of Hebrews is unknown, to say that the authorship of none of the books of the Bible can be known is foolish. In Paul's epistles for example, he identifies himself as the author. With regard to the epistle of Paul to the Romans, the introduction to Romans in the NASB Study Bible says the following... 'The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship. The letter contains a number of historical references that agree with known facts of Paul's life. The doctrinal content of the book is typical of Paul, which is evident from a comparison with other letters he wrote.'
Internal details attest to Paul's authorship of Romans. He claimed to be of the tribe of Benjamin in Rom 11:1 as he also does in Phil 3:5. He sent greetings to Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3) whom he had met in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3) and left in Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19) on his second missionary journey. Paul mentioned his journey to Jerusalem with the contribution from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-27), which is confirmed in Acts 19:21; 20:1-5; 21:15, 17-19 and in the epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:1-5; 2 Cor 8:1-12; 9:1-5). Additionally, Paul mentioned a number of times that he intended to visit Rome (Rom 1:10-13, 15; 15:22-32, which is also confirmed in Acts 19:21. These events spoken of in both Romans and Acts support Paul as the author of Romans.
Furthermore, Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 speaks of Paul's letters and gives them the same weight as the Old Testament Scriptures.
As for your assertion that it is a hollow claim to say that the book of Hebrews was written by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle simply because the author of Hebrews is unknown, that simply reflects your lack of knowledge concerning the criteria by which the canonicity of a New Testament book was recognized. The criteria being that (a) an apostle or a close associate had to be the writer- apostolic authorship or endorsement; (b) accepted as authoritative by the early church; (c) harmonization with uncontested books.
The Bible is by its own proclamation the word of God. As for the claim that that is a circular argument, the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible prove its divine authorship.
I voted that it is MOSTLY God's word. I would have voted that it is COMPLETELY God's word if we were talking about the original writings and not just copies of copies of copies of copies, translated a myriad of times.
The word of God is perfect . It is people who read the word that are imperfect and instead of looking at the gospel of the word with the Holy Spirit , they are looking at it to find fault.. any fault is within mankind who try to find a word that would not change the gospel or its meaning and find fault with it. Many fnd fault and yet it is in themselves who has made grave error in looking for the reason to divide it for argument or lack of knowledge.
The word of God is plain when seeking it through the Holy Spirit. If one cannot decipher it , they should seek the Holy Spirit and in time we shall know the truth. There are mysteries too as to all that God has done. With our finite mind we do not know all but God knows all from beginning to end.
God is perfect. We must work out our own salvation with faith in the word.
It is the foundation of our faith and to look at it with errors is to look at God without our faith in him.
Last edited by Taratova; 06-12-2011 at 01:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
