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.
I believe we have to understand the nature of the bible in order to see how much it contains.
Religious thought has crafted numerous doctrines from the bible, all claiming that their doctrine is supported by this inerrant book and great commentaries are often required to explain these discrepancies almost to the point of ridiculouness.
The main problem with this process is that the greater truth is missed.
I believe that the miracle is that some of us see the love of God being poured out of it's pages despite seeing that texually it is not perfect, trhat indeed man has had his hands in it, manipulating it, translating it differently and all the while we believe that the oldest remains of the scriptures are copies of copies.
The great thing about the spirit of God is that words do not have to be perfect to mean something great in our lives.
The problem is that the phrase "the Bible is God's inspired word" can mean different things to different people/denominations/sects.
There are people who believe that every single word was written by God Himself and that it cannot contain any errors. This is what Muslims believe about the Koran, btw. A lot of these people also follow that they must use the 1611 King James Version translation.
There are people who believe that God inspired the authors of the various books but the words themselves are filtered through the author's experience. This is most readily apparent in the four Gospels where specific details are added or excluded based on what each author thought important to convey.
And most other points-of-view fall somewhere between those two.
Well, what I was always taught is that, basically, if the "word of God"/Bible is NOT inerrant and infallible (perfect in every way) than how can it have been inspired by a perfect God? If it was not preserved in perfection, then that would mean God was not all-powerful. Both of these were blasphemous thoughts to be avoided at all costs.
(The bible isn't God, however, so it does not follow that it necessarily must reflect all of God's attributes.)
Also, if any part of the Bible is not true (and for the most part to be read literally rather than metaphorically), then what reason do we have to accept that ANY of it is literally true? And even if some of it is true, how on earth are we supposed to figure out what is true and what is not? We'd have to rely on our fallible selves to figure it out and this is VERY VERY dangerous. In essence, if the bible is not infallible, then the Christian faith has no sure foundation whatsoever and collapses.
(This denies that God is capable of leading people into truth, however. And perhaps the over-reliance on the written word stunts one's growth in faith in God himself.)
The idea that one must adhere to the belief that the Bible is infallible and inerrant is one that preys, I think, on a felt need for safety and security. We want something tangible that we can hold in our hands, see with our eyes, something black and white and solid. If, instead, we are expected to simply rely on something as intangible as "the Spirit", that freaks us out. Christians pay lip service to faith and to the guidance of the Spirit, but I think when it comes right down to it, that just isn't enough for most of us. We want a sure thing that can leave absolutely no room for doubt. I freely admit, I am guilty of this.
The problem is that the phrase "the Bible is God's inspired word" can mean different things to different people/denominations/sects.
There are people who believe that every single word was written by God Himself and that it cannot contain any errors. This is what Muslims believe about the Koran, btw. A lot of these people also follow that they must use the 1611 King James Version translation.
There are people who believe that God inspired the authors of the various books but the words themselves are filtered through the author's experience. This is most readily apparent in the four Gospels where specific details are added or excluded based on what each author thought important to convey.
And most other points-of-view fall somewhere between those two.
And I understand that point, but for you and what you believe, does a book need to be error free in order to gain an inspired message from it?
What I came to realize, was that even IF the bible were infallible and inerrant and to be taken completely literally with few exceptions (which I can no longer believe), the fact is that we're not relying on it in actual fact ... we're relying on either our own or someone else's INERPRETATION of it. But it just FEELS better to convince ourselves that we're relying on something solid and tangible.
ETA: And to answer your question ... does a book need to be error free to get an inspired message [from God] through it...
I don't know. I do know that when I was a Christian with a fundamentalist mindset, I accepted that I could receive inspiration/insight from God through other books than the Bible even though they weren't infallible. But, I still always claimed the Bible as my final authority for determining what was true.
And I understand that point, but for you and what you believe, does a book need to be error free in order to gain an inspired message from it?
RESPONSE:
Yes, logically speaking.
From the Catholic Papal Encyclical Providentissimus deus, para 20:
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.......
Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth......
Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated." And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "
But this raises a question; if errors and contradictions are identifed in scripture, doesn't this mean that God was not really the author?
From the Catholic Papal Encyclical Providentissimus deus, para 20:
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.......
Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth......
Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated." And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "
But this raises a question; if errors and contradictions are identifed in scripture, doesn't this mean that God was not really the author?
OK, but from your own perspective, would it be impossible for you to get something inspiring from the bible if you see that it may have errors.
I think that by exalting the Bible to God, we commit idolatry.
I believe there are layers of truth in scripture, and all of it may be true either on a literal or a symbolic level. I think that we Americans in particular have been taught to take everything literally, at face value. If someone says, "I'm gonna die!" then we immediately call 911, without first thinking that there might be another meaning to the expression. In this way, we are "blind" to some truth.
Holy books, "chosen" people, fundamental doctrines... these are all types of idolatry, which most if not all religions have, and are often the cause of harm and even bloodshed between peoples. When the rubber hits the road, we are often faced with a hard choice: love, or doctrine. They are often opposites, and bring forth different consequences.
An inerrant Bible is not a historical position, so no I don't think it needs to be error free to be inspired. All depends on how one defines "inspired".
"Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please." - Origen
"Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions". - Celsus
"Besides, it is not at all fair to bring this charge against the Christian religion as a crime unworthy of its pretended purity; only those persons who were concerned in the fraud should, in equity, be held answerable for it" (Origen, Contra Celsus).
"They write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own" (Jerome, Epist. lxxi.5).
"Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must believed to be a later process… One man perverts the scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition… Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the scriptures as suits his own subject matter" -Tertullian(De Praescript. 38).
In his book, Introduction to the New Testament, B.W. Bacon wrote: "The Christian can only mitigate the disrespect he feels for plagiarists and impostors by the reflection that the conscience of the second century had practically no recognition for those literary crimes, rampant as they then were in the Church"(p. 168).
In his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by Dr. F. H. Scrivener, he writes that: "In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest".
God hides things and then reveals them later on. The written bible was missing for large periods of history and then rediscovered. People are rediscovering things all the time that were there all along in the scriptures but "hidden in plain sight" - perhaps due to an error.
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.
I do know that when I was a Christian with a fundamentalist mindset, I accepted that I could receive inspiration/insight from God through other books than the Bible even though they weren't infallible. But, I still always claimed the Bible as my final authority for determining what was true.
