Bible This!

[insub2]

Is it not a commonly accepted view that all humans are in some way flawed - they are incapible of being perfect?

Is it not also true that humans wrote the Bible? ...or did God come down with ink and scrooll...?

Then how can it follow that the Bible is perfect? How can a being incapible of perfection produce something of perfection -let alone the entirity of truth in the cosmos?

And if you refute me still, how can you reconcile any other teaching making the same claim of a holy book or teaching?

 

[prestonw]

Is it not a commonly accepted view that all humans are in some way flawed - they are incapible of being perfect?

Yes, man is flawed and is short of perfection. They are incapable of being without sin.

Is it not also true that humans wrote the Bible? ...or did God come down with ink and scrooll...?

Some of the Bible was inspired by God, other parts were written solely by man.

Then how can it follow that the Bible is perfect? How can a being incapible of perfection produce something of perfection -let alone the entirity of truth in the cosmos?

I would never make the claim that the Bible is perfect. I even make the claim that over the years man has distorted, added, and changed the inspired sections along with the man writen sections of the Bible. As Jerimiah 8:8 reads:

"How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely."

How can the Bible be perfect when man had sole control of it for thousands of years? It can't. When you realize that, the Bible actually makes a lot more sense. It becomes fairly easy to pick out the parts of the Bible that have been changed/added because they do not agree with other parts.

And if you refute me still, how can you reconcile any other teaching making the same claim of a holy book or teaching?

I make the same claim for all holy books or teachings. In the hands of man, things will be changed, either to meet the needs of people at the time, or for pure personal gain. It is the nature of man and trying to claim it doesn't happen is silly.

 

[McCracAttack]

Is it not a commonly accepted view that all humans are in some way flawed - they are incapible of being perfect?

Is it not also true that humans wrote the Bible? ...or did God come down with ink and scrooll...?

Then how can it follow that the Bible is perfect? How can a being incapible of perfection produce something of perfection -let alone the entirity of truth in the cosmos?

And if you refute me still, how can you reconcile any other teaching making the same claim of a holy book or teaching?

Welcome to the forums, but be careful with such a confrontational attitude. You won't get far if people think you just want to pick a fight instead of having a discussion. Incidentally, I've asked that question a time or two myself.

 

[artofwar]

I tend to disagree, man is imperfect yes but God and Jesus are perfect and that ios why there are 4 gospels instead of one as they have there own way of saying what Jesus said and as you see by these they basically say the same thing. And God is all powerful when he can work through man to get his work done

 

[katherinethegreat]

i agree completely...yes the bible is flawed...and i mean c'mon duh! god did not come down here and write it..he has better thing to do like presecute those who didn't believe in him....(just kidding by the way!)

 

[Aduro Amnis]

The word of God is written through man, thus is open for error and interpretation.

 

[OneLastBreath]

There's a fundamental difference between flawed values and ideas, and flawed interpretations. While one might argue with the statement in Revelation 22:18-19:
"I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
I believe this passage is simply referring to the idea of alterations to the Bible's main ideas. God knew that humans wouldn't be able to perfectly record every detail as he dictated it, or in the case of the letters of the New Testament, inspired it. If the Crusaders had stuck, "and God declared 'Go out and kill the infidels'" somewhere into the Bible to justify what they were doing, that would be what the passage is referring to. Anything else, the flawed interpretations due to the fact that humans were recording (note I say recording, not writing. Humans only wrote what God either told them to write, in the case of say the Ten Commandments, or what they were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit. Either way, nothing in the Bible was written without God.) the Bible, there are bound to be flaws of the interpretation kind. Even translating from one language to another is bound to cause small changes. If you translate "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" directly into Russian and back without taking any liberty in the translation, and you end up with something like, "The vodka is arranged but the meat is rotten." Yet, God said to spread the Word to all nations. Therefore, one can conclude that he wasn't concerned about small discrepencies, so long as the important messages stay the same. God created, Man fell, Jesus redeemed, the Holy Spirit empowers us to carry out God's will.

 

[billwald]

The standard theology is that the origional documents ( called "autographs") of the Bible were inerrant. We don't have the origional documents. The autographs didn't exist when the Bible was compiled.

 

[Knight]

If you believe the Bible to be flawed then how do you discern what is right and wrong with it?

 

[prestonw]

Bible study. If things don't seem right to me, I study the issue until it makes sense to me. The Bible may have had some changes/addition along the way by misguided people (in fact, we know this has happened, read up on the Sopherim), but I believe God has preserved the truth in its pages and we just have to know what to look for.

If you believe the Bible to be flawed then how do you discern what is right and wrong with it?

 

[Knight]

Interesting.

So what isues do you disagree with the Bible on?

 

[prestonw]

Interesting.

So what isues do you disagree with the Bible on?

Did I ever say I disagree with the Bible on any issues? I said if an issue doesn't make sense to me in the context of a verse in the Bible, I study it further and try to get the full story rather then taking one verse of the Bible to support a claim. The current encarnation of the Bible has mistranslations, omissions, and additions. Just look at all of the things at are omitted or changed in the NIV translation of the Bible here:

http://www.integrity-ministries.org/ErroneousVersion.htm

Do you truely believe that the OT of the Bible is in the same condition as it was 4000 years ago even when we have documented evidence that is not true? (The Sopherim documented their changes, yet they haven't been reversed, who else changed something without documenting it?)

 

[Knight]

Did I ever say I disagree with the Bible on any issues?

No, but the implication was there. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I said if an issue doesn't make sense to me in the context of a verse in the Bible, I study it further and try to get the full story rather then taking one verse of the Bible to support a claim.

Then you do well....

The current encarnation of the Bible has mistranslations, omissions, and additions. Just look at all of the things at are omitted or changed in the NIV translation of the Bible here:

http://www.integrity-ministries.org/ErroneousVersion.htm

Now we get into issues of textual criticism. Those verses are not in the NIV because it was translated from a different set of manuscripts than earlier translations. This was based on the manuscript evidence behind various readings.

Do you truely believe that the OT of the Bible is in the same condition as it was 4000 years ago even when we have documented evidence that is not true? (The Sopherim documented their changes, yet they haven't been reversed, who else changed something without documenting it?)

What do you feel has been left out?

 

[prestonw]

Now we get into issues of textual criticism. Those verses are not in the NIV because it was translated from a different set of manuscripts than earlier translations. This was based on the manuscript evidence behind various readings.

It really is more then that. The translators if this version, as well as a lot of other recent and past translations, have taken certain liberties with the text and written their interpretations of the text into it instead of letting the reader make up their own mind on meaning. Which brings up another point, which manuscript is correct? If the Bible is indeed perfect, then shouldn't all of the manscripts used to translate the Bible be exactly alike. Seeing how they are not, we must either determine which one is the "perfect" one, or come to the conclusion that the manuscripts have indeed changed throughout history and are no longer the exact Word of God.

What do you feel has been left out?

I mainly feel that passages have been been changed and various things added to support beliefs of the time or encourge people the something was right and commanded by God.

Here is a good web site to start:

http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html

 

[artofwar]

In 1949 I think it was archeoligists found the dead sea srolls, which is about 1000 years older then any other old testament translation. when scholars tried to translate it into English etc they found that not much has changed in translation from the DSS to the more modern versions that they are almost identical, to me this proves the bible is divine.

 

[The Bellman]

In 1949 I think it was archeoligists found the dead sea srolls, which is about 1000 years older then any other old testament translation. when scholars tried to translate it into English etc they found that not much has changed in translation from the DSS to the more modern versions that they are almost identical, to me this proves the bible is divine.

Now THAT is a ridiculous and completely unsupported conclusion to draw. At the MOST it proves that we have, today, scriptures that match those from a much older time very closely. This does NOT prove divine authorship or involvement.

 

[artofwar]

Now THAT is a ridiculous and completely unsupported conclusion to draw. At the MOST it proves that we have, today, scriptures that match those from a much older time very closely. This does NOT prove divine authorship or involvement.

do you ever make any sense? this proves that the Bible has hardly if at all been tampered with

 

[The Bellman]

do you ever make any sense? this proves that the Bible has hardly if at all been tampered with

Give the ad hominem a rest, will you? How about you just try to discuss what people say? As I said, it proves that PARTS of the bible are accurate as far as much older texts are concerned. This does NOT prove any divine involvement.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Is it not a commonly accepted view that all humans are in some way flawed - they are incapible of being perfect?

Is it not also true that humans wrote the Bible? ...or did God come down with ink and scrooll...?

Then how can it follow that the Bible is perfect? How can a being incapible of perfection produce something of perfection -let alone the entirity of truth in the cosmos?

And if you refute me still, how can you reconcile any other teaching making the same claim of a holy book or teaching?

Christianity is the story of the Perfect taking on imperfection. As Christ took on flesh (an "imperfect" flesh that died), so the Spirit or the Word takes on the written word. If we examined the body of Jesus of Nazareth minutes after He was brought down from the cross, we could easily declare that this was a mere man with a mere body, two lungs, two kidneys, a body that bled when struck. And He was. I think that Christians believe something similarly about the Bible.

But as far as your philosophical predicament about the incredulity of a greater perfection being expressed in a lesser form, you needn't look far for examples. Listen to an average third-grader taking piano lessons with Mozart pieces. In fact, some of the mangled translations in the Bible kind of remind me of that.

 

[Knight]

It really is more then that. The translators if this version, as well as a lot of other recent and past translations, have taken certain liberties with the text and written their interpretations of the text into it instead of letting the reader make up their own mind on meaning.

Now you're getting into translational issues. There is a measure of interpretation in translating any language. Granted, some translation styles tend to do this more than others. This merely illustrates the need to study from more than one translation.

Which brings up another point, which manuscript is correct? If the Bible is indeed perfect, then shouldn't all of the manscripts used to translate the Bible be exactly alike. Seeing how they are not, we must either determine which one is the "perfect" one, or come to the conclusion that the manuscripts have indeed changed throughout history and are no longer the exact Word of God.

I grant that the manuscripts we have today are likely not 100% exact to the originals. However, I believe that no essential teaching or doctrine of Christianity has been lost. All three of the existing published NT manuscripts (Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text) Contain and clearly teach the Gospel.

I mainly feel that passages have been been changed and various things added to support beliefs of the time or encourge people the something was right and commanded by God.

Here is a good web site to start:

http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html

My studies have mainly focused on New Testament textual criticism. Thank you for the input. I will research it when I have the time.