Can someone be Charismatic and believe the Bible has errors?

[GodLovesCats]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally. I also read they think nothing that contradicts Scripture is true because the Bible is God's Word. The problem here is I know for a fact English versions of the Bible do have errors and all books in every language have chapters and verses that are not meant to be interpreted literally. I am definitely not capable of agreeing the Bible has no errors and must be accepted as final even if Bible scholars are able to disprove the interpretations Charismatic Christians prefer.

 

[Albion]

You say "those people," but all of the denominations that were identified have people who believe one way and other people who believe the other way. You cannot make your personal choice for one of them on that basis.

Besides, the point about the Bible being without error refers to it being correct IF it is translated correctly. The problem arose when liberal denominations began fudging the meaning of Bible passages that were not mistranslated; they simply said that the intended meaning was something else (such as claiming that the verses which speak against homosexual sex really were talking about not being hospitable instead).

 

[joshua 1 9]

I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally.

You have to go to the original language if you want to understand the Bible. A lot is lost in translation. God watches over His word to perform and what HE says HE will do. I personally believe HE watches over the KJV.

 

[joshua 1 9]

IF it is translated correctly.

All of the Bibles have translation problems. It is no secret that 6,000 years ago they were making clothing out of the fiber from fig trees. They would spin the fiber and make thread, then weave the thread into clothing. Even we find bone sowing needles that goes back 40,000 years. For the Bible to say they sowed leaves together is mostly a lack of understanding of the language used in the Bible. If you understand the letters that make up the word they were using clothing to elevate themselves. To draw attention and make themselves look better. But the clothing was more paper like and more for decoration then for protection from the elements. People do the same today when they use clothing as a fashion statement.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Joshua, letters are nothing more than symbols of vowels and consonates. Like I have said in other topics, if the Bible is not English, it is useless and meaningless to me. I am more interested in learning about the mistakes to identify them than the original languages.

 

[RDKirk]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally. I also read they think nothing that contradicts Scripture is true because the Bible is God's Word. The problem here is I know for a fact English versions of the Bible do have errors and all books in every language have chapters and verses that are not meant to be interpreted literally. I am definitely not capable of agreeing the Bible has no errors and must be accepted as final even if Bible scholars are able to disprove the interpretations Charismatic Christians prefer.

I'd call myself Charismatic. That is, I know the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue and that the Holy Spirit Himself continues to counsel us spiritually in line with scripture. The Lord has put me and my wife through events of "biblical proportions." Given what He's put before my eyes, I'd be a fool not to believe in Him.

The benefit of that is that I don't believe in God because of the bible, I believe in the bible because of God. Therefore, debates over words and terms don't rattle me. Whatever scholars and scoffers think they've discovered, I know God is still on His throne.

I believe scripture is fully reliable for the purpose scripture claims for itself:

All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness 2 Timothy 3

I don't believe scripture is necessarily reliable for other purposes that men may try to use it.

For instance, in terms of understanding the physical characteristics of creation, scripture tells us:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge. Psalm 19

So, then, scripture tells us to look at creation itself to learn the physical characteristics of creation. It does not claim to contain what is to be know about the physical characteristics of creation...creation itself will do that.

 

[Greengardener]

Hi CforC, you raise an interesting question and have been given some interesting insights from others. Here's my contribution.

With the multitude of Bible versions and the plethora of resources available online, you aren't required to leave English to get a good idea about what the original languages said or could have said. The study is fascinating and I highly recommend it.

As to denominations, consider them about as useful as fast food restaurants. One sits on just about every US corner and you can choose your variety of almost-food in any flavor, but if you really want solid nutrition, you pretty much have to dig it out of the earth yourself, homegrown and organic, the work of our own labor. It's much the same way with spiritual nutrition. I think as you dig in the Bible you can figure out what's literal and what's figurative, and both are in there, just as it is in our own conversations.

I hope as you do this you'll share thoughts and questions here. I'd love to see how this develops for you. If and/or when you find you don't actually fit in any group, don't worry - just remember that it's YOUR brain and life God is after. Best to you!

 

[fwGod]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally.

It depends from church to church. All believe that the Bible in it's original form was without error. That would most refer to the OT because of the gematria method that the Jews used to be sure that each page had no letter or word missing.

However, the NT was not so easy because not all were so meticulous to copy. Likewise they didn't use any method to be sure they hadn't left a letter or word out. Not only that but when translating from one language to another, the method of assuring no mistakes would be useless.

Further, because the Bible has many different ways to understand it.. simple/literal.. metaphor/symbolic.. poetic, etc.. it can't always have a literal meaning.
So I don't quite understand what you are meaning by your words.

I also read they think nothing that contradicts Scripture is true because the Bible is God's Word.

That is the safe way to think. Don't you think so?

The problem here is I know for a fact English versions of the Bible do have errors and all books in every language have chapters and verses that are not meant to be interpreted literally.

That would depend upon the Bible topic and the verses that speak on that topic. And, it would depend upon the denomination that uses that "fact" for their purposes to promote their beliefs.

I am definitely not capable of agreeing the Bible has no errors and must be accepted as final even if Bible scholars are able to disprove the interpretations Charismatic Christians prefer.

That would depend on the scholar being of the same denominational beliefs as any given christian who is of the same denominational belief as whatever scholar mentioned.

It would be a mistake to use a scholars commentary for settling the issue on a Bible topic because not even some of the best Bible scholars manage to keep their personal denominational training and interpretations out of their commentaries.

Being scholarly does not guarantee having spiritual discerning to comprehend the original intended meaning of a text.

The scribes of Jesus day were well versed in the scriptures from an academic frame of knowledge. Likewise the Pharisees and the Tsadek (Sadducees).
But Jesus made use of the verse in the OT, Ps.119:99. And so the Bible scholars of His day (when he was 12 years old) were astonished at His doctrine. And during His ministry He showed Himself to know more of God's will concerning a situation than those learned around Him.

So, not even the Bible scholars of our day can bring a close to a debate concerning how to interpret a verse of scripture in the Bible. The best thing to do is to accept what Jesus said about any topic and of course all in the NT epistles (except for specific OT teachings) but for the most part, will agree with Him.

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is the safe way to think. Don't you think so?

It is all over the Creation and Evolution forum: six literal days. If Bible scholars make discoveries that are totally different from the literal meaning of words like "day" as defined in modern English, it is not safe to treat Scripture as our sole or final authority of knowledge using a literal interpretation.

 

[fwGod]

It is all over the Creation and Evolution forum: six literal days. If Bible scholars make discoveries that are totally different from the literal meaning of words like "day" as defined in modern English, it is not safe to treat Scripture as our sole or final authority of knowledge using a literal interpretation.

I would question the motive behind why any Christian would come up with a different meaning to the word "day". The use of the word "discovery" would be subjective concerning the "Bible scholar" who came up with or is promoting the idea that "day" does not mean "day" as the Bible uses it.

However, The word "day" from the first mention in the beginning of Genesis gives the clarification with "evening and morning". It has the same meaning throughout the Bible. It's consistently a literal 24 hour day.

Creationtoday.org has a good article to explain things.

I suspect that the purpose of the "Bible scholar" in changing the meaning of "day" is because the evolutionary view, thus claiming that "day" means "ages".
However, when he begins to alter the meanings of Bible words so that it reflects his comfortable understandings.. then he's not so much a Bible scholar anymore because he's no longer fully believing the Bible.

Therefore he should not be believed.

He's putting man's wisdom above God's truth. He is clinging to the atheist ungodly explanations rather than accepting by faith (Heb.11:3) what the Bible says concerning God's ability to create at a faster rate than atheists have dared to think was possible.

I still stand by my statement that the safest way to think about anything is, as the Bible states it (without any manipulation of man in altering the meanings of those God-breathed words).

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't want to get into another argument about the motives of Bible scholars. My concern is Charismatics think just because a word means this in English, it means the same in ancient Hebrew as Moses wrote it - and, more importantly, God's definition of the word, so they interpret the entire Bible literally even where they shouldn't. If this is the case, I cannot theologically agree with them.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The only thing of the bible that is believed to be without error is the original manuscripts which we do not have. What we have is a reliable copy compiled and examined through the centuries by scholars. Translation from one language to another is not perfect. So-called literal translations are likely the worse because of grammar, cultural, background differences.

 

[charsan]

While researching some Charismatic denominations - Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Baptist - to see if I belong to one, I read those people believe the Bible has no errors and read it literally.

Those do, not all do.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Those do, not all do.

Which ones don't?

 

[charsan]

The Charismatic Episcopal Church seems not to, taking a high view of Scripture but not necessarily literal everywhere. Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church does not take Scripture literally every where

 

[RDKirk]

I don't want to get into another argument about the motives of Bible scholars. My concern is Charismatics think just because a word means this in English, it means the same in ancient Hebrew as Moses wrote it - and, more importantly, God's definition of the word, so they interpret the entire Bible literally even where they shouldn't. If this is the case, I cannot theologically agree with them.

I'm Charismatic, and I don't think that way.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Charismatic Episcopal Church seems not to, taking a high view of Scripture but not necessarily literal everywhere. Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church does not take Scripture literally every where

That is the basic problem with stereotyping people. I was raised in a denomination which radically stereotyped other denominations. When I reached adulthood I discovered that, indeed, some individuals in those denominations did fit the stereotypes, but most did not.

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is the basic problem with stereotyping people. I was raised in a denomination which radically stereotyped other denominations. When I reached adulthood I discovered that, indeed, some individuals in those denominations did fit the stereotypes, but most did not.

So why do those stereotypes exist? If therre must be one, it should be what most people in the group do. One thing that really bothers me about this is when people say "Baptist" the first thought a listener has is Southern Baptist, which is totally different from some other Baptist denominations. Then there are people who don't even know what evangelical means and think that is another word for Pentecostal.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So why do those stereotypes exist? If therre must be one, it should be what most people in the group do. One thing that really bothers me about this is when people say "Baptist" the first thought a listener has is Southern Baptist, which is totally different from some other Baptist denominations. Then there are people who don't even know what evangelical means and think that is another word for Pentecostal.

It seems there is a basic sinful craving of human nature to make ourselves out to be somehow better than others, which all-too-frequently creates amazing denial of reality and denigration of otherwise fine people.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It seems there is a basic sinful craving of human nature to make ourselves out to be somehow better than others, which all-too-frequently creates amazing denial of reality and denigration of otherwise fine people.

That is apparent when people sterotype Catholics to make themselves look like better Christians for being Protestants, but a minor thing like Lutherans talking about Baptists is not worth sinful pride.