Can someone be Charismatic and believe the Bible has errors?

Hello Cats. Once a translation is made, the use of language being constantly changing, a word used in the translation it's meaning can change. For example the word 'gay' used to mean bright or gregarious, now it means homosexual. Other words too, their meaning can change. I think it's always better to examine the meaning of the original text or translation carefully. God Bless

ChristianForCats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lets do this, shall we. Instead of the "generic" statement of......
"I am more interested in learning about the mistakes"----

Why don't you post the Scriptures where YOU think there is a mistake or error and allow the people here on the forum to correctly do the exegeses of that Scripture to see if it is actually a mistake OR is it a failure do to a lack of contextual Bible study.

Pick the one Scripture that bothers YOU the most and lets see what happens.

charsan said:

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

Click to expand...

When the admitted homosexual Episcopalian Bishop, Gene Robinsion was elected, the board of directors said that they were not abiding by the Word of God and neither did they have to.

Major1 said:

When the admitted homosexual Episcopalian Bishop, Gene Robinsion was elected, the board of directors said that they were not abiding by the Word of God and neither did they have to.

Click to expand...

The ECUSA has not done the right things for a while that is why I could never join them.

ChristianForCats said:

Well, if you read the Creation and Theistic Evolution forum, it is pretty obvious I have done so by pointing out there is no way the universe and everything in it could be made within 144 hours (24x6). I cannot for the life of me accept any argument that the Creation should be interpreted as 6 literal days because all of the evidence disproves that idea. So when people say the Bible is the only truth or trumps all over truths, I assume they deny the existence of fossils, rocks, and other evidence that proves beyond all doubt there were billions of years between the creation of Earth and the creation of man.

Click to expand...

OK.

I am assuming you have read up on the "Gap Theology"?

Also, have you considered the "Old Earth" theology".

So I assume you are saying that Genesis 1:1 is a mistake...…….
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Now where in that verse is there a "mistake"????? There is not a MISTAKE but rather a "difference" between the Bible and Science.

God created everything but nowhere does the Scriptures say that it was 6000 or 6 trillion years ago.

Notice that there is a definite pattern associated with the days described in Genesis 1. Each one begins with “And God said…” and ends with “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” This being so, there is the implication that day 1 commences in verse 3, while the description in verses 1-2 of God creating the heavens and the earth precedes it. This conclusion receives still further support from the fact that the verb “created” in verse 1 is in the perfect tense, whereas the use of the narrative tense begins in verse 3. When the perfect tense is used at the start of a pericope, its purpose is ordinarily to denote an event which sets the background and context of the storyline: That is to say, it takes place before the rest of the story gets underway. This implies that verses 1 and 2 occurred an undisclosed period of time prior to the first day! This means that, quite aside from how one interprets the days of Genesis 1, the origin of the Universe (and, indeed, the earth) occurs, as far as the information provided in Scripture is concerned, at an indeterminate time in the past.

There is an excellent site at Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers. I recommend it to you in hopes it will help your understanding.

charsan said:

The ECUSA has not done the right things for a while that is why I could never join them.

Click to expand...

Thank you and I congratulate you on your choice.

Major1 said:

Thank you and I congratulate you on your choice.

Click to expand...

Thank you. When people see under my avatar Charismatic Episcopalian they automatically assume ECUSA which I guess I can understand but I am a sub deacon in the Charismatic Episcopal Church or the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church.

ChristianForCats said:

Where did you get that from? I was saying the opposite, that Earth was obviously not 5 days old when its first man (Adam) was created. What is gap theology?


I am only talking about the word day here, not what happened before the "first day." How is it correct for "and there was evening, and then morning, the _____ day" to be used for events that happened millions, if not billions, of years apart? I have no doubt Earth was already old when the first bacteria were created.

There is a mistake later: Birds came from dinosaurs, so creatures that fly could not be made before those that walk on the land. Paleonotologists have discovered clear evidence of this in Triassic period fossils.


Of course it doesn't. Earth gets older every second.

Click to expand...

Where did I get it from???? YOU!

You said in your post...………..
" I cannot for the life of me accept any argument that the Creation should be interpreted as 6 literal days because all of the evidence disproves that idea."

I then gave you some Christian teachings that would you understand that there is a teaching theology of a "Young Earth verses an Old Earth".

Now please to do get confrontational/angry as I am not trying to do that to you with what I am going to say. With all due respect, I would encourage you to do more Bible study before making comments on an open forum such as this.

The "Gap Theory" was proposed about 50 years or so ago to address exactly what your concern is.....how can the creation be 6000 years old when science has proven that dinosaurs are millions of years old if not billions.

I am not promoting one over the over, I am just answering your question of what Is the "Gap Theory".

The Gap Theory says that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is an incalculable amount of time.

Gen. 1:2...….
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

"Without form" in the original Hebrew is the word "TOHU" which means literally...…"RUIN/VACANCY".

"VOID" in the same manner is the word "BOHU" which means "EMPTY".

I personally believe that something catastrophic happened in the universe.

I suggest that there was some pre-Adamic creature that was on this earth and it seems that all of this is connected in some way with the fall of Lucifer who became Satan. God has not given us the details but anyone can dig up bones and realize that they have been there a very long time, even millions of years.

So then IMO, God re-created the creation. I know what you are thinking.

However, consider Genesis 1:2 again and look closely at the words ………...
"God moved upon the face of the waters".

Where did the water come from??????

Verse #2 is BEFORE the 1st day of actual Creation.

Could the water be left from God's destruction of this pre-Adamic earth????


I am no expert on this and do not claim to be but I do not remember seeing where the idea of Birds being dinosaurs was a scientific proven fact. I have read that a lot of people have proposed such a thing but it can not be proven as fact.

I did look a few facts and one of them is that there are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded.

In an effort to make the evolution of dinosaurs into birds seem more plausible, some evolutionists have argued that dinosaurs were also endothermic, but again, there is no evidence for this.


Evolutionists have then argued that "FEATHERS" found on dinosaurs prove that the dinosaurs evolved into birds. Does it?????

But using the same scientific process, thus far, the only supposed dinosaur fossil with obvious feathers that was “found” is Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. This so-called definitive feathered dinosaur was reported with much fanfare in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic but has since been shown to be a fraud.
Did Dinosaurs Turn into Birds?

ChristianForCats said:

"The spirit of God" must have been the Holy Spirit. Different versions of the Bible use "moving" instead of "hovering" andc I wonder if this means there is a mistake in some translations. Either way, God was over all of the water at this point and later separated it.


If you want to talk about the whole universe, many catastrophic events happened. When limited to Earth, most people would call it the Big Bang (which can't be proven or disproven beyond all doubt).


Biblically, humans were the last creatures to be made. Are you thinking of something like Bigfoot?

Click to expand...

So then IMO, God re-created the creation. I know what you are thinking.[/QUOTE]

There were five mass extinctions before Adam. At least one was caused by a flood (the Permian-Triassic). We could talk a long time about this in a different section of CF because it is a very interesting topic.


Mars? We now know the Red Planet used to be like Earth with oceans, lakes, and rivers.[/QUOTE]

Yes. The Spirit of God IS the Holy Spirit.

No mistake there.

The point I made was that there was water on the earth BEFORE God started the Creation process.

The Big Bang was not a catastrophic event. Scientifically it was the beginning and a catastrophic event would be an ending event.

Yes, humans were created on the 6th day and were last to be created, but what is your point.

NO, I was not referring to Big Foot as there is NO SUCH BEING.

Science does show that there were 5 mass extinctions which would in fact support the Old Earth theology.

Mars......water? Of course the question would have to be HOW?

ChristianForCats said:

So how could there be water before the so-called first day? This would appear to be a mistake in the Bible if we are actually talking about H2O (something God created). The only possible explanation is God made water elsewhere in the universe before He created Earth. How would you explain the use of the word day, which I know for a fact is totally wrong? And how do you explain water being the first thing God created - which also cannot be correct?

Click to expand...

You missed my point. I did not say God created water first. I said, there is water in Genesis #2 before the Creation account begins in verse #3.
So then where did the water come from?

I am saying that there could have been a flood which destroyed the earth--or is you prefer, 'a mass extinction" and the water we see in verse #2 is what was left of that flood.

That is not a mistake at all. The simple fact is that God has not given us all the details that we demand to know.

It could also mean that the "Gap Theory" is correct after all and a lot of time transpired between the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis.

It could also be that the water was from melting ice in a global ice freeze.
Again, those are NOT mistakes, they are just not things we are told about.

You see, the Bible contains the story of Creation but it is NOT about creation.
The Bible contains geology, but it is not about geology.
The Bible contains biology, but it is not about biology.
The Bible contains politics, but it is not about politics.
The Bible contains history, but it is not about history.

The Bible is all about the relationship between God and man and how man can get to God.

You asked about DAYS.

Proponents of Old Earth Creation believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and believe the Genesis creation account to be historical narrative—not myth, allegory, legend or poetic expression. While YECs believe a “plain reading” of the English translation of Genesis 1 necessitates belief that God created the world in six 24-hour days some six to ten thousand years ago, OECs believe that textual and grammatical nuances of the original Hebrew suggest six long epochs of time. Indeed, OECs contend a literal reading of the Biblical creation accounts in Hebrew provides certain exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation “days.”

Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often have several literal meanings. Linguistic scholars acknowledge the Hebrew word yôm (translated “day” in English) has several literal meanings:
1). a period of daylight,
2). 12-hour day,
3). 24-hour day,
4). time,
5). period of time with unspecified duration,
6). and epoch of time.

While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yôm.
A Biblical Case for Old-Earth Creationism

None of this approaches the idea of a "MISTAKE". It comes under the heading of,
"we just do not know".

ChristianForCats said:

So how could there be water before the so-called first day? This would appear to be a mistake in the Bible if we are actually talking about H2O (something God created). The only possible explanation is God made water elsewhere in the universe before He created Earth. How would you explain the use of the word day, which I know for a fact is totally wrong? And how do you explain water being the first thing God created - which also cannot be correct?

Click to expand...

Do you have any other "mistakes" that you would like to discuss?

ChristianForCats said:

The animal that swallowed Jonah could not be both a fish and a whale. Do Charismatics assume whatever species is in their Bible, as opposed to just a huge sea creature that swims, is correct, even if their Bibles are not the same?

Click to expand...

I am not a Charismatic Pentecostal believer.

Most of the time, what we think is a mistake is nothing more than a lack of study.

Actually, The bible never says it was a whale. The book of Jonah actually uses the phrase “a great fish”:

Jonah 1:17...……..
“And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.”

The only translation I know of that says "whale" is the obscure, Brenton Septuagint.

Do you have another "mistake" to ask?

ChristianForCats said:

OK got it. For some reason people often think the great fish was a whale so I kept hearing it wrong.

Click to expand...

And may I say to you that, that is exactly the root of most all "mistakes".

Someone said is never an answer or even a question.

I will be glad to answer any question you have concerning the Scriptures.

I only ask you to make sure it is what "YOU' think is a mistake and not an opinion.

Let me help you with an example...………
An author several years ago wrote a piece that alleges that the translation, “sister,” used in Song of Solomon (seven times), would imply an incestuous relationship and is downright “felonious.”

IS THAT A MISTAKE?

NO!

The term “sister” (4:9) is merely a “term of endearment rather than a term for a blood relative” (Unger and White, 384). Professor G. Lloyd Carr states:

“Brother and “sister” as terms of endearment between lovers is well attested from the literature from the ancient Near East. There is no incestuous relationship being discussed here (1984, 121).

A little sudy goes a long way in correct understanding of the Scriptures. And when you do, you will find that there are NO mistakes at all.