How accurate is the Bible?

[XPres]

*NOTE: I also posted this in Christian Scriptures and figured this forum would also be a good place to discuss it, since it was a nondenominational church I was talking about.*

...
Last Sunday I visited a friend's nondenominational church and was very impressed, especially with the preacher, who spoke directly from the Bible and didn't leave anything it said to chance. The church I grew up in had an extremely loose view of the Bible to the point where its members weren't expected to believe any of it to be true, so this approach was kind of refreshing to someone who hadn't heard anything like it before. I knew that I was hearing the truth, without the sugar-coating and beating around the bush my old church did.

But part of this church's statement of faith was that they believe the Bible to be completely inerrant, and I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. I believe that all the books in the Bible are fairly accurate historical accounts of events that did actually happen. But they were written by human authors who were (am I correct in saying this?) describing things they witnessed from memory, and the human memory is far from perfect. Most people could tell you about the main ideas expressed in a past conversation, but they can't usually recall the exact dialogue. And they can recount things that happened in sequence, but they might not remember how many days passed between events X and Y, who all was present, etc.

So if the Bible was written by humans, couldn't it be assumed that some errors worked their way into the scripture? Of course the events and main ideas described would still be accurate, because the authors could be expected to recall those, but wouldn't more specific details be less reliable? Or did the fact that God inspired the authors eliminate any error from their memory? Also, could "inerrant" be interpreted to mean what I described above?

I'm curious to hear everyone's take on this because I'm still very much open to different interpretations.

 

[joshua 1 9]

*NOTE: I also posted this in Christian Scriptures and figured this forum would also be a good place to discuss it, since it was a nondenominational church I was talking about.*

...
Last Sunday I visited a friend's nondenominational church and was very impressed, especially with the preacher, who spoke directly from the Bible and didn't leave anything it said to chance. The church I grew up in had an extremely loose view of the Bible to the point where its members weren't expected to believe any of it to be true, so this approach was kind of refreshing to someone who hadn't heard anything like it before. I knew that I was hearing the truth, without the sugar-coating and beating around the bush my old church did.

But part of this church's statement of faith was that they believe the Bible to be completely inerrant, and I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. I believe that all the books in the Bible are fairly accurate historical accounts of events that did actually happen. But they were written by human authors who were (am I correct in saying this?) describing things they witnessed from memory, and the human memory is far from perfect. Most people could tell you about the main ideas expressed in a past conversation, but they can't usually recall the exact dialogue. And they can recount things that happened in sequence, but they might not remember how many days passed between events X and Y, who all was present, etc.

So if the Bible was written by humans, couldn't it be assumed that some errors worked their way into the scripture? Of course the events and main ideas described would still be accurate, because the authors could be expected to recall those, but wouldn't more specific details be less reliable? Or did the fact that God inspired the authors eliminate any error from their memory? Also, could "inerrant" be interpreted to mean what I described above?

I'm curious to hear everyone's take on this because I'm still very much open to different interpretations.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

The Bible is accurate because the Bible is inspired by God. There are passages in the OT that were written for our sake today. The authors knew what they were writting was written for our sake. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15 4.

The Word has been made pure and though the Word of God we are purified and made Holy before God. His word always prospers and accomplishes His plan and purpose. Isaiah 55: 11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

 

[Winken]

*NOTE: I also posted this in Christian Scriptures and figured this forum would also be a good place to discuss it, since it was a nondenominational church I was talking about.*

...
Last Sunday I visited a friend's nondenominational church and was very impressed, especially with the preacher, who spoke directly from the Bible and didn't leave anything it said to chance. The church I grew up in had an extremely loose view of the Bible to the point where its members weren't expected to believe any of it to be true, so this approach was kind of refreshing to someone who hadn't heard anything like it before. I knew that I was hearing the truth, without the sugar-coating and beating around the bush my old church did.

But part of this church's statement of faith was that they believe the Bible to be completely inerrant, and I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. I believe that all the books in the Bible are fairly accurate historical accounts of events that did actually happen. But they were written by human authors who were (am I correct in saying this?) describing things they witnessed from memory, and the human memory is far from perfect. Most people could tell you about the main ideas expressed in a past conversation, but they can't usually recall the exact dialogue. And they can recount things that happened in sequence, but they might not remember how many days passed between events X and Y, who all was present, etc.

So if the Bible was written by humans, couldn't it be assumed that some errors worked their way into the scripture? Of course the events and main ideas described would still be accurate, because the authors could be expected to recall those, but wouldn't more specific details be less reliable? Or did the fact that God inspired the authors eliminate any error from their memory? Also, could "inerrant" be interpreted to mean what I described above?

I'm curious to hear everyone's take on this because I'm still very much open to different interpretations.

The Bible is God-breathed. Our teacher is the Holy Spirit, not what we think, or what others have written about the Bible.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The question you ask could be answered in a medium sized book if the print were small enough. Better in a three or four volume set, suitable for resting comfortably on one's real wood shelves in the study.

Yes. The Bible is 'inerrant'. However, one must understand the function of the Bible to understand what that actually means.

The Bible is God's message - 'word' in the KJV, but the Hebrew word means 'message', like in 'What's the word?' - to mankind revealing God, mankind, mankind's fallen nature and what God did to 'fix' the mess of mankind's fallen nature.

The Bible is not - never intended to be - a textbook of physical science or history. It records some historical events, but it doesn't go into detail about anything not directly related to the main purpose.

As for the eyewitness accounts, the writer recorded what he saw, from his vantage point. Very seldom does the writer in any instance go into great detail about 'how' something happened, only that it happened.

Another way to express all I said is this: The Bible is absolutely correct in what it says. It may not be completely correct in what I - or someone else - thinks or hopes it says.

 

[CGL1023]

*NOTE: I also posted this in Christian Scriptures and figured this forum would also be a good place to discuss it, since it was a nondenominational church I was talking about.*

...
Last Sunday I visited a friend's nondenominational church and was very impressed, especially with the preacher, who spoke directly from the Bible and didn't leave anything it said to chance. The church I grew up in had an extremely loose view of the Bible to the point where its members weren't expected to believe any of it to be true, so this approach was kind of refreshing to someone who hadn't heard anything like it before. I knew that I was hearing the truth, without the sugar-coating and beating around the bush my old church did.

But part of this church's statement of faith was that they believe the Bible to be completely inerrant, and I'm not sure if I fully agree with that. I believe that all the books in the Bible are fairly accurate historical accounts of events that did actually happen. But they were written by human authors who were (am I correct in saying this?) describing things they witnessed from memory, and the human memory is far from perfect. Most people could tell you about the main ideas expressed in a past conversation, but they can't usually recall the exact dialogue. And they can recount things that happened in sequence, but they might not remember how many days passed between events X and Y, who all was present, etc.

So if the Bible was written by humans, couldn't it be assumed that some errors worked their way into the scripture? Of course the events and main ideas described would still be accurate, because the authors could be expected to recall those, but wouldn't more specific details be less reliable? Or did the fact that God inspired the authors eliminate any error from their memory? Also, could "inerrant" be interpreted to mean what I described above?

I'm curious to hear everyone's take on this because I'm still very much open to different interpretations.

If you were asked, "Do you believe the bible?" What do you answer? if you say, "I believe some of it or parts of it", then you will be labeled a non-believer because a believer believes God is His Word and they are inseparable. God has magnified His Word above His name, Ps 138:2 which should be our assurance that the bible concepts won't be secretly twisted. That has been tried by the JWs but the deception is well known.

I think you have got to say you believe the bible because the several inconsistencies are well known and documented by scholars. For example Acts 12:4 in the King James version refers to Easter which is rendered Passover in other version I have read

The mythical creature, unicorn, is mentioned in the King James version as listed. (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7).
The satyr of Greek mythology is also mentioned (Isa. 13:21; 34:14) seeming to refer to wild goats. These are well known and seem to cause no difficulty to the Christian community.

I am not aware of any scientific, historic or archaeological truth that is not properly rendered in the bible, though we seem to be stuck with relying on the scholars to give us a correct translation. I would say that no doctrinal concept is mishandled in the major English bibles for the same reason.

 

[XPres]

I am not aware of any scientific, historic or archaeological truth that is not properly rendered in the bible, though we seem to be stuck with relying on the scholars to give us a correct translation. I would say that no doctrinal concept is mishandled in the major English bibles for the same reason.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that any factual errors in the Bible are due to translation? And that the original texts contained no errors but some details were lost in when the text was translated into various languages?

Also, how could you make the argument that there are no scientific truths that are "improperly rendered" in the Bible? We know now that it is extremely unlikely that the Earth was created in seven days...

 

[CGL1023]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that any factual errors in the Bible are due to translation? And that the original texts contained no errors but some details were lost in when the text was translated into various languages?

Also, how could you make the argument that there are no scientific truths that are "improperly rendered" in the Bible? We know now that it is extremely unlikely that the Earth was created in seven days...

I am not a translator or bible scholar; I am a student of the bible. The thing I know is that if you are a Christian you would want to believe the bible and do what it says. One thing stated in John 1(KJV) is that, "
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

This refers to Jesus being both God and the Word of God. Said differently God and His Word are indistinguishable. Thus if you accept a perfect God, His Word has also got to be perfect. These ideas cannot be reduced to science or observation.

As a Christian I believe that the bible accurately portrays God in all He says, all He thinks, all He feels and all He does. That seems to be what scholars believe because they are qualified to ask these difficult questions but they don't make a career of questioning the bible. It is as if they are satisfied with the bible as it is.

I can only go this far and I know you won't be satisfied. I know some scholarly type will come along and add more to this both interesting and difficult subject.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

It is the word of God - that is instantly 100% accurate as it is His word.

 

[pescador]

The Bible is a collection of different works by different authors, written at different times. Additionally, we don't have the original manuscripts and most of the time we have translations of those works in completely different languages. We are also culturally removed by many centuries, so our understanding of what was written in context is often difficult.

So is the Bible inerrant? The Bible's authors were inspired by God, meaning that they wrote what God wanted them to write -- in their own words. Personally, I don't spend any time trying to prove if the words, ideas, and events in the Bible are true (against what standard?). It makes just as much sense as asking if poetry is true.

God's message to all people is there, and is meant to be read and re-read with an open mind and an open heart. If you try to prove that what the Bible says -- which part? -- is true, I guarantee that you will miss the message.

 

[SistrNChrist]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that any factual errors in the Bible are due to translation? And that the original texts contained no errors but some details were lost in when the text was translated into various languages?

Also, how could you make the argument that there are no scientific truths that are "improperly rendered" in the Bible? We know now that it is extremely unlikely that the Earth was created in seven days...

Honestly, regarding some of the scientific truths of the Bible, my point of view is that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. For example, when you stop to consider that the Bible is basically about God's sovereign plan for humanity, does it really matter whether the whole earth/humanity was created in 7 literal 24 hour days or 7 symbolic days, and does that affect the fact that Jesus came to save us from our sins? Bottom line is that the Bible was never intended to be written as a science/history textbook, so why the need to interpret it as such?

 

[pescador]

Honestly, regarding some of the scientific truths of the Bible, my point of view is that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. For example, when you stop to consider that the Bible is basically about God's sovereign plan for humanity, does it really matter whether the whole earth/humanity was created in 7 literal 24 hour days or 7 symbolic days, and does that affect the fact that Jesus came to save us from our sins? Bottom line is that the Bible was never intended to be written as a science/history textbook, so why the need to interpret it as such?

Excellent post! The Bible is about God (the Trinity) and his interactions with people over many years, not about any side issues such as it being scientifically or literally "correct".

 

[alex2165]

Where is no such thing as original manuscript of the Bible, as someone mentioned here. The most original manuscripts we can possibly get to originality of the Bible are the Qumran manuscripts found in the desert not long ago.

These manuscripts contain all the Books of the Old Testament, except the Book of Esther, if I remember right.

They are written in Hebrew, but the Hebrew language itself undergoes many different variations in its grammar and pronunciations over the centuries, just like any language on Earth went through.

No one knows when Hebrew as language came to be, but at the beginning Abraham certainly used cuneiform being born in Ur of Chaldea, and later perhaps Aramaic, in Haran of Aram.

While being in Egypt, as all his descendants after him, so called Hebrews sure spoke, read write Egyptian language for 430 years.

When they came to Canaan and lived were for a while, when most likely they developed their own language, the Hebrew language, but still, it was not the Hebrew language we know today, most likely it was completely different language, which later took many different forms and involved into more precise and more practical language time after time.

But it was a certain time in the history of Jews when they almost lost their language and their own national identity. It was during the time of Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

When Jews returned back to their land from their exiles, most likely they had quite different language, spoken and written, perhaps the mix of original Hebrew, Aramaic (Assyrian), and Persian (Babylonian).

If you ask in what kind language Moses wrote his five Books, no one actually knows, but his books, were constantly translated and copied on the language that current generation at that time used, generation after generation.

It was GOD’S will to preserve the spiritual meaning and essence of the Books of Moses and the prophets, included New Testament, written at the language of the day - Greek.

Studying the Torah (5 Books of Moses), I encounter very often such notices next to certain Hebrew word, such as “meaning not know,” or “Hebrew word uncertain,” which means that today Hebrew language changed to such extend that certain old Hebrew words no longer translatable or understood in their true meaning.

But it does not mean at all that because of it Bible cannot be trusted. Again, the original essence and the spiritual meaning of the Book very well preserved even with such changes in the Hebrew language. As some of you may know, some passages of the Old Testament has been written in Aramaic( Assyrian – Syrian) language, and this language also changed quite a bit since it was used in the Bible.

I have 7 different Bibles and some Torah (haftorah). Torah comments very helpful because one page of Book written in Hebrew and the other in English as translation. You can find such Books in every synagogue.

When I compare Torah and the prophets of the Old Testament with translation of modern English, I was quite surprise how precise translations are, and how they match one another word to word.

Of course certain differences exist, but the meaning of the sentence, paragraph, or entire chapter preserved very well without any significant differences.

So I came to conclusion that the Bible deserves complete trust, at least it Old Testament portion, and translation from Hebrew to English is very good and precise and could not be any better.

Concerning New Testament, I also trust its English translation. Greek language change very little since Christ’s era, and translation of New Testament was much easily done than the Old Testament from Hebrew.

The Bibles I would recommend to have as a trusted source of the Word of GOD are: KJV, NRSV, ESV, KSB, and Gideons. I have also GNB (Good News Bible) but it is the worst Bible I ever had, it misses many verses and translation is very poor. So I would not recommend to anyone to have that Bible.

GOD bless

 

[alex2165]

Where is no such thing as original manuscript of the Bible, as someone mentioned here. The most original manuscripts we can possibly get to originality of the Bible are the Qumran manuscripts found in the desert not long ago.

These manuscripts contain all the Books of the Old Testament, except the Book of Esther, if I remember right.

They are written in Hebrew, but the Hebrew language itself undergoes many different variations in its grammar and pronunciations over the centuries, just like any language on Earth went through.

No one knows when Hebrew as language came to be, but at the beginning Abraham certainly used cuneiform being born in Ur of Chaldea, and later perhaps Aramaic, in Haran of Aram.

While being in Egypt, as all his descendants after him, so called Hebrews sure spoke, read write Egyptian language for 430 years.

When they came to Canaan and lived were for a while, when most likely they developed their own language, the Hebrew language, but still, it was not the Hebrew language we know today, most likely it was completely different language, which later took many different forms and involved into more precise and more practical language time after time.

But it was a certain time in the history of Jews when they almost lost their language and their own national identity. It was during the time of Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

When Jews returned back to their land from their exiles, most likely they had quite different language, spoken and written, perhaps the mix of original Hebrew, Aramaic (Assyrian), and Persian (Babylonian).

If you ask in what kind language Moses wrote his five Books, no one actually knows, but his books, were constantly translated and copied on the language that current generation at that time used, generation after generation.

It was GOD’S will to preserve the spiritual meaning and essence of the Books of Moses and the prophets, included New Testament, written at the language of the day - Greek.

Studying the Torah (5 Books of Moses), I encounter very often such notices next to certain Hebrew word, such as “meaning not know,” or “Hebrew word uncertain,” which means that today Hebrew language changed to such extend that certain old Hebrew words no longer translatable or understood in their true meaning.

But it does not mean at all that because of it Bible cannot be trusted. Again, the original essence and the spiritual meaning of the Book very well preserved even with such changes in the Hebrew language. As some of you may know, some passages of the Old Testament has been written in Aramaic( Assyrian – Syrian) language, and this language also changed quite a bit since it was used in the Bible.

I have 7 different Bibles and some Torah (haftorah). Torah comments very helpful because one page of Book written in Hebrew and the other in English as translation. You can find such Books in every synagogue.

When I compare Torah and the prophets of the Old Testament with translation of modern English, I was quite surprise how precise translations are, and how they match one another word to word.

Of course certain differences exist, but the meaning of the sentence, paragraph, or entire chapter preserved very well without any significant differences.

So I came to conclusion that the Bible deserves complete trust, at least it Old Testament portion, and translation from Hebrew to English is very good and precise and could not be any better.

Concerning New Testament, I also trust its English translation. Greek language change very little since Christ’s era, and translation of New Testament was much easily done than the Old Testament from Hebrew.

The Bibles I would recommend to have as a trusted source of the Word of GOD are: KJV, NRSV, ESV, KSB, and Gideons. I have also GNB (Good News Bible) but it is the worst Bible I ever had, it misses many verses and translation is very poor. So I would not recommend to anyone to have that Bible.

GOD bless

 

[pescador]

Where is no such thing as original manuscript of the Bible, as someone mentioned here. The most original manuscripts we can possibly get to originality of the Bible are the Qumran manuscripts found in the desert not long ago.

These manuscripts contain all the Books of the Old Testament, except the Book of Esther, if I remember right.

They are written in Hebrew, but the Hebrew language itself undergoes many different variations in its grammar and pronunciations over the centuries, just like any language on Earth went through.

No one knows when Hebrew as language came to be, but at the beginning Abraham certainly used cuneiform being born in Ur of Chaldea, and later perhaps Aramaic, in Haran of Aram.

While being in Egypt, as all his descendants after him, so called Hebrews sure spoke, read write Egyptian language for 430 years.

When they came to Canaan and lived were for a while, when most likely they developed their own language, the Hebrew language, but still, it was not the Hebrew language we know today, most likely it was completely different language, which later took many different forms and involved into more precise and more practical language time after time.

But it was a certain time in the history of Jews when they almost lost their language and their own national identity. It was during the time of Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

When Jews returned back to their land from their exiles, most likely they had quite different language, spoken and written, perhaps the mix of original Hebrew, Aramaic (Assyrian), and Persian (Babylonian).

If you ask in what kind language Moses wrote his five Books, no one actually knows, but his books, were constantly translated and copied on the language that current generation at that time used, generation after generation.

It was GOD’S will to preserve the spiritual meaning and essence of the Books of Moses and the prophets, included New Testament, written at the language of the day - Greek.

Studying the Torah (5 Books of Moses), I encounter very often such notices next to certain Hebrew word, such as “meaning not know,” or “Hebrew word uncertain,” which means that today Hebrew language changed to such extend that certain old Hebrew words no longer translatable or understood in their true meaning.

But it does not mean at all that because of it Bible cannot be trusted. Again, the original essence and the spiritual meaning of the Book very well preserved even with such changes in the Hebrew language. As some of you may know, some passages of the Old Testament has been written in Aramaic( Assyrian – Syrian) language, and this language also changed quite a bit since it was used in the Bible.

I have 7 different Bibles and some Torah (haftorah). Torah comments very helpful because one page of Book written in Hebrew and the other in English as translation. You can find such Books in every synagogue.

When I compare Torah and the prophets of the Old Testament with translation of modern English, I was quite surprise how precise translations are, and how they match one another word to word.

Of course certain differences exist, but the meaning of the sentence, paragraph, or entire chapter preserved very well without any significant differences.

So I came to conclusion that the Bible deserves complete trust, at least it Old Testament portion, and translation from Hebrew to English is very good and precise and could not be any better.

Concerning New Testament, I also trust its English translation. Greek language change very little since Christ’s era, and translation of New Testament was much easily done than the Old Testament from Hebrew.

The Bibles I would recommend to have as a trusted source of the Word of GOD are: KJV, NRSV, ESV, KSB, and Gideons. I have also GNB (Good News Bible) but it is the worst Bible I ever had, it misses many verses and translation is very poor. So I would not recommend to anyone to have that Bible.

GOD bless

My favorite translations (in order) are the NET Bible, the NRSV, and the NIV. What is the KSB?

 

[Greg J.]

I'm curious to hear everyone's take on this because I'm still very much open to different interpretations.

As was implied, there is a lot of information on this subject. There are many fields of study (and Ph.D.s) along the path from ancient pieces of writing to understanding the meaning of an English translation. It may be profitable to identify exactly what you are not 100% sure of and look into that specifically. For example, do you believe that the oldest fragments and manuscripts of Scripture (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) were written by honest people or the result of some great scheme to create lies across thousands of years and dozens of people? Or do you find the conflicting meaning of two English translations is what makes you question the accuracy?

There is NOT a lot of conflict about the text of the Bible as it was originally written down. For example, the two most used Greek New Testaments share the same text. There IS a lot of conflict about what is thought was going through the mind of Bible book writers (i.e., what they meant) when they expressed what they wrote.

Personally, viewing the Bible as a collection of books that God gave us so we might know him, I have found the Bible to be internally consistent and logical (and what it says about God to be true in my experience). I believe that when it was written down 100% of it was God speaking through people. I can't think of any important concepts in Scripture that only appear once in one place, meaning that the basics of the faith are 100% solid.

 

[JoeP222w]

But they were written by human authors who were (am I correct in saying this?) describing things they witnessed from memory, and the human memory is far from perfect.

Not completely true.

The Bible was written by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was not written by men of their own accord. Ultimately, God is the author of all scripture, so scripture is without error in it's original manuscripts. God is able to preserve His word and truth throughout time.

 

[JoeP222w]

We know now that it is extremely unlikely that the Earth was created in seven days...

I disagree. That may be your pre-supposition, but it is merely an assertion on your part.

 

[JoeP222w]

Honestly, regarding some of the scientific truths of the Bible, my point of view is that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. For example, when you stop to consider that the Bible is basically about God's sovereign plan for humanity, does it really matter whether the whole earth/humanity was created in 7 literal 24 hour days or 7 symbolic days, and does that affect the fact that Jesus came to save us from our sins? Bottom line is that the Bible was never intended to be written as a science/history textbook, so why the need to interpret it as such?

While it is true that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook, are you saying that anything found regarding science in the Bible is irrelevant of whether it is true or not? This implies that the Bible is not required to truthful on science, but only truthful on spiritual issues. That would be a false dichotomy. It implies that God is truthful in some areas but not others. That is not consistent with the character and nature of God.

 

[pescador]

There IS a lot of conflict about what is thought was going through the mind of Bible book writers (i.e., what they meant) when they expressed what they wrote.

That is the primary reason that I prefer bibles that follow functional translation principles rather than formal principles. I am most interested in learning what the Bible says via the language and culture that I live in. It is very difficult to get inside the minds and culture of societies that existed thousands of years ago, to discover what the biblical authors were trying to convey.

 

[pescador]

While it is true that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook, are you saying that anything found regarding science in the Bible is irrelevant of whether it is true or not? This implies that the Bible is not required to truthful on science, but only truthful on spiritual issues. That would be a false dichotomy. It implies that God is truthful in some areas but not others. That is not consistent with the character and nature of God.

Do you read science textbooks for spiritual answers?