How accurate is the Bible?

[Greg J.]

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.

It sounds like the NIV + NLT + The Message is for you then. The latter to understand what is being said, and the former to see more precisely what was actually said (when desired). Lots of people have the NLT as their main Bible. I really like it even though sometimes it seems more like a paraphrase than a translation. (The NIV is my main Bible.)

 

[JoeP222w]

Do you read science textbooks for spiritual answers?

No. Spiritual truth is found only in God in His inerrant word of the Bible.

 

[pescador]

No. Spiritual truth is found only in God in His inerrant word of the Bible.

Then why do you read the Bible to get scientific answers?

 

[JoeP222w]

Where did I write that I read the Bible for scientific answers (moreover that the Bible is the sole source of science)?

 

[alex2165]

To Pescador.

KSB – Key Study Bible, edited by Zodhiates. It is an excellent Bible with very detailed and reasonable comments.

I do not know much about Zodhiates himself, and not much written about him on the internet, but I suspecting hi is a Greek Jew who are fluent in three languages, Greek, Hebrew, and English.

Such Bible will be a perfect addition to KJV and to other Bibles you might have in order to do cross reference.

GOD bless

Alex

 

[pescador]

Where did I write that I read the Bible for scientific answers (moreover that the Bible is the sole source of science)?

You said, "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.

 

[JoeP222w]

You said, "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.

Ok. But I did not say that the Bible was the sole source of science.

I am not understanding your point.

 

[SistrNChrist]

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.

No. What I am saying is that why should we split hairs over whether the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days, or 7 1000 year periods of days? It still implies that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as everything on the earth, regardless of how long it took to create it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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

We only know it's God-breathed because the Bible says so? That's circular reasoning. Not to mention the only Scripture that existed at the time was the Old Testament—the New hadn't been compiled yet. In fact there were many NT Scriptures that could have made it into the Bible but didn't. If all Scripture is God-breathed, can't they have been too? And why would it take 300 years to establish the doctrine?

 

[AnnaliseH]

100 %

There is no portion of the Bible that is untrue or mistaken in any way. It is the truth because it comes from God, who cannot lie.

Proof is not required. You either believe it on faith or not at all.

 

[JoeP222w]

No. What I am saying is that why should we split hairs over whether the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days, or 7 1000 year periods of days? It still implies that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as everything on the earth, regardless of how long it took to create it.

The literal length of time that God used to create all things is significant. Because if it is arbitrary is calls in to suspicion the language used in Genesis, which in turn calls into question all of scripture. Language has meaning, words have meaning. We don't get the right to look back into history and apply our modern lenses to ancient languages to fit our mold. We have to understand to the primary audience for which it is written.

 

[SistrNChrist]

The literal length of time that God used to create all things is significant. Because if it is arbitrary is calls in to suspicion the language used in Genesis, which in turn calls into question all of scripture. Language has meaning, words have meaning. We don't get the right to look back into history and apply our modern lenses to ancient languages to fit our mold. We have to understand to the primary audience for which it is written.

Regarding your point about languages, how do you know that the Bible was accurately translated to begin with, or that the translators even understood who the primary audience was? I've gone back and read some of the original language, and there really were things that got lost in translation between the original Hebrew/Greek and even the KJV English. Then there's the whole thing with the Western culture trying to interpret the Bible through their eyes instead of reading into what it would've meant to the people who each book was written to, and who the particular audience was. As an example, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the passage in 1 Corinthians 13 interpreted to mean that tongues/prophecies/all other spiritual gifts ceased to exist when the Bible was written, and I'm sure I don't need to go into great detail about how ludicrous it is that Paul would actually know that the Bible as it exists today would even be a thing.

 

[JoeP222w]

Regarding your point about languages, how do you know that the Bible was accurately translated to begin with, or that the translators even understood who the primary audience was?

It is based on manuscript evidence and textual transmission. There are more than 24,000 manuscript copies of the originals and they are 99% accurate, with textual variants that in no way change the meaning of the text. An example of textual variant is "an apple" or "a apple" (both phrases in no way change the meaning of the text. No other historical document comes even close to such accuracy. There are only 3 copies from of the Illaid and the Odyssey and those are rarely challenged as authentic. It is an area I have a basic understanding in, but I have very much more to learn about.

Also the original scribes knew and understood Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, so they also understood the audience.

I've gone back and read some of the original language, and there really were things that got lost in translation between the original Hebrew/Greek and even the KJV English.

I would argue that KJV is not the primary source document for Christians, since Jesus nor the Apostles spoke King James English. KJV does have errors in it, because the KJV translators were working from a flawed source (the Textus Receptus).

Then there's the whole thing with the Western culture trying to interpret the Bible through their eyes instead of reading into what it would've meant to the people who each book was written to, and who the particular audience was.

And when modern culture does this, they err, nor is this proper exegesis of scripture.

 

[Winken]

We only know it's God-breathed because the Bible says so? That's circular reasoning. Not to mention the only Scripture that existed at the time was the Old Testament—the New hadn't been compiled yet. In fact there were many NT Scriptures that could have made it into the Bible but didn't. If all Scripture is God-breathed, can't they have been too? And why would it take 300 years to establish the doctrine?

The Bible affirms God breathed it, the Holy Spirit communicated it, the Bible affirms the Spiritual reality of Spirit-led insight, guidance, revelation, the Bible affirms that, the Holy Spirit communicates that, the Bible affirms the Spiritual reality of that.............. Wow! What more blessed circular Spiritual affirmation could there be? What a circle!! The Old became New, the New became real, all that is necessary for the Believer is in the New, the "doctrine" has been there since the beginning, the Bible affirms God breathed it ........... Yea!

 

[faroukfarouk]

100 %

There is no portion of the Bible that is untrue or mistaken in any way. It is the truth because it comes from God, who cannot lie.

Proof is not required. You either believe it on faith or not at all.

C H Spurgeon said that trying to defend the Bible is like trying to defend a lion: it will defend itself!

 

[MJFlores]

*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.

It sounds like the church I belong.
Is the bible error free? Yes it is.
Why is it written by humans? Does it matter?
The prophets are the secretaries of God and they are authorized to write for him.

There was a time when God wrote the 10 commandments in stone tablets and gave it to Moses. (the first sets were broken but the second wasn't) It was kept on the Ark of the Covenant. And as many many years passed, everywhere it was kept plagues came because the Israelites kept on sinning. The Philistines were able to capture it and they too were hit by plagues. That is how holy God's own writings are. The ark of the covenant is now in heaven Revelation 11:19

So the prophets wrote what God said and his Son the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the knowledge of God and that is what we know today as the gospel. Romans 1:1-3

 

[thesunisout]

*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.

Hello,

We have the same copy of the Old Testament that Jesus had in His day, and He said that was scripture. The New Testament was written under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit through men, yes, and flawed, yes, but a perfect God used them to write His message. God is capable of doing that and also preserving His word over the centuries.

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart
Lean not on your own understanding

This is a very important scripture; are you ready to surrender your ideas and allow God to teach you His truth? If you are then God will show you that indeed, you can trust His word.

 

[XPres]

I've thought more about this since starting this thread and think I've come to somewhat of a conclusion. The way I see it, the Bible is inerrant in that it is the word of God documented through human authors. But this does not necessarily mean that God meant every word to be interpreted in the literal sense. Since nobody can fully understand God or His actions, it would have been pointless for Him to try to describe everything in literal detail; not only would this be impossible, no one would be able to wrap their heads around it even if it was. So He instead revealed His word in a way that people could easily understand. For example, since no one can fully comprehend the creation of the universe--which most likely took billions of years--God presented those years as seven days and simplified His explanation of how He went around creating the world. It would be like explaining to child how an engine works. Are you gonna use exact numbers, like compression ratios, degrees of timing, etc.? Of course not. You'd make it much more simple, accessible, and easy to understand. Now imagine that you're God and you want to explain something as infinitely complex as the entire universe...chances are you'll do something similar. That's what I believe God was probably doing in Genesis and throughout the Bible.

Does anyone have an opinion on my position? Once again, I'm open to everyone's interpretation and my views are far from unchangeable.

 

[Winken]

I've thought more about this since starting this thread and think I've come to somewhat of a conclusion. The way I see it, the Bible is inerrant in that it is the word of God documented through human authors. But this does not necessarily mean that God meant every word to be interpreted in the literal sense. Since nobody can fully understand God or His actions, it would have been pointless for Him to try to describe everything in literal detail; not only would this be impossible, no one would be able to wrap their heads around it even if it was. So He instead revealed His word in a way that people could easily understand. For example, since no one can fully comprehend the creation of the universe--which most likely took billions of years--God presented those years as seven days and simplified His explanation of how He went around creating the world. It would be like explaining to child how an engine works. Are you gonna use exact numbers, like compression ratios, degrees of timing, etc.? Of course not. You'd make it much more simple, accessible, and easy to understand. Now imagine that you're God and you want to explain something as infinitely complex as the entire universe...chances are you'll do something similar. That's what I believe God was probably doing in Genesis and throughout the Bible.

Does anyone have an opinion on my position? Once again, I'm open to everyone's interpretation and my views are far from unchangeable.

I think He did what He caused to be written. I'm not able to reduce that to simple or intellectual interpretation......millions have tried. I once had a young man tell me he was deserting Christianity because he could not believe in a snake in the Garden, or Jonah in a whale, and similar. He was relieved to know that he didn't have to believe that in order to be saved or to remain a Christian.

I'll accept your approach as a reasonable way to inform others.......we just don't want to hang our hat on the idea that we believe it as written, or else. We need to leave that to the Holy Spirit.

 

[thesunisout]

I've thought more about this since starting this thread and think I've come to somewhat of a conclusion. The way I see it, the Bible is inerrant in that it is the word of God documented through human authors. But this does not necessarily mean that God meant every word to be interpreted in the literal sense. Since nobody can fully understand God or His actions, it would have been pointless for Him to try to describe everything in literal detail; not only would this be impossible, no one would be able to wrap their heads around it even if it was. So He instead revealed His word in a way that people could easily understand. For example, since no one can fully comprehend the creation of the universe--which most likely took billions of years--God presented those years as seven days and simplified His explanation of how He went around creating the world. It would be like explaining to child how an engine works. Are you gonna use exact numbers, like compression ratios, degrees of timing, etc.? Of course not. You'd make it much more simple, accessible, and easy to understand. Now imagine that you're God and you want to explain something as infinitely complex as the entire universe...chances are you'll do something similar. That's what I believe God was probably doing in Genesis and throughout the Bible.

Does anyone have an opinion on my position? Once again, I'm open to everyone's interpretation and my views are far from unchangeable.

My opinion is this; I came from the opposite way you have. I was born into a secular home and was raised to believe what the world teaches about human history. Billions of years, evolution, etc. God challenged me to look at the evidence for their side and I found out it would take more faith to believe what they were saying then it would to believe the bible. I chose to believe the bible and the Lord has abundantly blessed me in that. This was a key scripture in my journey:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart
Lean not on your own understand

The main issue with your idea is that it is going beyond what is written. God said His ways are far above our ways, which means that can't figure out why He does something a certain way without telling us. Did He really write it that way because we couldn't understand how He did create it, or is there another reason? He didn't tell us, which means we should be very careful coming to any conclusion beyond what is written. It would be leaning on your own understanding of why you think Genesis was written the way it was. Clinging to the truth of Gods word is of the utmost importance, and getting a little off at the beginning will lead you down a path of a lot of confusion and deception. We should really be afraid to go beyond what is written because of the potential to be deceived.

We also have to look at the weakness of that particular theory. If we go by the theory that days are long periods of time, then it collapses the narrative. God created the Sun on day 3 and He created the plants on day 4. Did plants survive millions of years without sunlight? It doesn't make any sense. So, we have negative evidence that the days are long periods of time.

Most importantly, we have to look at scripture. Jesus said in the beginning:

Mark 10:6

But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because your hearts were hard. However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife

Jesus said God created man in the beginning. According to secular history, man didn't emerge until billions of years after the Earth was created. Could that rightly be called the beginning after billions of years had passed? It doesn't make any sense that Jesus would call that the beginning if that were true.

Exodus 20:10-11

but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy

God is telling the Jews that they must rest on the Sabbath because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. Did God rest for millions of years? Doesn't it seem a little odd that God made the creation week the basis for our week, and yet according to the long ages theory the two things have nothing in common?

There is a lot more evidence supporting a literal reading of Genesis:

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis?

Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com