Is the Bible perfect.

[scripture guy]

I know the Bible says that all scripture is useful for teaching rebuking and training in righteousness. but when Paul wrote that his writings weren't even included in the cannon yet.

Why should we believe this is perfect when a bunch of PEOPLE. put the cannon together.

 

[wannagohome]

I know the Bible says that all scripture is useful for teaching rebuking and training in righteousness. but when Paul wrote that his writings weren't even included in the cannon yet.

Why should we believe this is perfect when a bunch of PEOPLE. put the cannon together.

Well if "they" screwed it up, I bet they will be in trouble....... no but seriously, I would be more curious as to whether translations over time got skewed, or if certain people omitted things they did not agree with, but in the long run, I believe that God is keeping an eye on it, and doing everything to keep the true message alive.......... Jen

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It is as it should be and does that for which it was intended. The problems come when people want it to be more than it is and use it for that which it was never intended.

 

[artybloke]

but when Paul wrote that

Personally, I don't even think that Paul did write it. So no I don't think scripture is perfect.

 

[Christopher Fox]

Hmm.. good question. Personally I think that the truth is in the Bible, but the Bible isn't all true. I do not believe that the Bible is something we should all accept word-for-word without question. God gave us a brain so that we would question what we found, and this should be extended to the Bible.

The Bible was written by men, not by God. The truth is in there, but you will have to put some effort in to find it.

This is my belief. Some may think me less of a Christian for holding this view, but I don't think so. It is quite possible to accept Jesus as your saviour without believing in the inerrant word of the Bible.

 

[jayem]

It is quite possible to accept Jesus as your saviour without believing in the inerrant word of the Bible.

I confess that I'm not a Christian, but I would certainly think that statement to be true. The fact that evangelicals and others like them insist on Biblical inerrancy has always seemed paradoxical to me. They act like their belief system is a house of cards, precariously balanced on the truth of the Bible. If any little part of scripture should be invalid, their whole doctrine would fall down. Doesn't that make you wonder about the strength of their faith?

 

[Sharp]

I confess that I'm not a Christian, but I would certainly think that statement to be true. The fact that evangelicals and others like them insist on Biblical inerrancy has always seemed paradoxical to me. They act like their belief system is a house of cards, precariously balanced on the truth of the Bible. If any little part of scripture should be invalid, their whole doctrine would fall down. Doesn't that make you wonder about the strength of their faith?

As a Bible-believing Christian, I rely upon the Bible as my primary source of doctrine and life, as the ultimate authority. I must admit a person can be saved with a faulty view of the Bible, but he/she would have a weak foundation for doctrine and life.

I agree with you that if one part of Scripture is invalid, our views on inerrancy and authority would have to be revised. I see no need to do so. On the otherhand I have the use of secondary sources to help interpret the Bible and provide truth and doctrine-- ancient hymns, creeds, the writings of the early church fathers, Christian tombstone writings etc.

I feel confident about the canon of the Bible because of the insistence of the compilers that it contain only books that reflect their understanding of sound doctrine. I believe God directed their efforts.

I do believe that there are variant texts that don't change the doctrine and lifestyle messages, but do affect minor wording. Still that troubles me. If I did not have confidence in the Bible and in God's ability to speak through it, I'd have to rely upon my secondary sources. That is intellectually unnecessary, but political correctness drives some so-called theologians to throw out the baby with the bath... to overreact for their own reasons.
===
Are YOU or your church or child the victim of religious discrimination? Feel free to place a phone call for help to one of these non-profit lawfirms.
The websites provide free legal representation and advice to victims of anti-faith discrimination in employment, zoning law, public speaking, school, and other arenas as their non-profit Christian ministries:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
http://www.christianlaw.org/
http://www.aclj.org/
http://www.thomasmore.org/
http://www.becketfund.org/
http://www.rutherford.org/
http://www.pacificjustice.org/
http://www.clsnet.org/
http://www.lc.org/
http://www.libertylegal.org/
http://www.hslda.org/

 

[Sharp]

I know the Bible says that all scripture is useful for teaching rebuking and training in righteousness. but when Paul wrote that his writings weren't even included in the cannon yet.

Why should we believe this is perfect when a bunch of PEOPLE. put the cannon together.

This is cool! I know you didn't mean it this way, but ... well let me answer your question first. We should believe the Bible because we believe the bunch of people knew what they were doing. That too is a matter of faith. They rejected some books like the Gospel of Thomas for theological reasons. I believe God directed them and God had always had a Bible canon in mind as part of His plan since before the foundation of the Earth.

Now to what is cool...

What do you mean by "perfect"? You probably think this is a question about inerrancy, but it isn't. In I Cor 13 Paul writes that when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done away. Check it out.

Some people think that it refers to the completed canon of the Bible meaing that we'll no longer need miracles and signs, and they will pass away. Some think it means Christ Himself at the second coming in which case they argue that great signs and wonders continue. Others believe that the perfect describes every believer's personal maturing process. That word in ancient Greek is teleion, which could mean either flawless or complete. I really like the King James Version of this verse; it captures the vagueness of the original Greek, and that, I think, is as it should be!

Bless you for asking and for raising such an interesting point. I hope you find the answers you seek.

In Christ,

Sharp

 

[apenman]

I believe that the Bible is perfect and that it is God's "puzzle." In fact, I see it as being the most complex literary puzzle ever created, by far. Of course, I don't know of many literary puzzles and were not talking jigsaw here.

The Bible clearly is difficult to understand and extremely subject to the interpretation of the reader. So, why would an all powerful God make his word so difficult to understand?? Proverbs 25:2 states, "that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter."

The Hebrew word for "conceal" in the verse quoted above is the word "cathar" (saw-thar&#8217. It is a Hebrew root word that literally means "to hide." It also figuratively means "be absent, keep close, conceal, hide, and keep secret."

The point is that the knowledge of God is not supposed to be easy to understand, so the Bible was written in a way that makes it an effort, to say the least. It is all entirely by design and the perfection of it goes way beyond our understanding.

 

[CaDan]

This thread is showing up all over the "Discussion and Debate" fora.

In any event, if the Bible is perfect, why did the authors of Luke and Matthew see fit to modify the "perfect" text of Mark in writing their Gospels?

 

[apenman]

What do you mean by the perfect text of Mark??

 

[CaDan]

My concentration is in the NT, specifically the Synoptics, so all my remarks should be considered in that context.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I rely upon the Bible as my primary source of doctrine and life, as the ultimate authority. I must admit a person can be saved with a faulty view of the Bible, but he/she would have a weak foundation for doctrine and life.

Could you explain what you mean by a "faulty view of the Bible"?

I agree with you that if one part of Scripture is invalid, our views on inerrancy and authority would have to be revised.

Are you SURE you want to take this position? I'm playing fair here. You are setting it up so that only ONE "invalid" part needs to be identified to force a revision of a view of inerrancy and authority. Just one. If you want to take that position, that's fine, but I want you to understand what that position means.

I see no need to do so. On the otherhand I have the use of secondary sources to help interpret the Bible and provide truth and doctrine-- ancient hymns, creeds, the writings of the early church fathers, Christian tombstone writings etc.

You bet. Sounds like good practice to me, too.

I feel confident about the canon of the Bible because of the insistence of the compilers that it contain only books that reflect their understanding of sound doctrine. I believe God directed their efforts.

On what do you base this confidence? For example, the Nestorians seperated after the Council of Ephesus in the 431 and rejected II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelations Were they right or wrong?

I do believe that there are variant texts that don't change the doctrine and lifestyle messages, but do affect minor wording.

I'm with you there. The Christian copyists did an EXCELLENT job of preserving the texts. The "variants" argument is a loser.

Still that troubles me.

It should. It is a problem for the inerrancy position, but I do not beleive it is an insuperable problem.

If I did not have confidence in the Bible and in God's ability to speak through it, I'd have to rely upon my secondary sources.

Circularity problem here: The Bible is inerrant because it is inerrant? Is that your assertion here?

That is intellectually unnecessary, but political correctness drives some so-called theologians to throw out the baby with the bath... to overreact for their own reasons.

I'm not sure what your argument is behind the invective. Are you claiming that one should not look at secondary sources (Josephus for history or Philo for Jewish philosophy)? But that contradicts your position above that you DO use those sources. Do you disagree with some scholars? Well, that's obvious.

So . . .

Shall we define some terms, set some ground rules, figure out a proposition and go at it?

AND COULD SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO MAKE A GREEK FONT APPEAR ON THIS SITE? PLEASE?
===

Are YOU or your church or child the victim of religious discrimination? Feel free to place a phone call for help to one of these non-profit lawfirms.
The websites provide free legal representation and advice to victims of anti-faith discrimination in employment, zoning law, public speaking, school, and other arenas as their non-profit Christian ministries:

American Civil Liberties Union

 

[CaDan]

What do you mean by the perfect text of Mark??

It is very obvious that the authors of Luke and Matthew copied LARGE portions of Mark. Some of it was straight up word for word copying, but at other times they modified the various portions. Luke in particular cleaned up the rather sloppy Greek in Mark.

My point is that the Book of Mark, as a part of the Bible, should be "perfect". But the authors of other parts of the Bible, namely Luke and Matthew, did not feel it was perfect because they "fixed" it.

 

[CaDan]

Luke in particular cleaned up the rather sloppy Greek in Mark.

I should clarify: The Greek in Mark is not really "sloppy". It is just not very "academic".

My personal opinion is that Mark is written to be read out loud. It captures a lot of the cadence of oral speech. Luke is more studious.

 

[Toney]

CaDan,

Do you accept the hypothesis of an existing Q Gospel? Scholars have noted that a collection of sayings from the early Jesus movement provides one source for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke; Mark provides the other. Q (from quelle or source) was compiled over a 50-year period (A.D. 20-70) and gives the synoptics the basis for determining attitudes and actions appropriate for the Kingdom of God.

 

[CaDan]

CaDan,

Do you accept the hypothesis of an existing Q Gospel? Scholars have noted that a collection of sayings from the early Jesus movement provides one source for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke; Mark provides the other. Q (from quelle or source) was compiled over a 50-year period (A.D. 20-70) and gives the synoptics the basis for determining attitudes and actions appropriate for the Kingdom of God.

Yup. I'm not so sure about the Q strata--I think it will never really move beyond being an interesting hypothesis.

If I could find a copy of Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm I might be convinced to abandon Q. The stuff I have seen on the web looks interesting, but nothing beats having the actual scholarship in your hands.

/me caresses Koester's Introduction to the New Testament

 

[apenman]

I should clarify: The Greek in Mark is not really "sloppy". It is just not very "academic".

My personal opinion is that Mark is written to be read out loud. It captures a lot of the cadence of oral speech. Luke is more studious.

I don't really see the point here, so his writting wasn't very academic??

 

[Toney]

Matthew's gospel clearly is a Jewish-Christian document. As I understand Goulder's argument, Matthew also is a liturgical document that fits the Jewish calendar.

I am unfamiliar with Koester, so it is now on my short list.

Thank you!!

 

[CaDan]

I don't really see the point here, so his writting wasn't very academic??

Three things stand out:

1. Mark uses the kai a lot to start sentences. kai means someting roughly like "and then". For example, 20 of the 28 verses in Mark 2 start with kai.

2. Mark is free and easy with his verb tenses. Just like when someone tells a story orally, things drift between the past and present tense. "So two guys walk into a bar. And one of them said . . . ."

3. There is no birth narrative at all. Jesus suddenly appears and is baptized by JtB.

When Luke rewrote portions of Mark for use in his Gospel, he cleaned up these things.

Mark is best appreciated orally.

 

[CaDan]

Matthew's gospel clearly is a Jewish-Christian document. As I understand Goulder's argument, Matthew also is a liturgical document that fits the Jewish calendar.

I am unfamiliar with Koester, so it is now on my short list.

Thank you!!

My understanding is Goulder thinks all the Symoptics are liturgical, and goes on to argue it in great detail.