Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

[Rajni]

I believe the bible contains wisdom. So do other sacred texts.
However, if the bible were 100% inerrant, then Christians
would need to stop calling someone like Hugh Hefner "evil":
After all, the bible says:

"Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained by a righteous life."
(Proverbs 16:31)​

So, if one wishes to view the bible as completely
inerrant, that's fine, but that would mean concluding
that gray-haired people are that way because they
lived righteous lives—regardless of what it was they
did.

-​

 

[LoAmmi]

I believe the bible contains wisdom. So do other sacred texts.
However, if the bible were 100% inerrant, then Christians
would need to stop calling someone like Hugh Hefner "evil":
After all, the bible says:

"Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained by a righteous life."
(Proverbs 16:31)​

So, if one wishes to view the bible as completely
inerrant, that's fine, but that would mean concluding
that gray-haired people are that way because they
lived righteous lives—regardless of what it was they
did.

-​

Well, it would be easy to point out that the Proverbs were never meant to be taken literally. It's a book of wisdom not a book of facts.

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe the bible contains wisdom. So do other sacred texts.
However, if the bible were 100% inerrant, then Christians
would need to stop calling someone like Hugh Hefner "evil":
After all, the bible says:

"Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained by a righteous life."
(Proverbs 16:31)​

So, if one wishes to view the bible as completely
inerrant, that's fine, but that would mean concluding
that gray-haired people are that way because they
lived righteous lives—regardless of what it was they
did.

I'm with LoAmmi on this one. Ancient books need to be looked upon in the light of their original genres. Proverbs is classified as "wisdom literature". It teaches moral lessons within a Semitic framework. Not every sentence is expected to be true for every person at every moment in their lives.

 

[bhsmte]

Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?

Because it makes everything much simpler. Believe it is 100% accurate and no further thought needs to go into it.

This is called "black and white thinking" and is quite common amongst fundamentalists.

 

[gord44]

Because it makes everything much simpler. Believe it is 100% accurate and no further thought needs to go into it.

This is called "black and white thinking" and is quite common amongst fundamentalists.

Indeed. Black and white thinking takes very little effort. Sheep mentality. Finding the grey area between the two is the real challenge and also the most rewarding if one is persistent.

 

[fatboys]

I asked the question because it is illogical. Those that believe the bible is perfect also believe that God is perfect. If God is perfect then everything he does is perfect and yet the second time out of the chute he messes up again and has to come up with a plan to save his creations. The first mess up was satan. He had to cast him out. And yet they want to believe that God is going to preserve his word perfectly so there are no misunderstanding about what his intent is for us. How is that working out? Yet believe that there is wisdom and knowledge and truth. I believe that when God spoke with his prophets his word was pure. But the second it went through imperfect corruptible man it was no longer pure. Close but not perfect then it had to go through oral traditions before it was even written down. Written down by those who were probably not there and remembering from past oral stories. Look I believe the bible to be the word of God but it is far from perfect. Thus my question. How on earth in all reality can anyone believe that the bible is without error. I believe that those who do do so because their position of faith is so weak that they have to believe not only is it perfect but that it has supernatural powers that gives them authority and power from God to serve others and to spread his word. I'm not saying that is bad but God never called men that way.

 

[fatboys]

I asked the question because it is illogical. Those that believe the bible is perfect also believe that God is perfect. If God is perfect then everything he does is perfect and yet the second time out of the chute he messes up again and has to come up with a plan to save his creations. The first mess up was satan. He had to cast him out. And yet they want to believe that God is going to preserve his word perfectly so there are no misunderstanding about what his intent is for us. How is that working out? Yet believe that there is wisdom and knowledge and truth. I believe that when God spoke with his prophets his word was pure. But the second it went through imperfect corruptible man it was no longer pure. Close but not perfect then it had to go through oral traditions before it was even written down. Written down by those who were probably not there and remembering from past oral stories. Look I believe the bible to be the word of God but it is far from perfect. Thus my question. How on earth in all reality can anyone believe that the bible is without error. I believe that those who do do so because their position of faith is so weak that they have to believe not only is it perfect but that it has supernatural powers that gives them authority and power from God to serve others and to spread his word. I'm not saying that is bad but God never called men that way.

 

[Martinius]

I believe the bible contains wisdom. So do other sacred texts.
However, if the bible were 100% inerrant, then Christians
would need to stop calling someone like Hugh Hefner "evil":
After all, the bible says:

"Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained by a righteous life."
(Proverbs 16:31)​

So, if one wishes to view the bible as completely
inerrant, that's fine, but that would mean concluding
that gray-haired people are that way because they
lived righteous lives—regardless of what it was they
did. -

. Touché. I must be really righteous.

 

[ChetSinger]

I don't fret over a word like "inerrant" because I know I'm not reading the scriptures in the original language anyway.

Instead, what matters to me are questions like this:

• Did Jesus rise from the dead as the gospels say he did?
• Do I have enough of his words that I can follow his path?
• Did he actually speak those promises, and can I rely on them?

From what I've learned of the history of scripture transmission, I believe I can answer "yes" to all of them.

 

[fatboys]

I don't fret over a word like "inerrant" because I know I'm not reading the scriptures in the original language anyway.

Instead, what matters to me are questions like this:

• Did Jesus rise from the dead as the gospels say he did?
• Do I have enough of his words that I can follow his path?
• Did he actually speak those promises, and can I rely on them?

From what I've learned of the history of scripture transmission, I believe I can answer "yes" to all of them.

I agree that there is enough to piece together what he did for us and how to be a better person through his example but I believe there is much more to this than what is found in the bible. If salvation is as import as what it says in the bible then there should be much more than what there is there.

 

[ChetSinger]

I agree that there is enough to piece together what he did for us and how to be a better person through his example but I believe there is much more to this than what is found in the bible. If salvation is as import as what it says in the bible then there should be much more than what there is there.

Ymmv, I guess. I think I have everything I need, and more. In my life the gospel of Luke alone was enough to lead me to Christ.

 

[Martinius]

For the purposes of this discussion, Scripture is GOD-BREATHED (Gk theopneustos) (2 Tim 3:16). In practical terms it means that every word in the 66 canonical books of the Bible's original manuscripts (Hebrew and Greek) is a word of God, and a word from God. That ensures perfection. God not only inspired His Word, but He also preserved it in the multitude (and majority) of manuscripts. The thousands of variations come from a handful of corrupted manuscripts.

For purposes of this discussion what we find in 2 Timothy is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, not to The NT, since none of those writings had been established as scripture. But I digress.

What you say is illogical and impossible. Since we don't have original manuscripts, how do we know which of the many variations after those are the most accurate? We can't and we don't. How do we know which of the translations of individual terms are correct? Scholars can make educated guesses, but many translations are still debated. How do we know which of the many additions, insertions and changes made to some writings reflect original manuscripts? Many scholars see many of these changes as not part of the original, but made later. And some of those happen to drive basic doctrines and teachings, yet may never have been stated by Jesus or one of the first apostles.

It is as if we had just a few copies of a book written a couple of hundred years ago. But each of the copies has somewhat different phrasing, and some have words or phrases added, and some seem to have some important stuff missing. And then we realize that what we are reading are translations from another language. So we search for manuscripts in the original language and uncover some, but they are not complete, with one manuscript having some portions of our later version, and another manuscript containing other parts. And then we find that they don't agree with each other in the parts they do have in common. Experts who study those earliest manuscripts in the original language disagree on how some of the words should be translated, many feeling that the words in the later books do not accurately represent the meaning of the words in the older manuscripts. They realize that the newest books are translations of translations, and not directly from manuscripts in the original language. And as the search continues the scholars find other old manuscripts, each one with more variations.

That is how it is with the Bible. We cannot answer the question regarding which copy, which version, which manuscript is the most accurate. It appears as if we have hundreds of versions of "perfection" to choose from. If God really attempted to preserve a perfect scripture, he obviously failed miserably.

 

[Job8]

For purposes of this discussion what we find in 2 Timothy is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, not to The NT, since none of those writings had been established as scripture. But I digress.

Yes you do digress, and you are also incorrect. "All Scripture" means "All Scripture", and when Paul was writing those words (c. 66 AD) the bulk of the New Testament had already been written, and that which was yet to come was included prophetically. Both Luke, Peter, and Paul wrote that their writings were on a par with the Hebrew Scriptures -- they were the Word of God.

As for the rest of your comments, if you believe that Scripture is not perfect, you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Job8]

Doesn't that just make Muslims more pious and faithful, and generally more impressive as a religious group?

Yes it does make Muslims look more impressive as a religious group. But the heart of the matter is that because the Bible is God's truth (as well as the Sword of the Spirit) and because Bible Christianity means souls who have escaped the kingdom of darkness, Satan attacks the Bible and Christians constantly, whereas he leaves Muslims alone. The Bible has been under severe attack FROM WITHIN. It is still under severe attack. When Christ -- the eternal WORD OF GOD -- was on earth, He too was under severe and daily attack. The Adversary of God and Christians does everything in his power to undermine Christ and His Word, which includes the falsehoods that the Bible is full of errors and therefore cannot be the Word of God.

 

[ChetSinger]

...What you say is illogical and impossible. Since we don't have original manuscripts, how do we know which of the many variations after those are the most accurate?...

It sounds to me like you're throwing up your hands in despair. I think that's an overreaction.

Most of the differences between NT manuscripts have no theological significance. They're misspellings, missing or extra words, missing or extra lines, etc. They're the kinds of discrepancies one would expect when copying parchments by hand.

From what I've read, differences that have theological significance are quite uncommon. Even large ones such as the ending of Mark or the adulteress in John don't change the gospel message.

Regarding the original language, with the possible exception of Matthew we have the entire NT in its original language.

This multitude of minor differences in NT manuscripts exists because we have so many of them. The NT is by far the most well-preserved document from the ancient world, with more than 5,000 manuscripts in the original language still surviving.

So has the gospel changed because of additional manuscripts recently discovered? No. We're always learning new wrinkles regarding it, but the message remains unchanged for 2,000 years.

You describe yourself as a "disciple of Jesus". That's cool. But how can you know how to follow Jesus if you don't trust the NT to describe him?

 

[Rajni]

Well, it would be easy to point out that the Proverbs were never meant to be taken literally. It's a book of wisdom not a book of facts.

I'm with LoAmmi on this one. Ancient books need to be looked upon in the light of their original genres. Proverbs is classified as "wisdom literature". It teaches moral lessons within a Semitic framework. Not every sentence is expected to be true for every person at every moment in their lives.

Exactly; this is why I don't find the bible inerrant.
Some statements are accurate, others (such as the
example I cited previously), are erroneous. Or, at the
very least, not accurate across the board.

-

 

[RC1970]

Okay. So what others here have said about the reason for believing the bible has no mistakes is not correct?

Correct.

 

[Martinius]

It sounds to me like you're throwing up your hands in despair. I think that's an overreaction.

Most of the differences between NT manuscripts have no theological significance. They're misspellings, missing or extra words, missing or extra lines, etc. They're the kinds of discrepancies one would expect when parchments by hand.

From what I've read, differences that have theological significance are quite uncommon. Even large ones such as the ending of Mark or the adulteress in John don't change the gospel message.

Regarding the original language, with the possible exception of Matthew we have the entire NT in its original language.

This multitude of minor differences in NT manuscripts exists because we have so many of them. The NT is by far the most well-preserved document from the ancient world, with more than 5,000 manuscripts in the original language still surviving.

So has the gospel changed because of additional manuscripts recently discovered? No. We're always learning new wrinkles regarding it, but the message remains unchanged for 2,000 years.

You describe yourself as a "disciple of Jesus". That's cool. But how can you know how to follow Jesus if you don't trust the NT to describe him?

No despair here at all. Just bewilderment at those who say the Bible is a perfect rendition of the word of God.

Regarding original languages, some of the most popular translations were based on the Latin, not Greek. That is one reason why more recent bible versions are more accurate than editions from centuries back.

I agree that the parts of the bible that were added later do not change the gospel message, but they do affect some church doctrine, especially in the Catholic Church.

I do trust the bible to give me a fair description of Jesus and his teachings, but more in terms of the overall picture than in the minute details. One reason for that is we can easily see the differences in the evangelists' view of Jesus when comparing gospel to gospel. They each inserted their own views and agendas into what they reported (or didn't report). That is been the view of mainstream bible scholarship for about the past two hundred years, and was the position of various Scholars for centuries before that.

But thanks for your concern.

 

[ChetSinger]

Exactly; this is why I don't find the bible inerrant.
Some statements are accurate, others (such as the
example I cited previously), are erroneous. Or, at the
very least, not accurate across the board.

Regarding Proverbs in particular I wouldn't even use words such as accurate or erroneous. It's not a history book, but a series of instructions in morality. Of course the author knew that wicked people grow old, too. That passage is celebrating the people who didn't die young because of their own foolishness.

 

[fatboys]

Correct.

Perhaps your definition of inerrant and mine are different. Explain what you mean by inerrant