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

[RC1970]

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

Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact and is without error or fault in all its teaching.

 

[fatboys]

Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact and is without error or fault in all its teaching.

Since their no originals how would you know they are not contrary?

 

[RC1970]

Since their no originals how would you know they are not contrary?

You should read the book: "From God To Us" by Norman Geisler. Geisler explains the theories of inspiration, the process of canonization, major manuscripts, textual criticism and Greek and Latin translations.

It's a pretty easy read.

 

[visionary]

The only thing perfect about scripture is that God uses it to speak to the hearts of His people.

 

[Elder 111]

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?

Do you believe that God who would have us to know the truth so that we might be saved failed in that endeavor?

 

[Rajni]

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.

Perhaps, though one would expect a wise
person who is an expert on morality would
know better than to make generalized, black-
and-white statements regarding who reaches
hold age and who doesn’t.

Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact and is without error or fault in all its teaching.

Since you believe this, what's your take on the verse
mentioned in post #21 ? Do believe it should be
understood to be absolute fact?

-

 

[fatboys]

You should read the book: "From God To Us" by Norman Geisler. Geisler explains the theories of inspiration, the process of canonization, major manuscripts, textual criticism and Greek and Latin translations.

It's a pretty easy read.

I started to read it but could see that his objectivity was lost when he attacked the Catholics and the Mormons for it to any serious scholarship. He should have explained the process of how the bible became inerrant. The whole book is wishful thinking. There are no original manuscripts. The bible itself never says it is inerrant. Did you know that Luke wasn't written by Luke? Matthew wasn't written by Matthew.. Mark was the first book to be written with Matthew and Luke copying Marks book. This is why they call it the synoptic gospels. Did you know that they were not written down at the time of the event but was written down 40 years after the event by someone that did not even witness it. That these writings came from oral traditions. I am afraid that it is a miracle that as much of the truth did come through to preserve the teachings of Christ. But to think that it is inerrant and this book you told me to read proves it is thinking in lala land.

 

[Cearbhall]

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?

It depends what kind of error you mean. When I was Christian, I found the Bible to be flawed in many, many places in terms of science and history. However, I believed it was much stronger in terms of philosophy and theology. I viewed it as a piece of literature like any other.

 

[Albion]

It depends what kind of error you mean. When I was Christian, I found the Bible to be flawed in many, many places in terms of science and history. However, I believed it was much stronger in terms of philosophy and theology. I viewed it as a piece of literature like any other.

That's well said. Most churches that stand behind the reliability of the Bible do not insist that there are no translation errors or outdated references to matters of science or history. They do, however, say that the Bible is accurate in matters of faith and doctrine--which is the reason we value it, trust it, and are guided by it.

 

[RC1970]

Since you believe this, what's your take on the verse
mentioned in post #21 ? Do believe it should be
understood to be absolute fact?

Again, much study is needed. Refer to the books listed in #3

In your case, I would also add the book: "Knowing Scripture" by R. C. Sproul

 

[cloudyday2]

I started to read it but could see that his objectivity was lost when he attacked the Catholics and the Mormons for it to any serious scholarship. He should have explained the process of how the bible became inerrant. The whole book is wishful thinking. There are no original manuscripts. The bible itself never says it is inerrant. Did you know that Luke wasn't written by Luke? Matthew wasn't written by Matthew.. Mark was the first book to be written with Matthew and Luke copying Marks book. This is why they call it the synoptic gospels. Did you know that they were not written down at the time of the event but was written down 40 years after the event by someone that did not even witness it. That these writings came from oral traditions. I am afraid that it is a miracle that as much of the truth did come through to preserve the teachings of Christ. But to think that it is inerrant and this book you told me to read proves it is thinking in lala land.

Do Mormons think the Book of Mormon (or any other Mormon-specific texts) are inerrant? Also what do Mormons teach about the Bible's inerrancy?

Finally, are there creeds that define orthodoxy in Mormonism?

Do you see your research leading to skepticism about Mormonism or simply the Bible? (I know that's a bit off-topic, but your comments surprised me.)

 

[fatboys]

Do you believe that God who would have us to know the truth so that we might be saved failed in that endeavor?

No God didn't fail. All who have lived or ever will live will be given a chance to hear the gospel and accept it or reject it so we can all be judged equally

 

[Albion]

No God didn't fail. All who have lived or ever will live will be given a chance to hear the gospel and accept it or reject it so we can all be judged equally

That has a reassuring ring to it, but there's no reason to think it will actually happen, though.

 

[fatboys]

Do Mormons think the Book of Mormon (or any other Mormon-specific texts) are inerrant? Also what do Mormons teach about the Bible's inerrancy?

Finally, are there creeds that define orthodoxy in Mormonism?

Do you see your research leading to skepticism about Mormonism or simply the Bible? (I know that's a bit off-topic, but your comments surprised me.)

This is a good question. As I have said from Gods mouth his word is pure but when it reaches mans ears it becomes corrupted or no longer pure. Not a lot but impure just the same. That makes his word not perfect. The Book of Mormon states that it is not perfect and any imperfections come from man. I believe that the bible is the word of God but has errors. I don't rely just on the bible for truth. I don't rely on the bible for the power and authority of God.

 

[fatboys]

That has a reassuring ring to it, but there's no reason to think it will actually happen, though.

Do you believe God is fair?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Do Mormons think the Book of Mormon (or any other Mormon-specific texts) are inerrant? Also what do Mormons teach about the Bible's inerrancy?

Finally, are there creeds that define orthodoxy in Mormonism?

Do you see your research leading to skepticism about Mormonism or simply the Bible? (I know that's a bit off-topic, but your comments surprised me.)

Off topic, but interesting questions.

1) Fatboys covered this well in #54.

2) The short answer: No, Mormons rely on the scriptures themselves and also the words of modern prophets. There is the "Articles of Faith" which is in a Mormon-specific book scriptures, and outlines Mormonism 101 on a single page.

3) Speaking as myself, admitting that the men whom transcribe God's words are fallible doesn't lead me to skiptism in the Bible or anything else, it's just a fact of life. If there is a point (and there have been) when I'm concerned about something, I just ask the Lord His opinion directly.

 

[bling]

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?

It is perfect in that it provides to the Christian the tool he needs to complete the objective. It is not the complete "perfect" tool to make all non-Christians to become Christian. The Christian has to use the tool with the other tools the Christian has especially the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[bling]

I started to read it but could see that his objectivity was lost when he attacked the Catholics and the Mormons for it to any serious scholarship. He should have explained the process of how the bible became inerrant. The whole book is wishful thinking. There are no original manuscripts. The bible itself never says it is inerrant. Did you know that Luke wasn't written by Luke? Matthew wasn't written by Matthew.. Mark was the first book to be written with Matthew and Luke copying Marks book. This is why they call it the synoptic gospels. Did you know that they were not written down at the time of the event but was written down 40 years after the event by someone that did not even witness it. That these writings came from oral traditions. I am afraid that it is a miracle that as much of the truth did come through to preserve the teachings of Christ. But to think that it is inerrant and this book you told me to read proves it is thinking in lala land.

I certainly do not object to your opposing some book that starts out putting others down.

You are right to say: “there are no original manuscripts”, but is there a good reason for there not being original manuscripts?

Do men have a problem of taking artifacts/relics and actually “worshipping” them instead of God/Christ?

If God actually gave the exact words to be written in a book instead of inspiring people to write, would those perfect words not easily be seen not of human origin and thus the words themselves would be “Divine”? The Muslims consider the Quran to be God’s actual words so they really cannot be translated and the copies themselves become virtually “Holy” of God worth dying for. Are the Muslims maybe unwittingly worshipping the Quran?

The other huge problem with having the Bible be God’s actual perfectly spoken words, is the fact you could than have scientific proof of a god without any need for faith. Yet man needs faith (faith being a humbling activity) versus man have actual scientific knowledge of God’s existence (where knowledge tense to puff the person up.)

There are lots of good logical reasons for having inspired Christians write in their own words letters that will later become part of the Bible. Look what the Spirit could do through just an ordinary Christian, so what can you do with that same Spirit?

What inspired “book” told you Luke did not at least dictate to a scribe the book of Luke, or Matthew and Luke both had to have copies of Mark?

If we just had a few of the very oldest large manuscripts in one language, from one small part of the world, copied by a very select group of scribes, and the writings agreed, it could be argued that these could have been altered from the original. But that is not what we have. We have copies from all over the ancient Roman Empire in 16 different languages and written by a wide variety of Christians (any Christian felt free to make his own copy and event translate it into another language). If corruption was taking place you would expect vast changes among the copies we do have (this is what we see in other letters copied from the first and second century). At most 5% word for word differences are mostly among insignificant words with a few exceptions and these exceptions are not teaching anything that is not already taught other places.

if the Bible at one time was “very fluid” we would century later have many widely variant versions of the same story, since there was nothing in place throughout Christianity to bring everything back in line not even the Catholic Church controlled all of Christianity, and there is no record of the Catholic Church collecting any diverse copies, or trying to purify the doctrine by removing “bad” copies. The Romans several times did try to wipe out Christianity and did burn the copies of the Bible they found or were turned in by Christians, but that would explain why we do not have poorly copied versions since Christians when pressed to turn over their Bible copies would give up their poorest copies.

The Holy Spirit did an excellent job of protecting and preserving what we have today and allowing humans to participate in that effort.

The so called contradictions in scripture have been explained and there are generalities especially in Proverbs that should be taken as generalities. Everything has to be read in the context of who was being addressed at the time.

 

[Rajni]

Again, much study is needed. Refer to the books listed in #3

In your case, I would also add the book: "Knowing Scripture" by R. C. Sproul

I'm not sure it would require much study or a set of
books to find out what your own personal view is on
the aforementioned verse, which is what I was asking
about.

-

 

[RC1970]

I'm not sure it would require much study or a set of
books to find out what your own personal view is on
the aforementioned verse, which is what I was asking
about.

-

Each part of Scripture has a purpose and a style. For example, in the following passage, is Isaiah suggesting that the Lord has a hand and an ear?

"Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear" ~ Isaiah 59:1

You have to allow for anthropomorphisms, idioms, hyperbole and the like.