Why is it necessary for a Christian to believe that the Bible has no errors?

[ToBeLoved]

Not too sure if I want to go where the Lamb with the 7 eyes and 7 horns dwell along with the 4 living animal-human hybrid creatures. Oh that's right, Revelations calls it the new heaven. So I guess all the Bible is true, except for the large chunk they removed some 120 years ago..........

Trust that Jesus will protect you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The thing that i noticed is the lack of more epistles in the bible. Surely the apostles wrote more letters than we have now

How is that logic to show the Bible is errant or inerrant? Because you 'think' there should be more?

 

[ToBeLoved]

There are even more OBVIOUS references to Christ in the missing books. Wisdom of Solomon identifying that the weeping prophecied in Jeremiah would be caused by a decree commanding the murder of "holy innocents" (Early Jewish texts call children that), for example. The fact is, there was one canon of Scripture in the time of Christ, comprised of books that had been written in Hebrew and Greek, all of which existed in the Greek, but not all in the Hebrew.

What canon existed at the time of Christ that was Greek? This is news to me. Please provide sources.

 

[W2L]

How is that logic to show the Bible is errant or inerrant? Because you 'think' there should be more?

Yup

 

[ToBeLoved]

The large chunk of Scripture that 1800 years worth of Christians universally called Scripture that Protestants couldn't reconcile their doctrines with, so rather than change their doctrines to fit Scripture, they changed Scripture to fit their doctrines. They decided to use what is the true deuterocanon of the Old Testament, a canon designed by Jews asking "how do I remove Christ from these so that Jews won't find Christianity?"

It sounds like a conspiracy.

Now why wouldn't they have removed Isaiah and Jeremiah then.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yup

Well, I see no logic in that, so I have to pass on your theory.

 

[W2L]

Well, I see no logic in that, so I have to pass on your theory.

Okey dokey

 

[OzSpen]

The thing that i noticed is the lack of more epistles in the bible. Surely the apostles wrote more letters than we have now

Why do we need more?

 

[benelchi]

Thank you very much for that ^^ explanation! How could the original authors have detected errors, though?

We know that during the period of the early church that there were many copies to which they could compare. During this early period of the Church, many Christians were being put to death for the Scriptures they were trying to protect, and so were motivated to make sure that the copies that they would give their life to protect were genuine. In some cases Christians would keep unreliable copies to give to the authorities who were trying to destroy the Scriptures, while keeping well hidden the ones they knew were genuine.

 

[W2L]

Why do we need more?

We dont need more.

 

[shadowhunter]

Where are you getting this from? Have you ever even read what Paul wrote? This is ubsurd.

The Greek church did not want to be Jewish. This is well-known and the topic of the debates in Jerusalem.

Paul himself said he limited his teaching:
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

The arrogance of the Greek church is evidenced early even as the leader in one church excluded John:

3Jo 1:9 ¶ I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jo 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth [them] out of the church.

By 400 AD all Jewshness was removed from the church by Constantine in the east and Augustine in the west.

Augustine even said that the Septuagint was more reliable than the original Hebrew texts.

As a result, modern theologians, trained within the Greek church, admit that they cannot reproduce the exegesis of the NT authors. Some are still so arrogant to say that if Jesus and his apostles were in their Hermeneutics 101 classes they would fail for misapplying scripture.

As a result, the church is void of the rich Hebrew nature of the scriptures. They even missed the plain teaching of the Bible, which is love; even of our enemies.

A willingness to murder "heretics" shows that they did not understand the very basic principles which were taught. According to Paul, one who does not understand this basic principle has no business teaching doctrine:

1Co 13:1 ¶ Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Take a simple teaching like the parable of the Mustard seed:

The parable of the mustard seed is taught this way by the Greek church: The kingdom starts off small and grows larger and larger. If we have faith like that we can do miracles that no one seems to be able to do (move the mountain to the sea.). We argue if the birds are angels, demons, or gentiles. Then we wonder, and or defend, that Jesus said it was the smallest seed, when everyone else knows its not. This is NOT biblical preaching!

Hear the WORD of the LORD!

Jesus was the seed of the woman in Genesis. He was the least of all the seed because he served us all through his death on the cross. The word for mustard in Greek is similar to 'bruised by anger' in Hebrew. The prophecy of the seed of the woman speaks of his incarnation, kenosis, tribulation, temptation and final obedience on the cross.

He grew to be the great herb. The grass was given to cattle to eat, and the herbs were given to men to eat. The greatest thing men can eat is the body of Christ. He is the great herb. Eating is a metaphor for learning, so he became the great teacher. We also celebrate the cattle eating the grass when we put baby Jesus in the manger with the grass. We have the same symbol of eating his body at the beginning of his life as we have at the end.

The tree is the cross... and those birds? If you live in the spirit you rest in the cross.

Lets move a mountain. The two mem's in the Hebrew word for water have metaphoric meaning for the Father and the Son. The Father is Spirit and the Son is Truth. Jesus told the woman at Sychar that though she worshiped on the mountain, she would worship in Spirit and Truth. The mountain would be moved to the water.

The parable of the mustard seed speaks of Christ at every turn and is revealed by the word itself. The parable contains a riddle:

Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;

It is easy to assume that those with whom you disagree are simply ignorant. Those who do so are using themselves as the measure of truth.

 

[OzSpen]

We know that during the period of the early church that there were many copies to which they could compare. During this early period of the Church, many Christians were being put to death for the Scriptures they were trying to protect, and so were motivated to make sure that the copies that they would give their life to protect were genuine. In some cases Christians would keep unreliable copies to give to the authorities who were trying to destroy the Scriptures, while keeping well hidden the ones they knew were genuine.

benelchi,

It would be good if you would document this information so that we know from which historical sources you gained the details. Where is the information about 'keeping well hidden the ones they knew were genuine'?

It may be true, but I'd like historical verification.

Oz

 

[ToBeLoved]

As a result, modern theologians, trained within the Greek church, admit that they cannot reproduce the exegesis of the NT authors. Some are still so arrogant to say that if Jesus and his apostles were in their Hermeneutics 101 classes they would fail for misapplying scripture.

As a result, the church is void of the rich Hebrew nature of the scriptures. They even missed the plain teaching of the Bible, which is love; even of our enemies.

I believe that all scripture is inspired by God, not any man or culture.

I also do not see how you or anyone can say that the scriptures are devoid of the Hebrew nature, the book of Hebrews is devoted to the Hebrews who then believed Christ and how the Old Testament and the New Testament fit together.

I don't see it.

 

[shadowhunter]

I believe that all scripture is inspired by God, not any man or culture.

I also do not see how you or anyone can say that the scriptures are devoid of the Hebrew nature, the book of Hebrews is devoted to the Hebrews who then believed Christ and how the Old Testament and the New Testament fit together.

I don't see it.

I did not say the scriptures were.. I said the Greek interpretation of them was.

Please refer to the example given with the parable of the mustard seed and find a single Greek expositor who sees the meaning of Christ in it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I did not say the scriptures were.. I said the Greek interpretation of them was.

Please refer to the example given with the parable of the mustard seed and find a single Greek expositor who sees the meaning of Christ in it.

Who cares if the Greek expositor see's or does not see what the parable means? It doesn't change what Paul wrote. He wrote in Greek, the language. I'm not sure what someone Greek has to do with Paul writing in a certain language.

 

[Armoured]

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

It isn't necessar to believe the Bible has no errors. That's a very recent idea.

 

[Thursday]

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

It is not necessary. The bible does contain errors. What we should believe is that the bible is inspired by God and that it conveys the truth of God's revelation.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I really feel bad for those who do not believe the Bible and think some of it is myths and just examples because they miss out on all the great promises of God and God's revelation of who He really is and exactly what Jesus did for us.

Knowing that God had a plan from the beginning to redeem mankind back to Himself and for many other reasons I can build a strong faith and relationship with God.

That's just how I feel. And I think people are missing out.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is not necessary. The bible does contain errors. What we should believe is that the bible is inspired by God and that it conveys the truth of God's revelation.

Do you believe the earliest copies in their original languages contains errors or translations to English that have different levels of difficulty and readability? Just curious.

I believe in the original version and the King James mostly, but I enjoy the NASB and ESV at times too.

 

[hedrick]

Do you believe the earliest copies in their original languages contains errors or translations to English that have different levels of difficulty and readability? Just curious.

I believe in the original version and the King James mostly, but I enjoy the NASB and ESV at times too.

Errors. The creation accounts and other early events simply aren't historically accurate.

But the most serious issues aren't errors, but differences of approach. One example that I've cited elsewhere is the role of women. Jesus, Paul, and the author of 1 Tim differ on that. There's no factual error involved, but the obvious reading of1 Tim 2 reflects a different idea of the difference between the genders from the undisputed letters of Paul. There are a number of other examples.