Does the bible contain false doctrine? (tradition, translation, faith, Biblical)

[waldo]

Many speak of how the bible has been changed so much over the centuries. So i have one question for you.
Does the Bible itslef contain any false doctrine? (assuming it's iterpreted correctly)
i ask this because i think slight errors don't matter as long as it's message stays true.

[sojourner]

Your question needs to be qualified. Whose perspective of truth are we to use? Whose doctrine is to be the standard? Doctrine is formulated out of scripture by interpreting scripture. Whose interpretation is "correct?" Are any "correct?" In what sense? To what extent? Who shall make that determination?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by waldo

Many speak of how the bible has been changed so much over the centuries. So i have one question for you.
Does the Bible itslef contain any false doctrine? (assuming it's iterpreted correctly)
i ask this because i think slight errors don't matter as long as it's message stays true.

I voted "NO". The problem is not the doctrine in the Bible, the problem is the people who reach into the Biblical bag, pluck out a verse without context and decide to build a schism right then and there.

Regards,
Scott

[angellous_evangellous]

I will vote "other." The Bible is a collection of faithful representations of the groups that it represents.

[Victor]

Doctrines are extracted by a bias/Tradition of the institution. Some people are creative enough to get UFO's, pink unicorns, etc. out of it.

[waldo]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Your question needs to be qualified. Whose perspective of truth are we to use? Whose doctrine is to be the standard? Doctrine is formulated out of scripture by interpreting scripture. Whose interpretation is "correct?" Are any "correct?" In what sense? To what extent? Who shall make that determination?

well, i personally think the King James version is the most accurate of any bible versions we have today, but you can choose whichever one you think is most accurate.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by waldo

well, i personally think the King James version is the most accurate of any bible versions we have today, but you can choose whichever one you think is most accurate.

Most Biblical scholars would disagree with you. But I'm not talking about different versions of the Bible. Doctrinal error is not found in differing versions. Doctrinal error is found in mistranslation.

[Nehustan]

I think my reply to this would be multiple....

1.) Jesus spoke to different audiences with different register i.e. scholastic to the scholars, with parables to the simple folk.

2.) The people that reported these teachings to us either 1.) never followed Jesus during his ministry 2.) were not scribes nor scholars or even 'with letters' (tho' they could catch a tasty fish )

3.) The books come to us from the Greek, possibly via Aramaic and Syro Chaldean, so there is a large margin for error in what was actually said

4.) Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. The people who recorded what was said were not, and may not have understood the subtleties of what may be called Jesus' 'theology', nor the context of to whom and with which register he was speaking.

5.)The full context of whom Jesus was speaking to, what level of knowledge they possesses and that knowledge itself, are vital to an understanding of what was said, as with any text.

I think that the 'falseness' (not my phrase!!!) in the bible (NT) have more to do with fallibility of the sources, rather than with Jesus himself.

We do not possess a gospel BY Jesus other than as demonstrated by his actions and words as recorded.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Nehustan

I think my reply to this would be multiple....

1.) Jesus spoke to different audiences with different register i.e. scholastic to the scholars, with parables to the simple folk.

2.) The people that reported these teachings to us either 1.) never followed Jesus during his ministry 2.) were not scribes nor scholars or even 'with letters' (tho' they could catch a tasty fish )

3.) The books come to us from the Greek, possibly via Aramaic and Syro Chaldean, so there is a large margin for error in what was actually said

4.) Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. The people who recorded what was said were not, and may not have understood the subtleties of what may be called Jesus' 'theology', nor the context of to whom and with which register he was speaking.

5.)The full context of whom Jesus was speaking to, what level of knowledge they possesses and that knowledge itself, are vital to an understanding of what was said, as with any text.

I think that the 'falseness' (not my phrase!!!) in the bible (NT) have more to do with fallibility of the sources, rather than with Jesus himself.

We do not possess a gospel BY Jesus other than as demonstrated by his actions and words as recorded.

The sources? Please elaborate.