Is the bible inerrant? (Torah, beliefs, grace, translation, church)

[Rex]

Psalms 12:6: "the words of the LORD are flawless"

Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"

Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless"

[Runt]

It is errant. There have been many contradicting translations of the Bible. Especially from Hebrew to English. They can't ALL be true.

[RavenRose]

A lot are words that had different meanings back then... but really aren't contradictory. I admit to not having read the whole Bible. =0

[Azhria Lilu]

What people tend to forget is that the bible was written by men... not gods.. but human men.. and men have the habit of translating things into what THEY want it to mean ... so I tend to take the Bible as simply an interesting story with a few good points.. but not strictly as the word of god.. as he isn't the author.

:: patiently waits to be shot ::

[RavenRose]

I don't buy in to what a lot of people like to say about how the Bible changed so much at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church and translators. Simply because there is not evidence of any change. The Dead Sea Scrolls, althought not the original documents, match up and are pretty old. If we had an original document - including way back to the Old Testament - then we would know for sure.

I'm not saying that becuase it wasn't changed it is somehow true all of a sudden. Just that we have to remember a lot of things we might now like - that we just say bad people changed later - could just have easily been wrote at the time. It's not as if they didn't have their own predujices.

[Runt]

don't buy in to what a lot of people like to say about how the Bible changed so much at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church and translators. Simply because there is not evidence of any change.

Here's a big change that comes complete with evidence. The Christian Bible refers to God as being male, the "father", and ONLY being male. The Jewish Torah uses a Hebrew masculine pronoun with a feminine ending when referring to God to imply that God is male AND female (or neuter). That is a big inconsistency.

So... which version should one trust? The old version or the newer translation? It depends on one's personal beliefs.

Someone once told me that "By the grace of God" God's meaning in the Bible remained intact despite Human translation... but this simply is not true if "God" originally referred to Itself as a neuter (or male AND female) and later called itself ONLY male.

[Master Hoomer]

"By the grace of God" God's meaning in the Bible remained intact despite Human translation... but this simply is not true if "God" originally referred to Itself as a neuter (or male AND female) and later called itself ONLY male.[b]

The Shekinah is DEFINATELY not male
God is DEFINATELY not sexless!...

imo..God IS Sex..and all religion derives from sex...but thats another topic.....

The Shekinah left he Jews a loing time ago though...she ran away when the temple was destroyed :cry: :cry: :cry: "Oh Goddess why hast though forsaken me?".......(tongue in cheek).....

The mystery of the Shekinah was mainly reserved for those "in the know" ie men..aged 40 and up......

In Judaism Oral lore is important......(awaits lynching)......
The name Abraham for instance ..I have read ...was given after abraham had dealings with the shekinah...and thus the Heh for abraHam...was introduced into his name.....

:roll:

[RavenRose]

The "Father" is a title. "Mankind" describes male and females. It's kind of a jump to say something was changed delibratly.

It's not a mistake... in a literal sense either. They did not want to say God (i.e. G-d)

[Runt]

RavenRose, you are perhaps more openminded than most. If I were to appoach your average, mainstream Christian and suggest to them that God is NOT really only male, but female as well, they would FLIP!

Perhaps saying the Bible is errant is too strong... God still knows what God means, even if we humans have all kinds of crazy, mixed up ideas. Let's say it is misleading, not errant, because each time it was retranslated it was interpreted to fit the beliefs of Christians of the present time period.

[RavenRose]

I would say it's midleading if you don't follow it's OWN instructions and dtudy everything it says in depth.

Even the most fundamentalist Christian Science site I know of said, "The most dangerous book ever written is, along with the best, the most dangerous"