Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?

[TheScholar]

As someone who reads and writes both Greek and Latin, I can tell you that there are many false translations of the original manuscripts. The English versions have a number of discrepancies when compared to the Greek manuscripts they were translated from.

Secondly we know that their are dependencies among multiple versions of the same Greek manuscripts. Some of them have sentences moved into different places, and words changed. You have to remember that before the printing press was created, people literally had to copy these things word for word by hand.

 

[Smart_Guy]

"Original Bible"! What is the original Bible?

By "pre-crufixion Bible" I assume you mean the Old Testament, so consider:

Solomon had 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen - 2 Chron 9:25
Solomon had 40,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen - 1 Kings 4:26

Jesse had eight children - 1 Sam 16:10-13
Jesse had seven children - 1 Chron 2:13-15

David takes 1700 horsemen - 2 Sam 8:4
David takes 7000 horsemen - 1 Chron 18:4

David destroys 700 chariots - 2 Sam 10:18
David destroys 7000 chariots - 1 Chron 19:18

The Temple pillars were 18 cubits - 1 Kings 7:15
The Temple pillars were 35 cubits - 2 Chron 3:15
​

The point being that both examples in each pair can't be right; they're contradictory. So, one must be wrong, and because it occurs in the Old Testament it means that in each case the pre-crufixion Bible is in error.

By the original Bible I mean what was revealed to Jesus from God. I'm honestly not sure if even the Original Testament was it. I might have referred to it before as the OT indeed, but I guess I was wrong then. Maybe those examples were translated from the Aramaic part of the written OT? I'm not sure if that language was well known even then so that it can be translated to other languages, let alone when it was started to be written.

But you do have a strong point. If those pieces were honestly and perfectly taken from the OT, then it might as well have mistakes.

As someone who reads and writes both Greek and Latin, I can tell you that there are many false translations of the original manuscripts. The English versions have a number of discrepancies when compared to the Greek manuscripts they were translated from.

Secondly we know that their are dependencies among multiple versions of the same Greek manuscripts. Some of them have sentences moved into different places, and words changed. You have to remember that before the printing press was created, people literally had to copy these things word for word by hand.

Not to mention Hebrew and Aramaic. If I'm not mistaking, and if someone would kindly correct me if I'm wrong, the OT was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[Koldo]

Written, at least, after his leaving this world as you say, not revealed. The Bible in my beliefs was completely revealed to Jesus through the Angel Gabriel. Not sure if it was started to be written before or after, but the version that existed in the time before his leaving this world, I believe was 100% authentic as he would never had allowed it to change while he was around.

Have you ever read the bible?
I am asking this because it feels like you are treating the New Testament as if it was like the Quran. I may be wrong since I know very little about Islam, but I think the New Testament is more akin to the Hadiths than to the Quran.

The New Testament is composed of the gospels that tell how Jesus' life was like and the sermons he gaves, the account of what happened just after Jesus died, the letters from the apostles to the churches, and the book of revelation ( which is about prophetic and enigmatic visions ).

 

[Desert Snake]

That is the most ridiculous post I have read in a quite while.

No, it's very true. Believers make mistakes in interpretation as well, but they often know the framework and correct context of the material, unlike many (most?) unbelievers. That's my experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

They know the usual alleged contexts, anyway. That may be either a good or a bad thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

They know the usual alleged contexts, anyway. That may be either a good or a bad thing.

Agreed. I find what I consider mistakes in much Christian theoretics about Scriptural topics. That's why I currently don't own a Bible, btw. I don't want the mistakes included in the Text.


p.s. yes, 'mistakes' as in my opinion/study of those instances.

 

[LuisDantas]

By the original Bible I mean what was revealed to Jesus from God.

As Koldo said, that is not really how the Bible came to be. The Jewish Scriptures (from which the Christian OT was taken) don't reference Jesus at all and were written piecemeal, by many authors, along a wide period of time.

There is no clear indication or even claim about how inspired by God most of them were, except perhaps for the Pentateuch. The choice about which books to consider canonical is arbitrary to this day - which is perhaps an advantage in disguide, come to think of it.

The same is also true, perhaps even more so, of the books written after Jesus alleged existence. If anything, they are even more arbitrarily chosen, and hardly any was written by people who actually knew Jesus while alive (which I personally consider strong evidence that he never existed as such).

Then again, the whole matter is just too overblown. While it is only natural for people to value their scriptures, they are just a minor accessory of religious practice (I know Muslims and even many Christians and even Lotus Sutra Buddhists strongly disagree, but that is how I feel). Scriptures are simply way too dependent on social and historical context to raise above accessory level of importance.

 

[Koldo]

No, it's very true. Believers make mistakes in interpretation as well, but they often know the framework and correct context of the material, unlike many (most?) unbelievers. That's my experience.

The framework and the correct context of the material?
How would being a believer grant someone knowledge over that? :sarcastic

Here I was thinking that this knowledge would be acquired through study...

 

[Desert Snake]

The framework and the correct context of the material?
How would being a believer grant someone knowledge over that? :sarcastic

Here I was thinking that this knowledge would be acquired through study...

It probably is, no idea what your point is. The most scholarly voices on the forums for example, concerning Christian subjects, are believers.

Like I said, that's my experience, you're free to disagree with that.

 

[Mycroft]

"The woman must be taken to the door of her father's home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents' home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. - Duet. 22:21"

Do believers agree with this sentiment?

If the answer is no, then the Bible must be mistaken.

 

[Koldo]

It probably is, no idea what your point is.

Probably? ...

...

The most scholarly voices on the forums for example, concerning Christian subjects, are believers.

How many bible scholars do you know on this forum?

Like I said, that's my experience, you're free to disagree with that.

Your experience is that anyone that considerably disagrees with your interpretation is mistaken on the correct context of the text.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your experience is that anyone that considerably disagrees with your interpretation is mistaken on the correct context of the text.

No it isn't. What a bizarre statement.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As someone who reads and writes both Greek and Latin, I can tell you that there are many false translations of the original manuscripts. The English versions have a number of discrepancies when compared to the Greek manuscripts they were translated from.

Secondly we know that their are dependencies among multiple versions of the same Greek manuscripts. Some of them have sentences moved into different places, and words changed. You have to remember that before the printing press was created, people literally had to copy these things word for word by hand.

There are variances in translations which are a potential source of confusion, but they not a major issue. I'm not saying there aren't major issues. There are major issues.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Bible is not a revealed document from God.
Neither To Jesus, Who knew nothing of it; nor to those who followed him.
A bible is a compilation or collection of sacred writings.
Christians have many different Bibles.
Like all writings it contains errors, some more obvious than others.
Collectively Bibles give faiths, and denominations that use them, perhaps the best source document available to them.
Much of our Dogmas and beliefs have come through reasoned thought and discussion about what the Bibles offers us, but constrained by the oral traditions and practices that have come down from the distant past generations of Christians.
Each generation adds to the understanding we have of our faith by both rational argument and interpretation of new findings.

Neither the new nor the old is perfect and may never be so.

 

[Koldo]

No it isn't. What a bizarre statement.

Yeah, right.
Let's pretend that is not the case.
Let's pretend.

 

[George-ananda]

Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?


I say 'Yes' and there are many of those types of people. We can use our intelligence in judging the Bible. And I would add that people should also believe there are great things to learn from sources other than the Bible.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Bible is not a revealed document from God.
Neither To Jesus, Who knew nothing of it;

According to the Gospels, Jesus quoted text from the Jewish Bible several times.

A list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers.

It is unclear how much he felt bound by them, though.

 

[Koldo]

This makes no sense. What's insulting about it is that I don't claim to be an 'expert' on Christian Scripture, why would I? I don't attend church, don't have a denomination, not even baptized...most of what I know about Christianity I've researched myself, or learned from Christians on RF, so it's just inaccurate to say I'm some sort of 'know it all concerning Scripture, especially the NT.

And yet you find yourself sufficiently qualified to judge whether people are aware of the context and framework in which scriptures were written. Not judging just a few individuals, but entire groups.

You have lost all credibility with me, this is really just insults when you realized you were losing the argument.

What argument? There was no argument. I was merely stating how silly your initial remark was.

 

[Desert Snake]

And yet you find yourself sufficiently qualified to judge whether people are aware of the context and framework in which scriptures were written. Not judging just a few individuals, but entire groups.



What argument? There was no argument. I was merely stating how silly your initial remark was.

Nope, it's called being able to discern accurate research from inaccurate research, false logic. We can use our reasoning skills to tell who is making the better argument. The thing is, you actually have to read what people are presenting, and do your own reading as well. If you aren't doing that, then yeah, you can't have a valid opinion. Anyone can armchair quarterback with the usual 'criticisms' of religion that are in books, but reading one or two anti-Christian books an expert does not make. Or anti-religion book etc etc fill in the blank. it takes personal research to figure out arguments.

 

[Koldo]

Nope, it's called being able to discern accurate research from inaccurate research, false logic. We can use our reasoning skills to tell who is making the better argument. The thing is, you actually have to read what people are presenting, and do your own reading as well. If you aren't doing that, then yeah, you can't have a valid opinion. Anyone can armchair quarterback with the usual 'criticisms' of religion that are in books, but reading one or two anti-Christian books an expert does not make. Or anti-religion book etc etc fill in the blank. it takes personal research to figure out arguments.

So, you are able to do peer review, right?
There is a multitude of different christian denominations. Each of them will have a justification to have certain interpretations of the scripture. Each of them will give you a different context through which you are supposed to interpret the text. There isn't even a consensus among believers on many matters. Do I need to mention YEC to you?

An accurate interpretation doesn't rely solely on it being reasonable. Unless you are well-versed on biblical studies, how can you make the blunt affirmation that unbelievers are worse, in general, at interpreting scriptures than believers?