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

[savagewind]

My point was: what is the universe if it is not part of God? What else can it be?

I like the crazy way you write sometimes

Me too! Thank you. I am an artist. Is my work a part of me? I should hope not. An artist's work is his expression but not a part of him.

Imagine if everything you made is a part of you. Whatever happens to it happens to you too. But in real life that doesn't happen unless a person has put too much heart into it. It is unhealthy. Isn't it? I am sure God is not unhealthy and certainly does not make Self unhealthy by being a part of everything. Everything shares it's own small part of God's memorial. But not God. God is Holy Three times says scripture.

So what is holiness? I hear it means "to be set apart". How can God be everywhere and in everything but also be set apart? So I looked it up.

"Be Holy for I Am Holy" - Beyond Today | United Church of God

“When pressed to describe what it means to be holy, adults gave a wide range of answers. The most common reply was ‘I don’t know,’ offered by one out of every five adults (21%). Other responses fell into categories such as ‘being Christ-like’ (19%), making faith your top priority in life (18%), living a pure or sinless lifestyle (12%), and having a good attitude about people and life (10%). Other response categories included focusing completely on God (9%), being guided by the Holy Spirit (9%), being born again (8%), reflecting the character of God (7%), exhibiting a moral lifestyle (5%), and accepting and practicing biblical truth (5%)” (www.barna.org ).

So just what does God desire when He commands that we “be holy for [He] is holy”? Let’s look closely at the original meaning of the word holy. The Hebrew is kodesh meaning “separated or set apart.” Bullinger’s Companion Bible comments that kodesh can also imply “consecrated, dedicated, hallowed, holiness, saint or sanctuary.” Some modern English dictionaries will include devout, faithful, God-fearing, righteous and virtuous.
The New Testament Greek for holy is hagios, and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance translates hagios into the English words sacred, blameless and consecrated. We find the word holy used in the Scriptures 567 times!

Can The Holy God be considered blameless if the universe is just a "part of God"? No. God in the sinner makes God a sinner too. In my country being a companion to a murderer at a murder makes me guilty of murder too. I believe The Father to whom we pray holds The God's Self to a higher standard, not a lower standard than human law.

 

[sojourner]

Is my work a part of me? I should hope not. An artist's work is his expression but not a part of him.

Imagine if everything you made is a part of you. Whatever happens to it happens to you too. But in real life that doesn't happen unless a person has put too much heart into it. It is unhealthy. Isn't it? I am sure God is not unhealthy and certainly does not make Self unhealthy by being a part of everything. Everything shares it's own small part of God's memorial. But not God. God is Holy Three times says scripture.

So what is holiness? I hear it means "to be set apart". How can God be everywhere and in everything but also be set apart?

Can The Holy God be considered blameless if the universe is just a "part of God"? No. God in the sinner makes God a sinner too. In my country being a companion to a murderer at a murder makes me guilty of murder too. I believe The Father to whom we pray holds The God's Self to a higher standard, not a lower standard than human law.

You raise some important theological issues here -- issues that lie at the heart of who we are and who God is -- and how we are in relationship.

There is a theological idea, championed by theologian Sallie McFague, that God has a physical body, and that that body is the universe -- the world (here, I'm speaking of "world" as "physical existence" -- not simply "the earth"). The world is God's body -- the earth, stars, planets -- everything that physically exists is God's physical body. In that sense, the creation is part of the Creator. We are all part of God; God is as close to us as the air we take into our lungs.

God is also holy -- that is, set apart from God's creation. God is both/and -- not either/or. In theological lingo, we say that God is both transcendent (apart from us) and imminent (close to us). We speak of God as holy when we speak of God's transcendency.

How can it be possible to "put too much heart" into a relationship? Deep love, deep connection, is a far different thing than a pathological attachment, or lack of self-differentiation. In a real sense, our own lives are defined by the ones we love and the ones who love us. That's the way in which humanity is one community -- what happens to one, happens to all. To paraphrase Kahlil Gibran, who speaks about love, "let your love be as the strings of a lute, which must vibrate separately, yet vibrate with the same music."

You say that "God in the sinner makes God a sinner too," and that "being a companion to a murderer at a murder makes me guilty of murder too. I believe the Father...holds...God's self to a higher standard." You're both right and wrong here. Let's continue to use Gibran's metaphor of the lute strings. There is, in nature, a phenomenon known as "sympathetic vibration." If we have two strings, and one is set in motion -- that is -- sets up a vibration, and the other string is left silent, the silent string will begin to vibrate. You see, the string with the vibration -- life -- defines the other string. Theologically speaking, when God, who is life, breathes into the lifeless lumps of clay called "humanity," we become nephesh, or beings that are defined as "living." It is God who defines us -- not the other way round. We don't define God. Therefore, when God is imminent -- close as the air we breathe, God doesn't become "dead" because we're dead in our sin, rather, we become "alive," because we have life in us. That's the essence of grace -- that God-With-Us makes us alive, even though we're dead in our sin.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Me too! Thank you. I am an artist. Is my work a part of me? I should hope not. An artist's work is his expression but not a part of him.

You paint?
A thoughtful and long response.

Imagine if everything you made is a part of you. Whatever happens to it happens to you too.

I think that is the reflective part of God... the Image. did not the Son say he can only do what he sees the Father doing.

But in real life that doesn't happen unless a person has put too much heart into it. It is unhealthy. Isn't it? I am sure God is not unhealthy and certainly does not make Self unhealthy by being a part of everything. Everything shares it's own small part of God's memorial. But not God. God is Holy Three times says scripture.

See above

So what is holiness? I hear it means "to be set apart". How can God be everywhere and in everything but also be set apart? So I looked it up.

"Be Holy for I Am Holy" - Beyond Today | United Church of God




Can The Holy God be considered blameless if the universe is just a "part of God"? No. God in the sinner makes God a sinner too. In my country being a companion to a murderer at a murder makes me guilty of murder too. I believe The Father to whom we pray holds The God's Self to a higher standard, not a lower standard than human law.

(Holy ... separated to God I think, which means separate from the world.)

But it has all come from Him. If so, then we have to reconcile the two. One is God that is Holy and separate to the world, the other is the One that creates what we see and are. The reason? There is nowhere else it can come from

 

[Robert.Evans]

You raise some important theological issues here -- issues that lie at the heart of who we are and who God is -- and how we are in relationship.

There is a theological idea, championed by theologian Sallie McFague, that God has a physical body, and that that body is the universe -- the world (here, I'm speaking of "world" as "physical existence" -- not simply "the earth"). The world is God's body -- the earth, stars, planets -- everything that physically exists is God's physical body. In that sense, the creation is part of the Creator. We are all part of God; God is as close to us as the air we take into our lungs.

God is also holy -- that is, set apart from God's creation. God is both/and -- not either/or. In theological lingo, we say that God is both transcendent (apart from us) and imminent (close to us). We speak of God as holy when we speak of God's transcendency.

How can it be possible to "put too much heart" into a relationship? Deep love, deep connection, is a far different thing than a pathological attachment, or lack of self-differentiation. In a real sense, our own lives are defined by the ones we love and the ones who love us. That's the way in which humanity is one community -- what happens to one, happens to all. To paraphrase Kahlil Gibran, who speaks about love, "let your love be as the strings of a lute, which must vibrate separately, yet vibrate with the same music."

You say that "God in the sinner makes God a sinner too," and that "being a companion to a murderer at a murder makes me guilty of murder too. I believe the Father...holds...God's self to a higher standard." You're both right and wrong here. Let's continue to use Gibran's metaphor of the lute strings. There is, in nature, a phenomenon known as "sympathetic vibration." If we have two strings, and one is set in motion -- that is -- sets up a vibration, and the other string is left silent, the silent string will begin to vibrate. You see, the string with the vibration -- life -- defines the other string. Theologically speaking, when God, who is life, breathes into the lifeless lumps of clay called "humanity," we become nephesh, or beings that are defined as "living." It is God who defines us -- not the other way round. We don't define God. Therefore, when God is imminent -- close as the air we breathe, God doesn't become "dead" because we're dead in our sin, rather, we become "alive," because we have life in us. That's the essence of grace -- that God-With-Us makes us alive, even though we're dead in our sin.

Someone bought a clock, and for some reason, ended up with another exactlyy the same. They were both put on the mantle piece above the fire. They had pendulums, and were swinging out of sync. After some time had ellapsed, they both swung together, as they picked up the vibrations through the wooden mantle. Good eh

 

[savagewind]

You paint?

I am not an artist though I make things and I like to draw. I don't paint picures. I paint walls and furniture. Saying "I am an artist" was just a way to make a point. I appreciate you for paying attention. It's rare these days. Isn't it?

 

[Harikrish]

It is possible for bible readers to find mistakes in the Quran which was written 600 years later, when they compare the two books. The prophet Mohammad was illiterate which increases the probability of mistakes because he could only recite from memory. That is the price one pays when they try to plagiarized well established works. They get exposed!!!

 

[Dr. Strange]

That's not quite true. While it is true that the texts never explicitly say that Jesus is Divine, it is implied -- and quite heavily implied. Take, for example, Luke's shameless ripoff of Augustus' "divine birth" narrative, the resurrection and ascension, John 1, Jesus' assertion that "I and the Father are one." All of this suggests that the writers though Jesus had some sort of Divine nature.

Further, 325 happened before the RCC happened. At that time, the church hadn't split East/West, so it was still "the church."

Which is it? The Gospel of Mark understands Jesus as a man who became God. And, the Gospel of John understands Jesus as God who became man.


One must answer this question by understanding how people then understood the difference between divine and human. Then, how did Judaism understand this difference. Considering the historical life of Jesus and how Jesus talked about himself as God.


So, how did Jesus become God? There is Jesus' resurrection, can we know about the resurrection? Is the burial by Joseph Arimathea and three female followers finding the tomb empty historical data? One cannot know historically about the traditions surrounding Jesus' resurrection.


When considering Jesus' disciples claiming that they saw Jesus after his death the question must be asked, “How many disciples saw Jesus after his death?” Asking the question about the disciples having a vision or a hallucination, leads this visionary experiences ascended into heaven.


One must explore these exaltations from the earliest surviving sources. These then are the first Christologies. The early Christological views that developed later, examined shows that by comparison of those Christologies the meaning of “incarnation”. Exploring the last Gospel, the Gospel of John, comparing John's Gospel and how it compared with the earlier Christologies.


Moving on to the fourth century taking a look at all the Christologies of that time as revealed by all the different heresies. Taking note that Arian controversy having been rejected led to the Nicene Creed.


With all the controversies, what made Jesus' followers believe he was God?


Historically, all the above demonstrates how Jesus becomes God. It was a long process that in itself defines the Early Church. How Jesus Became God, Bart D. Ehrman, Introduction.



For the most part today, faith defines one's belief in Jesus the Christ, not belief.


I, for one, side with Paul Tillich who says, “Jesus as the Christ.”

 

[sojourner]

Which is it? The Gospel of Mark understands Jesus as a man who became God. And, the Gospel of John understands Jesus as God who became man.


One must answer this question by understanding how people then understood the difference between divine and human. Then, how did Judaism understand this difference. Considering the historical life of Jesus and how Jesus talked about himself as God.


So, how did Jesus become God? There is Jesus' resurrection, can we know about the resurrection? Is the burial by Joseph Arimathea and three female followers finding the tomb empty historical data? One cannot know historically about the traditions surrounding Jesus' resurrection.


When considering Jesus' disciples claiming that they saw Jesus after his death the question must be asked, “How many disciples saw Jesus after his death?” Asking the question about the disciples having a vision or a hallucination, leads this visionary experiences ascended into heaven.


One must explore these exaltations from the earliest surviving sources. These then are the first Christologies. The early Christological views that developed later, examined shows that by comparison of those Christologies the meaning of “incarnation”. Exploring the last Gospel, the Gospel of John, comparing John's Gospel and how it compared with the earlier Christologies.


Moving on to the fourth century taking a look at all the Christologies of that time as revealed by all the different heresies. Taking note that Arian controversy having been rejected led to the Nicene Creed.


With all the controversies, what made Jesus' followers believe he was God?


Historically, all the above demonstrates how Jesus becomes God. It was a long process that in itself defines the Early Church. How Jesus Became God, Bart D. Ehrman, Introduction.



For the most part today, faith defines one's belief in Jesus the Christ, not belief.


I, for one, side with Paul Tillich who says, “Jesus as the Christ.”

Pardon me while I yawn. Ehrman is sooooo first-year seminary. And it simply doesn't refute what I said -- that the texts heavily imply some belief in Jesus as Divine.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Nothing to do with Catholicism specifically. It's not only Catholics who believe in the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians do - Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Others believe that Jesus is God but reject the Trinity, such as Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons. The rest reject His Divinity, but they're very much the minority of all views.

I've learned more about the Bible and theology as well as of Christian history than I ever learned from the Catholic Church. Most of my understanding comes out of The Jerome Biblical Commentary and the NAB 1968 - 1970 when I studied the Bible . Some of the greatest Catholic theologians were present from just before Vatican II and shortly after. They were dismissed by conservative Catholicism, the good ole boys club; including Pope Benedict as a major player in this battle.

What is most important for me to understand is that there are basic Christian symbolism that has been left behind to allow for the Church's power to perpetuate.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Pardon me while I yawn. Ehrman is sooooo first-year seminary. And it simply doesn't refute what I said -- that the texts heavily imply some belief in Jesus as Divine.

What you clearly ignore are the meanings of words used by Jewish revolutionaries. Son of God meant what to Jews during the years of Jesus' lifetime. If you cannot define NT passages using OT passages you are left with cultural implications defining the passages. What I believe happened is that early Christians decided that Jesus was divine and made the stories tell that story. No different than the development of doctrine. The Nicene Creed would have been unnecessary had their been ample proof in the Early Writings. The Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These disciples were long gone when the Gospels were written.

Speaking about Ehrman, how did seminary teach you about Ehrman? How did they dismiss his scholarly efforts? I suspect that your "sooooo first-year seminary" comment has much to do with the light your profs portrayed Ehrman because they disliked his sound reasoning.

 

[Dr. Strange]

You can read about our understanding here:
Jesus Is God | Catholic Answers

Please tell me that Catholic Answers does not just speak what the Church magisterium wants Catholics to understand. When I use these tools I do so to understand the Church's position or teaching.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Your question doesn't make much sense.

Tracking this conversation, I'd say: "I get the question." Your answer should have related to understanding, the New Being in Christ." It is just what those of the OT, or Judaism did not get. It is about those that don't get it today. The answer was always there in the beginning. How else was Jesus able to articulate to fellow followers that it is what is in the heart.

 

[metis]

Tracking this conversation, I'd say: "I get the question." Your answer should have related to understanding, the New Being in Christ." It is just what those of the OT, or Judaism did not get. It is about those that don't get it today. The answer was always there in the beginning. How else was Jesus able to articulate to fellow followers that it is what is in the heart.

I guess we just can't understand the scriptures that we wrote, interpreted, commented on, translated into other languages. and passed on to others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please tell me that Catholic Answers does not just speak what the Church magisterium wants Catholics to understand. When I use these tools I do so to understand the Church's position or teaching.

No, that site is for anyone who wants to learn about Catholicism.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Yes that is what I feel is right, this man called Jesus talked in metaphors and parables, for the reason that many were not ready to hear the truth. Jesus made his own inner being or the Christ, into a personal story, we are all the Christ within, that is until we realize it, this is called self realization, which Jesus the man experienced.

The ignorant will say that I don't like Christianity, only because they are so involved in their own story that they cannot see anything outside their story. I feel that to be self realized, that we are all the Christ, in oneness with the Cosmos or God, is to be a true Christian.

I really like what you have said. Here is a link for all to ponder: Tillich: Urgrund and Urbild

Adam wasn't a person. Adam is humanity. But Adam didn't come from God. Adam came from the dust of the earth. We all are "of the earth."

No, the bible doesn't say "humanness means in the image of God." The bible says that God blew into the man's nostril's and man became nephesh -- "a lving being."

"Being: literally, "soul."

1soul
noun\ˈsōl\
: the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever

: a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature

: the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
Soul - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1spir·it
noun\ˈspir-ət\
: the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power
Spirit - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thomas Aquinas attributed all organisms had a soul. My dog certainly does. One's spirit is not like a machine that comes to life when you put a coin in it or about what sustains our life, as in food and water. Spirit is about our life, the good and the bad of life or more specifically , what we make of our life.

And yes, the Bible does "mean "humanness means in the image of God." It means that God breathed into mankind a heart establishing a "living being" and our spirit is that life.

 

[we-live-now]

I was going to name the thread "Is it possible the Bible has mistakes in it". And I heard a little voice in my head say "Dah?".

Then I had to add "believers" to the title.

If nothing else, it's funny.

We have to really carefully define "mistakes" first.

God himself says that Job's friends said things that are not true about him.

Would that be a "mistake"? Or is it "true" that they DID say that?

 

[savagewind]

We have to really carefully define "mistakes" first.

God himself says that Job's friends said things that are not true about him.

Would that be a "mistake"? Or is it "true" that they DID say that?

Mistakes are what lead people away from the narrow gate and cramped road. Job's friends opinions recorded like they are are not mistakes. Mistakes mean what is not a part of the message. Misleading words are mistakes.

 

[we-live-now]

I am 100% convinced there are NO mistakes in the Bible nor are there any errors. God does allow people to record their opinions though, some of which are not true.

Here is something that will blow your mind. I have found many (maybe hundreds) of "contradictions" between the 4 gospels yet God has revealed in the process that his Word is EVEN more true and HE IS MUCH BIGGER and REAL than I could ever believe before.

 

[savagewind]

I am 100% convinced there are NO mistakes in the Bible nor are there any errors. God does allow people to record their opinions though, some of which are not true.

Here is something that will blow your mind. I have found many (maybe hundreds) of "contradictions" between the 4 gospels yet God has revealed in the process that his Word is EVEN more true and HE IS MUCH BIGGER and REAL than I could ever believe before.

What is the difference between mistakes and errors?

 

[sojourner]

What you clearly ignore are the meanings of words used by Jewish revolutionaries.

I haven't ignored them at all. They're simply not cogent to what I said.

If you cannot define NT passages using OT passages you are left with cultural implications defining the passages.

What in the world does this have to do with "what the bible says about Jesus' Divinity?"

What I believe happened is that early Christians decided that Jesus was divine and made the stories tell that story.

Duh.

The Nicene Creed would have been unnecessary had their been ample proof in the Early Writings.

I disagree. Since the texts are multivalent, any number of interpretations can be wrought from them, making some sort of unifying doctrinal statement necessary, if the goal was to make the church uniform.

The Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These disciples were long gone when the Gospels were written.

I learned that in high school -- and it's still not particularly cogent to the argument.

Speaking about Ehrman, how did seminary teach you about Ehrman? How did they dismiss his scholarly efforts?

They didn't dismiss him.

I suspect that your "sooooo first-year seminary" comment has much to do with the light your profs portrayed Ehrman because they disliked his sound reasoning.

You would suspect incorrectly. They didn't "dislike Ehrman. Ehrman's fine, as far as he goes. But he's sort of like "Biblical Criticism for Dummies."