That you are not capable of recognizing sarcasm speaks volumes too.
I am Christian. You neither have the means, ability nor right to determine otherwise.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
I am Christian. You neither have the means, ability nor right to determine otherwise.
Having perfect confidence is not evidence supporting what you are confident about. Lots of miserable and failed ideas were supported by people with perfect confidence. We call them fanatics. There is no reasoning with fanatics.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Well you said you were not Christian. You certainly don't believe as a Christian. Calling yourself a Methodist is probably the safest. So, what makes you a Christian? You don't believe the Bible. Don't trust what the Bible says. How did you become Christian?
Let's see...your 'evidence,' or lack of 'evidence', leads you to doubt the Bible is the Word of God. It leads you to doubt what is the inspired Word of God. My faith in God and Christ leads me to knowledge and confidence that the Bible I have is the Word of God. And the Bible I have was accepted by the people of God as the inspired Word of God.
Compare (John 6:29) with (John 7:16-17). Not that 'you' can trust it, but I can.
Good-Ole-Rebel
@Good-Ole-Rebel said to Dan from Smithville : "...You certainly don't believe as a Christian. Calling yourself a Methodist is probably the safest. So, what makes you a Christian? You don't believe the Bible. Don't trust what the Bible says.... My faith in God and Christ leads me to knowledge and confidence that the Bible I have is the Word of God. And the Bible I have was accepted by the people of God as the inspired Word of God....Compare (John 6:29) with (John 7:16-17). Not that 'you' can trust it, but I can...."
Hi Good-Ole-Rebel ;
As an observer of the conversation between you and @Dan From Smithville, it seems silly to engage in simply calling Dan from Smith names or insinuating he is not Christian simply because he disagrees with you. If we allow conversations to dissolve into petty name calling instead of a logical presentation of data and rational thought, it defeats the purpose of discussion and simply reveals our weaknesses and what we become when stressed.
Becoming emotional also decreases our accuracy in dealing with data. For example, While Dan of Smithville simply points out there are errors in biblical texts he did not say he did not “believe the Bible”. I as a reader can see this is a mischaracterization of Dan from Smithvilles position. Mischaracterizations can be dishonesty and mischaracterizations do not take the place of data and reason. Even the scriptures you quoted do not tell us to trust the text itself, but to trust in Jesus. Conflating a belief in Jesus does not logically mean that the text in your modern bible is inerrant.
Finally, Dan of Smithville is actually quite correct in his assertion that biblical texts are not inerrant. There are errors in all biblical texts of any size that we know of. Presumably your bible is based on either the Masoretic or the Septuagint and both base texts are known to have multiple errors. For example, the Jewish Masorettes that created the Medieval Jewish bible (the official bible of Rabbinic Judaism) themselves provide lists of errors and changes to original text. The Talmud itself tells us that multiple versions of the text existed in Hilkiahs time and yet another version was created from the conflicting versions found in the temple ruins of that time. Modern translators also tell us that the bibles they create for us have errors.
The individuals who wrote the various texts that ended up in the various versions of the bibles that have been created over the various eras may have been inspired but this did not keep the various bibles that have been created “inerrant” (i.e. without errors).
For example, if you can tell me what bible you are using, I can give you examples of errors within it. Many of these errors are unimportant and others are quite important.
I am certainly Christian. I believe in Jesus as the messiah and savior of the world. I believe the base testimonies in the bible, but this does not mean I think there are no errors of one type or another in the text. Dan from Smithville is correct and it does not do well to mischaracterize him or call him names simply because he disagrees with your position.
In any case, I hope you spiritual journey in this life is insightful and wonderful Good-Ole-Rebel.
Clear
ειτζτζφιω
Hi Good-Ole-Rebel ;
As an observer of the conversation between you and @Dan From Smithville, it seems silly to engage in simply calling Dan from Smith names or insinuating he is not Christian simply because he disagrees with you. If we allow conversations to dissolve into petty name calling instead of a logical presentation of data and rational thought, it defeats the purpose of discussion and simply reveals our weaknesses and what we become when stressed.
Becoming emotional also decreases our accuracy in dealing with data. For example, While Dan of Smithville simply points out there are errors in biblical texts he did not say he did not “believe the Bible”. I as a reader can see this is a mischaracterization of Dan from Smithvilles position. Mischaracterizations can be dishonesty and mischaracterizations do not take the place of data and reason. Even the scriptures you quoted do not tell us to trust the text itself, but to trust in Jesus. Conflating a belief in Jesus does not logically mean that the text in your modern bible is inerrant.
Finally, Dan of Smithville is actually quite correct in his assertion that biblical texts are not inerrant. There are errors in all biblical texts of any size that we know of. Presumably your bible is based on either the Masoretic or the Septuagint and both base texts are known to have multiple errors. For example, the Jewish Masorettes that created the Medieval Jewish bible (the official bible of Rabbinic Judaism) themselves provide lists of errors and changes to original text. The Talmud itself tells us that multiple versions of the text existed in Hilkiahs time and yet another version was created from the conflicting versions found in the temple ruins of that time. Modern translators also tell us that the bibles they create for us have errors.
The individuals who wrote the various texts that ended up in the various versions of the bibles that have been created over the various eras may have been inspired but this did not keep the various bibles that have been created “inerrant” (i.e. without errors).
For example, if you can tell me what bible you are using, I can give you examples of errors within it. Many of these errors are unimportant and others are quite important.
I am certainly Christian. I believe in Jesus as the messiah and savior of the world. I believe the base testimonies in the bible, but this does not mean I think there are no errors of one type or another in the text. Dan from Smithville is correct and it does not do well to mischaracterize him or call him names simply because he disagrees with your position.
In any case, I hope you spiritual journey in this life is insightful and wonderful Good-Ole-Rebel.
Clear
ειτζτζφιω
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
My response was sarcasm based on a prediction of your response that I qualified in the text. Here, you are fulfilling prediction. You are not God and therefore not in a position to decide who is and who is not Christian. Though it appears you have granted yourself God's authority in the matter. You putting the predicted words in my post that I never wrote on top of that.
You claim knowledge that you have no means to demonstrate, making your claims useless as evidence. You could be correct, but given the contradiction of your view with other facts, this claim is merely that.I
What you have is belief that you cannot support, so you turn to personal attacks instead. Not a Christian value either. My view is that you would not accept a majority as Christian who are Christian. Hence my sarcasm. You provided the evidence that I am correct in that view.
What we really have is difference in opinion and understanding on the Bible and no evidence questioning whether either of us is Christian. A fact I easily recognize.
A person can claim they follow the correct Canon or that their version of Christianity is the only correct version, but that cannot be demonstrated. Claiming the Bible is inerrant and infallible is elevating an object to the level of God. This action is prohibited within the very book that is being deified.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
RF rules also prohibit posters from saying that other posters aren't 'true XYZ belivers' don't they?
I think it is something like that. I'll have to check. I have only the word of a person to know the beliefs they claim. So does he, but he usurpes authority not his own to declare otherwise.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
What 'petty name calling'?
Why doesn't the quotes I give from the Bible tell me to trust the revelation given from God?
The discussion here is about the Canon. Not inerrancy. If you're interested in the Canon and Inspiration of Scripture, speak on that. Else, start another thread.
Oh, you are Christian, but you don't believe the Bible? Sorry, but you understand anyone can 'say' anything. And I don't believe you.
I have no desire for what you call 'insightful and wonderful'.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Because I am a child of God and know His voice.
There are no parts of the Bible that are not true. And what are you saying is 'truth'?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Audie
Veteran Member
So Pi is 3.0 and Jesus is a baby sheep.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
I just believe what you said. And I haven't seen anything else to prove otherwise. I believe you were correct.
Now that you claim to be a Christian, why do you ignore my questions as to what makes you a Christian? See post #(63).
I am not required nor do I care to prove to you my knowledge of God and the Bible. Your claim that you do not know tells me you do not know.
You haven't yet told me why you believe you are Christian. You have told me you are not Christian, which I believe. So, waiting.
As I said before, inerrancy and infallibility is not the subject here. So, what is your problem? Start another thread if you want to discuss it.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
We have had this discussion before. As I said there are no parts of the Bible that are not true.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Audie
Veteran Member
No numbers that are approximations, not exact ?
I spoke as I did, because I know my audience. I was not expecting a rational, honest discussion and I was not disappointed.
The OP includes a reference to inerrancy. Surely you can read that. Maybe not.
Last edited:
I am glad to see someone admit that slavery is supported by the passages of the Bible.
POST ONE OF TWO
ERRORS IN GREEK TEXTS
It is difficult to enumerate the number and types of errors within Greek texts and to describe easily and simply the vast accumulated effect and potential effect of all types of biblical textual errors on Christian thought and doctrine over millenia of doctrinal changes and evolution of christian thought.
WHO IS ACTUALLY CLAIMING INERRANCY?
ALL legitimate Scholars of Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they contain errors. ALL legitimate translators who create bibles from Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts create bibles from, contain errors. ALL legitimate Textual critics of Greek texts who are trying to determine what the original texts might have said tell us that the manuscripts they are aware of contain errors. Who is it that is making the claim for inerrancy?
If readers of the forum will take the time to notice, they will see that virtually ALL claims that greek New Testament Texts are perfect and without error, originate with from individuals who have not read (nor are they able to read) a critical New Testament Text in greek.
The reason that the claim to inerrancy comes only from those who are least qualified to make the claim becomes obvious. ANYONE who CAN read greek who DOES read ANY critical greek text immediately comes face to face with several types of errors. It is impossible to read a critical text without coming face to face with this fact since critical texts display and categorize errors and conflicts. Also, the readers of the text themselves, must pick between various readings in order to make their way through the greek text (else they cannot move forward in the text that offers them multiple choices of how the early text might have read).
The scholars who actually read greek manuscripts; the translators who actually use greek manuscripts and the textual critics who actually study and analyze greek manuscripts in depth are all qualified to make their claim that errors exist. The non-educated, non-greek reading dogmatists who make the claim of inerrancy without justification are the least qualified and the least objective in creating and support their claim to textual inerrancy. This is why the poster Good-Ole-Rebel is unable to give a single example of an inerrant text. It simply doesn't exist.
My point was that expert translators themselves are the very ones telling us that the manuscripts they deal with have imperfections and errors and that the bibles they themselves create, are, in fact, imperfect.
It is irrational and illogical then, to inflate a claim to “perfection”, when the very people who produced a bible have both admitted to and catelogue the errors they know are in it.
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE OR MORE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE "PERFECT"
One forum poster said :
"God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."
Part of the problem with such dogmatic claims is that they are not a good basis upon which to base one's faith in God. For example, If this person bases his faith on God on the belief that a bible is perfect, then what happens to his faith when he is exposed to undeniable biblical imperfection? Compare this hypothetical response to a person who has received the Holy Spirit as a companion who has received a personal, profound witness that God lives and that Jesus is the redeemer. The first may suffer doubt while the second may remain spiritually calm and unshaken.
EXAGERATED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO
I believe that mature and mentally aware Christians who make the claim that their text is perfect and has no errors or loss are motivated by a misguided attempt to strengthen and benefit the Christian claim. I do NOT think their motives are evil.
Despite this benign motive, I think that it does more damage to the Christian aim if individuals are seen as “lying for Jesus” and make claims such as inerrancy and perfection in texts. The reason for this is that increasing numbers of both Christians and non-Christians are aware of imperfections and errancy in biblical texts and to have Christians make ludicrous claims that contradict a wall of firm fact associates Christianity with dishonesty and incredulity in the eyes of individuals who know better. I think such claims could have been made in earlier ages of ignorance when data was not so readily available. But such a claim cannot survive in an age where information is so readily available.
The reason I think that deceptions and gross exagerations is so harmful is that it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the perceived status of a text or a doctrine. Once Christians engage in the spread of obvious error, then they will be seen as irrelevant to one’s personal pursuit of religious truth . Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.
For example, if we christians make the claim that “God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error.”, then this claim will be used by agnostics to show that there is no God due to the fact that bibles ARE tainted with errors.
The agnostics and athiests are as intelligent as Christians. They realize that scriptures have multiple errors of multiple types. Claims to biblical “perfection” often appear to agnostics to be a method of "self-reassurance", a "pep talk" meant to reassure one’s self against the dark and unknown facts when real faith has less need for such psychological accoutrements
I think agnostics will be more forgiving of children who think the bible is perfect since they understand the kind and good motives behind the “my dad can beat up your dad” bravado of a small child. However, that sort of pride is less justifiable when applied to making false claims to show “my religious theory can beat up your religious theory” in individuals who should know better. In the face of christian pride and an attitude of christian superiority, The agnostic then feels quite justified in tearing false christian claims apart.
One harm of inaccurate and inflated Christian claims is that the agnostic may then unjustifiably dismiss profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses the christian errors. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims.
This damage caused by loss of credibility goes deep and has long-lasting effects. I have wondered if the damage of erroneous claims might go as deep as that of hypocrisy (I think the damage DOES go as deep if the claim is an obvious lie)..
TRANSLATOR(S) WHO CREATE A BIBLE TELL US THAT THEIR TRANSLATIONS ARE IMPERFECT
When any translator and printer creates a bible for mass consumption the translator typically uses one or more of the early texts as a basis for the bible he is creating. All of the early manuscripts of which we are aware, contain discrepancies and errors.
The translator is also dependent upon his imperfect skill and best guesses as to what the early text meant in order to create a bible. The bible the translator creates is a reflection of the source materials available to the translator, the translators ability to translate (which is not merely his linguistic skill, but his historical background and objectivity as well), and the ability of a modern language to express an ancient concept from a differing set of different modern linguistic symbolism (e.g. english words).
THE TRANSLATOR(S) / CREATOR(S) OF BIBLES THEMSELVES EXPRESS CONCERN REGARDING ATTITUDES OF THEISTS TOWARDS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR WORK
For the biblical translator and biblical linguist, the reverence and worship of their book as a thing of perfection may border on idol worship. It may feel as though individual reveres a book as much as they do the God the book attempts to chronicle and describe. Translators who create the bibles are often uncomfortable with the “deification” of their creation (which they know has errors).
For example, During the question-answer period of a BAR meeting at the smithsonian institution in washington (oct 27, 1990), James Sanders (who served on the committee that had just put out the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) at that time spoke of how one could break the news to a relatively ignorant but good hearted group of christians, the “relativity” of translations so they could understand that the bible is a product of the TRANSLATOR(S), and is simply their best guess as to what the words meant.
James Sanders said : “I have dreamt of a Bible with translations of both versions into english. I wonder if lay folk would accept a Bible where there are doublets of this sort. .... There might be one translation on the top half of the page and the other on the bottom half of the page. I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
ERRORS IN GREEK TEXTS
It is difficult to enumerate the number and types of errors within Greek texts and to describe easily and simply the vast accumulated effect and potential effect of all types of biblical textual errors on Christian thought and doctrine over millenia of doctrinal changes and evolution of christian thought.
WHO IS ACTUALLY CLAIMING INERRANCY?
ALL legitimate Scholars of Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they contain errors. ALL legitimate translators who create bibles from Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts create bibles from, contain errors. ALL legitimate Textual critics of Greek texts who are trying to determine what the original texts might have said tell us that the manuscripts they are aware of contain errors. Who is it that is making the claim for inerrancy?
If readers of the forum will take the time to notice, they will see that virtually ALL claims that greek New Testament Texts are perfect and without error, originate with from individuals who have not read (nor are they able to read) a critical New Testament Text in greek.
The reason that the claim to inerrancy comes only from those who are least qualified to make the claim becomes obvious. ANYONE who CAN read greek who DOES read ANY critical greek text immediately comes face to face with several types of errors. It is impossible to read a critical text without coming face to face with this fact since critical texts display and categorize errors and conflicts. Also, the readers of the text themselves, must pick between various readings in order to make their way through the greek text (else they cannot move forward in the text that offers them multiple choices of how the early text might have read).
The scholars who actually read greek manuscripts; the translators who actually use greek manuscripts and the textual critics who actually study and analyze greek manuscripts in depth are all qualified to make their claim that errors exist. The non-educated, non-greek reading dogmatists who make the claim of inerrancy without justification are the least qualified and the least objective in creating and support their claim to textual inerrancy. This is why the poster Good-Ole-Rebel is unable to give a single example of an inerrant text. It simply doesn't exist.
My point was that expert translators themselves are the very ones telling us that the manuscripts they deal with have imperfections and errors and that the bibles they themselves create, are, in fact, imperfect.
It is irrational and illogical then, to inflate a claim to “perfection”, when the very people who produced a bible have both admitted to and catelogue the errors they know are in it.
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT ONE OR MORE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE ARE "PERFECT"
One forum poster said :
"God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."
Part of the problem with such dogmatic claims is that they are not a good basis upon which to base one's faith in God. For example, If this person bases his faith on God on the belief that a bible is perfect, then what happens to his faith when he is exposed to undeniable biblical imperfection? Compare this hypothetical response to a person who has received the Holy Spirit as a companion who has received a personal, profound witness that God lives and that Jesus is the redeemer. The first may suffer doubt while the second may remain spiritually calm and unshaken.
EXAGERATED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO
I believe that mature and mentally aware Christians who make the claim that their text is perfect and has no errors or loss are motivated by a misguided attempt to strengthen and benefit the Christian claim. I do NOT think their motives are evil.
Despite this benign motive, I think that it does more damage to the Christian aim if individuals are seen as “lying for Jesus” and make claims such as inerrancy and perfection in texts. The reason for this is that increasing numbers of both Christians and non-Christians are aware of imperfections and errancy in biblical texts and to have Christians make ludicrous claims that contradict a wall of firm fact associates Christianity with dishonesty and incredulity in the eyes of individuals who know better. I think such claims could have been made in earlier ages of ignorance when data was not so readily available. But such a claim cannot survive in an age where information is so readily available.
The reason I think that deceptions and gross exagerations is so harmful is that it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the perceived status of a text or a doctrine. Once Christians engage in the spread of obvious error, then they will be seen as irrelevant to one’s personal pursuit of religious truth . Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.
For example, if we christians make the claim that “God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error.”, then this claim will be used by agnostics to show that there is no God due to the fact that bibles ARE tainted with errors.
The agnostics and athiests are as intelligent as Christians. They realize that scriptures have multiple errors of multiple types. Claims to biblical “perfection” often appear to agnostics to be a method of "self-reassurance", a "pep talk" meant to reassure one’s self against the dark and unknown facts when real faith has less need for such psychological accoutrements
I think agnostics will be more forgiving of children who think the bible is perfect since they understand the kind and good motives behind the “my dad can beat up your dad” bravado of a small child. However, that sort of pride is less justifiable when applied to making false claims to show “my religious theory can beat up your religious theory” in individuals who should know better. In the face of christian pride and an attitude of christian superiority, The agnostic then feels quite justified in tearing false christian claims apart.
One harm of inaccurate and inflated Christian claims is that the agnostic may then unjustifiably dismiss profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses the christian errors. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims.
This damage caused by loss of credibility goes deep and has long-lasting effects. I have wondered if the damage of erroneous claims might go as deep as that of hypocrisy (I think the damage DOES go as deep if the claim is an obvious lie)..
TRANSLATOR(S) WHO CREATE A BIBLE TELL US THAT THEIR TRANSLATIONS ARE IMPERFECT
When any translator and printer creates a bible for mass consumption the translator typically uses one or more of the early texts as a basis for the bible he is creating. All of the early manuscripts of which we are aware, contain discrepancies and errors.
The translator is also dependent upon his imperfect skill and best guesses as to what the early text meant in order to create a bible. The bible the translator creates is a reflection of the source materials available to the translator, the translators ability to translate (which is not merely his linguistic skill, but his historical background and objectivity as well), and the ability of a modern language to express an ancient concept from a differing set of different modern linguistic symbolism (e.g. english words).
THE TRANSLATOR(S) / CREATOR(S) OF BIBLES THEMSELVES EXPRESS CONCERN REGARDING ATTITUDES OF THEISTS TOWARDS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR WORK
For the biblical translator and biblical linguist, the reverence and worship of their book as a thing of perfection may border on idol worship. It may feel as though individual reveres a book as much as they do the God the book attempts to chronicle and describe. Translators who create the bibles are often uncomfortable with the “deification” of their creation (which they know has errors).
For example, During the question-answer period of a BAR meeting at the smithsonian institution in washington (oct 27, 1990), James Sanders (who served on the committee that had just put out the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) at that time spoke of how one could break the news to a relatively ignorant but good hearted group of christians, the “relativity” of translations so they could understand that the bible is a product of the TRANSLATOR(S), and is simply their best guess as to what the words meant.
James Sanders said : “I have dreamt of a Bible with translations of both versions into english. I wonder if lay folk would accept a Bible where there are doublets of this sort. .... There might be one translation on the top half of the page and the other on the bottom half of the page. I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
There is a concern among translators as to how much truth about translation the “lay christian” can “handle”.
What happens if the translator meets the “biblical perfectionist” in person and says “"Hi. I am the creator of the bible you think is perfect. My Greek isn’t perfect and I didn’t have a lot of good manuscripts to compare so I think I did a fair job, but I know that I translated a few passages incorrectly. Still, it’s the best I could do, given my limitations.” What would a lay christian who is a biblical perfectionist DO with this sort of revelation? What happens when a flat earth suddenly is declared to be made round?
James is not merely a translator on the committee producing the NRSV, but he was THE one called in to unroll Cave 11 Psalm Scroll; he edited it and he published it. He was president of the Society of Biblical Literature (which had a membership thousands of biblical scholars).
James said during this session regarding his own biblical translation (which many of us on this forum read as “the bible”) : “Must we continue to pretend that only our group is right denominationally and others are not right, and it is just too bad about others? After all, the Revised English Bible and the NRSV have the Hebrew Ester in the so-called canonical section and the full Greek Ester – all of it in its full integrity – in the Apocrypha....The Hebrew text is still in the process of standardization, but I wonder if it would not be proper for there to be an effort afoot to provide our people with the differences all along. I have been told by some that that would just destroy the Bible because lay folk still want to think of the Bible as somehow “inerrant.” The truth of the matter is that all biblical passages have been community property almost from the first repetition. It may well be that if there should ever be the possibility of discussing the text of Isaiah with Isaiah, he might very well say, “But I did not say that.” It has nonetheless become community Isaiah property and he might just have to live with it.”.
James, a translator who “creates” scripture is describing the fact that though some of the biblical text is incorrect, and the translators know it is incorrect, still, the community of Christians have in their mind that what is written IS what Isaiah actually said and that the Prophet Isaiah will just have to live with it since individuals cannot cope with any corrections.
BIBLE READERS OFTEN DO NOT COPE WELL WITH CONNECTIONS OF THEIR TEXTUAL TRADITIONS
For example, the bible translator Erasmus, in creating the FIRST printed greek bible discovered this human frailty much to his dismay. When Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma (1 john 5:7-8), a spurious text which had made it’s way into the New Testament’s of the day.
However, the outcry of the traditionalists was such that he brought the text back into the third edition (though Erasmus spends considerable, C O N S I D E R A B L E, space in preamble of the 3rd edition, explaining why he added the text back into his bible, despite the spurious and erroneous nature of this text). Most translators realize the fickle nature of those who take the bible which is their creation, and endow it with properties it simply does not have, including “perfection”.
Doug Moo, one head editor/translator of the NIV Bible described the process of their committee as they created their bible. The committee discusses what they think the text is trying to say and come to a majority consensus (not all agree on all meanings) and then they put that meaning into the text of the bible they are creating. In 2007 they made some significant changes to their bible as they decided that the prior lines were not as correct as they could have been. If the creators of this Bible admit to errors and must change their text from time to time, it is evidence that imperfections exist, despite their best efforts in prior attempts.
A few years previously, a forum poster gave a description of biblical text that I thought was generally accurate and can be applied to the various iterations and various versions of bibles that have existed throughout the centuries :
MysticPhD said : “... The Bible is God-inspired recordings chronicling our species education and attempts to understand God. They foretold of the arrival of the Word of God Jesus Christ and provided validation for Him. That makes them far more than stories . . . but it does NOT make them the [literal] Word of God nor does it make them inerrant.
Another poster wrote : "In addition to the misunderstanding/idolatry that the Bible is "God Himself on paper,... Only God can make one man to see things the same way as another man. Through the Spirit. Not through some new translation made by men. (Brian)
Brian was describing the tendency of individuals to psychologically “project” onto material things, “qualities” that inanimate objects do not and cannot have. Bibles in their various versions are historical records. The history in them regards profoundly sacred things, but the text itself is still a historical record; a representation of past events. I believe that poster was correct; that men must have the spirit of God with them to have correct insight and understanding is profound and completely true. And, I think the witness of the Holy Spirit more than compensates for textual errors in it’s role as witness to the existence of God and the witness of Jesus as a redeemer for mankind.
That is what I meant when I said that “the Christian who relies on a spiritual witness of the holy spirit to guide them gradually from a base position of relative ignorance to greater and greater moral truth in this life by reference to the biblical record still, will find themselves becoming closer to God and to their fellow man by living the truths in sacred texts, regardless of imperfections.
God lives. Jesus really and truly is the redeemer. But these truths to not depend upon having perfect texts.”
For example, since the concept of inerrancy can only survive in the dogmatic world and not in reality, the adherents of “inerrancy” are completely unable to provide even a reference to an inerrant text and often, then rely on inaccurate mischaracterizations of others in an attempt to fortify their position since they do not have data or logic or rational use of data to support their position. We certainly see evidence of this not only in this thread but in multiple threads.
Clear
ειτζσιτζω
There is a concern among translators as to how much truth about translation the “lay christian” can “handle”.
What happens if the translator meets the “biblical perfectionist” in person and says “"Hi. I am the creator of the bible you think is perfect. My Greek isn’t perfect and I didn’t have a lot of good manuscripts to compare so I think I did a fair job, but I know that I translated a few passages incorrectly. Still, it’s the best I could do, given my limitations.” What would a lay christian who is a biblical perfectionist DO with this sort of revelation? What happens when a flat earth suddenly is declared to be made round?
James is not merely a translator on the committee producing the NRSV, but he was THE one called in to unroll Cave 11 Psalm Scroll; he edited it and he published it. He was president of the Society of Biblical Literature (which had a membership thousands of biblical scholars).
James said during this session regarding his own biblical translation (which many of us on this forum read as “the bible”) : “Must we continue to pretend that only our group is right denominationally and others are not right, and it is just too bad about others? After all, the Revised English Bible and the NRSV have the Hebrew Ester in the so-called canonical section and the full Greek Ester – all of it in its full integrity – in the Apocrypha....The Hebrew text is still in the process of standardization, but I wonder if it would not be proper for there to be an effort afoot to provide our people with the differences all along. I have been told by some that that would just destroy the Bible because lay folk still want to think of the Bible as somehow “inerrant.” The truth of the matter is that all biblical passages have been community property almost from the first repetition. It may well be that if there should ever be the possibility of discussing the text of Isaiah with Isaiah, he might very well say, “But I did not say that.” It has nonetheless become community Isaiah property and he might just have to live with it.”.
James, a translator who “creates” scripture is describing the fact that though some of the biblical text is incorrect, and the translators know it is incorrect, still, the community of Christians have in their mind that what is written IS what Isaiah actually said and that the Prophet Isaiah will just have to live with it since individuals cannot cope with any corrections.
BIBLE READERS OFTEN DO NOT COPE WELL WITH CONNECTIONS OF THEIR TEXTUAL TRADITIONS
For example, the bible translator Erasmus, in creating the FIRST printed greek bible discovered this human frailty much to his dismay. When Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma (1 john 5:7-8), a spurious text which had made it’s way into the New Testament’s of the day.
However, the outcry of the traditionalists was such that he brought the text back into the third edition (though Erasmus spends considerable, C O N S I D E R A B L E, space in preamble of the 3rd edition, explaining why he added the text back into his bible, despite the spurious and erroneous nature of this text). Most translators realize the fickle nature of those who take the bible which is their creation, and endow it with properties it simply does not have, including “perfection”.
Doug Moo, one head editor/translator of the NIV Bible described the process of their committee as they created their bible. The committee discusses what they think the text is trying to say and come to a majority consensus (not all agree on all meanings) and then they put that meaning into the text of the bible they are creating. In 2007 they made some significant changes to their bible as they decided that the prior lines were not as correct as they could have been. If the creators of this Bible admit to errors and must change their text from time to time, it is evidence that imperfections exist, despite their best efforts in prior attempts.
A few years previously, a forum poster gave a description of biblical text that I thought was generally accurate and can be applied to the various iterations and various versions of bibles that have existed throughout the centuries :
MysticPhD said : “... The Bible is God-inspired recordings chronicling our species education and attempts to understand God. They foretold of the arrival of the Word of God Jesus Christ and provided validation for Him. That makes them far more than stories . . . but it does NOT make them the [literal] Word of God nor does it make them inerrant.
Another poster wrote : "In addition to the misunderstanding/idolatry that the Bible is "God Himself on paper,... Only God can make one man to see things the same way as another man. Through the Spirit. Not through some new translation made by men. (Brian)
Brian was describing the tendency of individuals to psychologically “project” onto material things, “qualities” that inanimate objects do not and cannot have. Bibles in their various versions are historical records. The history in them regards profoundly sacred things, but the text itself is still a historical record; a representation of past events. I believe that poster was correct; that men must have the spirit of God with them to have correct insight and understanding is profound and completely true. And, I think the witness of the Holy Spirit more than compensates for textual errors in it’s role as witness to the existence of God and the witness of Jesus as a redeemer for mankind.
That is what I meant when I said that “the Christian who relies on a spiritual witness of the holy spirit to guide them gradually from a base position of relative ignorance to greater and greater moral truth in this life by reference to the biblical record still, will find themselves becoming closer to God and to their fellow man by living the truths in sacred texts, regardless of imperfections.
God lives. Jesus really and truly is the redeemer. But these truths to not depend upon having perfect texts.”
For example, since the concept of inerrancy can only survive in the dogmatic world and not in reality, the adherents of “inerrancy” are completely unable to provide even a reference to an inerrant text and often, then rely on inaccurate mischaracterizations of others in an attempt to fortify their position since they do not have data or logic or rational use of data to support their position. We certainly see evidence of this not only in this thread but in multiple threads.
Clear
ειτζσιτζω
Last edited:
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
The OP is wrong in including inerrancy as a factor in canonization. It is the inspiration of Scripture that determines. Because Scripture is inspired by God it is without error.
Good-Ole-Rebel