• 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!

Do you believe your sacred text contains errors?

Do you believe your sacred text (the Bible or Quran) contains errors?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • No

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Total voters
    15

Spiderman

Veteran Member
If you are not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, please do not vote on the poll.

I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors. The New testament says all Scripture is inspired by God.

I used to pray at a mosque and I live in Minneapolis, highest Somalian population in America, so met many Muslims. None of them believe their text contains errors.

You?

 

Lain

Well-Known Member
If you are not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, please do not vote on the poll.

I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors. The New testament says all Scripture is inspired by God.

I used to pray at a mosque and I live in Minneapolis, highest Somalian population in America, so met many Muslims. None of them believe their text contains errors.

You?

I put "no" as my answer. Pope Leo XIII said: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

But it is more complicated than this I found, defining what "Holy Scripture" is. Some streams of transmission are partially corrupt in my opinion (like the Masoretic Text in the Psalter and ages in Genesis, even one stream of LXX variants has an error other LXX variants do not have on the ages), but partially right elsewhere (St. Matthew the Apostle in some of his quotations agrees with some parts of the MT). There are also multiple streams which can be acceptable according to the Fathers (for instance the superscriptions of the Psalms, especially Psalm 9 which has a beautiful variant, they would say "if it's this it means that, if it's that it means this...") usage. But as long as the text is according to the rule of faith this has been deemed an acceptable status of things, but wherever the Scripture is it is without error absolutely.

It's a fascinating subject to learn about this. But all of the above and below is just my opinion. Anyway, I would say "no" and did say so.

I think ZippyCatholic (God rest his soul) has a good insight on inerrancy (emphasis in original):

"Biblical inerrancy is one thing. It means that there exists a true (corresponds to reality) and correct (corresponds with what the author intends to say about God and salvation) meaning or interpretation of Biblical texts. That is really all that it means, which is not enough to solve the ‘problem’ of interpretation. That a true and correct interpretation exists doesn’t imply that some specific interpretation is true and correct.

"Note that inerrant meaning is ascribed to the author of the text, not the characters and people who are the subjects of the text. That the sacred author’s meaning is inerrant does not imply that King Saul, in his actions and words, was infallible. A true and correct history of the words and deeds of Thomas Jefferson does not imply that the words and deeds of Thomas Jefferson were infallible. Furthermore Scripture gives no list of characters to whom infallibility is to be attributed nor any criteria for determining when their actions or words are infallible."
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
If you are not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, please do not vote on the poll.

I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors.
Well, you have now. Any time a human being has anything to do with any sacred text, as a preserver, transcriber, or translator, there is a chance of error. And that goes for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, too, in case someone was thinking of pointing that out to me.
 
Last edited:

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Well, you have now. Any time a human being has anything to do with any sacred text, as a preserver, transcriber, or translator, there is a chance of error. And that goes for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, in case someone was thinking of pointing that out to me.
Thank you. :)
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I would say yes.

As the speaking voice is not bio chemical itself. Hence if it was communicating it's advice the hearing bio chemistry would own interactive interference.

The reasoning. It's records always remains in the heavens recorded. A teaching the advice was a warning. Pre advice not heeded.

Which proves the previous humans did not relate the advice correctly.

The human bio life owns death and constant life mind body change.

It is advice only and depended on the life mind body of the listener actually.

Reason I know is the original listener was hearing by verbal. Wrote it as a human. Verbal language is DNA defined only.

The information first owned details how to re invent science machine and reaction.

The verbal heard new memories no longer heard it related that advice. It just infers a theory thought by a human.

Another reason why.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
What exactly do you mean by “errors”?

If a segment of a sacred text is not literally historical fact but instead intended to illustrate the beautiful and terrible complexities of human nature, is that an “error”?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
If you are not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, please do not vote on the poll.
Sorry @Spiderman, I messed up your poll. I saw the poll, and the answer to the title question was so obvious, that I voted before reading the OP

On the other hand, does the Koran not say that all are Muslims, just some are not yet aware of it?

And the Bible declares that "Our Father" of which "we all" are children, created all, hence we must be all Christian too, maybe not aware of it

And I was baptized when young even:D

So, after this short contemplation (thank you for the challenge) I do feel that me voting was the right thing here:cool:
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors. The New testament says all Scripture is inspired by God.
Yes, many find it hard to be honest (as in facing the obvious facts) when it comes to their own Scripture

"inspired by God" definitely does not mean "without error" (see example below). But then again "what is error?". If earth is meant to be educated, errors are part of study, and as such I don't call them errors but rather "experiences"

My Master loves to put me on the wrong foot, and even says "test is my taste". In the regular school we are tested with hypothetical questions (meaning that they need not be true), so I would be surprised if in Spiritual life there would not be hypothetical texts, hence these seemingly inconsistent verses might be just part of the study; at least it's a good challenge to sift the good ones out

I see everything on earth as an opportunity to challenge my ability of discriminating right from wrong (as seen from dualistic POV), thereby growing in Wisdom. Hence, any "seemingly" inconsistencies are a welcome challenge to me, the more the merrier :p. I always look at the bright side of life :)
 

mangalavara

सो ऽहम्
Premium Member

Considering that I am not Jewish, Noahide, Christian, or Muslim, I did not vote in the poll. As a Hindu, if someone were to ask me if I think Hindu scriptures contain errors, I would say that many Hindu scriptures say things about the natural world that we know are not factual thanks to the natural science of today. My view is that when it comes to what the ancients knew about the natural world, what they knew was the science of their time. Seeing that science and spirituality are two different things, what they mention in their scriptures about objective, natural phenomena has no bearing on the value of what they write about their subjective, spiritual experiences or the existence of God, the devas, spiritual worlds, etc.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors.

The New testament says all Scripture is inspired by God.
I believe all Scriptures (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Bahai, Zoroaster,...) are inspired by God

"Knowing" that God loves to test humans (to sharpen them, as to improve themselves) of course there are "errors" (as in tests for the readers) in all the Scriptures.

Besides those, there are the common errors due to translation, and even due to misinterpretation by Masters, as God is way beyond them all, also way beyound Masters.

The best Master (unless he is omniscient maybe) can still grow further, because the Universe is too big to comprehend for us infinitesimal humans
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Sorry @Spiderman, I messed up your poll. I saw the poll, and the answer to the title question was so obvious, that I voted before reading the OP

On the other hand, does the Koran not say that all are Muslims, just some are not yet aware of it?

And the Bible declares that "Our Father" of which "we all" are children, created all, hence we must be all Christian too, maybe not aware of it

And I was baptized when young even:D

So, after this short contemplation (thank you for the challenge) I do feel that me voting was the right thing here:cool:
I forgive you. Just dont bother fixing it and never let it happen again. :p :D
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
I believe all Scriptures (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Bahai, Zoroaster,...) are inspired by God

"Knowing" that God loves to test humans (to sharpen them, as to improve themselves) of course there are "errors" (as in tests for the readers) in all the Scriptures.

Besides those, there are the common errors due to translation, and even due to misinterpretation by Masters, as God is way beyond them all, also way beyound Masters.

The best Master (unless he is omniscient maybe) can still grow further, because the Universe is too big to comprehend for us infinitesimal humans
I totally believe God can grow, evolve, even convert. :)
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Depends what you mean by errors really. Do the works of Shakespeare or Milton or Dante Alighieri or Tolstoy contain errors? In translation they almost certainly do. And readers will sometimes unknowingly, sometimes deliberately, misinterpret the meaning of any given text. But then if a reader gets something from a text that the writer never intended, who is to say it’s the reader who is wrong? It’s arguable to what extent any writer is in control of the creative process.

As for the Bible, I see it as a compendium of world literature, much of it divinely inspired perhaps, but certainly not the incontrovertible and unwavering word of God.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
If you are not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, please do not vote on the poll.

I have not met a Christian or Muslim who believed their sacred text contained errors. The New testament says all Scripture is inspired by God.

I used to pray at a mosque and I live in Minneapolis, highest Somalian population in America, so met many Muslims. None of them believe their text contains errors.

You?

Well, Minneapolis isn't the center of the Muslim world, and could be described with unflattering adjectives. Saudi Arabia would be a better starting point, and apparently the prince of Arabia, is trying to strike some of the Hadiths out of their texts. As for the "Christian" text, Revelation 22 points out that words can be added or subtracted, but with the plagues being part of the process. The early text do not all align, with additions and or subtractions existing between the texts. Add the part were the tare seed, the message planted by the devil, would be planted in the same field/book as that of the message of the son of man (Matthew 13), you have issues.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
What exactly do you mean by “errors”?
If a segment of a sacred text is not literally historical fact but instead intended to illustrate the beautiful and terrible complexities of human nature, is that an “error”?
Why would a god or a person need to use factual error to illustrate some element of human nature? All that does is give people a valid reason to reject their argument.
For example, "we know that people are generally peace-loving because Hitler brought peace and stability to Europe". Would you accept the first premise on the basis of the clearly flawed second? The first premise may be accurate but the flawed second gives good reason to doubt it.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
apparently the prince of Arabia, is trying to strike some of the Hadiths out of their texts.
The hadith are not "holy scriptures". They are merely the record of Muhammad's words and deeds during his prophethood, transmitted orally, and collected and compiled by men some time after the event.
Even the most devout Muslim accepts that some hadith are unreliable, inauthentic, or even fabricated. What is genuinely puzzling is why the inauthentic and fabricated hadith are retained in collections. Perhaps it is these that they are proposing to remove, which would make sense.

No Muslim admits to there being any error or even contradiction in the Quran, which is clearly an unsupportable position, given the obvious errors and contradiction it contains. But such things are only to be expected from a book written 1400 years ago by men with little knowledge or understanding of the world.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I have never met a Christian. who has believed that the Bible is literally true.
Though I know that they exist.
Every priest that I have met understands that the scriptures need interpreting to be useful and instructive.
Most of the History in the Bible contains inaccuracies.
Much of the Books of Moses are fable.
The new testament stories do not match each other in detail or even scope.
never the less they are all we have, and are instructive if used with caution.
The Christi am religion as practiced by any denomination, and the Bible, are a very poor match for each other
 
Top