Biblical Scripture, a Hard Look

[siti]

Well I think it's also inspired.. but not entirely accurate. By inspired I mean it has record of divine revelation to the Prophets.

Yes - that's fine - but even if it is "inspired" and/or "divinely revealed" (which are not necessarily the same thing) it was revealed to those Prophets individually - they still had to use their natural (and fallible) human faculties to recall and record it in writing for the benefit of other humans - and those people in turn had to use their natural (and fallible) human faculties to interpret, translate and copy it. There is no way on God's earth that the version of "the Bible" we have now (in any version, translation or language) is the direct, infallible and verbatim "Word of God" to the entire 21st century human family. That's the idea (I hope) that is being debunked by "nit-picking" Ezra and Nehemiah etc. Nobody can prove that the ancient prophets did not receive supernatural revelations and visions - but we can clearly see that the Bible (such as we know it today) is sometimes irrational and often inconsistent - and therefore an unreliable guide as to what to believe.

 

[Nous]

Believers believe the bible is infalliable because it is christ words and christ is infalliable.

They wont see errors in the bible "in the same manner and mlintent" you and the OP doesn unless you can prove christ himself contradicts himself.

Obviously Jesus of Nazareth did not write a single word in the Bible.

Other than that fact, what you have described here is circular--to try to determine what is true or false by beginning with one's beliefs about what is true or false is not a logical way to discover the truth. Such irrationality should be condemned, not praised.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Obviously Jesus of Nazareth did not write a single word in the Bible.

Other than that fact, what you have described here is circular--to try to determine what is true or false by beginning with one's beliefs about what is true or false is not a logical way to discover the truth. Such irrationality should be condemned, not praised.

It is what it is. Youre asking logic from religions thst are based on subjectiveness, opinion, beliefs, and personal testimonies.

You have to question it from another method. Logic isnt one of hem.2

 

[arthra]

we can clearly see that the Bible (such as we know it today) is sometimes irrational and often inconsistent - and therefore an unreliable guide as to what to believe.

Siti,

In my view it depends how you view the scriptures..

If you expect it to be a scientific text ... It isn't.

If you see it as a record..albeit flawed in some respects it does in my view represent a record of progressive revelation from the time of Moses to say the time of Christ...

and the role of Prophets and Messengers of God in society are pretty well represented.

As an ongoing commentary on man's relationship with God it isn't in my view that bad. A more allegorical and spiritual approach to the scriptures can also be in my view rewarding..

 

[Dawnofhope]

Included is an extract from a tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha that I've shared on other threads:

"As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses."

Having said that there are verses about the infallible Divine inspiration of the apostles animating the sacred texts.

 

[user4578]

As someone already said, the likelihood that the records were taken at different times is high. In Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah describes and lists the names of the first account that he found, and the one in Ezra is probably one that was taken seven months later. Neh. 7:73

 

[pearl]

Christians say that the bible are god's words so be must allow all that to happen.

Your entire argument is lost when you posit what Christians, collectively, believe concerning Scripture. You are basing your opinions on what you erroneously believe Christians believe.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Your entire argument is lost when you posit what Christians, collectively, believe concerning Scripture. You are basing your opinions on what you erroneously believe Christians believe.

But isn't that what christians believe?

 

[pearl]

But isn't that what christians believe?

Most Christians do not believe that the Bible was dictated by God to robots who wrote.

 

[Skwim]

Most Christians do not believe that the Bible was dictated by God to robots who wrote.

But they do believe he either did that or were inspired to write exactly what he had in mind. That what their words and sentences meant, he meant.


.

 

[savagewind]

But they do believe he either did that or were inspired to write exactly what he had in mind. That what their words and sentences meant, he meant.


.

I think that for many people (maybe not most) what @Skwim said is truer than this -

Most Christians do not believe that the Bible was dictated by God to robots who wrote.

Most people that I have seen post their opinion about what the Bible really teaches really do believe that the Bible was written as everything that God intended it to say and without any serious human error.

They call it "the Word of God".


.....even though it isn't A word, but words.

 

[pearl]

They call it "the Word of God".

Of God, yes, but the word is human, including human limitations.

 

[savagewind]

Of God, yes, but the word is human, including human limitations.

A mystery. Huh?

 

[savagewind]

I do not see what is wrong with calling the way, the truth and life "the word".

I am sure as a human can be sure that the Bible is not the way, the truth and life.

 

[pearl]

I do not see what is wrong with calling the way, the truth and life "the word".

I think that refers to Jesus who is 'the way...'.

 

[Rise]

But some do, and you can't simply dismiss them because they look at the Bible differently than you do.

You're making the assertion that the Bible is not reliable, and I'm taking issue with the example you gave which supposedly proves that. What other people might believe isn't really relevant to the issues I have with your assertions about the Bible's reliability.

Didn't say it did.

Your quote:

In acknowledging that the Bible is not error free there's always the possibility that some of the more important elements in its narrative are in error.
Perhaps 2 Timothy 3;16, which says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," was meant to say "Some Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

You just said that the inspiration of scripture could go from "all" to "some" based only on the basis of scribal errors introduced into the text.

I pointed out why that is a fallacious conclusion for several reasons.
Thus, we have no evidence or logical reason to believe that scribal error alone ever resulted in changing important issues in the Bible.

The entire premise of your argument is therefore based on a bad assumption: Because the only example you gave of Biblical error was an insignificant data point that could very well be attributed to scribal error, and for the reasons I outlined scribal error alone cannot be extrapolated into concluding that the entire Bible is an unreliable record of history, theology, and prophecy.

Didn't assume this at all.

The problem with your hypothetical scenerio, as I was explaining, is that the only way for your scenerio to work out is for those two assumptions to be true - so I would have to assume you believed those things if you are trying to assert that scribal error alone could be responsible for changing important conclusions from the Bible. Logically it would never happen, and historically/archeologically/textually I can tell you that you will not find any evidence of it ever happening.

 

[savagewind]

One possible scribal error is saying Jehovah hates instead of hates Jehovah. The second gives the power to the person to do wrong against Jehovah. Is it not true that people do sin? The first gives the power to hate to God. Is it true that God can sin?

I think that where people make a mistake is to think that God ever even acknowledges the people who are unbelieving. Habakkuk 1:13 The Bible is for believers. Isn't it? If it is, then Proverbs 6:16 is a warning to believers. According to what we read, Proverbs 6:16 is a warning to unbelievers.

What makes more sense to YOU?

God saying, "stop hating me"
or
God saying, "make me stop hating them"?

 

[Rise]

One possible scribal error is saying Jehovah hates instead of hates Jehovah. The second gives the power to the person to do wrong against Jehovah. Is it not true that people do sin? The first gives the power to hate to God. Is it true that God can sin?

I think that where people make a mistake is to think that God ever even acknowledges the people who are unbelieving. Habakkuk 1:13 The Bible is for believers. Isn't it? If it is, then Proverbs 6:16 is a warning to believers. According to what we read, Proverbs 6:16 is a warning to unbelievers.

What makes more sense to YOU?

God saying, "stop hating me"
or
God saying, "make me stop hating them"?

I've read through your post many times but don't understand what you're trying to say.

If you're talking about hypothetical scribal errors, then I did already address why that would not change the text we have. Two main reasons:
1. Because of the decentralized manuscript creation process, we'd be able to detect if such an error had occurred throughout history by comparing far flung manuscripts from across geography and time.
2. Biblical context. If all of the Bible is saying one thing, but one verse says something different, and historical record shows that difference is an isolated variation, then we have good reason to believe it is an unintentional scribal error.

The truth is, we have no example of a scribal error producing a different understanding of some important issue, because in every case our understanding of those Biblical issues never hinges on a single verse.

A good example of this would be Mark 1:41.
There are very few examples in the manuscript record where a scribal error has produced a different meaning in a sentence, but this is one of them. Almost every manuscript we have says compassion. So we have good reason to believe angry is not the original reading, because "compassion" and "angry" are similar in the Greek.

However, even if it were, this is another example of why such a variant doesn't even change our understanding of important issues in the Bible - Whether or not Jesus was angry (Indignant as the NIV translates it), or had compassion, it doesn't alter our understanding of who Jesus was. Elsewhere we know He had great compassion. Elsewhere we know He exhibited righteous anger. Nothing about our understanding of Jesus's character hinges on this one verse. In fact, even if it were "angry", that has to be understood in the context of everything else written about Jesus which tells us that if Jesus were angry then there must have been a righteous reason for him to be so. So any interpretation of why He was angry would have to go through that lens.

 

[savagewind]

Is there anyone here who agrees with my premise that God spoke to people and some of what God said was written down and if it wasn't changed it can be said of it that, "God said"?

If it isn't what was heard by the person who heard from God it absolutely can't be said of it that, "God said".

The Bible is a second-hand book. I do believe you all know that. All the witnesses who heard from God and then what was heard was written are not present but are as the Bible says, "a cloud". Hebrew 12:1
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us

 

[savagewind]

I've read through your post many times

Thank you

but don't understand what you're trying to say.

According to popular opinion God has said that God hates.

I am saying that maybe, just maybe, God has said that certain things that people do are hating God.

Do you want to hate God? Is it possible?