Does the bible contain false doctrine?

[waldo]

Many speak of how the bible has been changed so much over the centuries. So i have one question for you.
Does the Bible itslef contain any false doctrine? (assuming it's iterpreted correctly)
i ask this because i think slight errors don't matter as long as it's message stays true.

 

[sojourner]

Your question needs to be qualified. Whose perspective of truth are we to use? Whose doctrine is to be the standard? Doctrine is formulated out of scripture by interpreting scripture. Whose interpretation is "correct?" Are any "correct?" In what sense? To what extent? Who shall make that determination?

 

[Popeyesays]

Many speak of how the bible has been changed so much over the centuries. So i have one question for you.
Does the Bible itslef contain any false doctrine? (assuming it's iterpreted correctly)
i ask this because i think slight errors don't matter as long as it's message stays true.

I voted "NO". The problem is not the doctrine in the Bible, the problem is the people who reach into the Biblical bag, pluck out a verse without context and decide to build a schism right then and there.

Regards,
Scott

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I will vote "other." The Bible is a collection of faithful representations of the groups that it represents.

 

[Quiddity]

Doctrines are extracted by a bias/Tradition of the institution. Some people are creative enough to get UFO's, pink unicorns, etc. out of it.

 

[waldo]

Your question needs to be qualified. Whose perspective of truth are we to use? Whose doctrine is to be the standard? Doctrine is formulated out of scripture by interpreting scripture. Whose interpretation is "correct?" Are any "correct?" In what sense? To what extent? Who shall make that determination?

well, i personally think the King James version is the most accurate of any bible versions we have today, but you can choose whichever one you think is most accurate.

 

[sojourner]

well, i personally think the King James version is the most accurate of any bible versions we have today, but you can choose whichever one you think is most accurate.

Most Biblical scholars would disagree with you. But I'm not talking about different versions of the Bible. Doctrinal error is not found in differing versions. Doctrinal error is found in mistranslation.

 

[Nehustan]

I think my reply to this would be multiple....

1.) Jesus spoke to different audiences with different register i.e. scholastic to the scholars, with parables to the simple folk.

2.) The people that reported these teachings to us either 1.) never followed Jesus during his ministry 2.) were not scribes nor scholars or even 'with letters' (tho' they could catch a tasty fish :areyoucra )

3.) The books come to us from the Greek, possibly via Aramaic and Syro Chaldean, so there is a large margin for error in what was actually said

4.) Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. The people who recorded what was said were not, and may not have understood the subtleties of what may be called Jesus' 'theology', nor the context of to whom and with which register he was speaking.

5.)The full context of whom Jesus was speaking to, what level of knowledge they possesses and that knowledge itself, are vital to an understanding of what was said, as with any text.

I think that the 'falseness' (not my phrase!!!) in the bible (NT) have more to do with fallibility of the sources, rather than with Jesus himself.

We do not possess a gospel BY Jesus other than as demonstrated by his actions and words as recorded.

 

[Quiddity]

I think my reply to this would be multiple....

1.) Jesus spoke to different audiences with different register i.e. scholastic to the scholars, with parables to the simple folk.

2.) The people that reported these teachings to us either 1.) never followed Jesus during his ministry 2.) were not scribes nor scholars or even 'with letters' (tho' they could catch a tasty fish :areyoucra )

3.) The books come to us from the Greek, possibly via Aramaic and Syro Chaldean, so there is a large margin for error in what was actually said

4.) Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. The people who recorded what was said were not, and may not have understood the subtleties of what may be called Jesus' 'theology', nor the context of to whom and with which register he was speaking.

5.)The full context of whom Jesus was speaking to, what level of knowledge they possesses and that knowledge itself, are vital to an understanding of what was said, as with any text.

I think that the 'falseness' (not my phrase!!!) in the bible (NT) have more to do with fallibility of the sources, rather than with Jesus himself.

We do not possess a gospel BY Jesus other than as demonstrated by his actions and words as recorded.

The sources? Please elaborate.

 

[Popeyesays]

I think my reply to this would be multiple....

1.) Jesus spoke to different audiences with different register i.e. scholastic to the scholars, with parables to the simple folk.

2.) The people that reported these teachings to us either 1.) never followed Jesus during his ministry 2.) were not scribes nor scholars or even 'with letters' (tho' they could catch a tasty fish :areyoucra )

3.) The books come to us from the Greek, possibly via Aramaic and Syro Chaldean, so there is a large margin for error in what was actually said

4.) Jesus was a prophet inspired by God. The people who recorded what was said were not, and may not have understood the subtleties of what may be called Jesus' 'theology', nor the context of to whom and with which register he was speaking.

5.)The full context of whom Jesus was speaking to, what level of knowledge they possesses and that knowledge itself, are vital to an understanding of what was said, as with any text.

I think that the 'falseness' (not my phrase!!!) in the bible (NT) have more to do with fallibility of the sources, rather than with Jesus himself.

We do not possess a gospel BY Jesus other than as demonstrated by his actions and words as recorded.

1)The Jesus spoke in different ways to different audiences is patently clear - we just have to compare His speech in parable to His speech to individuals, to His speech to the authorities of the Temple. It is obvious that whatever Jesus was He was eloquent in many venues - as one would expect from a Prophet.

2) True the reporters of the Gospel may not have been eye-witness to all of which they testified, however the Judaic traditions and the early Christian traditions were heavily centered in recitation - as Islam.

3) The books come from the Greek without doubt. That the vocal traditions were Syriac upon which were based the Greek writing is pretty self-evident. Some scholars would state unequivically that there was an Aramaic Gospel before the Greek Gospels. Other hedge, hem and haw about whether or not the Aramaic Gospel was translated from the Greek source. (refer to the PeshettA - peshettO dispute.)

4) There were people who memorized what Moses said, who memorized what Jesus said, who memorized what Muhammad said and it was recorded officially after the passing of the Prophet. If verbal tradition is sufficient for any single one, then the verbal tradition must be sufficient for them all.

5) Absolutely!

Regards,
Scott

 

[Nehustan]

Sources for what Victor?

 

[JillianMarie77]

"i ask this because i think slight errors don't matter as long as it's message stays true."

* The problem is, depending on interpretation, the traditions of your chosen religion/danomination the messages can be quite different.

There's a concept I've been pondering on for some time now and someone put it into words beautifully the other day on another debate board. The topic being discussed was, of course, who is "right" who has "truth" if the holy ghost supposedly guides readers to correct interpretation and so many varainces occur.

Perhaps, the holy ghost, guides each persone to understand and come away with the message that THEY need to hear.

There are lots of good messages in the bible. And lots of them are used for horrible things and have been in the past as well. I voted "yes, alot" not because the bible is inherrantly bad or wrong but because the generally accepted 'versions' are, IMO, far from what they were intended to be.

 

[Ody]

Which bible are you talking about? The new testament? 0.0

 

[michel]

Doctrines are extracted by a bias/Tradition of the institution. Some people are creative enough to get UFO's, pink unicorns, etc. out of it.

No!!, no!! Victor..............pink unicorns? not you too. Aggggghhhhhhhhhhhh........:biglaugh:

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I voted yes:areyoucra

Example of false doctrine; Rom. 6:1 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?"
If this was not an existent issue of Paul's time, then it would seem useless for Paul to bring up this false doctrine in the form of a question.

Example of true doctrine; Rom 6:2 "May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[ChrisP]

Other : I don't think it was correct to begin with. Too much was excluded and men decided which books would be kept in or left out. Human's are not infallible therefore leaving the whole documents reputation tarnished IMHO.

 

[Popeyesays]

I voted yes:areyoucra

Example of false doctrine; Rom. 6:1 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?"
If this was not an existent issue of Paul's time, then it would seem useless for Paul to bring up this false doctrine in the form of a question.

Example of true doctrine; Rom 6:2 "May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Since Romas 6: 1-2 is a single statement how can the first half be "wrong doctrine"?

Regards,
Scott

 

[ashai]

Ushta All

False? Can't tell for sure, but contradictive? Definitely so. Can the contradictions be explained away? Some perhaps but doing violence to the text . I am of the belief that the Bible contains much that is good (alot of it borrowed) but taking together ( both testaments) it makes no sense as a whole because it obviously contradicts itself. Besides that there are some problems with the theology that posits God as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omni Love.:help:

It is flawed but some of its flaws can be corrected by better theology. However, I can't see the Christians been able to do the needed reformation.

Ushta ve
ashai

 

[hanif]

I Want To Ask You.
In The Bible It Mentioned
Jacob Wrestled With God And Win Him?
Is There A Believer Of God Can Say It Is True.
So Of Course Bible Contains False Doctrins.

 

[sojourner]

I Want To Ask You.
In The Bible It Mentioned
Jacob Wrestled With God And Win Him?
Is There A Believer Of God Can Say It Is True.
So Of Course Bible Contains False Doctrins.

How is that "false doctrine?" The story is obviously metaphorical. Does it not speak to the truth that we all wrestle with God in the dark? And just when we think we've got God cornered, God plays the trump card? What's false about that?