God/Bible have flaws solved?

[stvdv]

God/Bible have flaws solved?

I see that many people are quite hung up that their scripture should be flawless. Why?

A): Hypothetical: Bible has no flaws, then it's easy to prove that God has flaws
Bible states "God created man in His image"
Man has flaws, makes errors. So God has flaws, makes errors [much bigger; God having all the Omni's]
BUT if God has flaws then can we blindly believe the Bible has no flaws?

B): Hypothetical: God has/makes no errors, then it's easy to prove that the Bible is not God's error free Word
Bible states "God created man in His image"
Man has flaws, makes errors. So God has flaws, makes errors [much bigger; God having all the Omni's]
So Bible can not be God's error free word

So the Bible stating "God created man in His image" implies the Bible is not perfect. Good to know that the Bible is not error free. Makes conversations a lot easier.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The likelihood of anything from the past (in written form) not having flaws or errors is extremely remote in my view - just given the amount around now, where communications are infinitely better than at any other time.

 

[Earthling]

The term flaws could be subjective. For example, @ PopeADope considers the Bible's presentation of God to be flawed, he therefore considers God to be flawed. A flaw is in the eyes of the beholder. What may be a flaw to PopeADope may not be a flaw to me or to God or anyone else. The question is, who sets the standard and who does it apply to.

Jehovah God, IMHO, sets the standard because he is the creator. God's word, as he inspired the Bible writers to write - the original copies and the small portion he wrote with his own finger in stone, is infallible. Flawless. But the translation of the original isn't inspired. God didn't insure that the translations were correct. So there are flaws.

 

[whirlingmerc]

God/Bible have flaws solved?

I see that many people are quite hung up that their scripture should be flawless. Why?

A): Hypothetical: Bible has no flaws, then it's easy to prove that God has flaws
Bible states "God created man in His image"
Man has flaws, makes errors. So God has flaws, makes errors [much bigger; God having all the Omni's]
BUT if God has flaws then can we blindly believe the Bible has no flaws?

B): Hypothetical: God has/makes no errors, then it's easy to prove that the Bible is not God's error free Word
Bible states "God created man in His image"
Man has flaws, makes errors. So God has flaws, makes errors [much bigger; God having all the Omni's]
So Bible can not be God's error free word

So the Bible stating "God created man in His image" implies the Bible is not perfect. Good to know that the Bible is not error free. Makes conversations a lot easier.

The Bible in its original manuscripts is without error but was also handed down pretty faithfully and with the consensus of manuscripts we can have a clear idea of the original for all essential doctrines
No translation is perfect and the manuscripts are not either... but there are thousands of them and one can infer the original in all important areas

There are also quotes form early church fathers wishing 150 years of Jesus earthy life and all but 11 verses of the new testament can be found

There also is a doctrine of perspicuity of scriptures as J Vernon Magee said 'the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things"

 

[David T]

The likelihood of anything from the past (in written form) not having flaws or errors is extremely remote in my view - just given the amount around now, where communications are infinitely better than at any other time.

Therefore today's reality is tomorrow's mythological out to lunch la la land? Agreed..

Or is today's reality the totality of the future just more purified by time and the past is nonesense?

Is the a fixed point in history where we crossed over to the light of clarity in relationship to historical nonsense?

 

[Quintessence]

What does it mean for something to be a "flaw" or an "error?" Is this assessment something of a matter of perspective or opinion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Bible in its original manuscripts is without error ...

Given that you've never seen "the Bible in its original manuscripts." how would you know,?

 

[metis]

Right next to me on my desk is my "Oxford Desk Dictionary", and I find it very useful even though I don't believe it is inerrant. The scriptures I regard in much the same way, and I also tend to feel that calling the scriptures inerrant is a form of idolatry, as the Bible is not God and all that's God is not in the Bible.

However, I did check "I have flaws...", so one can take my opinion with a large grain of salt.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Therefore today's reality is tomorrow's mythological out to lunch la la land? Agreed..

Or is today's reality the totality of the future just more purified by time and the past is nonesense?

Is the a fixed point in history where we crossed over to the light of clarity in relationship to historical nonsense?

In the past, few could read or write when the religious texts were formed. No affect on how information was disseminated? Now we are a little better off, but, as I continually mention, even such things as the JFK assassination, and filmed, still has its doubters as to the real perpetrator(s). I submit we are better off than ever though - compared with the past.

 

[stvdv]

The Bible in its original manuscripts is without error

We had a Bible from 1600. So was close to original, but still 1600 years different. I have no personal version/proof of the original manuscript, so I can't make the same claim as you

If I were God I would give a manuscript with errors. God gave us brains, so no need to "spoon feed" every syllable. Better give brains some challenge IMO.

 

[David T]

In the past, few could read or write when the religious texts were formed. No affect on how information was disseminated? Now we are a little better off, but, as I continually mention, even such things as the JFK assassination, and filmed, still has its doubters as to the real perpetrator(s). I submit we are better off than ever though - compared with the past.

Oh yea on perpetuators of nonsense. They are simply more skilled at it or at least it appears to us.l to be the case. They hide in assumptions and exploit that. Although another type is one fully convinced by their own nonsense!! In construction we have both at work. To manage that is not fun. Sometimes the concrete is smarter.