Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[vulcanlogician]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

The "bible" is all things to all people with respect to the NT canon, and as the NT core propogandist, the false prophet Paul, is a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. His message is reflective of the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" as stated in Matthew 13:24-25 and is protected by the son of man until the end of the age (Mt 13:30), in which we are now in, and that message is now subject to critique (Matthew 13:28-29). "Christianity", is the religion of the false prophet Paul, and nails to the cross the message of Yeshua, which is the "kingdom" (Mt 13:11-13), and Paul promulgates his message of lawlessness, his gospel of grace. At the "end of the age", the followers of this lawless "message" will be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30).

 

[vulcanlogician]

The "bible" is all things to all people with respect to the NT canon, and as the NT core propogandist, the false prophet Paul, is a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. His message is reflective of the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" as stated in Matthew 13:24-25 and is protected by the son of man until the end of the age (Mt 13:30), in which we are now in, and that message is now subject to critique (Matthew 13:28-29). "Christianity", is the religion of the false prophet Paul, and nails to the cross the message of Yeshua, which is the "kingdom" (Mt 13:11-13), and Paul promulgates his message of lawlessness, his gospel of grace. At the "end of the age", the followers of this lawless "message" will be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30).

Quick question: Are you a non-Pauline Christian or an atheist? (Or something else?)

 

[Left Coast]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

Christianity predates the Biblical canon. Christians created the Bible, not the other way around. So the central claim of Christianity (that Jesus rose from the dead) is independent, I think, from whether every word of the Bible is true.

 

[2ndpillar]

Quick question: Are you a non-Pauline Christian or an atheist? (Or something else?)

What is a "non-Pauline" "Christian"? Sounds like an oxymoron. As for atheist, they have their own gods, but many seem to rally around the dragon/Satan, and today's Progressive movement of trying to tear down existing norms, whether those norms are well founded or not.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Christianity predates the Biblical canon. Christians created the Bible, not the other way around. So the central claim of Christianity (that Jesus rose from the dead) is independent, I think, from whether every word of the Bible is true.

Would you mind explaining if you think the Bible is true or not?

Feel free to give a nuanced answer. A flat "yes" or "no" is automatically suspicious to me. How is the Bible true? And (if it is perhaps at times untrue) how does that work out?

 

[2ndpillar]

Christianity predates the Biblical canon. Christians created the Bible, not the other way around. So the central claim of Christianity (that Jesus rose from the dead) is independent, I think, from whether every word of the Bible is true.

Yeshua and his message of the "kingdom" predates "Christianity", which is the false message that if you believe in the message of Paul's false gospel of grace/cross, your sins are forgiven, and that "we shall not all die". Well, Paul and his onsite listeners are all dead, and according to Jeremiah 31:30, "everybody will die for their own iniquities", which means everybody. As for the followers of Paul's message, the "message" of the "enemy", "lawlessness" (Mt 13:25 & 41-42), they will be the "first" to be "gathered" at the "end of the age" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30). The "furnace of fire" being the upcoming Har-Magedon (Rev 16:16), which starts at Jerusalem (Zech 14). Every word of the "bible" is not true, and there is no single adhered to canon. Example:
Matthew 27:9 Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the ...
... was fulfilled: They took the 30 pieces of silver, the ... : "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price ... on him by the people of Israel, This fulfilled the prophecy ...
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--this magnificent price at which ...
... them. So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw ... ! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them ... the potter at the house of the LORD. And the LORD ...
Jeremiah makes no such prophecy. It was Zechariah who made the prophecy. The prophecy of Zechariah points out 3 shepherds, Peter (Zech 11:17), Paul (Zech 11:10), and Judas (Zech 11:12 & 13). Two of them, Peter and Paul were to "pasture the flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter) (Zech 11:7).

 

[Left Coast]

Would you mind explaining if you think the Bible is true or not?

Feel free to give a nuanced answer. A flat "yes" or "no" is automatically suspicious to me. How is the Bible true? And (if it is perhaps at times untrue) how does that work out?

I think it has kernals of historical truth that have been developed over time and are mostly presented in the Bible as myths for the purpose of teaching a theological lesson. So, I don't take every word as infallible. But I also can see it clearly contains errors, and many things that are just wildly implausible on their face.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeshua and his message of the "kingdom" predates "Christianity", which is the false message that if you believe in the message of Paul's false gospel of grace/cross, your sins are forgiven, and that "we shall not all die". Well, Paul and his onsite listeners are all dead, and according to Jeremiah 31:30, "everybody will die for their own iniquities", which means everybody. As for the followers of Paul's message, the "message" of the "enemy", "lawlessness" (Mt 13:25 & 41-42), they will be the "first" to be "gathered" at the "end of the age" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30). The "furnace of fire" being the upcoming Har-Magedon (Rev 16:16), which starts at Jerusalem (Zech 14). Every word of the "bible" is not true, and there is no single adhered to canon. Example:
Matthew 27:9 Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the ...
... was fulfilled: They took the 30 pieces of silver, the ... : "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price ... on him by the people of Israel, This fulfilled the prophecy ...
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--this magnificent price at which ...
... them. So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw ... ! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them ... the potter at the house of the LORD. And the LORD ...
Jeremiah makes no such prophecy. It was Zechariah who made the prophecy. The prophecy of Zechariah points out 3 shepherds, Peter (Zech 11:17), Paul (Zech 11:10), and Judas (Zech 11:12 & 13). Two of them, Peter and Paul were to "pasture the flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter) (Zech 11:7).

...sure.

 

[1213]

Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

Please show one error in the Bible?

 

[McBell]

Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?​

I believe that it is possible that one of the many many different versions of Christianity can be true and the Bible still contain the errors.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

The fact that the religion is there , and their God isn't, should tell you pretty much everything you would be required to know in order to make a rational and sensible determination of that question.

 

[Dmartin2651]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

Hi vulcanlogician,

I’m new here and this is my first post. The Bible is Holy Scripture even the Word which was in the beginning it was made flesh it is Jesus. He and His Father even the Spirit were in the beginning before there was any religion and before He had the authors of the Bible write it while they were in the world. The Bible continues to have authority and inerrancy it will through the last time. It has no errors. Some men made errors in translation. Depends on the Bible version one may have fewer or more than another. The Bible is able to correct them. A hearer and doer of Jesus’ sayings is able to witness it. As your last questions the Bible even Jesus describes the truth of Christianity in that He said blessed are the masses who have not seen (what His disciples and apostles seen) but have believed on Him.

 

[sun rise]

"non-Pauline" "Christian"

There are people on the internet who say they are non-Pauline Christians. Important Issues in the Non-Pauline Churches - 1539 Words | Bartleby

Please show one error in the Bible?

1. Eighteen different contradictions in less than 60 Verses of Ezra, Ch. 2, and Nehemiah, Ch. 7
2. The total is different is both the chapters:
   In Ezra Ch no 2: 29,818 (and not 42,360).
   In Nehemiah Ch. No 7: 31,089 (and again not 42,360).
3. Are there 200 singing men and women (Ezra 2), or are there 245 singing men and women (Nehemiah 7)?
4. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old, or was he 8 years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9)?
5. Did he reign for 3 months, or 3 months 10 days?
6. Did Solomon have 3000 baths, or 2000 baths (1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chron. 4:5)?
7. Is that Basha, how could he invade Judah, 10 years after his death? (2 Chronicles 16:1 and 1 Kings 16:8)

 

[2ndpillar]

There are people on the internet who say they are non-Pauline Christians. Important Issues in the Non-Pauline Churches - 1539 Words | Bartleby

1. Eighteen different contradictions in less than 60 Verses of Ezra, Ch. 2, and Nehemiah, Ch. 7
2. The total is different is both the chapters:
   In Ezra Ch no 2: 29,818 (and not 42,360).
   In Nehemiah Ch. No 7: 31,089 (and again not 42,360).
3. Are there 200 singing men and women (Ezra 2), or are there 245 singing men and women (Nehemiah 7)?
4. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old, or was he 8 years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9)?
5. Did he reign for 3 months, or 3 months 10 days?
6. Did Solomon have 3000 baths, or 2000 baths (1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chron. 4:5)?
7. Is that Basha, how could he invade Judah, 10 years after his death? (2 Chronicles 16:1 and 1 Kings 16:8)

A very important error was to relate the scriptural basis with respect to Judas Iscariot in Matthew 27: 9-10, to Jeremiah, which in fact it was a quote from Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah had no such reference, and Zechariah referenced 3 shepherds, including Peter, Paul, and Judas. Peter was referenced as the "worthless shepherd" (Ze 11:17). That clears up a lot of false dogma.

 

[Dmartin2651]

A very important error was to relate the scriptural basis with respect to Judas Iscariot in Matthew 27: 9-10, to Jeremiah, which in fact it was a quote from Zechariah 11:12-13. Jeremiah had no such reference, and Zechariah referenced 3 shepherds, including Peter, Paul, and Judas. Peter was referenced as the "worthless shepherd" (Ze 11:17). That clears up a lot of false dogma.

Peter wasn’t the worthless shepherd he didn’t leave the flock. Judas Iscariot was the worthless shepherd he hung himself for what he did to Jesus so he’s the only one that left the flock (Zechariah said he’d do that). Jesus appeared to His eleven disciples after He was risen and He commanded them to do what He said to them, Matthew 28:16-20. Thus, Peter was among the eleven disciples he couldn’t have been the worthless shepherd who left the flock.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that it is possible that one of the many many different versions of Christianity can be true and the Bible still contain the errors.

I believe that it is possible that none of the versions of Christianity are true and the Bible contains errors, but I don't think that the reason why no version of Christianity is true is 'because' the Bible contains errors. I think the reason is because the Bible has been misinterpreted by Christians, not all of the Bible, but enough of the Bible to make all the versions of Christianity false.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

There are multiple types of truth. The Bible, and religion at large, is concerned with moral truth. The highest moral truth has to do with narrative. A narrative can integrate seeming contradiction.

Historical contradiction is only a problem for people who (mistakenly) elevate empirical truth above moral truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

I believe it would be possible for Christianity to be true, even if the Bible contains errors.
I believe that Christianity teaches many spiritual truths but that the central doctrines of Christianity are false.

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

I do not believe that the Bible says that Christianity is true. The Bible says certain things about Jesus but I don't think everything it says is literally true. I believe some of it is symbolic of spiritual truths and some of it simply fictional.

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

I do not believe that the Bible describes the truth of Christianity. I believe that he Bible, if correctly interpreted, would show that Christianity has many false teachings.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’m new here and this is my first post. The Bible is Holy Scripture even the Word which was in the beginning it was made flesh it is Jesus. He and His Father even the Spirit were in the beginning before there was any religion and before He had the authors of the Bible write it while they were in the world. The Bible continues to have authority and inerrancy it will through the last time. It has no errors. Some men made errors in translation. Depends on the Bible version one may have fewer or more than another. The Bible is able to correct them. A hearer and doer of Jesus’ sayings is able to witness it. As your last questions the Bible even Jesus describes the truth of Christianity in that He said blessed are the masses who have not seen (what His disciples and apostles seen) but have believed on Him.

Welcome to the forums, bro! I disagree with the doctrine of inerrancy, but I don't want to dwell on that in this post. I'd rather just say hello and let you know that (even though I disagree) your opinion is welcome.