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

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there is, according to you, no such thing as as totally accurate Bible, ...

No, that's according to you. Please stop distorting what I say.

There are many source Tanakh documents that differ and, as you probably know, there were no vowels in the early manuscripts. So If you read the modern Tanakh, how do you know that it is 100% accurate?

I've never suggested that it was.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that either of us know what you mean by "totally accurate."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No it cannot...because it tells us specifically

The evening and the morning, day 1...day 2...day 3.

Well, specifically, “morning” had nothing to do with the Hebrew day.

If the Hebrew writer (probably Moses) meant a literal day, he would have specifically written, ‘from evening to evening.’

Besides, evening to morning is not 24 hours, is it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, specifically, “morning” had nothing to do with the Hebrew day.

No wonder we're instructed to celebrate Shabbat every seventh day.

If the Hebrew writer (probably Moses) meant a literal day, ...

Biblical literalism is a faith claim, not a fact (or, even, a "probable" fact).

he would have specifically written, ‘from evening to evening.’

Outstanding! Dr, Nahum Sarna, in a paper discussing the the efforts involved in producing the then new Bible translation of the Jewish Publication Society, wrote that it's most frequent footnote was [paraphrasing] "Heb. meaning uncertain." And yet here we've finally found an RF member who can instruct us on the denotations, connotation, and vernacular of millennia old Biblical Hebrew.

 

[jimb]

No, that's according to you. Please stop distorting what I say.

I've never suggested that it was.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that either of us know what you mean by "totally accurate."

I am not intentionally distorting what you said. Perhaps you need to express yourself more clearly.

Do you really not understand what "totally accurate" means, or are you just playing a semantics game? "Totally accurate" means completely without error. Now, please don't ask what "completely without error" means!

 

[jimb]

Well, specifically, “morning” had nothing to do with the Hebrew day.

If the Hebrew writer (probably Moses) meant a literal day, he would have specifically written, ‘from evening to evening.’

Besides, evening to morning is not 24 hours, is it?

Genesis 1:5, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

It does not say "evening to morning". It says "there was..." The words each represent a half-day.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No wonder we're instructed to celebrate Shabbat every seventh day.


Biblical literalism is a faith claim, not a fact (or, even, a "probable" fact).


Outstanding! Dr, Nahum Sarna, in a paper discussing the the efforts involved in producing the then new Bible translation of the Jewish Publication Society, wrote that it's most frequent footnote was [paraphrasing] "Heb. meaning uncertain." And yet here we've finally found an RF member who can instruct us on the denotations, connotation, and vernacular of millennia old Biblical Hebrew.

You must have a PhD in sarcasm.

And I must have more trust in the God of your ancestors, than you do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You must have a PhD in sarcasm.

Thanks.

And I must have more trust in the God of your ancestors, than you do.

No, you have more faith in an oft times brilliant collection of curated of founders tales.

For what it's worth, my ancestors came mostly from Romania and Scotland.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am not intentionally distorting what you said. Perhaps you need to express yourself more clearly.

Or perhaps you might focus more on reading comprehension.

 

[jimb]

Or perhaps you might focus more on reading comprehension.

Again, you need to express yourself more clearly. There is nothing wrong with my "reading comprehension".

I won't discuss this with you any further. When you have something of value to say, perhaps I will reconsider.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think there is some error in that information? Please explain what?

Sorry, I missed your reply. Yes, the dates of birth are different by at least ten years between the account in Matthew, he had it during when Herod the Great was king of Judea and still alive, some people argue for a later date of death, but we know when he quit ruling Judea. That was in 4 BCE. So it would either have to be in 4 BCE or some time before that. In Luke the time of Jesus's birth is also well dated by the historical events associated with it. That was in 6 CE. Ten years later.

It is very easy to continually point out errors in the Bible. Whether scientific ones. Historical errors. Errors in lines of descent. Or moral ones. It is rather obvious that one should not make a false idol of the Bible if one wants to remain a Christian.

 

[jimb]

Sorry, I missed your reply. Yes, the dates of birth are different by at least ten years between the account in Matthew, he had it during when Herod the Great was king of Judea and still alive, some people argue for a later date of death, but we know when he quit ruling Judea. That was in 4 BCE. So it would either have to be in 4 BCE or some time before that. In Luke the time of Jesus's birth is also well dated by the historical events associated with it. That was in 6 CE. Ten years later.

It is very easy to continually point out errors in the Bible. Whether scientific ones. Historical errors. Errors in lines of descent. Or moral ones. It is rather obvious that one should not make a false idol of the Bible if one wants to remain a Christian.

The thing that many people do not understand is that the gospel accounts of Jesus' life are not Western journalism. They are written to spiritually instruct us about Jesus Christ: who He was, what He did, and who He is.

Understanding the Bible has nothing to do with making a false idol. The Bible is God's message to us and its meaning is spiritually discerned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing that many people do not understand is that the gospel accounts of Jesus' life are not Western journalism. They are written to spiritually instruct us about Jesus Christ: who He was, what He did, and who He is.

Understanding the Bible has nothing to do with making a false idol. The Bible is God's message to us and its meaning is spiritually discerned.

If you are going to brush off errors like that then you are just making weak excuses for the Bible that only fools other ultra indoctrinated people.

The Bible is wrong again and again. It is wrong historically as can be shown with more than just that example. It is wrong scientifically as Genesis demonstrates so thoroughly. It can be wrong morally as shown by its advocacy for slavery. How much of the Bible are people supposed to ignore?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If you are going to brush off errors like that then you are just making weak excuses for the Bible that only fools other ultra indoctrinated people.

The Bible is wrong again and again. It is wrong historically as can be shown with more than just that example. It is wrong scientifically as Genesis demonstrates so thoroughly. It can be wrong morally as shown by its advocacy for slavery. How much of the Bible are people supposed to ignore?

We all know how strongly unified Christians are in correctly interpreting the Bible, don't we? That's why Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Messianic Jews, Anglicans, and the vast smorgasbord of Protestant Christians [First Baptists, Second Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, and the hundreds of other Protestant denominations not listed] all agree on how to correctly interpret the Bible. Oh wait. That's not quite right, is it? And which Bible do all of these Christians read? Is it the Catholic Bible (with a 73-book canon), the Greek Orthodox Bible (with a 79-book canon), or the Protestant Bible (with a 66-book canon)? Speaking of the Protestant Bible, which one is it? Is it the King James, the New Living Translation, or one of the many other translations of the Bible? Or perhaps it's a Bible written in its original languages of Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to ensure its authenticity.

 

[jimb]

If you are going to brush off errors like that then you are just making weak excuses for the Bible that only fools other ultra indoctrinated people.

The Bible is wrong again and again. It is wrong historically as can be shown with more than just that example. It is wrong scientifically as Genesis demonstrates so thoroughly. It can be wrong morally as shown by its advocacy for slavery. How much of the Bible are people supposed to ignore?

To you it's an error; to me it is the exact opposite. Clearly you need a better understanding of the gospels!

"The Bible is wrong again and again" is further proof of your lack of understanding. Claiming that the Bible is wrong historically, scientifically, and morally clearly shows that you don't understand what the Bible is.

If you had any understanding of what the Bible is, you wouldn't make such wrong statements. The first book of the Bible to be written, likely Genesis or Job, was completed around 1400 BC. The last book of the Bible to be written, likely Revelation, was completed around AD 90. So, if you go by when the Bible was first started to be written, the Bible is over 3,400 years old.

Don't you think that if it has been around for 3,400 years, it must have some lasting worth?

If you don't understand why that is, perhaps you need to re-examine your thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To you it's an error; to me it is the exact opposite. Clearly you need a better understanding of the gospels!

"The Bible is wrong again and again" is further proof of your lack of understanding. Claiming that the Bible is wrong historically, scientifically, and morally clearly shows that you don't understand what the Bible is.

If you had any understanding of what the Bible is, you wouldn't make such wrong statements. The first book of the Bible to be written, likely Genesis or Job, was completed around 1400 BC. The last book of the Bible to be written, likely Revelation, was completed around AD 90. So, if you go by when the Bible was first started to be written, the Bible is over 3,400 years old.

Don't you think that if it has been around for 3,400 years, it must have some lasting worth?

If you don't understand why that is, perhaps you need to re-examine your thinking.

LOL! No, Genesis was not written in 1,400 BC. There is no evidence for that and quite a bit against it. It was probably written about 500 to 600 BCE during the Babylonian Captivity. Did you not know that Moses was a fictional character? I love it when someone that has never studied the Bible tells others that their understanding is lacking. You make the mistake of thinking that it is the "word of God" when it never claims that. What you can find in the Bible are only vague claims about undefined "scripture" as being the "word of God".

 

[jimb]

LOL! No, Genesis was not written in 1,400 BC. There is no evidence for that and quite a bit against it. It was probably written about 500 to 600 BCE during the Babylonian Captivity. Did you not know that Moses was a fictional character? I love it when someone that has never studied the Bible tells others that their understanding is lacking. You make the mistake of thinking that it is the "word of God" when it never claims that. What you can find in the Bible are only vague claims about undefined "scripture" as being the "word of God".

According to my sources, The Book of Genesis does state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C. Why do you say about 500 to 600 BCE?

I do not know that Moses was a fictional character. That sounds to me like fiction.

BTW, I also love it when someone that has never studied the Bible tells others that their understanding is lacking...

You make the mistake of thinking that it is not the "word of God".

To show one of your errors, Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart." (Read that carefully and think to whom it applies!)

That is anything but a "vague claim"!

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to my sources, The Book of Genesis does state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C. Why do you say about 500 to 600 BCE?

I do not know that Moses was a fictional character. That sounds to me like fiction.

BTW, I also love it when someone that has never studied the Bible tells others that their understanding is lacking...

You make the mistake of thinking that it is not the "word of God".

To show one of your errors, Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart." (Read that carefully and think to whom it applies!)

That is anything but a "vague claim"!

Yes, but Moses was a fictional character. Moses was a fictional character that somehow wrote of his own death since his death is included in the Pentateuch.

And no, you make the mistake of claiming that the Bible is the word of God without any reliable evidence for that claim. Even when I was a Christian I did not believe that God was a liar as you seem to believe.

By the way, you cannot use the Bible to show that I made any errors until you prove that it is a reliable source. You are just using circular reasoning.

 

[jimb]

No, that's according to you. Please stop distorting what I say.

I've never suggested that it was.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that either of us know what you mean by "totally accurate."

1) Apparently you skipped the word "if", as in "if, according to you..."
2) How else would you phrase "totally accurate"? 100% accurate? Completely accurate?

I know what I mean by "totally accurate", otherwise I wouldn't write it.

 

[jimb]

No, that's according to you. Please stop distorting what I say.

I've never suggested that it was.

Furthermore, I rather doubt that either of us know what you mean by "totally accurate."

So, according to you, the Tanakh is not totally accurate? How do you explain that to practicing Jews?

 

[jimb]

Or perhaps you might focus more on reading comprehension.

If you wrote more clearly then you would be more clearly understood.