|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: How do we know that the Bible is correct? |
 |
|
How do we know that the Bible is the divine, inspired, inerrant Word of God and that everything in it is correct?
Obviously it is a very old book and has been copied many times into many different versions. How do we know that they haven't been corrupted?
Since there are so many different versions of the Bible, how can they possibly all be correct? Isn't it a logical guarantee that at most one version could possibly be uncorrupted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Niall
Big Goldfish
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Location: Columbia SC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: Re: How do we know that the Bible is correct? |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | How do we know that the Bible is the divine, inspired, inerrant Word of God and that everything in it is correct?
Obviously it is a very old book and has been copied many times into many different versions. How do we know that they haven't been corrupted?
Since there are so many different versions of the Bible, how can they possibly all be correct? Isn't it a logical guarantee that at most one version could possibly be uncorrupted? |
It isn't the inerrant word of God. There are many mistakes and contradictions in it. Just by the nature how the scriptures has been passed along, makes them subject to error as well as interpretation.
I have an audio book that discusses this in detail. I'll get the author's name and the title tonight and post it here. The book was well researched and provides numerous examples.
In the case of scribes, there wasn't that many people that were literate. There were scribes that had agendas, there were scribes that couldn't read themselves. Its like telling someone a story to another, then that person tells another and so on. The final story is quite different
from the original.
The scriptures that we have are copies of copies of copies of copies. That in itself leads to errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 843
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niall wrote: | It isn't the inerrant word of God. There are many mistakes and contradictions in it. Just by the nature how the scriptures has been passed along, makes them subject to error as well as interpretation.
|
Absolutely right Niall. I don't go to the bible for science. The bible is rather like an elderly relative that you have in some extended families. Kind of like some 90 year old aunt who still has her faculties. You know sometimes you need advice from someone with some real wisdom. You don't go to your 90 year old aunt to find out what the price range for iPods is or whether the cosmological constant is most recently argued to be zero (at least not most 90 year old aunts  ). However, if you need someone who can help put your personal problems into perspective, someone who has been around the block alot and seen life from many sides, then maybe your aunt is the one.
The bible is like that. It hasn't got the latest science and you don't expect it to. It has distilled wisdom of writers who have reflected on and experienced the numinous dimension of life and its implications for how we live our lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Then how come so many Christians (some of them on this very discussion board) view it as the inerrant word of God AND as a science text book? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall
Big Goldfish
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Location: Columbia SC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Then how come so many Christians (some of them on this very discussion board) view it as the inerrant word of God AND as a science text book? |
That's what they've been taught. They're taught not to question the words of the bible. A lot of fear and guilt has been taught in churches.
Faith can be good and it can be bad. Teaching to have complete faith without questioning can lead to unreasonable results.
We've seen it happen with cults, movements, radical Islam and so on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 812
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
In 1947 the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, and the correlation between them and modern versions of Scripture is amazingly consistent. These scrolls are dated at about 100 B.C.
The conclusion is that the Bible is reliable, but casual reading doesn't do it. You have to do some research, and understand that biased translators have tweaked their versions here and there, but it is not difficult to "untweak".
It must, also, be understood that various (most, if not all) denominations claim many of their practices as Biblical, when, in fact, they are not. So if you casually accept their teaching, you are in trouble. Check that; you are in serious trouble!
Last edited by Pete on Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Niall
Big Goldfish
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 74
Location: Columbia SC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | In 1947 the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, and the correlation between them and modern versions of Scripture is amazingly consistent. These scrolls are dated at about 100 B.C.
The conclusion is that the Bible is reliable, but casual reading doesn't do it. You have to do some research, and understand that biased translators have tweaked their versions here and there, but it is not difficult to "untweak".
It must, also, be understood that various (most, if not all) denominations claim many of their practices as Biblical, when, in fact, they are not. |
Good Points. I find the Essenes to be fascinating. Yeshua was even thought to have spent some time with them. Some of the prayers and teaching are similar to what he taught. As well as the Nag Hammadi Library.
Its a shame the library of Alexandria was destroyed. It was unbelievable the amount of texts that were destroyed for political reasons.
It doesn't take long to find differences, just in the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Much was copied from Matthew with some tweaking along the way.
I still debate with myself what should be or should not be included in the bible. I'm not a fan of Constantine. I also believe the OT should not be included.
I'll dwelve into that at another time.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niall wrote: | I also believe the OT should not be included.
|
No kidding!
Between all of the errors in the Book of Genesis, God killing innocent babies and children (or telling their parents to), the ridiculous dietary restrictions and commands to kill all sorts of people for trivial things, it truly amazes me that Christians let that evil document be included in their holy book.
Why couldn't they just have taken the few good parts of the OT and thrown out the rest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
P123, I wonder what you mean by "inerrant Word of God and that everything in it is correct?"
Are you asking if we know, or believe there to be no errors in scripture? Or are you asking about the true question as to whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God and contains His truth as He intended us to have it?
I find few people who are versed in scripture and doctrine who accept that there are no 'mistakes' in scripture, so the concern over 'copying errors' is insignificant for consideration. As Pete pointed out, comparative studies demonstrate that current translations are extremely consistent in meaning - isn't that the important thing?
Once again I would refer readers to look at the THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY which I feel explains the understanding of 'inerrancy' and 'inalliability' quite well as it pertains to the beliefs of the Christian world.
That being said; if one wishes to argue the fringes of Christianity where there are those who believe that the Bible is completely without mistake and completely literal, then that should be explained before a lengthy debate gets underway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
Lion King
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1396
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Niall wrote: | I also believe the OT should not be included.
|
No kidding!
Between all of the errors in the Book of Genesis, God killing innocent babies and children (or telling their parents to), the ridiculous dietary restrictions and commands to kill all sorts of people for trivial things, it truly amazes me that Christians let that evil document be included in their holy book.
Why couldn't they just have taken the few good parts of the OT and thrown out the rest? |
Question P. How much indepth Bible study have you done?
And,
Who would get to decide what parts are good, and what parts aren't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 843
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Then how come so many Christians (some of them on this very discussion board) view it as the inerrant word of God AND as a science text book? |
Most self-identified Christians do not spend a lot of time worrying about the inerrancy of the bible. Their faith is community based and founded on personal experience. Some of them use the bible a lot and some very little.
For most of the history of Christianity, the bible was accepted as literally correct because there was no reason to think otherwise. The archaeological sciences did not exist, and the bible was basically the only game in town for figuring out the history of the middle east around three thousand years ago. Ditto for the modern theory of biology. So for hundreds of years the bible was accepted passively as literally correct because there was no competition.
The idea of inerrancy, however, as an active doctrine is much closer to being a modern concept. It is particularly associated with fundamentalist views of Christianity. But note something important about fundamentalism. It arose after the rise of liberal theology that was developed by German scholars using methods of textual criticism in the nineteenth century. So here the relationship between older Christianity and younger Christianity is the reverse of what many people believe: liberal theology is older than fundamentalist theology, and the latter is a reaction to the former. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with your analysis, but does that mean that fundamentalists are disproportionately represented here on this discussion board? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eleven wrote: |
Question P. How much indepth Bible study have you done?
|
In depth? As in formal study at a university? Zero.
But do you really have to delve deeply into the the things I like to criticize in order to be able to criticize them? If you look at the parts I commonly criticize, they're not exactly subtle or nuanced passages.
For example, I understand WHY the Bible includes the story of Abraham and Isaac: It at least partly has to do with making it clear that human sacrifice is not ok. I get it.
But that doesn't change the fact that the poor kid probably needed counseling for the rest of his life after his father tried to kill him, and that in the story, God caused that psychological trauma.
It also doesn't take a lot of Bible study to understand that when God punished all of mankind for what Adam and Eve did, that's not ok because it's never ok to punish someone for something that someone else did.
The same with killing all of the firstborns in Egypt... No amount of Bible study on my part is going to change the fact that killing innocent babies and children is evil.
| eleven wrote: |
Who would get to decide what parts are good, and what parts aren't? |
I think that there are parts in the Bible which are so obviously evil that it should be clear to everyone who looks at them objectively. Let's start with those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 843
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I agree with your analysis, but does that mean that fundamentalists are disproportionately represented here on this discussion board? |
I am not sure I know the answer to your question, but the answer may be yes. There is probably a PhD in sociology or religious studies that can be obtained by finding a good answer to the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | In 1947 the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, and the correlation between them and modern versions of Scripture is amazingly consistent. These scrolls are dated at about 100 B.C.
The conclusion is that the Bible is reliable, |
In that the Dead Sea scrolls have absolutely NOTHING in them from the New Testament, one wonders what you mean by "Bible." The most you could say is "that the OT is reliable."
Yehu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
