Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[crazyrussian]

Due to 2000 years of scribe errors between 300,000 and 400,000 different errors between ancient manuscripts including entire sections of Scripture not even in the oldest manuscripts, "the adulteress woman and mark 16:9 onward", how much can you trust the Bible?

I would not trust the bible with my life... I would however trust word of God to be truth. Only men falsely claim the bible is word of God, and they falsely do this to their own destruction causing them to never fulfill the law or to know word of God from God. The Law found in the bible are words that proceeded from the mouth of God. There is nothing else on the earth that a man can live by if he were to truly live!. With the Bible having so many factual Errors...It causes men to break the Law simply by making false claims that it is the perfect word of God.

FACT: Most Christians are simply content with reading the myths and legends of the people of the past who did receive Word of God (truth) from God. If every word found in your bible is not perfect truth via the spirit of truth, it must be myth and legend. TRUTH MIXED WITH LIES as all myths and legends are.

Very Respectfully and truthfully,

Todd

 

[otokage007]

Debate? or put people down?

I'm sorry if someone put u down. Wanna tell?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then what are you doing on the Religious Education Forum?

Educating others when lies are told by the religious

 

[1robin]

I would not trust the bible with my life... I would however trust word of God to be truth. Only men falsely claim the bible is word of God, and they falsely do this to their own destruction causing them to never fulfill the law or to know word of God from God. The Law found in the bible are words that proceeded from the mouth of God. There is nothing else on the earth that a man can live by if he were to truly live!. With the Bible having so many factual Errors...It causes men to break the Law simply by making false claims that it is the perfect word of God.

FACT: Most Christians are simply content with reading the myths and legends of the people of the past who did receive Word of God (truth) from God. If every word found in your bible is not perfect truth via the spirit of truth, it must be myth and legend. TRUTH MIXED WITH LIES as all myths and legends are.

Very Respectfully and truthfully,

Todd

If this were true then all the errors would not have been painstakingly tracked down and indicated in all major bibles. You must have missed where I put the 400,000 in context. That is the errors in the entire textual tradition not a single bible. Here is how it breaks down:

The entire textual tradition consists of over 5,700 catalogued texts. With 140 thousand words each for the NT. I will lower that to 100 thousand words to account for incomplete texts. That’s 570 million words. That equals one error every 1425 words. For a two thousand year old text even this is not bad. However 95% of those errors are meaningless and Ehrman would concur. They involve too many Rs in Peter or even capitalization. When it is all said and done most theologians claim about 99.5 accuracy and most textual critics claim about 95% accuracy. The answer is probably in the middle. That is greater than any other work in antiquity by far except for Thucydides history of the Peloponnesian war which I have read but he has other problems like time between original and oldest extant. 1000 yrs.


God only promised perfect original revelations not transmissions. However the bible compared with any other single work of antiquity is more reliable and more accurate by a margin so astronomical that it is down right miraculous. Christian's find it very easy to ignore the one word with incorrect capitalization every three pages and concentrate on the 99.5% that is known to be accurate. The bible contains 2,500 prophecies, unkown scientific knowledge, and 25,000 historical corroberations. I have yet to see a single example where the bible and reality contradict, and I have dealt with thousands of claims as such that were resolved in just a few minutes by someone who does not have a haterd of the bible. I am more loyal to truth that even God, however they are conveniently the same thing. Your claims concerning Christian's gullability are woefully inaccurate.

 

[waitasec]

Firstly you should note that it was you who made the comment about me being a failure.

your failure to persuade me is there for all to see...the truth hurts sometimes

So I only repeated it back to you. And maybe you just need to take responsibility for your life and stop blaming others'. In other words grow up.

what am i blaming on others

this doesn't deter from the suspicions i have of you being here for the purpose of proselytizing...

 

[Vansdad]

Educating others when lies are told by the religious

You must be the new Jesus. Halleluiah!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If I were you'd never know it, you'd be waiting for a popular vote.

Besides, if I were Jesus, I wouldn't have failed the first time.

 

[1robin]

If I were you'd never know it, you'd be waiting for a popular vote.

Besides, if I were Jesus, I wouldn't have failed the first time.

Yeah, some failure. 2000 years after a 3 year ministry 2.1 billion people believe he is most profound person to ever exist and love him for what he did for them. He has at least two of the most universally celebrated holidays in human history. The most universally known character in history. The book that he was the climax of and reason for is the most respected book in human history. I wish my successes were as impressive as his (according to you) failure.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah, some failure. 2000 years after a 3 year ministry 2.1 billion people believe he is most profound person to ever exist and love him for what he did for them. He has at least two of the most universally celebrated holidays in human history. The most universally known character in history. The book that he was the climax of and reason for is the most respected book in human history. I wish my successes were as impressive as his (according to you) failure.

That's because you aim not for your own success, but for the gullibility of others. [and of course, the fallacious appeal to popularity]

Jesus failed to fulfill the required prophecies; people have been making excuses for him ever since.

As the hero of failures, I guess some folks like him must look up to someone

BTW, do you also worship Mao? His book sold almost as many copies and in one tenth the time. Guess how many communists there are?

 

[1robin]

That's because you aim not for your own success, but for the gullibility of others. [and of course, the fallacious appeal to popularity]

It is not gullibility that allows people to determine that the truth is in fact the truth. This color commentary has no persuasive power and is an assumed truth relied on to make acceptance of well evidenced truth less profound. Didn't work, never did, never will.

Jesus failed to fulfill the required prophecies; people have been making excuses for him ever since.

Well I know of 350 he met and am unaware of a single one that he failed to meet. However there is no way to accurately predict or account for the extent of damage and distortion you have subjected the Bible to to make it say what you wish. If you make this claim then please present on of these prophecies that you have tortured until it became what you wished.

As the hero of failures, I guess some folks like him must look up to someone

Claiming the most influential individual in human history a failure is delusional.

BTW, do you also worship Mao? His book sold almost as many copies and in one tenth the time. Guess how many communists there are?

I do not understand what it is critics think they have accomplished when they compare two unequal things. It is like saying that tree can't be a pine because that building is tall.

If a single human remembers who Mao was or even the title of his book in 2000 years then that statement you made might have had a reason to type. As it is it is meaningless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not gullibility that allows people to determine that the truth is in fact the truth.

In this case of course it is.

 

[1robin]

In this case of course it is.

And you proved that so well here. Such detail and inescapable logic contained in that mere assertion can not be denied.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus failed to fulfill the required prophecies; people have been making excuses for him ever since.

Of course, you're conveniently overlooking one of the basic truths of Christianity (and helping promote it immensely by mentioning this). Thank you for coming in on our side!

 

[Shermana]

Jesus failed to fulfill the required prophecies;

There's a question of how exactly to interpret those prophecies. Do they take place overnight or over a 2000 year age for example.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is not gullibility that allows people to determine that the truth is in fact the truth. This color commentary has no persuasive power and is an assumed truth relied on to make acceptance of well evidenced truth less profound. Didn't work, never did, never will.

Gullible people cannot always determine the truth, though.
What is an assumed truth?

Well I know of 350 he met and am unaware of a single one that he failed to meet. However there is no way to accurately predict or account for the extent of damage and distortion you have subjected the Bible to to make it say what you wish. If you make this claim then please present on of these prophecies that you have tortured until it became what you wished.

*edit*, please list said 350 so we can actually count them all and ascertain that this number is even accurate. On many occasions you claim very high numbers and yet produce none.

In any case, 350 isn't enough if there were more; the moschiach must complete them all. Don't do 'em all? Not the moschiach. That you are 'unaware of a single one he failed to meet', says rather a bit.

Claiming the most influential individual in human history a failure is delusional.

He's not the most influential. He is still a failure based on what he needed to accomplish.

I do not understand what it is critics think they have accomplished when they compare two unequal things. It is like saying that tree can't be a pine because that building is tall.

lol... these were your fallacious requirements. Mao met them, as well. There's no apples/oranges problem, here. There's simply your embarrassment that a communist met your arbitrary requirements as well, in much less time. That, and the fact that the other accolades you heap on Jesus are basically either false or exaggerated. Exaggeration seems to be the glue of your arguments.

If a single human remembers who Mao was or even the title of his book in 2000 years then that statement you made might have had a reason to type. As it is it is meaningless.

Yeah, kinda sucks when your fallacious reasoning makes things look bad for you, doesn't it?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course, you're conveniently overlooking one of the basic truths of Christianity (and helping promote it immensely by mentioning this). Thank you for coming in on our side!

What truth is that? That you'll believe anything, even if it's obviously false?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There's a question of how exactly to interpret those prophecies. Do they take place overnight or over a 2000 year age for example.

Well, it would seem the question arises because Jesus did not complete them all, really. Since the mochiach is to be a man, rather than some half-God-man who might want to wander back again some day, it is clear to assume that the coming Hebrew king will complete his mission, all in one life. No need for a come-back.

By asserting a come-back 'some day', it is possible to accept dissonance about what was supposed to occur. Because at this miraculous, future return all the failures will be erased.

Except, of course, that no such thing was supposed to happen.

 

[Shermana]

Well, it would seem the question arises because Jesus did not complete them all, really. Since the mochiach is to be a man, rather than some half-God-man who might want to wander back again some day, it is clear to assume that the coming Hebrew king will complete his mission, all in one life. No need for a come-back.

Which brings up another subject, whether Jesus was indeed this "God-man" or rather, the human incarnation of "a god". (I.e. Angel), at least from what the text says. I don't think one must necessarily think that he'll complete his mission in one life time, but rather set the process in motion, i.e. building into the concept of the "Messianic Age". There's also the question of what precisely this mission is and what the text is implying exactly. And then there's also the issue of whether there's Messianic Prophecies that aren't in the Canon itself but in writings like the Dead Sea Scrolls or some of the Apocrypha and extra-canonical works.

By asserting a come-back 'some day', it is possible to accept dissonance about what was supposed to occur. Because at this miraculous, future return all the failures will be erased.

The Talmud and Midrash are filled with different opinions of the concepts of the Messianic age and what the Messiah will do, it's not exactly clear cut.

Except, of course, that no such thing was supposed to happen.

Well, all the Jews are getting regathered to Israel at the end of the 2000-or-so tribulation period, still a long ways to go but this to me at least is a clear indication that this Messianic prophecy is in fact in process, it's all how you interpret it and even the Rabbis have agreed there's plenty of room for interpretation on this issue.

 

[jtartar]

Due to 2000 years of scribe errors between 300,000 and 400,000 different errors between ancient manuscripts including entire sections of Scripture not even in the oldest manuscripts, "the adulteress woman and mark 16:9 onward", how much can you trust the Bible?

gseeker,
Yes, I believe that the Holy Scriptures are true!!!
The only errors that have been found in Holy Scripture have been, almost entirely either names or numbers. As for numbers, in Hebrew regular vocabulary words were also used as numbers, so sometimes the meaning was unclear to the translator. As for names, the Bible was written when several languages were used in the same place so people were called different names according to what their names meant in whatever lauguage was being used.One good reason to believe the Bible is: when over 800 manuscripts, some whole, most in part, were found in Kirbet Qumran, there was almost NO difference between them, that had been hidden since before Jesus' time, and the scriptures that had been copied over and over during the time they were hidden.
As for the Hebrew Scriptures, you can be assured that Jesus knew them by heart, and he said they were true, John 17:17. Isaiah also assures us that God's word lasts forever, Isa 40:8. If the word was changed it would not be God's word any longer.
Peter tells us the same about the Greek Scriptures, 1Pet 1:25.
The apostles were the authority about all Bible truth, in the first century, if anything was not truth they would surely corrected it.
The main reason we can have is what God Himself had written; that He would protect His word forever, Ps 12:6,7.
Now, there are many, what are called VARIENT scripture. This means that the words can mean several different things, just as our words do today. As people come to understand the Bible better it will be ever clearer just how the words should be should be translated, for the Bible is univocal.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Which brings up another subject, whether Jesus was indeed this "God-man" or rather, the human incarnation of "a god". (I.e. Angel), at least from what the text says. I don't think one must necessarily think that he'll complete his mission in one life time, but rather set the process in motion, i.e. building into the concept of the "Messianic Age". There's also the question of what precisely this mission is and what the text is implying exactly. And then there's also the issue of whether there's Messianic Prophecies that aren't in the Canon itself but in writings like the Dead Sea Scrolls or some of the Apocrypha and extra-canonical works.

The issue of the God-0man/angel is a sticking point though; where in the sources is any such thing mentioned? It's too big to simply leave out by oversight...
And, if one were Hebrew, of course one would necessarily think he would finish in one lifetime. He [the mochisach] is supposed to be a great king, as his ancestors. There's no precedence to imagine such a new idea, certainly, and Maimonides certainly was specific, and his writings are considered canon, are they not? His [moschiach's] fulfilling the prophecies of his own coming, are in fact, part of the requirements which are to identify him, are they not?

As for the idea that there would be extraneous prophecies, they were all oral, until formally canonized. Are you suggesting that the canonization of the full Torah, was not complete?

The Talmud and Midrash are filled with different opinions of the concepts of the Messianic age and what the Messiah will do, it's not exactly clear cut.

I think you might be misrepresenting such uncertainty. While there might be different commentaries but what if any real ambiguity is there to speak of?

Well, all the Jews are getting regathered to Israel at the end of the 2000-or-so tribulation period, still a long ways to go but this to me at least is a clear indication that this Messianic prophecy is in fact in process, it's all how you interpret it and even the Rabbis have agreed there's plenty of room for interpretation on this issue.

The Jews certainly are not being gathered. There are millions of American Jews for example who would never emigrate. The Temple is not rebuilt, and the Laws are not known by all nor written on all hearts.

It appears quite obvious that the idea of a second coming is a shoehorned idea being used to cover one applicant's failure, and early death; such an idea makes perfect sense in light of what is formally prophesied [as opposed to making any line of Psalms or Isaiah into prophecy when it is convenient - not that you do, I am speaking generally]. The Jews await him, but not a new return; they await his first arrival.