Do the numerous mistakes in the Bible play a part in driving people away from religion?

[Gargovic Malkav]

Basically, if you can't trust this god to get his facts right and his story straight, why the hell should you trust him with your immortal soul?

Some people can't make sense of the Bible because they haven't been given that kind of understanding. So it may appear to them as flawed.
It may be that some of these people will be forgiven of transgressions and mistakes (if they themselves can be humble, grateful and merciful) while He would test and punish those He has given more of that understanding. I don't believe God burdens people beyond their capabilities.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

G-d talking to you is a kind of revelation. Without that, how else would you know of Him?

Scripture (or accuracy) isn't needed for revelation, true?

Edit....prayer?

 

[Piculet]

That's a rather petty and disreputable way to insinuate an Islamic talking point.

As you can see from the replies, it not exactly an Islamic view. Rather it's something the majority of Christians believe.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?

A Muslim should by definition not be talking about the mistakes of the Bible.

A pot calling a kettle black, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, cats need to get out of the rain before they freeze to death. And other such expressions.

Islam tells us that Allah and/or the Quran is absolutely perfect. Then it tells us in Surah 2:106 that you substitute something "better" old texts (that is, you abrogate). For every supposed contradiction in the Bible, explain this: Why is a supposedly perfect god making pronouncements only to forget or double-back on them? If a perfect god is saying these things, why then are they unable to make up their minds?

But we're not going to talk about those contradictions. We're going to talk about this pretender to God's power.

Humanity, not perfection is what is required of us. Perfection will never be perfect enough. The Quran was tried to be written as a perfect book, yet its mistakes are not simple flaws but glaring eyesores. The Muslims try to be perfect, to fast enough, give enough alms, yet they have no connection with their god, an aloof ideal beyond any relationship with them.
"For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave no water, I was a stranger and you did not take me in, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not welcome me." Humanity.
The COVID-19 masks remind me of hijab. Facial coverings for non-Muslims. Who are declared sick. So how are these "sick people" treated when they can't or don't have or refuse to wear masks? I went to Fredericksburg. All the stores told me with their official signs that if I was hungry or thirsty or naked, that I would not be helped without a mask. That if was a stranger, I would not be welcomed. That if I was imprisoned, I should continue to stay inside. That if I was declared "sick" no one will help me.

 

[Piculet]

A pot calling a kettle black,

You just don't address the topic at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As you can see from the replies, it not exactly an Islamic view. Rather it's something the majority of Christians believe.

What a mess. Something does not case to be an Islamic view by virtue of it being shared by others. Meanwhile, claiming that a handful of comments in thread serves as sufficient evidence of what the majority of Christians believe is laughable.

At least you seem to accept my characterization of your post as being petty and disreputable, so perhaps we should just leave it there.

 

[Piculet]

Something does not case to b

That why I said its not "exactly an Islamic view"

claiming that a handful of comments in thread serves as sufficient evidence

I didn't claim so. Though it's a fact and you can be the first to argue against it. If you want to...

At least to seem to accept my characterization of your post as being petty and disreputable, so perhaps we should just leave it there.

I must assume you believe in the Bible.

 

[Windwalker]

this is getting personal. This is not fair. Of course I listen to your examples. I just don't agree with you. I kindly stay with my opinion: no flaws in the Bible.

Opinions need support to be considered valid opinions.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You just don't address the topic at all.

That is the topic.

"Do the numerous mistakes in the Bible play a part in driving people away from religion? "

Read this. You are holding Christianity responsible for something that is also a mistake of Islam.

To answer your question.
1. The Bible is far less flawed than the Quran, in that Muhammad loudly and repeatedly advocates violence against unbelievers, whereas the Torah/Bible gradually evolves away from defense of one's faith toward loving even one's enemies, and there is Peter's dream, where he is induced to welcome someone unclean. Contradictions aside, the Quran still is nore flawed just on the treatment of other humans. What if someone doesn't wear a mask? Women who do this can expect to be arrested, fined, stoned as an adulterous woman, or have acid dumped on their faces. Even at America's least welcoming (before mask laws of COVID-19), they allowed all people including Muslims to shop at all shops. The same rights are not extended to those who don't wear masks under hijab laws.
2. No, people don't leave religions due to the mistakes of the written text. They leave because of the flaws in the character of the followers or even the religious leaders. That is to say, most people I know that have left the church did so because they either met people who were too self-righteous, or because they thought Christians should be perfect and they were unashamed to admit that they were not (that's the point). People, not books are what are important. When a Bible wears out, unless they can't replace it, it is burned.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?

Depends what you mean by mistakes. The bible says God sends strong delusion
that people might believe a lie. It's kinda deep.

 

[thomas t]

@Windwalker
Rival made a very valid point, it seems:

Basically, if you can't trust this god to get his facts right and his story straight [in the Bible], why [left out a part] should you trust him with your immortal soul?

@Unveiled Artist said there could be direct revelations, too... If so..., these won't contradict God either, I think. I mean if they come from God.
God does not contradict himself, as I see it. Neither in the Bible, nor via potential personal revelations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?

Do you think that "religion" is one single thing?

... but if you're looking for things that drive people away from religion, maybe look at yourself.

If going to a mosque meant hanging out with people willing to say things like your OP - i.e. willing to throw away reason for the sake of making potshots at a competing religion - it wouldn't be something I'd do willingly.

Lucky for you that I know intelligent, compassionate Muslims. If I didn't, you would be creating an awful impression if Islam for me.

 

[Windwalker]

@thomas t , this response to Rival might be pertinent for your understanding:

That the Bible is without error is in the creed of many most ancient Christianities; I'd hardly call it 'extreme'.

That was an opinion of ancient Christians? Can you support this? My understanding is that they recognized there were inconsistencies, but that those were unimportant to the message of the Gospel.

Even Martin Luther King recognized the errors, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel." Even Calvin and other Protestant leaders recognized the errors like Luther did.

This modern notion of strict inerrancy is a modern invention.

"The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the Council of Trent only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morales", the Jesuit and cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) argued in his 1586 De verbo Dei, the first volume of his multi-volume Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos that "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." Bellarmine's views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and Catholic-Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy."​

Later on as this modern notion developed, it culminated in the Chicago Statement of inerrancy in 1978 (not ancient early Christianity times). Here they try to make it inerrant in the "original autographs", which of course do not exist anywhere humans have access to them, if at all. A pretty meaningless statement, as it admits what is in hand is not inerrant, and therefore claims of absolute authority collapse.

Source of quotes above: Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

 

[Rival]

That was an opinion of ancient Christians? Can you support this? My understanding is that they recognized there were inconsistencies, but that those were unimportant to the message of the Gospel.

Even Martin Luther King recognized the errors, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel." Even Calvin and other Protestant leaders recognized the errors like Luther did.

This modern notion of strict inerrancy is a modern invention.

"The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the Council of Trent only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morales", the Jesuit and cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) argued in his 1586 De verbo Dei, the first volume of his multi-volume Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos that "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." Bellarmine's views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and Catholic-Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy."​

Later on as this modern notion developed, it culminated in the Chicago Statement of inerrancy in 1978 (not ancient early Christianity times). Here they try to make it inerrant in the "original autographs", which of course do not exist anywhere humans have access to them, if at all. A pretty meaningless statement, as it admits what is in hand is not inerrant, and therefore claims of absolute authority collapse.

Source of quotes above: Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

To suggest that one's holy scriptures written by the divine hand or holy spirit itself has errors strikes me as rather farcical. As far as I was always told, mainstream Christianity teaches that the Gospels et al. were written with divine inspiration / the holy spirit and to say that what it wrote is wrong is to suggest that God Himself can make mistakes. I am almost certain the Jews who made up the earliest Christians believed no such thing.

 

[Windwalker]

@Windwalker
Rival made a very valid point, it seems:

"Basically, if you can't trust this god to get his facts right and his story straight [in the Bible], why [left out a part] should you trust him with your immortal soul?"

@Unveiled Artist said there could be direct revelations, too... If so..., these won't contradict God either, I think. I mean if they come from God.
God does not contradict himself, as I see it. Neither in the Bible, nor via potential personal revelations.

As before, you begin with the assumption that the Bible has to be perfect, in order to have value. Early Christians didn't have that criteria (see other post from me today). Only certain, particular modern Christians have this notion. Not all Christians do today, nor certainly did before the 16th Century AD.

You set up the criteria you think God has to meet, in order for you to believe in God. That's setting conditions for God, an artificial, modern standard of what you think needs to be true in order to for God to have meaning and value. "If the Bible isn't flawless, then God isn't real". In essence that's what you're saying. It's the same thing the modern atheist says too.

 

[Windwalker]

To suggest that one's holy scriptures written by the divine hand or holy spirit itself has errors strikes me as rather farcical.

You see, and you yourself fall into this trap of thinking. It didn't seem to affect Christians before the 1600's when this notion of absolutely error-free innenacy took hold. Prior to that, that expectation was not a barrier to faith for Christians.

They recognized the errors and inconsistencies, and yet remained Christians. In fact today, you have probably most Christians who aren't so inclined to be so literal in their thinking about these things, which is a good thing in light of modernity.

As far as I was always told, mainstream Christianity teaches that the Gospels et al. were written with divine inspiration / the holy spirit and to say that what it wrote is wrong is to suggest that God Himself can make mistakes.

Being inspired by God, does not mean taking dictation, or that the author becomes a meat-puppet for God to control as they passively let God move their hands on a piece of papyrus. Yet, that is what a lot of modern Christians imagine "inspired" means.

Inspiration simply means to be "moved" by God, to move beyond just speaking from our egos, to speak deep, timeless truths from the source of the divine heart, which lives in all of us. That doesn't mean you have a human vessel will magically be "error-free", or worse or more fantastical in imagination, that they would have magical scientific knowledge, thousands of years before to the tools of modern science.

All of that, is simply a child's imagination of magic. But when we grow up a little and see that how we imagined a magical, supernatural reality has a little more reason and groundedness to it, does that mean we must necessarily become cynics?

Does it mean if we find a flaw in our beliefs, that they're all wrong and we need to find the right one that has no errors instead? I find that thinking stuck on the same mouse-wheel, running always in the exact same spot.

I am almost certain the Jews who made up the earliest Christians believed no such thing.

They would not have been thinking of these things in the terms we moderns began to do, starting in the 1600s. They simply didn't have that modern mindset, where the idea that if an error exists in scripture, it means God messed up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do ex-Christians or "Christians by name" tend to think that since the Bible is flawed, religion is false?

False premise. The Bible, which is not flawed, isn't the problem.

Flawed people who want to sin with impunity find fault with the Bible and the Bible's God, IMHO.

 

[Rival]

You see, and you yourself fall into this trap of thinking. It didn't seem to affect Christians before the 1600's when this notion of absolutely error-free innenacy took hold. Prior to that, that expectation was not a barrier to faith for Christians.

They recognized the errors and inconsistencies, and yet remained Christians. In fact today, you have probably most Christians who aren't so inclined to be so literal in their thinking about these things, which is a good thing in light of modernity.


Being inspired by God, does not mean taking dictation, or that the author becomes a meat-puppet for God to control as they passively let God move their hands on a piece of papyrus. Yet, that is what a lot of modern Christians imagine "inspired" means.

Inspiration simply means to be "moved" by God, to move beyond just speaking from our egos, to speak deep, timeless truths from the source of the divine heart, which lives in all of us. That doesn't mean you have a human vessel will magically be "error-free", or worse or more fantastical in imagination, that they would have magical scientific knowledge, thousands of years before to the tools of modern science.

All of that, is simply a child's imagination of magic. But when we grow up a little and see that how we imagined a magical, supernatural reality has a little more reason and groundedness to it, does that mean we must necessarily become cynics? Does it mean if we find a flaw in our beliefs, that they're all wrong and we need to find the one that has no errors instead? If find that thinking stuck on the same mouse-wheel, chasing the same tail.


They would not have been thinking of these things in the terms we moderns began to do, starting in the 1600s. They simply didn't have that modern mindset, where the idea that if an error exists in scripture, it means God messed up.

I guess this whole notion is foreign to me. As I align myself with Orthodox Judaism, I believe that G-d gave the Torah to Moshe on Sinai and that every single letter of the Torah is meaningful. I'm only dismayed that Christians don't seem to hold their own scriptures to such standards. To me, it seems defeatist to acknowledge errors in one's scripture and yet cling to it; since to me that means god makes mistakes, and that is not my G-d.

 

[oldbadger]

I belong to that group that you mentioned in your post.
And I posted here in the thread as one of those who hold that the Bible is inerrant.
So I take it as personal.
this was a personal attack, as I see it. You wrote..

'Personal' means directed at a person.
You're wading in to future difficulties here. Each and every time you might ever mention any group of any kind of people, any one of them can accuse you of talking about them individually.

I am part of these folks.

Ah..... so you are an extremist Christian, is that what you are confirming?

It's like posting a racist remark when you know that people of colour are present. Or posting a detrimental view about "all Germans" when you know that these Germans or some of them are present indeed. Just two comparisons. I know that you didn't say anything against people of colour nor Germans.

What rubbish. Firstly I don't post racist remarks, nor about 'all Germans'. I wrote about extreme Christianity which demands that the bible is without error and offers no progression or revision. Where I live many churches ordain gays, have female bishops, marry gays, recognise sexual individuality and more. There's a difference. I wrote that.

but I'm not posting anything against you as a person here. I'm just criticising what you've said.

Yes you are!
Read your sentences above!

So let me give you an example of you reading contradictions in scripture that aren't there as I see it.

Good point. Mark and John both say that Jesus was executed on Greek Concordance:

Stop you there!
Mark and John differ absolutely about the day that Jesus had his last supper, and (of course) the day he died.

Please read the two simple verses that I showed!
It's no good you sending me off for Greek lessons, my bible was writ large in English about 400 years ago. Nobody has wanted to adjust it since then apart from the publication of a larger copy.

Maybe the festival week was so important back then that they made preparations for it before it even started.

Thomas

What a joke..... you, who are claiming that the bible is inerrant now suggest that MAYBE Jewish folks did things differently after all.

John says that Jesus died a day earlier than Mark.
Wriggle away......... it's what some Christians do, but when other folks see that it causes them to wonder......

 

[oldbadger]

False premise. The Bible, which is not flawed, isn't the problem.
.

Do you know the bible intimately?
Can you tell me what Jesus and the disciples did on the first day of their arrival in Jerusalem, the week that Jesus died?

Would you know that kind of thing?