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

[thomas t]

Are you telling me that your church uses the Greek Concordance as a Bible?

Please tell me what Bible your church uses then we will see what John and Mark actually wrote.

thank you very much for your question.
All the churches I used to be in had German Bibles.
It's just me who uses Greek concordances. However, many people say Bible can'tg be true due to translation issues or cultural influences.
So, if a point of contention arises, I personally use Greek concordances here. For me, it's the Koine Greek text that is flawless for NT.

 

[thomas t]

the member used that to show how John and Mark got the same day as each other (hogwash!)

this is not hogwash.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

If you think that Genesis 6 contains no errors, wouldn't you have to agree that God makes mistakes?

Genesis 6:6-7 specifically quotes God saying that making humanity was something he regretted.

 

[Rival]

If you think that Genesis 6 contains no errors, wouldn't you have to agree that God makes mistakes?

Genesis 6:6-7 specifically quotes God saying that making humanity was something he regretted.

I'm not trying to drive this thread off-topic.

The Torah is written in the language of men; when it describes G-d as having feelings/emotions this is referring to the human experience of this cause, it's not that G-d actually has emotions (that would take away from His One-ness). It's the same as when it refers to 'G-d's mighty arm' - it's not that G-d actually has arms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

thank you very much for your question.
All the churches I used to be in had German Bibles.
It's just me who uses Greek concordances. However, many people say Bible can'tg be true due to translation issues or cultural influences.
So, if a point of contention arises, I personally use Greek concordances here. For me, it's the Koine Greek text that is flawless for NT.

Great! What dies the Koine Greek text say were Jesus's last words that he said as he died?

For bonus points, explain why the English versions ended up contradicting themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not trying to drive this thread off-topic.

The Torah is written in the language of men; when it describes G-d as having feelings/emotions this is referring to the human experience of this cause, it's not that G-d actually has emotions (that would take away from His One-ness). It's the same as when it refers to 'G-d's mighty arm' - it's not that G-d actually has arms.

I'm not sure how this helps you.

"Regret" in the human context suggests that the person is acknowledging a mistake. Even if the text is supposed to put what God is experiencing in human terms, doesn't this still suggest that God made a mistake?

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure how this helps you.

"Regret" in the human context suggests that the person is acknowledging a mistake. Even if the text is supposed to put what God is experiencing in human terms, doesn't this still suggest that God made a mistake?

No, it's how humans experience what G-d does in language that makes sense to us.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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

I was born in to a Christian home, converted in my teens, but no it was not because of I thought Christianity was or is wrong. My reason was because humans had changed the words in the Bible, and taken away those things they did not like. To me it is humans who damaged the teaching. Not that the teaching was false from the beginning.

 

[Rival]

humans had changed the words in the Bible,

Where?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's how humans experience what G-d does in language that makes sense to us.

Language that "makes sense to us" but doesn't actually relate to what God does or why he does it?

 

[Rival]

Language that "makes sense to us" but doesn't actually relate to what God does or why he does it?

Would you expect that humans can understand the mind of G-d?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Where?

Example in later years is where ( in Norway at least) they changed the texts to let homosexual people be able to marry in the church. That was not a part of the original teaching. Many places the meaning of "Sin" has been changed to not be of importance.
Even the 10 commandments has gotten a different wording.

Human beings should not change a spiritual teaching to fit them, they should change to fit the teaching

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genesis 6:6-7 specifically quotes God saying that making humanity was something he regretted.

The Torah is written in the language of men; when it describes G-d as having feelings/emotions this is referring to the human experience of this cause, it's not that G-d actually has emotions (that would take away from His One-ness). It's the same as when it refers to 'G-d's mighty arm' - it's not that G-d actually has arms.

But Genesis 6:7 is not describing God, it is quoting God. So, is it a misquote, a midrashic embellishment, or did God intentionally convey something that would be misleading and/or misunderstood?

 

[Rival]

Example in later years is where ( in Norway at least) they changed the texts to let homosexual people be able to marry in the church. That was not a part of the original teaching. Many places the meaning of "Sin" has been changed to not be of importance.
Even the 10 commandments has gotten a different wording.

Human beings should not change a spiritual teaching to fit them, they should change to fit the teaching

I see what you are saying; so you mean they're essentially being more liberal than you think the text allows?

But Genesis 6:7 is not describing God, it is quoting God. So, is it a misquote, a midrashic embellishment, or did God intentionally convey something that would be misleading and/or misunderstood?

Whether G-d is quoted or described, it's going to need to be in terms understood. I doubt G-d needs human language either, but there it is.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see what you are saying; so you mean they're essentially being more liberal than you think the text allows?.

Yes, and it even say in the that no words should be changed, and the reason is, if we change the teaching we changes Gods own words. How can a simple human being think we can understand the true meaning of God, and because we disagree we change the words to fit us? That is not a righteous way to practice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you expect that humans can understand the mind of G-d?

I would expect that humans could understand material that God created for human consumption.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But Genesis 6:7 is not describing God, it is quoting God. So, is it a misquote, a midrashic embellishment, or did God intentionally convey something that would be misleading and/or misunderstood?

Rival can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that a misquote or "midrashic embellishment" would qualify as mistakes, and that God deliberately lying would create its own set of issues.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whether G-d is quoted or described, it's going to need to be in terms understood. I doubt G-d needs human language either, but there it is.

So when God expresses regret, what does he want understood?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rival can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that a misquote or "midrashic embellishment" would qualify as mistakes, and that God deliberately lying would create its own set of issues.

Midrashic embellishment would not qualify as a mistake, but it would certainly present a serious obstacle to an orthodoxy often hostel to the idea of human redaction.

 

[Rival]

So when God expresses regret, what does he want understood?

I am no scholar, but it seems that the intent here in this instance is to demonstrate that humanity was not doing as well as it could and G-d had given them a timeframe in which to repent. I read also that this is linked to the verse in Ezekiel where G-d does not take joy in the death of the wicked and that it is 'regrettable' that they won't repent.