Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?

[sojourner]

I need you to understand that critical thinking, such as Thomas Aquinas', is more important than yours' or my critical thinking.

No. It isn't.

Theological thinking comes from critical thinking about the Bible.

Right -- which is how Jesus' Divinity was established.

Christianity is as much apart of philosophy and logic as it is from biblical texts.

Yes, but we're not discussing Xy here. We're discussing what the bible says.

The NT is just that, critical thinking on the part of those that wrote the four Gospels.

I don't know that I'd say the gospels were "critical thinking." They're patently not commentary -- they're stories.

Any reading of the Bible that is literal fails to understand beyond one's upbringing, indoctrination and, education. No literal reading imparts the Christian God's message. A literal reading is a personal reading and that leads to a personal god.

I didn't know any of this was at issue here. "This is Intro to Bible 101" stuff.

How many different interpretations exist today?

Since the bible is multivalent, I don't see that as a problem.

I bring to you critical thinking that incorporates every tool at my disposal.

You're using Black and Decker. You need DeWalt.

Truth (small t) always changes. Truth (capital T) never changes.

Truth is a matter of perspective.

What makes you think that man could even begin to know God?

I don't think that. Why would you think that I do?

All we have to go by is what John 1 says to best of our understanding.

Right -- which is why solid exegesis becomes so important.

Don't come back at me for this reply and say that you did not say that.

What else am I expected to do, if I didn't say what you said I said?

 

[Dr. Strange]

No. It isn't.

Right -- which is how Jesus' Divinity was established.

Yes, but we're not discussing Xy here. We're discussing what the bible says.

I don't know that I'd say the gospels were "critical thinking." They're patently not commentary -- they're stories.

I didn't know any of this was at issue here. "This is Intro to Bible 101" stuff.

Since the bible is multivalent, I don't see that as a problem.

You're using Black and Decker. You need DeWalt.

Truth is a matter of perspective.

I don't think that. Why would you think that I do?

Right -- which is why solid exegesis becomes so important.

What else am I expected to do, if I didn't say what you said I said?

What is more important than yours or my critical thinking is 2000 years applied critical thinking that gives us the greatest tools to understand what Bible 101 does not teach us.

John does not establish Jesus divinity. I documented what I have come to believe.

What the Bible says is not a literal reading.

I would not purchase either. Now your avoiding what I've said with insults.

I guess that is, your perspective.

I gave you solid exegesis. You must have rejected it even though it was Catholic.

What you are suppose to do is come back with solid exegesis. Then we have something to discuss.

 

[Dr. Strange]

I'm quite comfortable with challenges to my belief system, thanks. I've been there, done that, worn out the T-shirt as far as apologetics are concerned, and I couldn't care less what others believe, or what others think about my beliefs. Mine are mine; yours are yours -- they're both valid.

I suspect that a formal education, culminating in a graduate degree with high honors, and being invited to publish critical papers on the NT is study enough for purposes of this forum.

The Anchor and the TDNT are better... You should use more scholarly study material, if you're that interested in scholastics.

Not conclusively or explicitly, but, as I said, some sort of Divine concept is implied therein.

Look, when the Ecumenical Council met at Nicea, they relied on biblical texts in the formation of the doctrine. They also relied on extra-biblical Tradition. If there was no textual implication of Jesus' Divinity, the doctrine wouldn't force the issue so strongly.

So, a Ph. D has a closed mind.

What I expect from a Ph.D is reason to question what I believe. You've presented nothing of the sort.

Looking into your suggestions.

Ya, of course some sort os Divine concept is implied but it is not that Jesus is God. Instead, it is about the Spirit in all of us.

Sure the Council of Nicaea relied on biblical text to form doctrine. They took what there was and came up with doctrine because there was nothing that affirmed Jesus as divine.

That is my point, Jesus is not divine. Jesus as the Christ (Tillich) conforms to Genesis 1:27 where the image of God is God's Spirit. You evidently missed the exegesis on the Image of God.

 

[savagewind]

Sure the Council of Nicaea relied on biblical text to form doctrine. They took what there was and came up with doctrine because there was nothing that affirmed Jesus as divine.
That is my point, Jesus is not divine. .

John 14: 5Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 14:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

What dooes it mean "Jesus is not divine"? We believe he came from heaven from the father and is the way to God. How is that not divine?

 

[we-live-now]

What is the difference between mistakes and errors?

Good question. Perhaps they are the same thing?

 

[we-live-now]

Actually, there are scribal errors in the texts. There is information that is incorrect, from a purely empirical perspective.

What do you mean by "scribal errors"? Things not recorded or copied correctly?

 

[savagewind]

What do you mean by "scribal errors"? Things not recorded or copied correctly?

What do you think? Is there a difference between these two comments?

1. Go therefore and make disciples of nations
and
2. I go, therefore you disciple nations.

We know what make disciples means. It means persuade people to agree with your idea of God and God's will.

What does disciple mean?

The original simply says "disciple nations". Many scribes and publishers put in the word "make". But does it belong there? Most people either do not care or they wish to leave it there. Is it right? If it doesn't belong there at Matthew 28:19 it is an error.

People seem to be afraid of Bible errors so much so that they make what is wrong right.

 

[sojourner]

What do you mean by "scribal errors"? Things not recorded or copied correctly?

Yes.

 

[sojourner]

of course some sort os Divine concept is implied

Thank you. That's all I said.


But wait! Then you go on to cram a whole shoe store in your mouth:

They took what there was and came up with doctrine because there was nothing that affirmed Jesus as divine.

Sooo.... "Of course some sort of Divine concept is implied," but.... "there was nothing [in the bible] that affirmed Jesus as divine."

So, Of course the bible ascribes some concept of Divinity to Jesus, but there's nothing in there that affirms that Divinity? Great!

Jesus as the Christ (Tillich) conforms to Genesis 1:27 where the image of God is God's Spirit.

Except that's not what "image of God" means in Genesis 1:27. Exegete, don't eisegete, plz!

You evidently missed the exegesis on the Image of God.

You were evidently sick the day they taught exegesis in Bible Scholastics.

 

[sojourner]

What do you think? Is there a difference between these two comments?

1. Go therefore and make disciples of nations
and
2. I go, therefore you disciple nations.

We know what make disciples means. It means persuade people to agree with your idea of God and God's will.

What does disciple mean?

The original simply says "disciple nations". Many scribes and publishers put in the word "make". But does it belong there? Most people either do not care or they wish to leave it there. Is it right? If it doesn't belong there at Matthew 28:19 it is an error.

People seem to be afraid of Bible errors so much so that they make what is wrong right.

Except that you have to go to the original Greek. The word isn't "disciples." It's laos, meaning, basically, "us." And the word translated as "nations" is ethane, meaning, basically, "those others." IOW: Go to those others and make them part of us. It doesn't have anything to do, really, with "discipling people." It has everything to do with inclusion of the outcast.

 

[savagewind]

Except that you have to go to the original Greek. The word isn't "disciples." It's laos, meaning, basically, "us." And the word translated as "nations" is ethane, meaning, basically, "those others." IOW: Go to those others and make them part of us. It doesn't have anything to do, really, with "discipling people." It has everything to do with inclusion of the outcast.

Yes. I heard you the first time. Peace with God means peace with everyone no matter what nation but Jesus never said make them take my peace which is what make disciples means. The key word is make. I don't agree he meant make them inclusive with myself because I can't do that. The ability to do it comes with God's law written on my heart. Can I write God's law on my heart?

What do you think of my exegesis that he said he goes and did not say you go?

 

[sojourner]

What is more important than yours or my critical thinking is 2000 years applied critical thinking that gives us the greatest tools to understand what Bible 101 does not teach us.

"Critical thinking," as we understand it, has not existed for 2000 years. Modern biblical criticism is far, far superior to what was extant even 200 years ago. Today's decent bible student, equipped with reputable references, can exegete the bible better than a bona fide scholar of the 1200s. Aquinas and the Church Fathers and Mothers notwithstanding.

John does not establish Jesus divinity. I documented what I have come to believe.

John certainly does "establish" some sort of divine concept for Jesus.

What the Bible says is not a literal reading.

Of course not. I never said it was. But, literal or not, it does say what it says, which can be discovered through a proper exegesis. What we exegete from John 1 is highly christological (which, of itself, addresses the ... Divinity ... of Jesus.

I gave you solid exegesis. You must have rejected it even though it was Catholic.

You didn't give me exegesis. You regurgitated something out of a book. I rejected it, because you eisegeted even that reading.

What you are suppose to do is come back with solid exegesis.

I've exegeted the bible under scrutiny of some of the best biblical scholars. I'm not gonna "try out" for you.

 

[sojourner]

I don't agree he meant make them inclusive with myself

Then you'll have to back that up with some pretty stiff exegetical evidence.

 

[savagewind]

Then you'll have to back that up with some pretty stiff exegetical evidence.

I agree it should be done but I do not have the power to do it. If I don't have the power to do it then it would be ridiculous for Jesus to tell me to do it. Jesus isn't ridiculous. Making him say it is our job to make disciples makes him ridiculous and evil.

I think discipling means an advertisement. Advertisements do not make people buy. Advertisements make people want to buy.

 

[savagewind]

The peace and the power of Israel that Balaam witnessed is what "disciple nations" means. To be the kind of person and congregation that no one is able to curse is what "disciple" means. We can only change ourselves.
Numbers 23,24

Matthew 28:19 Is Jesus telling us it is not him who they will judge (Him saying "I go") but it is us they will want to judge. If we are doing as he commanded, which is being his disciples, no one will be able to curse us.

 

[sojourner]

I agree it should be done but I do not have the power to do it. If I don't have the power to do it then it would be ridiculous for Jesus to tell me to do it. Jesus isn't ridiculous. Making him say it is our job to make disciples makes him ridiculous and evil.

I think discipling means an advertisement. Advertisements do not make people buy. Advertisements make people want to buy.

The peace and the power of Israel that Balaam witnessed is what "disciple nations" means. To be the kind of person and congregation that no one is able to curse is what "disciple" means. We can only change ourselves.
Numbers 23,24

Matthew 28:19 Is Jesus telling us it is not him who they will judge (Him saying "I go") but it is us they will want to judge. If we are doing as he commanded, which is being his disciples, no one will be able to curse us.

You know, you're right! Maybe if I use more fabric softener, the car will flay faster around the magic turtle that grants wishes, and the lamp won't be so apt to contradict everything I say.

 

[savagewind]

You know, you're right! Maybe if I use more fabric softener, the car will flay faster around the magic turtle that grants wishes, and the lamp won't be so apt to contradict everything I say.

Might I quote you?

 

[savagewind]

The custom set in stone is Jesus said "You go!". I say it is possible he said "I go". Now please tell me why he didn't say that he was going. You ignored that question or did I miss it? Was your answer fabric softener?

 

[Dr. Strange]

"Critical thinking," as we understand it, has not existed for 2000 years. Modern biblical criticism is far, far superior to what was extant even 200 years ago. Today's decent bible student, equipped with reputable references, can exegete the bible better than a bona fide scholar of the 1200s. Aquinas and the Church Fathers and Mothers notwithstanding.

John certainly does "establish" some sort of divine concept for Jesus.

Of course not. I never said it was. But, literal or not, it does say what it says, which can be discovered through a proper exegesis. What we exegete from John 1 is highly christological (which, of itself, addresses the ... Divinity ... of Jesus.

You didn't give me exegesis. You regurgitated something out of a book. I rejected it, because you eisegeted even that reading.

I've exegeted the bible under scrutiny of some of the best biblical scholars. I'm not gonna "try out" for you.

So, I might as well ignore your posts. And thanks for suggesting TDNT. I have not found "The Anchor" unless you mean the Catholic Magazine with that name.

 

[savagewind]

I can tell you why (I think) God's Spirit allowed the mistake. But first I want to hear from You why it is not possible he said "I go".