sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Anchor Bible Commentary.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure, just so long as you enlighten me as to what in God's name your last two posts were supposed to mean...
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Are you talking Matthew 28? Until I have a text to work with, my answer may as well be "fabric softener."
Snuggle, to be specific.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The New Interpreter's Bible isn't bad, either -- more thorough than Jerome, but, like Jerome, it has its biases, too. ;-)
It's cheaper and more readily available than the Anchor Bible Commentary. If you like Catholic stuff, the Sacra Pagina is good -- especially Luke Timothy Johnson. Word is also ok -- again, more thorough than Jerome, but it leans fairly evangelical; if you can read past that, it's ok.
Yes. Matthew 28:19 which I referenced earlier. Try to keep up please.
πορευθέντες having gone
οὖν therefore
μαθητεύσατε disciple
πάντα all
τὰ the
ἔθνη nations
Might he have said My having gone?
You might say but it says.......But what it says was copied not by an angel of God but by a man (or a woman).
I am just asking if it might be possible he said "My having gone".
Last edited:
Do you know when the word laos was changed to mathēteusate? What reference are you getting laos from please?
Matthew 28:19 Greek Text Analysis
Dr. Strange
Member
John 1: 14:
God manifested in Jesus or that Jesus is the manifestation of God. Jesus is a new manifestation of God's covenant, "enduring love."
1 Timothy 3:16; "Wonderful, indeed, is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit; Seen by the angels; preached among the Gentiles, Believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory.""
Why then do believers find no fault in the Bible. Take 1 Timothy 3:16 and I apply your insistence on Jesus' divinity when I can interpret 3:16 to say: 1) "Mystery," "designates the secret that was hidden in divine wisdom during previous centuries and only revealed in Messianic times, i.e., that the redemption of all men is accomplished by Christ and is attained through union with Christ." JBC[57:21:9]. 2) "Flesh," "meaning human nature." 3) "Vindicated," [Justified] "meaning just," "[not] the usual Pauline meaning of purified from sin,"JBC[57:21:9]. 4) "Spirit," "The justice and divinity of Christ were manifested in a special way through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the glorious resurrection of Christ." JBC[57:22:16].
The manifestations of God are represented by the prophets. Jesus represented a manifestation of God, as a prophet, in the "flesh," as the "mystery," justified by the Spirit (God's "hidden divine wisdom") "taken up into glory" ("the visible manifestation" NAB1970, John 1: 14.)
Jesus, not Jesus the Christ but, Jesus as the Christ (Tillich), a manifestation of God.
"The many different meanings of the term "Word" [six] are all united in one meaning, namely, "God manifest"--manifest in himself, in creation, in the history of revelation, in the final revelation, in the Bible, in the words of the church and her members. "God manifest"--the mystery of the divine abyss expressing itself through the divine Logos--this is the meaning of the symbol, the "Word of God." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, p. 159.
Dr. Strange
Member
I'm not partial to Catholic stuff. I'm most interested in deeper (depth) studies, et al. I'm not interested in biased hermeneutics.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Most hermeneutics are biased to some extent. You just have to be astute enough to read through those biases.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Of course a believer can accept the bible has errors because it is well known to have them. I in fact grant one of the most virulent of biblical critics numbers just to save time. Theologians usually claim the bible is about 99.5% accurate. Good scholarly critics like Ehrman put it at about 95%. I use Ehrman's numbers just to limit contention because even 5% error is a miracle. Even he admits that core doctrine is free of any error and 90% of errors are meaningless and change nothing. The bible far surpasses any other work of ancient history of any kind in accuracy. There is not even a second place. If you review the Chicago statement of faith you will find that God only guarantied the revelation not the copying of the text. Regardless it has been copied with almost other worldly accuracy. When you hear numbers like 350,000 errors they don't tell you the rest of the story. Those numbers are over the entire manuscript tradition of the bible. Since the bible has exponentially more manuscripts than any other ancient work of course it has more errors. It is because it has such a rich textual tradition that virtually all errors are known and indicated in all modern bibles and include the history of the mistake. I will close with a statement by the foremost modern biblical critic.
Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Improve how?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The concept that the Bible is 99.5% accurate is just sheer speculation based on nothing substantial that has even one ounce of support. In order to know that number is accurate, one would literally have to know what 100% accuracy is in context of the text. It is logically impossible to not only know that number is accurate, but also logically impossible to know how many errors there are in scripture (I'm referring to the supposed 350,000 errors here).
To me, I think a far better approach is to read what it says, find that which we may find useful, and apply it to our lives.
To me, I think a far better approach is to read what it says, find that which we may find useful, and apply it to our lives.
Just pretent I didn't ask a question. Like for instance could Jesus have possibly said "I go" and how do you get laos from μαθητεύσατε?
You are not blind. Please look at Matthew 28:19.
A. You go you make disciples
B. I go you be disciples.
It is obvious to me him saying You go! requires an immediate response; Where Lord? Go where?
Where was Jesus telling them to go?
A. You go you make disciples
B. I go you be disciples.
It is obvious to me him saying You go! requires an immediate response; Where Lord? Go where?
Where was Jesus telling them to go?
Add therefore.
A. You go therefore make disciples
B. I go therefore disciple.
What does 'you go therefore' mean?
I know what 'I go therefore' means
Matthew 25: 14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property
His property means what he HAS. "To make disciples" means to ADD to his property.
There is one scripture coming to mind which says to add is a fine thing. What was to be added? People?
A. You go therefore make disciples
B. I go therefore disciple.
What does 'you go therefore' mean?
I know what 'I go therefore' means
Matthew 25: 14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property
His property means what he HAS. "To make disciples" means to ADD to his property.
There is one scripture coming to mind which says to add is a fine thing. What was to be added? People?
To be making disciples is to be adding people.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
I have no problem discerning the deeper meaning in the books, even though the Bible has errors in it. A shallow reading is not advised.
By employing discernment and daring to learn better than the written text.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The written text is the thing learned from. It is not the only thing but is the primary thing. For example, how do I improve on the commandment: "Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. How do you improve that by thinking? How do I add to "I am the way the truth and the life and no man proceeds to the father except through me"? Exactly what in the bible can I improve upon by thinking?