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

[LuisDantas]

The written text is the thing learned from. It is not the only thing but is the primary thing.

A popular opinion, to be sure, but one I happen to disagree strongly with. There is considerable evidence that the oral transmission played a far more significant role early on than most Christians realize today.

I don't just think that is all right and proper, either. I think it is inherently impossible for scripture to be more important or more useful than the living example, behavior and discernment of actual practicioners. IMO that has been demonstrated very consistently along the centuries by pretty much all religions, including Christianity.

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?

One way is by considering what constitutes a neighbor and the hardships associated with taking such a goal seriously. Conquering one's natural tendency to seek uninvolvement is no small feat.

Another, quite different way is by considering what loving God means and entails.

How do I add to "I am the way the truth and the life and no man proceeds to the father except through me"?

I guess I don't know. I never quite mastered the meaning of that passage, so I better not pretend to know what it says.

Exactly what in the bible can I improve upon by thinking?

Pretty much everything, I would think.

 

[1robin]

A popular opinion, to be sure, but one I happen to disagree strongly with. There is considerable evidence that the oral transmission played a far more significant role early on than most Christians realize today.

Everyone knows that both the OT and the first years of the NT were transmitted orally. We have known that for 2000 years and have believed and even demonstrated the bible is the most textually accurate work of any kind in ancient history. How do you improve on a book that after 2000 years has less than 5% error and even it's critics agree that it's core doctrine has zero error? It is by far and away light years better than any expectation you could justifiably hold it to. It is like sitting in a 2015 corvette saying you can't go anywhere because the manual does not explain how to start it well enough.

I don't just think that is all right and proper, either. I think it is inherently impossible for scripture to be more important or more useful than the living example, behavior and discernment of actual practicioners. IMO that has been demonstrated very consistently along the centuries by pretty much all religions, including Christianity.

This is a whole other issue. The scripture is infinitely more important than any other thing for the purpose for which it was sent. It depends what application you put it to. It is not good at stopping trains or dissecting cuddle fish but as historic biography it has no peers. There is not even a close second. The claims it makes are so fantastic and were written in a country so opposed to it, in an empire bent on destroying it, that only a work of impeccable capacity and integrity could have risen to have influenced the world more than anything or person in history despite being the most scrutinized text ever. In what way does it fail?

One way is by considering what constitutes a neighbor and the hardships associated with taking such a goal seriously. Conquering one's natural tendency to seek uninvolvement is no small feat.

Since entire volumes of works are devoted to answering that question and you get 12 million hits for the question I can't imagine you really wanted to know. Keep in mind a book that laid out every detail for every action you may take, even digitized would overflow every computer ever built. Not that you would need it since God sent the spirit to guide us into ALL truth.

Another, quite different way is by considering what loving God means and entails.

I will answer this below.

I guess I don't know. I never quite mastered the meaning of that passage, so I better not pretend to know what it says.



Pretty much everything, I would think.

If you open any modern bible you will find massive notes resulting from 2000 years of the exact efforts you mention. Entire buildings house countless books on every question you ask. Libraries are full of nothing but answers for your enquiries. Our problem is not the text, interpretations, or Hermeneutics. Our problem is faith in and the practice of what we do have.

Maybe an illiterate African bushman living in the 6th century can say to God he didn't know what to do, but we have no excuse.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Most hermeneutics are biased to some extent. You just have to be astute enough to read through those biases.

I have to agree with you.

 

[sojourner]

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.

I don't understand what this obsession is with "accuracy." "Authority" is the main issue with the texts. Or it should be.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Because the disciples are the laos (as opposed to the ethne).

 

[sojourner]

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?

Well, historically, it certainly elicited an immediate response. The gospels source material dates to less than 10 years following Jesus. Paul began to preach about 18 months after Jesus. Thousands were added to the church 50 days after Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Yes! People! Make laos -- people.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) We (...) have believed and even demonstrated the bible is the most textually accurate work of any kind in ancient history.

Sorry, but I must say that this is just crude, empty propaganda. The Bible is not even self-coherent, not even capable of keeping track of whether specific people are dead or alive according to its own dates. It can hardly claim to be accurate, much less remarkably accurate.

How do you improve on a book that after 2000 years has less than 5% error and even it's critics agree that it's core doctrine has zero error?

Again, you are just spewing propaganda. Whichever book you are describing is not the Bible.

It is by far and away light years better than any expectation you could justifiably hold it to.

Wrong, and by a wide margin at that. The Bible is not even above average as scriptures go.

It is like sitting in a 2015 corvette saying you can't go anywhere because the manual does not explain how to start it well enough.

I'm not following. You seem to be taking a few premises that I am not aware of, and the comparison fails to make sense to me as a result. I suspect one of those may be that the scripture is in some sense central to the doctrine, as opposed to peripheral.

This is a whole other issue. The scripture is infinitely more important than any other thing for the purpose for which it was sent. It depends what application you put it to. It is not good at stopping trains or dissecting cuddle fish but as historic biography it has no peers.

Gosh, you are on a roll in your scripture-praising. I feel like I should step aside and let you go on without my interference for a while. You seem to enjoy it so much!

There is not even a close second.

I can only guess which criteria you are using. I can't think of any that would make that statement true. Except, I guess, that it is more Christian than nearly all others.

The claims it makes are so fantastic and were written in a country so opposed to it, in an empire bent on destroying it, that only a work of impeccable capacity and integrity could have risen to have influenced the world more than anything or person in history despite being the most scrutinized text ever. In what way does it fail?

I could answer that, but there are probably better threads where to.

Since entire volumes of works are devoted to answering that question and you get 12 million hits for the question I can't imagine you really wanted to know.

If you mean that I already know the answer to my own satisfaction, you are right.

Keep in mind a book that laid out every detail for every action you may take, even digitized would overflow every computer ever built. Not that you would need it since God sent the spirit to guide us into ALL truth.

I don't expect that of scripture.

(...)

If you open any modern bible you will find massive notes resulting from 2000 years of the exact efforts you mention. Entire buildings house countless books on every question you ask. Libraries are full of nothing but answers for your enquiries. Our problem is not the text, interpretations, or Hermeneutics. Our problem is faith in and the practice of what we do have.

On that we agree.

Maybe an illiterate African bushman living in the 6th century can say to God he didn't know what to do, but we have no excuse.

On that too, although I would not excuse the bushman either, or see a need to.

 

[metis]

I don't understand what this obsession is with "accuracy." "Authority" is the main issue with the texts. Or it should be.

Even "Authority" doesn't ring my chimes. To me, it's less important as to whom said what than what actually was taught that has the possibility of being useful.

 

[kepha31]

Even "Authority" doesn't ring my chimes. To me, it's less important as to whom said what than what actually was taught that has the possibility of being useful.

"What was actually taught" still requires authority. Separating oral tradition from the written word is still a relatively new concept in the Judaic/Christian time line. There was always authority.

I am not a true inerrantist, but I think the meaning of the Bible is inerrant; the problem is there is no divine inerrant human language. Dei Verbum explains it best.

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.​

 

[savagewind]

Yes! People! Make laos -- people.

I understand the concept but I think it is another subject. I do not see laos mentioned at Matthew 28:19. Is it?

 

[metis]

"What was actually taught" still requires authority. Separating oral tradition from the written word is still a relatively new concept in the Judaic/Christian time line. There was always authority...

Let's say that this "authority" says that infanticide is not only allowable, but that you should do it. Would you?

To me, regardless as to what the source may be, we ultimately will make our own decision as to whether we will follow what is taught. To automatically obey any authority is dangerous.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but I must say that this is just crude, empty propaganda. The Bible is not even self-coherent, not even capable of keeping track of whether specific people are dead or alive according to its own dates. It can hardly claim to be accurate, much less remarkably accurate.

That must be why the faith died in the crib, didn't make it out of 1st century Palestine, and why no one takes it seriously. Wait a minute, it is simultaneously the most studied book in history and the most valued book in history. Guess it is not so inaccurate after all. Look, you did not present even a hint at what your talking about. You made a few general proclamations and then dismissed the whole thing, which is exactly what an emotionally (not factually) motivated person does. Until you can get some evidence and specific s together your claims are meaningless.

Again, you are just spewing propaganda. Whichever book you are describing is not the Bible.

You obviously have no experience in biblical textual criticism. That 5% figure is the number given by the bibles greatest living critic. Not a Christian, not me, not a theologian. Plus that number can even be proven by yourself. Inexpensive programs exists that will find and indicate every error that exists between every textual tradition there is. You will get about 5% and none in core doctrine. No disrespect intended but you seem to have to experience in he area you are discussing. I will give you one more post to present some scholarship or I will have to give up on you.

Wrong, and by a wide margin at that. The Bible is not even above average as scriptures go.

That's it. Your in some fantasy land disconnected to reality. I will prove this wrong as an example. Here are all the major works of ancient history and the bible compared in every major category.

Author, Date Written, Earliest Copy, Approximate Time Span between original & copy, Number of Copies, Accuracy of Copies .
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny A.D. 61-113 A.D. 850 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. A.D. 1100 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius A.D. 75-160 A.D. 950 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. A.D. 1100 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. A.D. 900 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa A.D. 100 A.D. 1100 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. A.D. 1000 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
NewTestament 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100) 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. A.D. 130 f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%


Instead of making erroneous general proclamations actually find a work that is more accurate from the time period. No one yet has of any type, you might get a prize or something.

I'm not following. You seem to be taking a few premises that I am not aware of, and the comparison fails to make sense to me as a result. I suspect one of those may be that the scripture is in some sense central to the doctrine, as opposed to peripheral.

If you don't get the analogy the explanation won't help.

Gosh, you are on a roll in your scripture-praising. I feel like I should step aside and let you go on without my interference for a while. You seem to enjoy it so much!

No, by all means keep the generalized, non evidenced sweeping declarations going.

I can only guess which criteria you are using. I can't think of any that would make that statement true. Except, I guess, that it is more Christian than nearly all others.

The same exact criteria textual critics all use. Your really out of your depth on textual integrity.

I could answer that, but there are probably better threads where to.

Nice punt.

If you mean that I already know the answer to my own satisfaction, you are right.

If you have the answer and I hold the faith with the answers then the question was a rhetorical device and should not have been stated.

I don't expect that of scripture.

That is exactly what you have been demanding of scripture. The first thing not laid out in every emphatic detail you throw up your hands, call foul, turn out the lights, and go to bed.

On that we agree.

When you have the massive (more than any other work in ancient history by far) mountains of manuscripts you invariably get several things from that fact. More errors, far more reliability, and the ability to detect all errors that exist. Again you seem to have no experience in this field what so ever.

On that too, although I would not excuse the bushman either, or see a need to.

If the bushman is without excuse then you a hundred times over are lacking one.

 

[LuisDantas]

1robin, come back to me when you are interested in talking seriously about this matter, or about some other. Deal?

 

[IndigoStorm]

I was going to name the thread "Is it possible the Bible has mistakes in it". And I heard a little voice in my head say "Dah?".

Then I had to add "believers" to the title.

If nothing else, it's funny.

The biggest mistake a believer can make is believing in the bible in the first place.

 

[savagewind]

The biggest mistake a believer can make is believing in the bible in the first place.

Do you mean none of it or do you mean believing all of it? Surely there is wisdom to be believed in it.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Do you mean none of it or do you mean believing all of it? Surely there is wisdom to be believed in it.

All of it.

 

[savagewind]

Proverbs 27:1 Do not boast about the next day, for you do not know what the day will give birth to.

Don't believe it? I should not believe I don't know what tomrrow will bring, that boasting is not bad or both?

 

[Dr. Strange]

The biggest mistake a believer can make is believing in the bible in the first place.

Funny. Your statement is an oxymoron. A believer must believe in something.

Faith does not require believing, it is unconditional.

You could replace believer with faith and make a great statement.

 

[kepha31]

Let's say that this "authority" says that infanticide is not only allowable, but that you should do it. Would you?

To me, regardless as to what the source may be, we ultimately will make our own decision as to whether we will follow what is taught. To automatically obey any authority is dangerous.

Blindly rejecting authority is also dangerous, such as speeding in a school zone. Moral authority comes from God or it's not necessarily moral. What you seem to be saying here is that it is your decision whether or not to kill your children and morality is relative.
Moral Relativism Refuted