Do you think there is some error in that information? Please explain what?
-
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 that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?
- Thread starter vulcanlogician
- Start date
A cross was made of wood, which is why it can be called also a tree. And hanging can mean to be suspended, as Jesus was. Therefore, I don't think there is really an error in that, sorry.
cataway
Well-Known Member
in standing that thing made of wood. would the Romans implement the easiest form to function? have you ever stood a pole to the upright form ? then to make it even more difficult put the body of a man attached to it . how many men does it take to stand it upright to then drop into a hole,maybe 3-4 feet deep? its far more difficult than its imagined. adding cross bar up nearer the top end would make it even heavier. how many men were used to stand the wood ?
I thought you read the biblical quotes on that link I gave you. Here it is again,
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Your argument is based on your interpretation of the facts, and as I pointed out previously that interpretation is not consistent with the original text.
The quotes say what my headings say they say. You can make of them what you wish, but I prefer to stick with the evidence.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
That's fine. The point is that the flat earth interpretation is not consistent with the original text that describes birds flying above the firmament.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
No it cannot...because it tells us specifically
The evening and the morning, day 1...day 2...day 3.
Prophetic time of 1 day is as a thousand years is not relevant in the context of creation week. Anyone who understands common use of language can easily pick the difference between literal, figurative, prophetic etc.
Of course it is. Nothing stops birds flying above a flat earth. The fixed earth stands immovable at the center of creation. 1 Chronicles 16 says,
"30 [...] yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved." In Psalm 96 we're told, "10 [...] Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; [...]”
The sun goes round it. Indeed, in the Joshua story it stands still for a time, prolonging the day. There's not the tiniest hint that instead the earth stopped rotating.
And indeed it's flat: "Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?"
Job 9 says the earth stands on pillars: "6 who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble"/
And the firmament is a fixed, hard dome that you can walk on ─ Job 22 "[...] he [God]walks on the vault of heaven." and the stars are attached to it. It stands on pillars: "Job 26:11 “The pillars of heaven tremble [...].”
You appear not to have read the quotes from the bible on that link, It might have saved you a lot of time in understanding what the bible actually says.
.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Good morning vulcanlogician.
The Bible does not say that Chr-stianity is true.
The Bible is the source to which Judaism and Chr-stianity were supposed to be based. When these faiths strayed from that source, they became false forms of worship. By returning back to the source, as we do in the Assemblies of Yahweh, we can achieve sound doctrine and reconstitute true worship. John 4:23 tells us Yahweh desires a people to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. John 17:17 says the Word is Truth.
Some scriptures worth considering regarding the reliability of the Word of Yahweh are:
Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Proverbs 30:5-6, Deuteronomy 12:32, Matthew 22:29, Mark 7:13.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Wrong, a single case doesn't determine a general rule.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You are missing the point. The original text says firmament, and and the birds do not fly above the flat earth firmament.
Well, Adam was to die the day he ate the fruit. He died around 1000 years later, not on the day of eating the fruit. (Genesis 2:17)
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I never realized that the Bible prohibited adding or subtracting from the Word of God so many times! (Although the Mark verse, as I understand it, may have been talking about a different subject.) But it is clear that all the other verses are talking about the same thing.
But my claim is that the Bible may contain small errors here and there. That doesn't make it untrue. It may very well be true that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, for instance. But does that mean that every account or detail in the Bible is true?
I think this is a separate issue from adding or subtracting from scripture.
Let me give you an example. Let's say that a Walmart shopper witnesses someone shoplifting. The cameras show that this person did indeed engage in shoplifting. But there is a problem. Her eyewitness account got a few details wrong, even though, on the whole, her account was more or less accurate.
When we read her account, we shouldn't "subtract" her errors. Her errors are there, right beside the things she got right about the event she witnessed. We should never warp the account she gave in order to "make it true." We should take the account as it is given, noting errors when they appear... but also noting true things when they appear.
I'm not trying to play a word game here, nor am I trying to enter the well-word debate of "the Bible got x wrong, so it might have gotten y wrong." It is plain to me that there are (at least) a few errors in the Bible. I don't WANT there to be errors in the Bible, but the fact is, they MUST be there, because (however minor) those inaccuracies exist and are plain to see by everyone-- except those who have decided beforehand to refuse to see them.
I think trying to "seal off" the Bible from error, while perhaps well-intentioned, ends up doing Christianity more harm than good. It is like if Einstein tried to respond to criticisms of his theory by saying, "My theories are completely without error." But the simple fact is, we've proven that Einstein got SOME things wrong over the years. Does that mean Einstein was wrong? No. He was correct (and very correct) about a GREAT number of things.
But if you treat Einstein's theories like a house of cards that come tumbling down the moment he gets one thing wrong, well then, you have to conclude that Einstein was wrong about everything.
I don't think this is the right way to approach Einstein's theories. But neither do I think it is the correct way to approach Christianity. The Gospels are not a house of cards where every little detail needs to be true. They are a foundation of stone, and although contain some cracks or faults, are a stable surface upon which it is capable to stand upon. At least that's the sort of thing I think when I feel like defending Christianity.
Biblical inerrancy is a feeble kind of faith. Believing, yet being able to acknowledge errors when they are apparent... that seems like a stronger kind of faith to me.
Does that make sense?
I couldn't agree more.
The beauty of the Bible is that anyone, at any stage of their
faith life, will find the Truth, whether one is comfortable with a literalists
interpretation or seeks a deeper understanding of the theology and the
literary genius of the Evangelists.
The Bibles that we have are all translations. As such, they cannot be error-free. There are too many differences between ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and English to make a 100% error-free translation. Additionally, the sources that are available differ from each other, so it is impossible to say which one is 100% accurate.
We are blessed with a large variety of English Bibles, so there is at least one for each person that is capable of accurately communicating God's message to people.
We are blessed with a large variety of English Bibles, so there is at least one for each person that is capable of accurately communicating God's message to people.
It seems to me:
- If "it is impossible to say which one is 100% accurate," one cannot claim that any of them are 100% accurate.
- If one cannot claim that any of them are 100% accurate, to say that "there is at least one for each person that is capable of accurately communicating God's message to people" is baseless.
And, of course, there is the matter of authorship.
So your solution is that no person should read the Bible because it is incapable of accurately communicating God's message? What do you suggest as an alternative?
Really? Nowhere did I state or otherwise suggest "that no person should read the Bible." In fact, I study the Tanakh weekly.
First and foremost, I suggest that you read your Bible with a bit more care than you've demonstrated by responding to my post.
Really? Nowhere did I state or otherwise suggest "that no person should read the Bible." In fact, I study the Tanakh weekly.
First and foremost, I suggest that you read your Bible with a bit more care than you've demonstrated by responding to my post.
Congratulations on studying the Tanakh weekly. I read the Bible (both testaments) daily, carefully.
If there is, according to you, no such thing as as totally accurate Bible, why should anyone read the Bible, expecting a pure message from God? There will always be doubt about the accuracy of what s/he reads, correct?
There are many source Tanakh documents that differ and, as you probably know, there were no vowels in the early manuscripts. So If you read the modern Tanakh, how do you know that it is 100% accurate?