Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[Treasure Hunter]

No, because terms like fact and truth are too often defined down in such a way as to sap them of any value.

But perhaps I misunderstood you. You wrote: "There are multiple types of truth." [emphasis added - JS] Could you suggest three truth-types that would help answer the question posed by the thread? Thanks.

I thought I clearly did that already in my first post. Do you not grasp how moral truth, historical truth, and empirical truth are three types of truth?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought I clearly did that already in my first post. Do you not grasp how moral truth, historical truth, and empirical truth are three types of truth?

Do I not grasp?

Help me out here. Give me examples of these types that would help answer the question posed by the thread, and explain how each warrants the truth claim. Thanks.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Do I not grasp?

Help me out here. Give me examples of these types that would help answer the question posed by the thread, and explain how each warrants the truth claim. Thanks.

My point is the question posed in this thread is unclear. Most people use truth to mean historical truth, but religion is about moral truth.

I don’t understand what you think you’re doing with this line of questioning..

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My point is the question posed in this thread is unclear. Most people use truth to mean historical truth, but religion is about moral truth. ............

I find Pilate when he said, " What is truth ? " was speaking about truth in general.
Jesus used ' truth ' to mean ' religious truth ' - John 17:17 - that Scripture is religious truth ( which of course includes moral teaching/truth )

 

[Audie]

Please show one error in the Bible?

We could tell you, but we cant, you
know, tell you very much.

 

[2ndpillar]

Peter wasn’t the worthless shepherd he didn’t leave the flock. Judas Iscariot was the worthless shepherd he hung himself for what he did to Jesus so he’s the only one that left the flock (Zechariah said he’d do that). Jesus appeared to His eleven disciples after He was risen and He commanded them to do what He said to them, Matthew 28:16-20. Thus, Peter was among the eleven disciples he couldn’t have been the worthless shepherd who left the flock.

Your book of Acts (15:7), supposedly written by Luke, a supposed associate of the false prophet Paul, states that Peter left the Jews ("leaves the flock") and went to the Gentiles. It is the heir of Peter, the Pope, who like the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17, doesn't feed, care or tend the sheep (Jews) (Zech 11:16), the same message given 3 times by Yeshua to Peter (John 21:15-16), as Yeshua had said Peter would deny him 3 times. Zechariah 11 was with regards to 3 shepherds (Zech 11:8), not one shepherd. All three were to be "annihilated" in one month (one generation). Two of the shepherds were to "pasture the flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter", those shepherds being Peter and Paul. Peter, Paul, and Judas died within the span of 1 generation. The specific description of Peter's role is found in Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas Peter made his dwelling within a rock, such as Petras meaning "pebble" (small rock), and that those following his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which is the "day of the LORD". The pope is the Pontifex Maximus, the office taken from the heir of Julius Caesar, Constantine, the establisher of the false dogma of the Trinity, and the keeping of the day of the sun as their day of rest, per his decree of 321 A.D., which is followed by most "Christians". Constantine being the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the "Christians" would bear the mark of the beast and are looking at a bad end (Rev 19:20).

 

[Dmartin2651]

The Bible does not even support that claim. You are mixing up several ideas here. "Holy Scripture" or even "Scripture" is never defined in the Bible. You are assuming that it is referring to itself, but with all of the Bible's problems I do not see how that can be the case.

So getting back to the OP, yes, Christianity can be true even if there are errors in the Bible

The Bible does not even support that claim. You are mixing up several ideas here. "Holy Scripture" or even "Scripture" is never defined in the Bible. You are assuming that it is referring to itself, but with all of the Bible's problems I do not see how that can be the case.

The Bible does not even support that claim. You are mixing up several ideas here. "Holy Scripture" or even "Scripture" is never defined in the Bible. You are assuming that it is referring to itself, but with all of the Bible's problems I do not see how that can be the case.

So getting back to the OP, yes, Christianity can be true even if there are errors in the Bible.

Sorry I tried to quote what I said at the top instead I quoted several times what you said.

The Bible continues supporting the claims I make. I repeat what I said in a previous post that I don’t speak from my own knowledge or any others either. I really have been born again of God and have been learning the Holy Scripture from Him since I was a child. I do speak the truth in Christ even Holy Scripture . It certainly does define itself even Christ Jesus with it and also myself with Them. 2Timothy 3:14-17, “But you must continue in the things you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (Christ Jesus) may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Further see chapter 4 verses 1-3.

Thus, as I said previously the Bible doesn’t have errors. Men has made some errors in translations. It doesn’t have any problems or errors “ALL SCRIPTURE (caps for emphasis) is given by inspiration of God.” See, it is not possible to have any problems, contradictions, or errors whatsoever. That’s all in the doctrines of men. Their own doctrine (whichever Bible version they use for it) needs reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness… All Scripture is given by God’s inspiration to do all of that! Christianity has been true in their own doctrine they follow. And Christianity will literally be all right after all that is done. Then as Scripture says the Lord Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.

 

[Ebionite]

Thus, as I said previously the Bible doesn’t have errors.

But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Matthew 26:60-61

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I tried to quote what I said at the top instead I quoted several times what you said.

The Bible continues supporting the claims I make. I repeat what I said in a previous post that I don’t speak from my own knowledge or any others either. I really have been born again of God and have been learning the Holy Scripture from Him since I was a child. I do speak the truth in Christ even Holy Scripture . It certainly does define itself even Christ Jesus with it and also myself with Them. 2Timothy 3:14-17, “But you must continue in the things you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God (Christ Jesus) may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Further see chapter 4 verses 1-3.

Thus, as I said previously the Bible doesn’t have errors. Men has made some errors in translations. It doesn’t have any problems or errors “ALL SCRIPTURE (caps for emphasis) is given by inspiration of God.” See, it is not possible to have any problems, contradictions, or errors whatsoever. That’s all in the doctrines of men. Their own doctrine (whichever Bible version they use for it) needs reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness… All Scripture is given by God’s inspiration to do all of that! Christianity has been true in their own doctrine they follow. And Christianity will literally be all right after all that is done. Then as Scripture says the Lord Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom.

Here is the problem. A student of Paul was writing to Timothy in that example. And it only mentions a vague "scripture". It would be incredibly arrogant of the author to assume that he was inspired by God and even "inspired by God" in no way guarantees that there are no errors. It could have errors and still fulfill that verse, which of course would not be scripture itself.

That also means that the Gospels are not "scripture" since that was written before the gospels were written. You are making an unjustified assumption that the whole Bible is "scripture". How would you prove that? Do the errors in Luke and Matthew in regards to the nativity myths mean that they cannot be "inspired by God"?

 

[Ebionite]

Peter was referenced as the "worthless shepherd" (Ze 11:17).

Peter didn't eat the flesh of the fat.

For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, [which] shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Zechariah 11:16


The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1 Corinthians 12:27

 

[Ebionite]

There is at least two possible causes of death for Judas. First is that he died by hanging and the second is that he died when he fell. The two scriptures that tell about the end of Judas don't say Judas died by hanging, nor that he died because he fell. It is possible that he hanged himself, the rope failed and he fell before he was dead and was killed because of the fall. And it is possible that he was already dead when he fall, because of the hanging. All we can know from the scriptures is that he was dead after the hanging and the fall, which both could have happened. So, no internal error in this case in the Bible.

He fell headlong. Do you propose that after the rope failed he managed to somersault so that he wasn't falling feet first?

The answer to this conundrum can be found in the relevant prophecy.

Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Matthew 26:31


And [one] shall say unto him, What [are] these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [Those] with which I was wounded [in] the house of my friends.
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith YHWH of armies: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Zechariah 13:6-7

The "man" in this verse is from גבר (warrior), which relates to the Sicarri (assasins), i.e. Iscariot.

 

[Dmartin2651]

Your book of Acts (15:7), supposedly written by Luke, a supposed associate of the false prophet Paul, states that Peter left the Jews ("leaves the flock") and went to the Gentiles. It is the heir of Peter, the Pope, who like the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17, doesn't feed, care or tend the sheep (Jews) (Zech 11:16), the same message given 3 times by Yeshua to Peter (John 21:15-16), as Yeshua had said Peter would deny him 3 times. Zechariah 11 was with regards to 3 shepherds (Zech 11:8), not one shepherd. All three were to be "annihilated" in one month (one generation). Two of the shepherds were to "pasture the flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter", those shepherds being Peter and Paul. Peter, Paul, and Judas died within the span of 1 generation. The specific description of Peter's role is found in Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas Peter made his dwelling within a rock, such as Petras meaning "pebble" (small rock), and that those following his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which is the "day of the LORD". The pope is the Pontifex Maximus, the office taken from the heir of Julius Caesar, Constantine, the establisher of the false dogma of the Trinity, and the keeping of the day of the sun as their day of rest, per his decree of 321 A.D., which is followed by most "Christians". Constantine being the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the "Christians" would bear the mark of the beast and are looking at a bad end (Rev 19:20). Acts 15:7 isn’t written Peter left the Jews/flock and went to the Gentiles. Thus, that’s not what it states-means. Paul’s the apostle to the gentiles and Peter is to the Jews. They both went to the other at times. It’s not like they were doing wrong or didn’t know what they were doing.

Your book of Acts (15:7), supposedly written by Luke, a supposed associate of the false prophet Paul, states that Peter left the Jews ("leaves the flock") and went to the Gentiles. It is the heir of Peter, the Pope, who like the "worthless shepherd" of Zech 11:17, doesn't feed, care or tend the sheep (Jews) (Zech 11:16), the same message given 3 times by Yeshua to Peter (John 21:15-16), as Yeshua had said Peter would deny him 3 times. Zechariah 11 was with regards to 3 shepherds (Zech 11:8), not one shepherd. All three were to be "annihilated" in one month (one generation). Two of the shepherds were to "pasture the flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter", those shepherds being Peter and Paul. Peter, Paul, and Judas died within the span of 1 generation. The specific description of Peter's role is found in Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas Peter made his dwelling within a rock, such as Petras meaning "pebble" (small rock), and that those following his heir, the pope, would be "cut off" in "that day", which is the "day of the LORD". The pope is the Pontifex Maximus, the office taken from the heir of Julius Caesar, Constantine, the establisher of the false dogma of the Trinity, and the keeping of the day of the sun as their day of rest, per his decree of 321 A.D., which is followed by most "Christians". Constantine being the "beast with two horns like a lamb", the "Christians" would bear the mark of the beast and are looking at a bad end (Rev 19:20).

Acts 15:7 isn’t written Peter left the Jews/flock, thus, it doesn’t state that. Paul’s the apostle to the gentiles and Peter’s the apostle to the Jews. They both went to the other at times. It’s not that they did wrong in that or didn’t know what they were doing. They weren’t false prophets that isn’t written. And it’s not written Christians will be with the beast in the end. Are you against some biblical witnesses of Jesus? Are you against The Bible? Are you against Jesus, His Father, or the Spirit? Sorry I ask if you are a believer, but if you are not I take it this forum allows that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Seeming errors & contradictions arise when when certain passages are misunderstood, compounded by errors found within translations, which are usually due to a translator’s biases…

But according to Luke 10:21, a person must have Jesus’ Father’s approval, to have any chance to accurately understand it.

Unfortunately, most aren’t taught about the Father, ie., Yahweh / Jehovah; rather, Jesus is given more emphasis.

Hence, all the confusing teachings. And outright lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seeming errors & contradictions arise when when certain passages are misunderstood, compounded by errors found within translations, which are usually due to a translator’s biases…

But according to Luke 10:21, a person must have Jesus’ Father’s approval, to have any chance to accurately understand it.

Unfortunately, most aren’t taught about the Father, ie., Yahweh / Jehovah; rather, Jesus is given more emphasis.

Hence, all the confusing teachings. And outright lies.

Defensive verses should not be needed if the Bible is accurate.

And now I am doubting that by your standards that you are a Christian. After all I am betting that you cannot explain the ten year difference between the year that Jesus was born between Luke and Matthew.

 

[Dmartin2651]

But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Matthew 26:60-61

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:19

There’s no error there read the whole context (John 2 further, Mark 14:55-62). The two false witnesses say that Jesus said-I am able to destroy the temple of God. Jesus said to those who were at this temple-destroy this temple. The two false witnesses said wrong what he said. Mark 14:59, “But not even then did their testimony agree.”

 

[Ebionite]

There’s no error there read the whole context (John 2 further, Mark 14:55-62).

What do you think is in the context which resolves the contradiction?

The two false witnesses say that Jesus said-I am able to destroy the temple of God.

Yes.

Jesus said to those who were at this temple-destroy this temple.

You left out the part about the three days, which is common with the account from the false witnesses.

The two false witnesses said wrong what he said. Mark 14:59, “But not even then did their testimony agree.”

That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that in all cases where the gospel of John contradicts the synoptics, the gospel of John favours the Pharisees (in this case leaving out the connection between the Pharisees and the false witnesses.

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

 

[Ebionite]

Seeming errors & contradictions arise when when certain passages are misunderstood, compounded by errors found within translations, which are usually due to a translator’s biases…

Contradictions like the two fates of Judas can lead to insight about events which are not explicit in the gospels. Another example is the contradictions in the accounts of the events involving Paul on the road to Damascus.

 

[flowerpower]

People make the mistake of ragging on sacred religious texts because they were written so long before the enlightenment period and the modern scientific method. It's not an educational text book - it was never intended to be.

The Bible surprisingly contains a lot of historical facts (I was as shocked as the next person when I realized this) but it wasn't really intended to be a historical text that espouses any kind of empirical truth - it's intended to be a series of allegories, metaphors and poetry that gives rise to spiritual meaning and an instrument for people to experience a form of transcendence that some people can't get from anywhere else. It's a breath of the ineffable.

The sense of community and connection organized religions provide people help consolidate the above too.

Some people find meaning in movies, books and music they enjoy too - just as good as what the Bible, Quran or whatever offers IMO.

 

[stvdv]

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Christianity can't be true, that's obvious (to me)
Why? There are 4000+ denominations I think
Only if all 4000+ are true, Christianity is true
And that is impossible, right?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Which “Christianity”? There’s about 30,000 different kinds.


And each one has a different view of what the Bible teaches…. and have even twisted the wording of some translations to suit their biases.

Christianity, which started out as Jesus said: that ”true worshippers will worship the Father” (John 4:23; see 1 Corinthians 8:5,6), got hijacked & corrupted early on.

It wasn’t too long after the apostles died, when Christendom’s leaders established a paid clergy, ignoring Jesus’ command of “You received free, give free.”
They became “savage wolves …. from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” When would this happen? Paul said, “after I leave.” (Acts 20:29,30)

Not centuries later.


And early on, Christendom’s leaders even began encouraging their members to join in the world’s wars, both sides killing their Christian brothers. In direct violation of Christ’s own command to “love one another”! (John 15:17; John 13:34,35) Jesus stated, “You are my friends , if you do what I command.” (John 15:14)

No one seems to think this is a big issue! At Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus prophesied there would be “many” calling him “Lord, Lord”, but he would say, “Get away from me, you evildoers!”