Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[Special Revelation]

But we have to trust the Bible for what it is, not for what we wish it to be. With that in mind, our faith can lead us to accept the things that different people had to say from different perspectives as inspired. We can glean truth without picking the fly crap out of the pepper.

I guess you have to expound what you believe the Bible to be, or "what it is". How did you come to these conclusions, by trusting in your own understanding?

 

[kmkemp]

That is of no consequence if they longer exist.

Assuming omnipotence, why would the 'protection from error' end with the originals? That is, why wouldn't the same power that supposedly allowed Moses and the gang to get it perfectly right work on the translators too? Not extending the same protection has only downside risk and no advantage whatsoever.

I like A_E's analogy calling it a human blog.

Translations are not imperfect because they contain errors (maybe errors in judgment), they are imperfect because of language barriers.

 

[Wandered Off]

Translations are not imperfect because they contain errors (maybe errors in judgment), they are imperfect because of language barriers.

Perfection and omnipotence presumably include the ability to speak any language and inspire translators past barriers, no? Why not?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Translations are not imperfect because they contain errors (maybe errors in judgment), they are imperfect because of language barriers.

Just so you know I have posted my religious background especially for you in the introductions forum in my thread - laws28186 reincarnated! Go have a read and then come back and accuse me of being narrowminded.

 

[kmkemp]

Hmmm... Do you know my religious background then... please do tell me about it?

I do not know your background. I was hoping to not offend you, but I clearly mis-stepped somewhere. You said in an earlier post that you did not know the criteria used by the Council to choose the books that would be included. By that knowledge, I was saying that you didn't know how the Bible came to be but yet you seem to have strong convictions that it was put together wrongly. That seems unfair to me.

 

[kmkemp]

Perfection and omnipotence presumably include the ability to speak any language and inspire translators past barriers, no? Why not?

Ummm no. The language barriers are a simple concept. We have one word in English that might have multiple words in the original language (Hebrew, Greek, etc.). When we translate those words, we are using an imperfect word to try and adequately explain a concept. It is impossible to do so.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I do not know your background. I was hoping to not offend you, but I clearly mis-stepped somewhere. You said in an earlier post that you did not know the criteria used by the Council to choose the books that would be included. By that knowledge, I was saying that you didn't know how the Bible came to be but yet you seem to have strong convictions that it was put together wrongly. That seems unfair to me.

I didnt say it was put together wrongly - I said certain gospels were left out - which you admit is correct. I briefly watched a programme on it, but wasnt paying full attention. One was about a female who had written a gospl also!

I think you assume too much!

 

[kmkemp]

I didnt say it was put together wrongly - I said certain gospels were left out - which you admit is correct. I briefly watched a programme on it, but wasnt paying full attention. One was about a female who had written a gospl also!

I think you assume too much!

A brief programme from one side does not qualify you to decide if the scriptures should or should not have been left out, I'm afraid.

 

[Quagmire]

I guess you have to expound what you believe the Bible to be, or "what it is". How did you come to these conclusions, by trusting in your own understanding?

By the same token I was wonderring how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrent?

I know the standard answer is "faith" but faith in what? what I mean is; who or what lead you to believe that the Bible is in fact the word of God?

 

[Wandered Off]

It is impossible to do so.

It seems an odd combination to deny omnipotence while claiming the original Bible is perfect.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

A brief programme from one side does not qualify you to decide if the scriptures should or should not have been left out, I'm afraid.

Your missing the point! Its not a question of whether they should have been left out or not - its a question of it sort of defeats the argument that the bible was written by God as you say and is therefore infalliable. It was written by men and it was men (the council as you put it) who chose which books to put in. Surely if the word of god is perfect and god wrote the bible - there was no need to decide which ones to put in?

 

[sojourner]

I have to be honest my friend; I have struggled with much of your postings on theological positions. It appears that you have a low view of Scripture. How do you determine if something is true or false? It appears some of your postings are very humanistic, or at least I have interpreted them to be. Do you believe in a literal account of the Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind? Do you consider yourself a liberal Christian? How much of the historical Christian faith do you embrace and reject?

A low view of scripture??? Absolutely not! I respect for what it is, and don't make vain attempts to twist it into something it is not, nor was meant to be.

I absolutely do not think that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve and the "fall" is literalistic. It's allegory that presents a theological POV with regard to the relationship of humanity to God. To think otherwise is to treat the story as something it is not, and to risk missing its theological point.

I consider myself to be a liberally leaning middle-of-the-roader.

I haven't taken the time to consider what proportion of the "historical Faith" I either accept or reject.

In what way do any of my positions on these issues either establish or refute my credibility?

 

[Bishka]

Official LDS Doctrine on this subject is Article of Faith #8 : "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

 

[Quagmire]

Your missing the point! Its not a question of whether they should have been left out or not - its a question of it sort of defeats the argument that the bible was written by God as you say and is therefore infalliable. It was written by men and it was men (the council as you put it) who chose which books to put in. Surely if the word of god is perfect and god wrote the bible - there was no need to decide which ones to put in?

Kmkemp is using a rather subtle form of ad hominum on you right now Dream Angel---speculating on your motives, your background, disqualifying your quailifications to make ascertions you haven't actually made---it's just a way of getting you off balance so he wont have to deal with your questions head on.

Don't fall for it.

Rather ask; why would someone feel they needed to resort to these tactics?

Special Rev is doing the same thing to Sojourner. It's a pretty standard ploy and it usually works.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Official LDS Doctrine on this subject is Article of Faith #8 : "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Hey Becky! So would you say that the bible was infaliable or prone to some *differences*? personally I think there is difference between saying the bible is the word of God - inspired by God and was actually written by God? What do you think?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Kmkemp is using a rather subtle form of ad hominum on you right now Dream Angel---speculating on your motives, your background, disqualifying your quailifications to make ascertions you haven't actually made---it's just a way of getting you off balance so he wont have to deal with your questions head on.

Don't fall for it.

Rather ask; why would someone feel they needed to resort to these tactics?

Special Rev is doing the same thing to Sojourner. It's a pretty standard ploy and it usually works.

Haha! except i like a good heated debate - so hes getting into rather deep water - ill be ok, im a lifeguard - hope he can swim though!

It does make me smile though, he is saying that I have been brainwashed into believing something, when I have had no religious instructions! Yet here he is, all of his life he has been a christian is parents would have taught him these points and he think he is arguing after having both points of view...:sarcastic

 

[Quagmire]

Haha! except i like a good heated debate - so hes getting into rather deep water - ill be ok, im a lifeguard - hope he can swim though!

It does make me smile though, he is saying that I have been brainwashed into believing something, when I have had no religious instructions! Yet here he is, all of his life he has been a christian is parents would have taught him these points and he think he is arguing after having both points of view...:sarcastic

LOL! Yeah. If you talk to sola-scripturalists long enough you'll usually find that what they call "faith" is really just a nostolgic attactment to something they've been taught since childhood, or a tribal attachment to some core element of their current support groups creed.

Since these things can't be defended logically outside of their own social sphere, they have to go on the attack.

 

[kmkemp]

LOL! Yeah. If you talk to sola-scripturalists long enough you'll usually find that what they call "faith" is really just a nostolgic attactment to something they've been taught since childhood, or a tribal attachment to some core element of their current support groups creed.

Since these things can't be defended logically outside of their own social sphere, they have to go on the attack.

Ironic that you are supposing that you know my background when you just said I was doing the same thing, don't ya think?

I have been a Christian for little more than a year, however I have been exposed to a Christian setting for my entire life. I grew up thinking I was a Christian without ever actually reading the Bible (well, at least not seriously). These are the lies I was fed. I went to college away from home and no longer had these influences. I stopped all belief in a God. I lived like this for several years. By God's grace, I have given my life to him. That was January 4, 2006. Praise God. ~

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A low view of scripture??? Absolutely not! I respect for what it is, and don't make vain attempts to twist it into something it is not, nor was meant to be.

I absolutely do not think that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve and the "fall" is literalistic. It's allegory that presents a theological POV with regard to the relationship of humanity to God. To think otherwise is to treat the story as something it is not, and to risk missing its theological point.

I consider myself to be a liberally leaning middle-of-the-roader.

I haven't taken the time to consider what proportion of the "historical Faith" I either accept or reject.

In what way do any of my positions on these issues either establish or refute my credibility?

Everyone to the right of you is a fundie wacko. :cover:

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's not that, if there are mistakes, that the whole thing is wrong. It's that there is no way to know which parts are wrong.

Like many who claim the all or nothing approach, you leave no room for the Spirit to work in our lives. You can't begin to understand ANYTHING about the Scriptures apart from the Spirit.