Why is it *necessary* to believe (as a Christian) that the Bible has no errors?

[Kilgore Trout]

In various senses and contexts, we seem to have reached an exaggerated idea of things being black and white. This, necessarily, leads to people having an unrealistic view of things being correct or incorrect with no room for context. This leads to untenable positions that have to be defended in violently reactive ways.

 

[Kirran]

I can't. I just chose to believe it without imposing it on others

Besides, having it there is better than never having it at all. Also, when was the last time the Quran was changed/altered can we pen point? How many version do we have now? But that's a different subject and we should not hello-jack or spam this thread.



Oh well, a Muslim or two is nothing compared to the rest 1.6 billion to take their word as credible

These are views, not public opinion absolute facts. I fully respect anyone's choice in believing them as I'd love it for myself too

Yeah, absolutely, just perspectives. Don't think we can definitively say who is right and wrong here And it's true, the Qur'an has been preserved with a very high level of accuracy, near 100%, since it was first written down. It's the period before that which I think is interesting!

When you say 'having it there is better than never having it at all' do you mean the Qur'an as a whole, or that particular verse of the Qur'an saying the Qur'an's infallible?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yeah, absolutely, just perspectives. Don't think we can definitively say who is right and wrong here And it's true, the Qur'an has been preserved with a very high level of accuracy, near 100%, since it was first written down. It's the period before that which I think is interesting!

When you say 'having it there is better than never having it at all' do you mean the Qur'an as a whole, or that particular verse of the Qur'an saying the Qur'an's infallible?

I meant the verse, as it is what's related to the thread, you know.

Just a friendly reminder: I love you, man

 

[Kirran]

I meant the verse, as it is what's related to the thread, you know.

Just a friendly reminder: I love you, man

OK, cool, just to clarify

Aww, you. Mutual feeling, man.

Sorry for all the religious questioning!

 

[Smart_Guy]

OK, cool, just to clarify

Aww, you. Mutual feeling, man.

Sorry for all the religious questioning!

No problem bro, you know I don't mind discussing it (as long as it is in the right thread)
(My moderation personality is showing )

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting! Can you expand on this a bit more? (the bold part)

I'd be happy to... briefly, though. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We just simply recognize it for what it is, and stop worshipping it instead of its author.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just as a response to the actual question posed in the title of your thread, I don't think all Christians believe in Bible infallibility. I know that we Mormons don't. On the other hand, that fact alone is enough to make Bible inerrantists declare that Mormons aren't "real Christians." If people who are convinced that the Bible is 100% accurate and complete had any idea whatsoever how it has evolved over the years, it would make their heads spin.

How much error do you think is in the Bible?

 

[Katzpur]

How much error do you think is in the Bible?

I think that what we actually have in the Bible is reasonably accurate. I know that we Mormons rely very heavily on it. Sure, there are errors in it, but the messages it conveys are valuable. I'd say it would be a more accurate statement to say that it's "incomplete" as opposed to "inaccurate." It simply doesn't contain everything God wants us to know. And that's not because He never told us everything, but because human beings were the ones responsible for preserving, compiling, transcribing and translating His word, and we're simply not perfect.

 

[Deidre]

I'd be happy to... briefly, though. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Other books that are mentioned by name in today's Bibles cannot be found there at all. One example is Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans. Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. What reason is there to believe it was so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon? Or maybe it was just lost.

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me. Of course, this doesn't mean that we should toss the Bible out in its entirety. We just simply recognize it for what it is, and stop worshipping it instead of its author.

Thank you for this! Yes, I can't help but wonder if there were valuable epistles omitted and why? If that was part of the full story so to speak, why omit them? Truthfully, if you feel that the Holy Spirit has touched you, then Jesus is real to you. In a way that reading mere stories about Him, will ever give to a reader. It is good to read the Bible, as there are valuable insights and moral truths to gain, but I don't believe Genesis for example, is literal, but I can see the point of the story just the same. Before leaving Christianity, I had only the Bible and the Catholic Church to guide me, and now...the Holy Spirit guides me. Call it an awakening of sorts, but at the end of the day, that is where one's faith walk should lead...to an experience of faith, and not a mere deciphering of what others thought the faith was to mean.

 

[Deidre]

In various senses and contexts, we seem to have reached an exaggerated idea of things being black and white. This, necessarily, leads to people having an unrealistic view of things being correct or incorrect with no room for context. This leads to untenable positions that have to be defended in violently reactive ways.

THIS post is excellent, and think you are right.

 

[Deidre]

Hello dear Deidre

errors mean default , is suppose God message to human had default , or not ?

Hello
As in, humans left out or omitted things or perhaps the Word of God was slightly altered by human hands. That was where I was heading with the intent of the thread. Everyone's insight has been helpful!

 

[Logikal]

if the Bible says Darius was the Philistine King in a certain time and multiple historic sources shows that Xerxes was the King at that same time the bible is likely wrong. I do not see this small infraction taking away anything from the Bible. Even if a word was spelled wrong it would not be relevant to the message. Haters will look for any excuse not to believe. Sort of like a racist cop fishing for a reason to pull a black male driver over. When you look hard enough for fault you will find it; or if fish long enough something will bite. This is evil intent and not accidental. Fishing for ANYTHING just to complain about it is intellectually dishonest . The error has to be relevant to the topic for a rational person to throw away the Bible; often in Islam they do this tactic because of some silly error that has nothing to do with the message they believe it is okay to throw out everything in the Bible. They will waste a ton of apples if they find one rotten apple among the ton of apples.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd rather look at the reactive way Christians react in regards to error or infallibility of the Holy Bible. Manly gauging and examining exactly why if a writing has no errors, is concise and accurate, leads to so much all around confusion and misinterpretions as to what it exactly means and says. Beliefs change accordingly with works, which of course is expected and natural. In a static religion like Christianity, that clearly creates a conundrum in face of what the writings potray and the actuality of Christianity today.

It would take a considerable amount of error to disperse adherents in the countless directions that it does.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors.

What do you think?

There are plenty of them. The only thing that matters is how much it matters to you. To believe that an anthology is error-free is tantamount to idolatry, IMHO.

Want to guess how much difference there is? Virtually none. The differences are mainly issues of spelling that don't change the meaning of the text.

This is just for starters, many with theological implications.

We have fragments of most new testament books from the 2nd century, within about 100 years of Christ, which attest to the accuracy of what we have today.

With modern wordprocessing and text dissemination, we can ensure millions of copies are "accurate" and the texts can still be complete fiction. Accurate copies do not the Truth make.

Furthermore, for hundreds of years Christianity was a persecuted minority that had no power to alter scripture and force those changes on other Christian communities.

You don't need political power, only a monopoly of the texts. You only think it's a miracle that the texts are similar-ish because they did a good job of banning "heretical" texts.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). There is no variation of him or shadow cast in turning (James 1:17).

An amusing thought. Why do we need an NT if the OT will do and cannot change?

He is not a man that he should lie (Numbers 23:19).

Christianity is predicated on the "fact" Jesus is God Incarnate, right?

What God speaks or reveals to you directly by the Holy Spirit today will never contradict something He has already revealed or said in the past.

"I will kill you if you try to be like Me." -- God

"Totally be like God or you suck." -- Jesus

He will not give you a vision of a future that contradicts the plan he has already revealed.

"I will kill you today for eating fruit." -- God

"You ate the fruit? Here's nearly a millennium of life for you." -- God

Some said in the 19th century that Israel had to be a nation again at some point because God's word said it would be before the end times. They were thought of as crazy for taking this literally. Until almost a century later it happened.

It's amazing what happens when people try to fulfill prophecies by acting like they are instructions.

"The scriptures say I need a donkey. If I rode a cart, that'd just be silly." -- Jesus

Without that biblical grounding on what truth is, it's easy for people to be led into deception - 2 Corinthians 11:14 , Galatians 1:8 , 1 Timothy 4:1

Do you find any difference between Paul and God?

Jesus said that His sheep know His voice and follow Him. This is true, however, if someone has spent their life following their own lusts or demonic voices, they need to learn to recognize the voice of Jesus leading them.

Difficult since Jesus didn't write the bible but other people, many with self-serving interests, wrote it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors.

What do you think?

It's fun to pretend like you're superior.

 

[Rise]

This is just for starters, many with theological implications.

That link has nothing to do with my statement about the preservation of the text of Isaiah as proven from the dead sea scrolls.

You don't need political power, only a monopoly of the texts. You only think it's a miracle that the texts are similar-ish because they did a good job of banning "heretical" texts.

You completely missed the point I was making.

For several hundred years Christians were a persecuted minority with absolutely no power to force anything on anyone. At times they could be killed just for possessing a new testament.

What you're accusing them of doing was not even possible for them to achieve. There was no centralized system of leadership and textual control, and they had no power to force anything over the entire empire.
Yet despite that, we see the text preserved independantly across the Roman empire prior to the 4th century.

You may not be aware that there were actually many heretical groups in the 2nd century. We have writings of Christians engaging in debate with these groups, where their only weapon is setting strait lies with truth. There would have been no need for them to engage in this kind of exchange if they had the power to just erase opposing viewpoints and force their view on anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ.

An amusing thought. Why do we need an NT if the OT will do and cannot change?

You misunderstand my comment.
God's character and nature doesn't change. His truth never changes.
The truth about God in the OT has not stopped being true. We see the fullest expression of that truth in Jesus. As Jesus said "I have not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it". It is Jesus the prophets spoke about. Luke 24:27

Christianity is predicated on the "fact" Jesus is God Incarnate, right?

What point do you think you are making?

"I will kill you if you try to be like Me." -- God

"Totally be like God or you suck." -- Jesus

Try quoting actual scripture and see if there's still a contradiction.

"I will kill you today for eating fruit." -- God

"You ate the fruit? Here's nearly a millennium of life for you." -- God

God did not say he would kill them. He said they would die, and they did.

It's amazing what happens when people try to fulfill prophecies by acting like they are instructions.

"The scriptures say I need a donkey. If I rode a cart, that'd just be silly." -- Jesus

The NT is full of prophetic fulfillments of the OT that could not even begin to be fulfilled by a mere man operating under their own power.

Regardless; Suggesting that the Jewish people had the ability to fulfill the recreation, return from exile, perservation, and prosperity of Israel - all according to Bible prophecy - under only their own power would require great ignorance of the circumstances involved.

So absurd was the idea of this happening in the 19th century, and for over a thousand years before that, that theologians felt they were forced to allegorize the prophetic promises rather than take them literal.

Do you find any difference between Paul and God?

Do you know what the definition of a prophet is?

Difficult since Jesus didn't write the bible but other people, many with self-serving interests, wrote it.

What basis, if you have any, do you use for your accusation that the writers of the NT had self-serving motives behind their writings?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thank you for this! Yes, I can't help but wonder if there were valuable epistles omitted and why? If that was part of the full story so to speak, why omit them? Truthfully, if you feel that the Holy Spirit has touched you, then Jesus is real to you. In a way that reading mere stories about Him, will ever give to a reader. It is good to read the Bible, as there are valuable insights and moral truths to gain, but I don't believe Genesis for example, is literal, but I can see the point of the story just the same. Before leaving Christianity, I had only the Bible and the Catholic Church to guide me, and now...the Holy Spirit guides me. Call it an awakening of sorts, but at the end of the day, that is where one's faith walk should lead...to an experience of faith, and not a mere deciphering of what others thought the faith was to mean.

It is perhaps not quite the right way of thinking about the Holy spirit as only coming to you recently.
The Holy Spirit is with every one all the time, guiding, strengthening and comforting. Many people never recognise this. But he is there...Nor is he only with Christians, though many of other faiths might not believe the truth of it.
What you have found is the connection that was waiting for you all this time.
Neither God, the Holy Spirit nor Jesus force themselves on to you. The decision is always yours.

What people recieve from the Bible is also down to themselves, how we interpret it's message in our lives, is nothing to do with a literal set of instuctions. Or a compilation of things we must believe. The Bible is more a living moral and spiritual resource. It can be interpreted in the context of our own lives, or as an Ideal to strive for. It is sufficient as a guide to Jesus teachings and to a Christian life.
Those writings that are in some versions of the Bible and not in others, those that have been lost or deliberately not chosen some time back in history. And some writings written even today, can contain equally valid teaching.
God through the Holy spirit has never stopped speaking to us, it is down to us to listen.
It has been said that we should read mark learn and inwardly digest... it is with the inwardly digesting bit, where the Holy spirit guides us.

 

[Desert Snake]

if the Bible says Darius was the Philistine King in a certain time and multiple historic sources shows that Xerxes was the King at that same time the bible is likely wrong. I do not see this small infraction taking away anything from the Bible. Even if a word was spelled wrong it would not be relevant to the message. Haters will look for any excuse not to believe. Sort of like a racist cop fishing for a reason to pull a black male driver over. When you look hard enough for fault you will find it; or if fish long enough something will bite. This is evil intent and not accidental. Fishing for ANYTHING just to complain about it is intellectually dishonest . The error has to be relevant to the topic for a rational person to throw away the Bible; often in Islam they do this tactic because of some silly error that has nothing to do with the message they believe it is okay to throw out everything in the Bible. They will waste a ton of apples if they find one rotten apple among the ton of apples.

Perhaps create a thread about this,you merely stating that there is some inaccuracy in the text, that's great, but I'm not convinced of it, just from that.

 

[Hawkins]

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors.

What do you think?

It's a matter of perspective. In a court if a witness cannot be accurate to milliseconds when he mentioned about time. Is that an error?

In terms of witnessing, as long as the witness honestly said what he saw, it may not be considered an error at all.

 

[Logikal]

Perhaps create a thread about this,you merely stating that there is some inaccuracy in the text, that's great, but I'm not convinced of it, just from that.

The claim is either true or false regardless of what you think. It is sort of odd to speak about your emotions or beliefs about an objective claim. That is sort of changing the context.