Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.
1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.
2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!
3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.
The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.
Biblical Inerrancy
Moderator: Moderators
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
Biblical Inerrancy
Post #1I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #11[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]
Q: Do we have any of the original writings?
A: No. They have long been lost or destroyed.
Q: Can we compare the oldest copies of what we do have to the original writings?
A: No, because the originals no longer exist.
Q: Then what is the point of saying the Bible is inerrant?
A: So that people don't question it, even when it is clearly wrong.
Q: How can the Bible be wrong? I was told it is the Word of God!
A: Because it was written by humans, and we make mistakes all the time. They were interpreting the Word of God that they received by some form of divine revelation (dreams, hallucinations, etc.). God never sat down and wrote anything in the Bible.
Q: Oh, so the Bible contains human errors?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how do we know what is right and what is wrong?
A: We don't. That's why there are so many different denominations and opinions.
Q: So which Church or denomination is the "one true Church" in this day and age?
A: None of them. Some may make the claim, but those are only the words of humans.
Q: Do we have any of the original writings?
A: No. They have long been lost or destroyed.
Q: Can we compare the oldest copies of what we do have to the original writings?
A: No, because the originals no longer exist.
Q: Then what is the point of saying the Bible is inerrant?
A: So that people don't question it, even when it is clearly wrong.
Q: How can the Bible be wrong? I was told it is the Word of God!
A: Because it was written by humans, and we make mistakes all the time. They were interpreting the Word of God that they received by some form of divine revelation (dreams, hallucinations, etc.). God never sat down and wrote anything in the Bible.
Q: Oh, so the Bible contains human errors?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how do we know what is right and what is wrong?
A: We don't. That's why there are so many different denominations and opinions.
Q: So which Church or denomination is the "one true Church" in this day and age?
A: None of them. Some may make the claim, but those are only the words of humans.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
Post #12
People get so caught up in biblical inerrancy that it dulls their senses and prevents them from thinking logically. Some people go as far as to say the Bible is 100% factual and truthful, and can't possibly be viewed any other way. The universe was created in 6 literal days, the Earth is the center of creation, Noah's flood really happened, etc. Obviously, they are at odds with modern science, but some refuse to accept the truth.
Others, that are more open minded, look for ways to make the Bible fit with modern scientific and medical understanding. While this is a better approach, they still run into problems. The Bible suddenly becomes metaphorical or allegorical, and you have to read between the lines to understand what is being said. This then makes each and very verse subject to opinion and interpretation.
There is a much easier method to understanding the Bible and why it says what it does. The biblical authors that wrote the various scrolls that would later become the Bible, did not know any better. They did not have telescopes or microscopes, they were not scientists or doctors, and they did not understand the world around them.
Does that mean the Bible is wrong? It means that the humans that wrote the Bible were wrong due to ignorance. That does not change the fact that a moral code can be taken from the Bible and applied in a modern world. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.
Quit idolizing the Bible and focus on God instead.
Others, that are more open minded, look for ways to make the Bible fit with modern scientific and medical understanding. While this is a better approach, they still run into problems. The Bible suddenly becomes metaphorical or allegorical, and you have to read between the lines to understand what is being said. This then makes each and very verse subject to opinion and interpretation.
There is a much easier method to understanding the Bible and why it says what it does. The biblical authors that wrote the various scrolls that would later become the Bible, did not know any better. They did not have telescopes or microscopes, they were not scientists or doctors, and they did not understand the world around them.
Does that mean the Bible is wrong? It means that the humans that wrote the Bible were wrong due to ignorance. That does not change the fact that a moral code can be taken from the Bible and applied in a modern world. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.
Quit idolizing the Bible and focus on God instead.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
Post #13
[Replying to post 12 by American Deist]
[center]Christian Idol [/center]
When someone tells me that what they believe is perfect in every way.. I think to myself "delusional", and "Can't reason with this".
Can't reason with someone like that.
In here.. all we can do is to POINT OUT THEIR MANY MISTAKES.
Let the readers decide.
She could not accept the denialism going on with YEC... but a clever apologist explained to her how "evolutionary creationism" could rescue her faith.
It's sorta like the RC view.. Evolution works.. but CREATION is from God.
I explained to her that she might have been skeptical of her YEC.. and went further with her knowledge of science, but that she had STOPPED her skepticism at that point, and that she was NO LONGER a skeptic.
I also told her to watch out..because skepticism, if well applied is disastrous to religious beliefs. Only denialism can rescue the faith. She left.... I never heard from her again. I think my warnings were too powerful..... lol.
We shouldn't blame these ancient thinkers.
In fact, I think they should be heartily applauded for their work.
They might have just done their best.
The God Hypothesis was best kind of "science" back then.
To those who say that the Bible isn't a science textbook.. I say : "Think again".
It's historic science... Like books on geocentrism.
As POETRY.. well.. poetry never goes out of date.
It's not wrong, it's not right.. poetry is supposed to be ART, and simply APPRECIATED.
I am forming some theories lately.
1. Bible = Poetry
2. Bible = Ancient science
What's that?
Something in the Bible?
Meh.. that's an ancient scientific hypothesis expressed quite poetically.
[center]
The God IS an idol !![/center]
[center]Christian Idol [/center]
I agree.American Deist wrote:
People get so caught up in biblical inerrancy that it dulls their senses and prevents them from thinking logically.
When someone tells me that what they believe is perfect in every way.. I think to myself "delusional", and "Can't reason with this".
Oh, they could say ( as many do ) that they HAVE the absolute truth in their pocket.American Deist wrote:
Obviously, they are at odds with modern science, but some refuse to accept the truth.
Can't reason with someone like that.
In here.. all we can do is to POINT OUT THEIR MANY MISTAKES.
Let the readers decide.
I recently had a conversation with someone who went from YEC to what she described as "evolutionary creationism".American Deist wrote:
Others, that are more open minded, look for ways to make the Bible fit with modern scientific and medical understanding. While this is a better approach, they still run into problems. The Bible suddenly becomes metaphorical or allegorical, and you have to read between the lines to understand what is being said. This then makes each and very verse subject to opinion and interpretation.
She could not accept the denialism going on with YEC... but a clever apologist explained to her how "evolutionary creationism" could rescue her faith.
It's sorta like the RC view.. Evolution works.. but CREATION is from God.
I explained to her that she might have been skeptical of her YEC.. and went further with her knowledge of science, but that she had STOPPED her skepticism at that point, and that she was NO LONGER a skeptic.
I also told her to watch out..because skepticism, if well applied is disastrous to religious beliefs. Only denialism can rescue the faith. She left.... I never heard from her again. I think my warnings were too powerful..... lol.
I can't agree more.American Deist wrote:
There is a much easier method to understanding the Bible and why it says what it does. The biblical authors that wrote the various scrolls that would later become the Bible, did not know any better. They did not have telescopes or microscopes, they were not scientists or doctors, and they did not understand the world around them.
We shouldn't blame these ancient thinkers.
In fact, I think they should be heartily applauded for their work.
They might have just done their best.
The God Hypothesis was best kind of "science" back then.
To those who say that the Bible isn't a science textbook.. I say : "Think again".
As a science textbook.. it's outdated.
It's historic science... Like books on geocentrism.
As POETRY.. well.. poetry never goes out of date.
It's not wrong, it's not right.. poetry is supposed to be ART, and simply APPRECIATED.
I am forming some theories lately.
1. Bible = Poetry
2. Bible = Ancient science
God?American Deist wrote:
It means that the humans that wrote the Bible were wrong due to ignorance. That does not change the fact that a moral code can be taken from the Bible and applied in a modern world. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.
Quit idolizing the Bible and focus on God instead.
What's that?
Something in the Bible?
Meh.. that's an ancient scientific hypothesis expressed quite poetically.
[center]
The God IS an idol !![/center]
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #14[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]
If the Society holds that all translations are valid and acceptable, why the NWT? Why does it unduly insert "Lord Jehovah" 238 times in the NT, where it is never found in the Greek manuscripts? Whys does it insist on translating John 1:1 wrongfully as "a god"? Why does it insist on using "Jehovah," which is a major mistranslation?
As to "minor scribal errors" and these being caught by later copyists, how come the Hebrew text, for 2 Sam. 21:19, says that Elhanan killed Goliath? That sure seems like a big-time scribal error that nobody managed to catch.
As to biblical inerrancy, there are hundreds of major contradictions, all well documented in Scripture.
And how about the Apocrypha? Should be included or excluded from the Bible?
If the Society holds that all translations are valid and acceptable, why the NWT? Why does it unduly insert "Lord Jehovah" 238 times in the NT, where it is never found in the Greek manuscripts? Whys does it insist on translating John 1:1 wrongfully as "a god"? Why does it insist on using "Jehovah," which is a major mistranslation?
As to "minor scribal errors" and these being caught by later copyists, how come the Hebrew text, for 2 Sam. 21:19, says that Elhanan killed Goliath? That sure seems like a big-time scribal error that nobody managed to catch.
As to biblical inerrancy, there are hundreds of major contradictions, all well documented in Scripture.
And how about the Apocrypha? Should be included or excluded from the Bible?
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #15[Replying to post 11 by American Deist]
I am inclined to agree with you. See my Post 14.The numerous contradictions and inaccurate geophysics clearly show the Bible is not inerrant. Divinely inspired as it may be, it is still the product of a prescientific, semi-barbaric, racist-sexist society, and subject to the limitations imposed by that culture.
Also, the question remains as to what should be canon and what not. Should the Apocrypha be included? Who is right on this? Catholics and Anglicans, or the Protestants? If the latter, which Protestants? The KJV originally included the Apocrypha, so did Luther. What about Esther and James? Luther said we should throw Esther in the Danube and that James was a "straw epistle." What about "Paul and the Acts of Teekel"? For some early Christian groups, this was very esteemed, probably taken as gospel. Should we have included it? The DSS does not have Esther, plus 15 more psalms that what we have. Between the DSS and later, Masoretic versions, the Book of Samuel got way shorter, and Goliath got much taller. When you come right down to it, what's canon and what's not has always been at the arbitrary dictates of the powers that be.
I am inclined to agree with you. See my Post 14.The numerous contradictions and inaccurate geophysics clearly show the Bible is not inerrant. Divinely inspired as it may be, it is still the product of a prescientific, semi-barbaric, racist-sexist society, and subject to the limitations imposed by that culture.
Also, the question remains as to what should be canon and what not. Should the Apocrypha be included? Who is right on this? Catholics and Anglicans, or the Protestants? If the latter, which Protestants? The KJV originally included the Apocrypha, so did Luther. What about Esther and James? Luther said we should throw Esther in the Danube and that James was a "straw epistle." What about "Paul and the Acts of Teekel"? For some early Christian groups, this was very esteemed, probably taken as gospel. Should we have included it? The DSS does not have Esther, plus 15 more psalms that what we have. Between the DSS and later, Masoretic versions, the Book of Samuel got way shorter, and Goliath got much taller. When you come right down to it, what's canon and what's not has always been at the arbitrary dictates of the powers that be.
Post #16
[Replying to post 12 by American Deist]
Karl Barth once said that he was delighted in finding errors on every page, as this stopped any form of Bibleolatry, making he Bible a paper Pope.
Karl Barth once said that he was delighted in finding errors on every page, as this stopped any form of Bibleolatry, making he Bible a paper Pope.
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #18
The creative force that caused the big bang is known as quantum mechanics.American Deist wrote:Blastcat wrote: God?
What's that?
The creative force that caused the Big Bang.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Post #19
[Replying to post 17 by American Deist]
[center]
May the force be with you[/center]
I notice that you have a Star Wars avatar.
I've never debated a "pure" deist before.. oddly enough.
From what I know about Star Wars, the force, if we take the movie magic out of it, is very similar to how I understand Taoism's "the way".
But try as I might, I never get a DESCRIPTION of that "force". It seems purely speculative to me.
We can observe how gravity IS a force that permeates the universe, and so on.. these physical forces.. but I don't think that's what you mean, right?
____________
Question:
[center]
May the force be with you[/center]
Blastcat wrote: God?
What's that?
I don't want to appear obtuse, but what IS that force?
I notice that you have a Star Wars avatar.
I've never debated a "pure" deist before.. oddly enough.
From what I know about Star Wars, the force, if we take the movie magic out of it, is very similar to how I understand Taoism's "the way".
But try as I might, I never get a DESCRIPTION of that "force". It seems purely speculative to me.
We can observe how gravity IS a force that permeates the universe, and so on.. these physical forces.. but I don't think that's what you mean, right?
____________
Question:
What do you mean by "The creative force that caused the Big Bang"
Why do you believe THAT?
Post #20
[Replying to post 16 by hoghead1]
[center]
Some would prefer to idolize THIS instead of THAT[/center]
It's still idolatry.
But now.. he doesn't have to conform to the actual words... if he can call them "errors", then he is free to correct them as he sees fit. As far as I'm concerned, Barth is idolizing his own self projected onto the Bible. He might as well worship himself.
The Bible is all about the ego, anyway.
[center]
Some would prefer to idolize THIS instead of THAT[/center]
Barth does not want to idolize the PAPER that the Bible stories are written on, but he seems to have NO TROUBLE idolizing the ideas that are written on the paper.hoghead1 wrote:
Karl Barth once said that he was delighted in finding errors on every page, as this stopped any form of Bibleolatry, making he Bible a paper Pope.
It's still idolatry.
But now.. he doesn't have to conform to the actual words... if he can call them "errors", then he is free to correct them as he sees fit. As far as I'm concerned, Barth is idolizing his own self projected onto the Bible. He might as well worship himself.
The Bible is all about the ego, anyway.
