What Could God do About Bible Errors?

[Purple Knight]

Hypothetically. I'm not saying the Bible has errors. I'm saying, what if people want to put lies in?

If I'm an unscrupulous monk, wanting to foist my own ideas on what I'm copying, and I just decide to lie like a dog and put down what I want to put down, what can God do about it? Can he act against me without violating my free will, which he has known compunctions against doing?

If I decide to burn originals and say I lost them, am I going to immediately suffer a heart attack or get struck by lightning before I destroy the precious scripture and corrupt it? Is my plan going to miraculously fail in some other way? Arguably the wind can blow everything away every time I try. Is that violating my free will? I mean, it's a bit like stopping the bullet every time somebody tries to shoot somebody else and it easily crosses into not allowing people the freedom to be bad, which may invalidate the choice to be good, to some degree.

Ultimately if I lie to gullible people, the only way to stop them being taken in, is by the use of force against me, right? And that's rather tactless and ham-handed; not something God would do.

But what if there's another way to stop people being taken in?

I could argue that just giving people Reason and permission to use it, is enough to defend against all possible lies. Now this is a really, really good argument, because all you people who have Reason are supposed to use it, and then you might see something wrong with people telling you to take things on faith. And you don't have to conclude that this means God doesn't exist. You are fully empowered to say it means God does exist: It means God does exist and he doesn't strike people dead who decide to lie to you, rather, he implores you to use this gift of Reason to see through it. So then, there's this one piece that doesn't fit and it's the necessity of faith.

So if you follow, then maybe anyone who has said not to use your Reason and just trust, is exactly such an unpunished liar and blasphemer God has allowed to do evil because he prefers not to interfere directly. And it's okay, because God gave you what you needed to see which puzzle piece doesn't fit.

God, yes. Faith, no.

[boatsnguitars]

The fact that God has (apparently) allowed people through the ages, in all corners of the globe, create religions that (allegedly) speak for him - there seems to be no desire or ability on God's part to protect his word.

It's marvelous that each religious person says (proudly, I imagine) that God HAS in fact protected his word. After all, just listen to their Imam, or Tribal Elder - he'll tell you!

I must laugh at the people who proclaim that God has preserved God's word in the Bible. Why not claim that! Believe what you will, Believer! Who is going to contradict you? Certainly not God!

There are about 4,200 religions on Earth today. They all will tell you exactly the same thing: they speak for God - and, they will, no doubt, assert that their message is unadulterated.

The Believers will scoff at all other Believers, and then wonder how people can be Atheists...

[JehovahsWitness]

The fact that God has (apparently) allowed people through the ages, in all corners of the globe, create religions that (allegedly) speak for him - there seems to be no desire or ability on God's part to protect his word.

One should not confuse religion with the word of God, this is like confusing a good cook book with a bad cook. It just might be that the receipe is good but cook simply doesn't follow instructions.

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , RELIGION and ...CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #12]

That's exactly what another religious group would say about your religion.

Right?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #12]

That's exactly what another religious group would say about your religion.

Right?

I dont recall mentioning and particular religious group. This is a debate forum, can you debate the actual content of my post ? If not, do have an excellent day.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... there seems to be no desire or ability on God's part to protect his word.

Well the fact that the bible is not lost, is not "dead" (its a book that exists and is bought and read outside of academia) and there is ample evidence that we have a text that accurately reflects the originale, testifies to the contrary.



TRANSMISSION

#Can we know what the original scriptures contained since we don't have the originals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p851803

What evidence do we have that the bible has been accurately TRANSMITTED throughout the ages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p972419

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

Did the bible really fight to survive?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p820878

Have bible truth always been freely available?
viewtopic.php?p=1021307#p1021307

If the bible HAD been inrrevocably compromised, would that negate God's existence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p833457

BIBLICAL INTEGRITY

Has the bible been contaminated with human error?
viewtopic.php?p=979422#p979422

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLE AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

* bible interpretation[/quote]

[boatsnguitars]

... there seems to be no desire or ability on God's part to protect his word.

Well the fact that the bible is not lost, is not "dead" (its a book that exists and is bought and read outside of academia) and there is ample evidence that we have a text that accurately reflects the originale, testifies to the contrary.

You've made such a meaningless and unimportant - dare I say, inane - distinction. The accuracy to the original writings of the writers doesn't mean it has accurately protected "God's Word" if it never was God's Word to begin with!

Plus, one might argue (as LDS may) that edits to their religious text actually preserves God's Word by successive corrections over time. Christians certainly argue that God's Word is preserved in the OT - but only after the successive revisions to his word in the NT.

The fact is, religious people will choose what makes their religion different, then claim that difference is the only way to judge whether a religion is true.

For example, Hindus would argue that a True Religion must have the following elements:

• Philosophical Diversity: Hinduism accommodates various philosophical schools, including Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, and Nyaya. This diversity allows individuals to find a philosophical framework that resonates with their beliefs and worldview.

• Concept of Brahman and Atman: The concept of Brahman (the ultimate reality or cosmic spirit) and Atman (the individual soul) is fundamental to Hindu philosophy. The understanding of the interconnectedness of all existence and the pursuit of self-realization are key aspects emphasized by Hindus.

• Cyclical View of Time: Hinduism often presents a cyclical view of time, involving the concepts of reincarnation and karma. This cyclical perspective allows for the continuous evolution and growth of the soul across multiple lifetimes.

• Diverse Deities: Hinduism is known for its multitude of deities, each representing different aspects of the divine. The freedom to choose one's preferred deity or focus on a formless aspect of the divine offers a personalized and inclusive approach to spirituality.

• Tolerance and Inclusivity: Hinduism is often characterized by its tolerance and inclusivity, allowing for the coexistence of various beliefs and practices. The absence of a strict conversion process contributes to a more open and accepting religious landscape.

If your religion doesn't include this, it's wrong.

Likewise, you argue that "Hey, we have the text from about 200CE that seems to be close to the original as written - if your religion doesn't have that, it's not God's Word!"

It's so utterly meaningless.

Why?

Because what is God's Word? No, I mean, actually? You cant say "The Bible" because you don't know. All you know if that it's accurate to about 200CE, maybe even to 30CE - but you still don't know if the writers actually confirmed their stories with God. You only believe it. It's a religious belief. You can get religious beliefs when you're 6 and never change them. It's the easiest thing in the world to have religious beliefs. Most of the people on the planet have them, and - gasp! - they ain't yours. I get that you feel your job is to proselytize (against the rules of this forum), but you should be aware that you aren't debating anything. you are spouting religious dogma that you chose at some point, randomly.

[JehovahsWitness]

The accuracy to the original writings of the writers doesn't mean it has accurately protected "God's Word" if it never was God's Word to begin with!

I dont think the focus of the OP was to debate claimed divinity of authorship of the bible but to speculate on prospective methods of protecting said text existing from potential corruption. The OP in fact does not refer to "God's Word" at all but rather to "the bible" and it seems you yourelf introduced this notion into the thread. Everybody else, including myself, simply focusec on the text under discussion from the supposition that should God exist, He supposedly would have an interest in the integrity of scripture. (I have ignored the rest of your rambling post having searched it for any information retated to the OP and found nothing )

Perhaps in future it might be an idea to read the posts you are responding to more carefully to avoid attempting to debate an irrelevant point or introduce a focus that at best introduces a distraction from the discussion at hand.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Correct, but he doesn't poof up the good copies and spread them up, does he? He needs a world where there are more honest people than unscrupulous ones, for this to work. ...

It's not a question of majority, its a question if enough. If, as seems to have been the case for the preservation of the bible, enough people value the text and are willing to go to almost any length to ensure it is preserved for future generations, then they don't have to be in the majority.

[boatsnguitars]

The accuracy to the original writings of the writers doesn't mean it has accurately protected "God's Word" if it never was God's Word to begin with!

I dont think the focus of the OP was to debate claimed divinity of authorship of the bible but to speculate on prospective methods of protecting said text existing from potential corruption. The OP in fact does not refer to "God's Word" at all but rather to "the bible" and it seems you yourelf introduced this notion into the thread. Everybody else, including myself, simply focusec on the text under discussion from the supposition that should God exist, He supposedly would have an interest in the integrity of scripture. (I have ignored the rest of your rambling post having searched it for any information retated to the OP and found nothing )

Perhaps in future it might be an idea to read the posts you are responding to more carefully to avoid attempting to debate an irrelevant point or introduce a focus that at best introduces a distraction from the discussion at hand.



JW

Everything you said doesn't matter. I've addressed the topic. And I provided examples. The point is, you have no idea if the Bible preserves God's Word. You don't know what God's Word is. You BELIEVE in the Bible as God's Word.

What could God do about Bible errors? Everything, nothing, or something in between- you don't know. You believe you know. You believe based on your religious choice. You aren't God. You don't speak for God, nor can you confirm that God agrees with anything you say about him.

Why religious people think they alone speak for God is beyond me.

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont think the focus of the OP was to debate claimed divinity of authorship of the bible but to speculate on prospective methods of protecting said text existing from potential corruption. The OP in fact does not refer to "God's Word" at all but rather to "the bible" and it seems you yourelf introduced this notion into the thread. Everybody else, including myself, simply focusec on the text under discussion from the supposition that should God exist, He supposedly would have an interest in the integrity of scripture. (I have ignored the rest of your rambling post having searched it for any information retated to the OP and found nothing )

Perhaps in future it might be an idea to read the posts you are responding to more carefully to avoid attempting to debate an irrelevant point or introduce a focus that at best introduces a distraction from the discussion at hand.



JW

Everything you said doesn't matter. ....

Well then you are free to ignore it. I'm here to debate with those that are interested in a serious exchange on topic and preferably ad hominem free.

Thanks for your contribution anyway. Have a most excellent day,

JW