Which Christian denomination is most faithful to the Bible?

[historia]

My take on this is that the Jehovah's Wistnesses, the Christadelphians and maybe the Seventh Day Adventists have the most fidelity to what the Bible actually says.

Question for debate: Which Christian denomination is most faithful to what the Bible actually says?

[historia]

First, all Christians share the same New Testament canon, which is, of course, central to Christian theology.

No they do not

Catholics, orthodox, Protestants, and other denominations have different canons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop ... ment_canon

They all have variations on what books they do and do not include in their canon.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, exactly. As the Wikipedia article makes (at least somewhat) clear, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians all accept the same 27 books in their New Testament today, even if in the past some books were disputed.

The only exception to that rule are apparently some Egyptian and Ethiopian Christian churches, which have a looser canon that includes some additional Christian writings. Otherwise, 99.99% of Christians today use the same New Testament. They differ only on which Old Testament books they accept.

Finally, translation has even less of a role to play here, since most denominations have theologians who are fluent in Greek and Hebrew, and can therefore read the texts in their original languages. And they are the ones who ultimately decide doctrine for a denomination.

Various translations use differing manuscripts. This is why the KJV and NIV are so different leading some groups to declare the NIV as heretical.

It's true that the KJV and NIV rely upon a different set of manuscripts. But those differences, again, are exceedingly small, and affect no point of doctrine.

Consider, for example, that most major denominations came into existence before the NIV (or any other modern translation), and none have changed their doctrines due to the discovery of earlier manuscripts.

The differences between the NIV and KJV have much more to do with the evolution of the English language and differing translation philosophies.

Yes I understand the people translating it are fluent in Greek and Hebrew but each person has their own subjective interpretation built ontop of selective usage of manuscripts.

All I am saying is be more specific.

I'm not sure what specific conditions I could place upon the conversation that would make a meaningful difference here. I suppose I could choose a particular English translation of the Bible that would be our standard: say, the English Standard Version. But, really, you could look at almost any other modern English translation and it wouldn't make much of a difference.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

This is certainly a difficult question. In trying to process this my brain automatically starts separating out all the doctrinal points. It quickly becomes clear that this isn't something I could process without a good deal of time.

We would need to list all the doctrinal claims and compare them to their textual references. I have a feeling this would turn into exactly what it already is, a subjective conversation in which people must agree to disagree.

Perhaps an easier question is which denominations most obviously fall out of the realm of interpretive differences? Which are most divergent from the biblical text?

Off the top of my head Catholicism and Oneness Pentecostalism come to mind. Catholicism has been heavily influenced by politics for the past 2000 years, I find so many of their doctrines and traditions to be wholly contradictory to biblical teaching. Oneness Pentecostalism is almost pure mysticism. Having grown up in this denomination before my family left in my early teens, I can attest to the strangeness this theology brings to a community, as well as its blatantly misguided translations.

[catnip]

My take on this is that the Jehovah's Wistnesses, the Christadelphians and maybe the Seventh Day Adventists have the most fidelity to what the Bible actually says.

Question for debate: Which Christian denomination is most faithful to what the Bible actually says?

Do you mean who has the most fidelity to the Bible literally or in truth?

I think the catholic/orthodox (particularly large-C, large-O) side of the faith does. They understand that it isn't to be read literally and woodenly. They understand its metaphorical, symbolic, literary devices. They have their daily Liturgical practice where the scriptures are read in passages in the church and preaching is not done on single verses weaving mountains out of mole hills.

[Divine Insight]

Do you mean who has the most fidelity to the Bible literally or in truth?

I think the catholic/orthodox (particularly large-C, large-O) side of the faith does. They understand that it isn't to be read literally and woodenly. They understand its metaphorical, symbolic, literary devices. They have their daily Liturgical practice where the scriptures are read in passages in the church and preaching is not done on single verses weaving mountains out of mole hills.

I agree. In many ways Catholicism in general (abstractly speaking) isn't a bad religion. What ended up giving Catholicism a bad name is when specific Popes, Bishops, or other authoritarians have tried to carve things in stone. But overall, as an abstract religion, I tend to agree with you.

Although historically the Catholic "Church" has been far too involved in politics. And the corruption of many individual priests and clergy in the Vatican hasn't helped either. But I don't see those parts as actually part of the religion, they have more to do with how religions can easily be corrupted.

I would also add that I think Pope Francis is doing very well to bring that abstraction back into Catholicism.

Not that I support that any Abrahamic religion represents any actual God. But in principle I tend to agree with what you are saying.

[Elijah John]

My take on this is that the Jehovah's Wistnesses, the Christadelphians and maybe the Seventh Day Adventists have the most fidelity to what the Bible actually says.

Question for debate: Which Christian denomination is most faithful to what the Bible actually says?

Do you mean who has the most fidelity to the Bible literally or in truth?

I think the catholic/orthodox (particularly large-C, large-O) side of the faith does. They understand that it isn't to be read literally and woodenly. They understand its metaphorical, symbolic, literary devices. They have their daily Liturgical practice where the scriptures are read in passages in the church and preaching is not done on single verses weaving mountains out of mole hills.

Good points, but the same could be said of some mainline Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, The Methodists, The Lutherans etc. Those who share the Lectionary with the Orthodox and the RCC.

I would disqualify all of them as being the MOST faithful to Scripture, as all the aforementioned teach the Trinity, which is not Scriptural. That is a biggie. It took Church councils to come up with that one.

[catnip]

Do you mean who has the most fidelity to the Bible literally or in truth?

I think the catholic/orthodox (particularly large-C, large-O) side of the faith does. They understand that it isn't to be read literally and woodenly. They understand its metaphorical, symbolic, literary devices. They have their daily Liturgical practice where the scriptures are read in passages in the church and preaching is not done on single verses weaving mountains out of mole hills.

I agree. In many ways Catholicism in general (abstractly speaking) isn't a bad religion. What ended up giving Catholicism a bad name is when specific Popes, Bishops, or other authoritarians have tried to carve things in stone. But overall, as an abstract religion, I tend to agree with you.

Although historically the Catholic "Church" has been far too involved in politics. And the corruption of many individual priests and clergy in the Vatican hasn't helped either. But I don't see those parts as actually part of the religion, they have more to do with how religions can easily be corrupted.

I would also add that I think Pope Francis is doing very well to bring that abstraction back into Catholicism.

Not that I support that any Abrahamic religion represents any actual God. But in principle I tend to agree with what you are saying.

To begin, all we are really considering here is which denomination is most faithful to the Bible. You and I might take that differently. How it is read is of tremendous importance to me. Literalism was not a practice in Christianity until the Fundamentalists began it in 1910-1912. The integrity of the scriptures requires that it be read, really, as any other book.

I didn't actually focus on the Catholic Church, but on the catholic/orthodox practice and the group of churches that follow it and how. I was specific because other groups like to claim orthodoxy when they practice nothing of the sort.

And finally, there is a difference between the institutional church and the "religious" side. When it comes to the Catholic Church and its polity, the whole church is not the Pope and the Vatican, the political entity. To me, the church is the people and the term church, ekklesia, refers to the people.

And I like Pope Francis, too. May he endure.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

My take on this is that the Jehovah's Wistnesses, the Christadelphians and maybe the Seventh Day Adventists have the most fidelity to what the Bible actually says.

Question for debate: Which Christian denomination is most faithful to what the Bible actually says?

Logically the answer to this question would have to be the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic church determined which of the various documents written about Jesus were valid and would comprise the cannon of the 27 books of the NT in the first place. Therefore the exact meaning of those books represents exactly what the Catholic church declares them to mean at any given time.

[catnip]

My take on this is that the Jehovah's Wistnesses, the Christadelphians and maybe the Seventh Day Adventists have the most fidelity to what the Bible actually says.

Question for debate: Which Christian denomination is most faithful to what the Bible actually says?

Do you mean who has the most fidelity to the Bible literally or in truth?

I think the catholic/orthodox (particularly large-C, large-O) side of the faith does. They understand that it isn't to be read literally and woodenly. They understand its metaphorical, symbolic, literary devices. They have their daily Liturgical practice where the scriptures are read in passages in the church and preaching is not done on single verses weaving mountains out of mole hills.

Good points, but the same could be said of some mainline Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, The Methodists, The Lutherans etc. Those who share the Lectionary with the Orthodox and the RCC.

I would disqualify all of them as being the MOST faithful to Scripture, as all the aforementioned teach the Trinity, which is not Scriptural. That is a biggie. It took Church councils to come up with that one.

I actually did include them as I referenced a particular practice of reading the scriptures within the church. And I didn't choose a particular denomination, but the group that relies on the Liturgical practice of reading whole passages every day.

I could go into more detail, such as that we have a reading from the Psalms, the OT, the NT and the Gospels every day. And despite the claims of other churches, none read so much in the service as we do.

And I am Episcopalian, you know.

Oh, I forgot to deal with the Trinity. My argument with the Trinity is more the misunderstandings that have proliferated in Christianity and with a later understanding of my own as to our own nature and who the Son is. So, I see it as a mystical tool that should never have become dogma and a way to sort Christian believers, and, like the early Christians, I see it not as a limitation of God, but an inclusion of God--the divine dance--where God is in and through creation and interacting with us.

I think some people put God in an untouchable triangle through which we cannot penetrate nor God touch us. Those lines drawn in the depiction of it become walls that separates us from God.

God, his Wisdom and his Word.

[Divine Insight]

To begin, all we are really considering here is which denomination is most faithful to the Bible. You and I might take that differently.

But isn't that a major problem?

That requires that all replies are necessary nothing more than the subjective opinions of individuals, leaving them all to have precisely equal merit. Certainly not a "debatable" topic, if that's the case. Controversial perhaps, but not debatable if the consensus is that it all comes down to individual opinion.

Literalism was not a practice in Christianity until the Fundamentalists began it in 1910-1912. The integrity of the scriptures requires that it be read, really, as any other book.

I would argue, that the Bible must necessarily be taken extremely literal, and there is no room for personal subjective opinion on this point.

This may sound as if I am attempting to pass off my opinion has having more clout than any other, however I disagree because I can offer sound reasons why this must necessarily be the only conclusion.

The reason the Bible necessarily must be taken literally to the letter (to every jot and tittle as attributed to Jesus' own proclamation), is because the God in this collection of stories is making specific commandments and directives of men. Commandments and directives that he is demanding they must obey. This fact forbids anything less than a perfectly literal "interpretation" of the scriptures.

For example, this God commanded that we are to stone sinners to death. He even gives many literal examples of what constitutes these sins precisely. One arbitrary example is that we are to stone to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, even to the point of collecting firewood to cook a meal or stay warm. If anyone is caught collecting firewood (or doing any manner of labor) on the Sabbath they are to be stoned to death.

How can we take this in any non-literal way?

We can't.

What are we going to do? Are we going to say, "Oh well, it doesn't literally mean that we should actually stone someone to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath. It means something entirely different.

Like what?

I totally agree with the Fundamentalists in this regard. The Bible must necessarily be taken precisely literally. Every jot and tittle must mean precisely what it says. There is simply no way to get around this.

Does this mean that Fundamental Protestantism must then be in closest adherence to the Bible? Not really, because in addition to a need to be taken literally the Bible also contains extreme self-contradictions, thus making it impossible for anyone to actually be in concordance with it.

So the Bible is a paradox (i.e. a self-contradictory doctrine). We might be tempted to say that fundamentalists are at least trying to be the most faithful to the Bible, but then again, it's highly doubtful that they are actually going around stoning anyone to death as the Bible literally demands.

Now Christians might claim that Jesus changed all that in spite of the fact that he proclaimed every jot and tittle to remain law until heaven and earth pass.

But even Christians don't follow the teachings of Jesus. If they did, they wouldn't own a home or even have a regular job. They would never go to college or take any thought of the morrow. All they would be doing is going around begging from people preaching the doctrine of Jesus. They would need to also hate their mother, father, and siblings. They probably wouldn't even get married or have children. After all, where does Jesus instruct any of his disciples to settle down and raise a family?

In short, I don't there is a person on earth who obeys the Bible, either the New or the Old Testaments. Arguments could be made that some Muslims are trying to obey the Qur'an. But they have the same problem there. It's full of contradictions so if they are obeying one part of it they are violating another part.

So actually it's impossible to obey the Bible "Literally".

And to claim to be obeying it "non-literally" makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Elijah John]

Oh, I forgot to deal with the Trinity. My argument with the Trinity is more the misunderstandings that have proliferated in Christianity and with a later understanding of my own as to our own nature and who the Son is. So, I see it as a mystical tool that should never have become dogma and a way to sort Christian believers, and, like the early Christians, I see it not as a limitation of God, but an inclusion of God--the divine dance--where God is in and through creation and interacting with us.

I think some people put God in an untouchable triangle through which we cannot penetrate nor God touch us. Those lines drawn in the depiction of it become walls that separates us from God.

God, his Wisdom and his Word.

I like this. I see the Trinity as a theological construct, a model to explain God's transcendendence in relation to his immanence.

I agree, it one does not take it literally, as dogma, it can be a very useful model.

Still, that does not work for me as well as pure Monotheism does.

However useful that doctrine may be, it is still not taught in the Bible. So I have to maintain that those Churches that DO teach the Trinity, (the vast majority of conventional Christian sects) are not faithful to the Bible, in a literal sense anyway.