Can Christians see the bible as flawed due to its nature: a HUMAN recording?

Zylka · June 15, 2003, 06:43

Not necessarily flawed to the point of it being irrelevant and inferior to verbal legend... but can Christians logically admit to inconsistencies, since the bible is not God's direct voice? How did the idea come about, for instance - that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. were credible in perfection of description of the events?

I always hear that the bible is "God's word" - but as it was described and physically created through human medium, can imperfections not be expected?

Nubclear · June 15, 2003, 06:49

BeBro · June 15, 2003, 06:55

Paul Hanson · June 15, 2003, 06:57

I would probably imagine that this is how some Christians would account for the contradictions in the Bible.

Ben Kenobi · June 15, 2003, 07:03

Quote:

but can Christians logically admit to inconsistencies, since the bible is not God's direct voice?

Good question. Too tired to answer properly tonight, and I have an early morning tomorrow.

G'night all.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · June 15, 2003, 07:55

The band Coil use a recording technique called "Worship the glitch". In other words, if the sound is affected by some equipment behave strangely, the workings of chance should be respected and the machinery should be considered as making a valid artistic contribution in it's own right.

Somehow that concept seems to fit here, but it might only make sense to me.

Lonestar · June 15, 2003, 09:41

I consider it as such.

Q Classic · June 15, 2003, 10:05

as far as i understand it, we catholics are supposed to take it figuratively and not literally; this, i assume, takes care of the contradictions?

i'm kinda fuzzy on that bit.

Apocalypse · June 15, 2003, 11:05

Yes, humans are flawed. The meaning is divine though since it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's an idea anyway.

Sava · June 15, 2003, 11:09

Good post Zylka

Kuciwalker · June 15, 2003, 11:14

Unfortunately, they usually can't

JCG · June 15, 2003, 11:44

Depends on the specific kind of Christian...But in general, the more they admit it, the more likely it is that they're somewhat close to abandoning their faith.

MrFun · June 15, 2003, 13:04

The Bible was written by people who recorded what they believed would be God's demands and expectations.

Not to mention that it becomes even more complicated due to the fact that it took hundreds of years of years for the Bible to be completed, by numerous people living in different, distant regions in different time periods.

Shi Huangdi · June 15, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Not necessarily flawed to the point of it being irrelevant and inferior to verbal legend... but can Christians logically admit to inconsistencies, since the bible is not God's direct voice? How did the idea come about, for instance - that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. were credible in perfection of description of the events?

I always hear that the bible is "God's word" - but as it was described and physically created through human medium, can imperfections not be expected?

Yes, of course. The writers of the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down, but that doesn't mean they got it perfectly. Of course- the 4 you mentioned: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John I think we should give a little more importance too and credibility too since they try to give a more historical outlook on Jesus's life, relating to us what Jesus said- as say opposed to the parts of the New Testament about the works of the apostles and their preachings.

Dis · June 15, 2003, 13:51

of course, I've always known that the bible was written by man- even if it was supposedly dictated to by god. Inconsistencies are inevitable.

Shi Huangdi · June 15, 2003, 13:53

It should be noted that those who see the bible as the literal word of God(Fundamentalists) are a minority among Christians, most mainline churches reject the fundamentalist view.

Victor Galis · June 15, 2003, 14:07

Even if it were perfectly transcribed, it wasn't dictated by God in English, so the Bible as most American fundies read it is just a translation (add another layer of misinterpretation).

Zylka · June 15, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Yes, of course. The writers of the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it down, but that doesn't mean they got it perfectly. Of course- the 4 you mentioned: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John I think we should give a little more importance too and credibility too since they try to give a more historical outlook on Jesus's life, relating to us what Jesus said- as say opposed to the parts of the New Testament about the works of the apostles and their preachings.

Indeed, yet I find it strange that the texts themselves are naturally clear in direction upon human interpretation, less so on divine inspiration. For example:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilu, so that you may know the certainty of things you have been taught.

- Luke chapter 1, V. 1-4

So, that essentially says nothing along the lines of "I know this to be true, because God has been speaking to me in dreams", etc. Divine inspiration in creation of the texts is to a degree accepted by almost any Christian, I imagine - but this among others screams that the recording was a rather objective, human investigation (to me)

On the other hand, take a text like Pizan's The Book of the City of Ladies, which is concretely claimed by the author to have the direct voice of God answering many of her questions. Now if a Christian were to believe this, should not this text (or parts of it) be a new addition to the bible? Sure it often deals with previously unaddressed feminist issues - but that is exactly why it could land a purpose!

Zylka · June 15, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Even if it were perfectly transcribed, it wasn't dictated by God in English, so the Bible as most American fundies read it is just a translation (add another layer of misinterpretation).

...and what imperfections in translation do you think of? The only I've been presented was the rather face value mistaking of "Reid Sea" for "Red Sea" (which still doesn't make sense to me according to possible Greek language versions of the pretext)

In short, it was argued that due to this mistake - the Red Sea was not location of the parting, rather one of many smaller reid Seas

The diplomat · June 15, 2003, 17:25

Obviously, the Bible was written by men, but it was inspired by God. So, that way it is still God's Word.

There can be small errors due to mistranslations. But if you study the Bible carefully, you will find that there are no serious contradictions.

Shi Huangdi · June 15, 2003, 17:28

"
So, that essentially says nothing along the lines of "I know this to be true, because God has been speaking to me in dreams", etc. Divine inspiration in creation of the texts is to a degree accepted by almost any Christian, I imagine - but this among others screams that the recording was a rather objective, human investigation "

I didn't mean that God was speaking to him or dictating the words, rather inspiration would mean that with the encouragement of the Holy Spirit they wrote the books. Christian tradition holds up the Evangelists'(Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) to be our best accounts of the life and works of Jesus, but that does not mean they are inerrant, this was first clearly shown in the works of Peter Abelard.

"Now if a Christian were to believe this, should not this text (or parts of it) be a new addition to the bible?"

I suppose if we believed that. We tend to be sceptical however of people claiming to be given the direct word of God personally nowadays.

But overall Zylka you are correct in pointing out the Bible is no the literal word of God.

Grandpa Troll · June 15, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by JCG
Depends on the specific kind of Christian...But in general, the more they admit it, the more likely it is that they're somewhat close to abandoning their faith.

Actually, your a Christian if you profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your Life, that he died for your sins and 3 days later was ressurected, thus overcoming bindings of death.

John 3:16 states :For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whomsover believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That being said, a person could profess but not actually have a conversion. Matthew 7:21 states : Not everyone that that saith unto me Lord,Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Also a point to remember is backsliding. A person could be a Christian, but have backslidden, falling prey to Sins which are unconfessed or even Sins that are deemed acceptable in the human sense, but definetly not in Gods eyes. But, look at :

LUKE 15:7: I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I share these out of Love, not for arguement. Please take them as such.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

Firelad · June 15, 2003, 18:16

About translations: You have NO idea how different the translations are. The OT at least. We study the OT quite seriously at school... I just had a matriculation exam on it last wednsday. The intricacies of the text, wordplay, double and triple meanings etc. are unbelievable... If anything might convince me that there is some divine inspiration in the Bible (I'm sort of a mix between secular agnostic and pagan...) is the quality and complexity of the text. They've been working at interpreting it for a few millennia and there's still plenty of stuff to innovate. The bible really is an incredible text, and to me, as someone familiar with the original, the translations and the very idea thereof seems laughable.

Grandpa Troll · June 15, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Firelad
About translations: You have NO idea how different the translations are. The OT at least. We study the OT quite seriously at school... I just had a matriculation exam on it last wednsday. The intricacies of the text, wordplay, double and triple meanings etc. are unbelievable... If anything might convince me that there is some divine inspiration in the Bible (I'm sort of a mix between secular agnostic and pagan...) is the quality and complexity of the text. They've been working at interpreting it for a few millennia and there's still plenty of stuff to innovate. The bible really is an incredible text, and to me, as someone familiar with the original, the translations and the very idea thereof seems laughable.

Translations are of course somewhat similiar and yet somewhat different.

As for the Bible being laughable, if I correctly interpretted your staement, is dangerous in context delivered.

If your stating that your schooled or being schooled as a Theologian or Scholar, head knowledge is one thing but heart knowledge is yet quite another.

I ask to better undertand your comment. I am not a schooled man, I have been a Christian for 12 years now, I have and do lead Bible studies. I am not a Theologian. I am merely a Christian with a heart for the Lord and if I may assist will provide direction for any, as to the autenticity of the Infallibel, Inspired written word of God.

Translations? Yes, the original Greek and Hebrew Text have been translated. Preferences?
I enjoy both the NIV as well as KJV, some others. Yes, some translations are indeed somewhat removed.

I pray your studies find you edifying our Creator, our Father and Eternal Destiny Holder!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

CapitanGarlic · June 15, 2003, 18:36

History is written by the victors. There were eighty-something gospels written, and only four made it in; that is those that made Jesus seem most divine and least like a person.

The Templar · June 15, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Obviously, the Bible was written by men, but it was inspired by God. So, that way it is still God's Word.

There can be small errors due to mistranslations. But if you study the Bible carefully, you will find that there are no serious contradictions.

Uh, how about the two strikingly different stories about the creation of people in Genesis. The original creation and the Adam and Eve story do not fit together.

Firelad · June 15, 2003, 18:45

Troll: I mean that the idea of translating the text I am familiar with is laughable. If any text ever was impossible to translate without losing its meaning almost entirely, it's the Old Testament (I am not familiar with the New Testament). We study in that we read the text and attempt to understand what it says. Key word here is trying. The Bible is an immensly complex text, with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning, often the meaning of whole chapters lie hinged upon one word - or one of the some two dozen punctuation marks that appear in the Bible. I have sometimes compared (not very often or very many though) pieces of original and translation and, well, I say that if you want to read the OT then go study biblical Hebrew. It's a very interesting language too, much deeper and more complex than modern Hebrew.

Firelad · June 15, 2003, 18:48

Templar: I could get into the two creation stories - it's a very complicated deal, and there are a few conflicting opinions (notably secular scholars and religious scholars)... But frankly I've forgotten most of it

I can read up on it again in my notebook or somethin' and start talkin' though

Grandpa Troll · June 15, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

Uh, how about the two strikingly different stories about the creation of people in Genesis. The original creation and the Adam and Eve story do not fit together.

Question?

What makes you think they do not fit together?

God first spoke Creation into being. He created Eve from Adams Rib. He "created" both Adam and Eve. He created all other things, including all that live in this day and time, you,me,Ming and Solver. Even those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, because he gives all an option, to be quite literal.."Smoking"..Hell..or "Non-smoking" Heaven.

You see, you have to "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart" about whom Jesus Christ is.

I pray you know him as personal Lord and Savior!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

The diplomat · June 15, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Firelad
About translations: You have NO idea how different the translations are. The OT at least. We study the OT quite seriously at school... I just had a matriculation exam on it last wednsday. The intricacies of the text, wordplay, double and triple meanings etc. are unbelievable... If anything might convince me that there is some divine inspiration in the Bible (I'm sort of a mix between secular agnostic and pagan...) is the quality and complexity of the text. They've been working at interpreting it for a few millennia and there's still plenty of stuff to innovate. The bible really is an incredible text, and to me, as someone familiar with the original, the translations and the very idea thereof seems laughable.

I wish I could read the OT in the original, so that I could fully apreciate all the intricacies.