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

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by monkspider


I agree.

Ok, that's good. While fundamentalists are wrong for literal interpretations of the bible, too far on the other end you will find people with no attention to the bible, they just say "Well I just don't think this is wrong, I don't think God will send me to hell for this". Conscience is not a feeling. If you are going to go outside the Christian mainstream, OK, but any of your beliefs on Christianity should always take into account Scripture, Christian Tradition, and prayer.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

...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"

A scholar living about 80 years ago noted that the word for "salt" (as in pillar of salt) in the story of Lot's wife and her demise shared a connection to the Sumerian word for salt. But he pointed out that the Sumerian word also meant "vapor"...as in "pillar of vapor". I don't know if a person can be turned to salt by fire and brimstone, but a person can be vaporised.

Also, after reading Troll's post, the word for "rib" as in "Adam's rib", has a double meaning in Sumerian. I believe the Sumerian word "ti" means rib and life force or life essence, that which animates. Now, which makes more sense? Eve was created using Adam's life force or his "rib"?

Troll -

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.

Hmm...deeds do matter.

Firelad - As for corrupted translations, I understand the decipherment of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown how accurately some of the books of the Old Testament appear in the Bible. Which english version do you consider the closest to the hebrew? And what exactly does "nephilim" mean in the hebrew?

[Firelad]

Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, not English
I'm not really familiar with the different translations, esp. the OT. I have read excrepts and didn't like them at all.
Nephilim literally means giants.

[Zylka]

Interesting, Berz. Funny, as I always had a problem with that whole "rib of Adam" thing as well

[Berzerker]

Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, not English

Yes, and they contain some of the oldest OT books showing not much was lost in the translation to western languages. What is lost due to a lack of descriptive words is another matter... I think the biggest problem with translating the Bible occured long ago when the language of Abram - Sumerian or Akkadian - was the basis for the older stories.

Nephilim literally means giants.

I thought it meant, "those who came down from Heaven".

[Solver]

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.

Yeah. Except that some do deny it, and believe otherwise. And, see proof to the contrary .

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Templar
The order in which things get created differ between stories. On a lesser note, some scholars (Ernest Kaulbach for instance) note that in Genesis 1, man and woman are created at the same time in the divine image. Genesis 2 has man created in God's image and woman created later.

I just don't see what you are talking about. In Gen 1, God creates vegetation first, then animals, then Man. In Gen 2, God describes the Garden of Eden, creates Adam, brings the animals before him, then creates Eve. Gen 1 is a general overview, whereas Gen 2:5 focuses just on the 6th day and the Garden of Eden.

Here is how I understand the Genesis account:

Gen 1:1 God creates the universe, galaxies, stars, Sun and everything.

Gen 1:2 describes the primordial Earth.

Gen 1:3-5 The primordial atmosphere thins so that some light can get through, but light is very scattered and hazy. Earth now has daylight.

Gen 1:6-8 atmospheric water separates. Vapor water layer and ozone above the atmosphere and liquid water below. Earth now has atmosphere with protective layer above and water below which are both critical for life.

Gen 1:9 weight of the oceans and tectonic activity pushes land upwards to form Pangea continent. Earth now has dry land.

Gen 1:11-13 God creates vegetation, trees, plants. Earth now has vegetation critical to sustain life. God creates Garden of Eden as described in Gen 2:9.

Gen 1:14-19 Vegetation ( through photosynthesis) produces viable atmosphere now fully transparent so that stars, Sun and Moon are visible. Advanced life now possible.

Gen 1:20-23 God creates aquatic life and flying animals.

Gen 1:24-25 God creates land animals.

Gen 1:26 God decides to make the human race.

First, God creates Adam (Gen 2:7). Then God places Adam in the Garden (Gen 2:15) and gives Adam his instructions (Gen 2:16-17). Next, God decides to create a mate for Adam (Gen 2:18). God brings the animals for Adam to name (Gen 2:19-20). Then, God creates Eve (Gen 2:21-22) and introduces Adam to her in v23 (I sure would love to have seen the look on Adam's face when he first saw her ). In v24, God essentially marries Adam and Eve.

Gen 1:28-31 God blesses the human race and declares that He has finished all of Creation.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is the fundamentalists mistake to look at one bible passage in isolation and try to draw meaning from that without looking at the whole bible.

Well said.

I'm more on the literalist side as a conservative Christian, but there are some passages that should be taken symbolically.

I could even cite one that I am less literal than Shi, but this is not the time nor the place.

First off, the bible is the inspired word of God, we should not add or subtract words that we find inconvenient.

Secondly, there are no serious contradictions in scripture, just difficulties that can be explained.

Finally, there are valid areas of disagreement between good Christians, areas that scripture can be interpreted in one way or another, and still respect the truth.

I think the biggest problem with translating the Bible occured long ago when the language of Abram - Sumerian or Akkadian - was the basis for the older stories.

Job is an excellent example. To see problems of interpretation, look at the Latin Vulgate and how they try to make sense of Job.



It is not an easy book.

Another is to look at Noah, and to see the words used to describe the wood or the substance used to coat the ark. Both are completely unknown, in that we no longer have a linguistic bridge to clarify the exact wood or substance used.

[Firelad]

Berzerker, the text I have in front of me is proof to the immense loss of translation. The Bible ain't Harry Potter, you know.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for corrupted translations, I understand the decipherment of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown how accurately some of the books of the Old Testament appear in the Bible.

Firelad, I'll repeat the question... I'm not a Hebrew scholar.

What's the text you have in front of you?

[Zylka]

Sava, thanks for the peace offering! Yet wouldn't you like to add on???

[Firelad]

The traditional, Hebrew canon. Most of it has been passed down and copied throughout the centuries, but all the portions found in the dead sea scrolls have been put in there if I'm not mistaken. Not that many changes anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not that many changes anyway.

Good to see transcribers doing their jobs.

Thanks firelad.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
First off, the bible is the inspired word of God, we should not add or subtract words that we find inconvenient.

And yet you rely on the faulty NIV?

[Zero]

The reason why I hate going to sunday service sometimes is that they play on the specific content of the text sooo much. As if use of "gate" over "door" had a significant meaning for example. Sometimes I wonder if it really translates it perfectly and if it is flawed due to human nature just as Zylka said. Then, all these preaching that bases on such specific content of the bible is just bullsh!t.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

First off, the bible is the inspired word of God, we should not add or subtract words that we find inconvenient.

But every time a book of the Bible got translated into a new language, words were added and subtracted en masse.
Now, if you're referring to PC, I agree...

Secondly, there are no serious contradictions in scripture, just difficulties that can be explained.

If you read "The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Barbara Thiering, you'll see some interesting "difficulties" explained. For example, she explains numerous geographical and distance oddities in the NT. She shows how mundane information, like "Jesus and the gang walked 5 miles" is in conflict with actual (as opposed to biblical) geography around Galilee; and that the only way to resolve these conflicts is to accept that Jesus was an Essene of sorts and the northern end of the Dead Sea was his/their hangout.

[Berzerker]

Firelad -

Berzerker, the text I have in front of me is proof to the immense loss of translation. The Bible ain't Harry Potter, you know.

Again, what is the book? And what english translation do you consider the best?

[Heresson]

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?

I believe they do, because it we have a doctrine of inspiration. Islam has much bigger problem with that, again

[Az]

I would caution you just because the bible isn't infallibale doesn't mean you can just decide God's teachings to be anything you want them to be.

Why not?

[Ben Kenobi]

And yet you rely on the faulty NIV?

So does my pastor! I have the same copy that he uses.

[Berzerker]

diplomat -

Gen 1:1 God creates the universe, galaxies, stars, Sun and everything.

God creates the Heaven and the Earth, not the universe. If you look at the following text describing God's creation, you'll see "Heaven" is a "firmament" (some kind of barrier or demarcation line) used by God to separate the pre-existing waters.

Gen 1:2 describes the primordial Earth.

Covered with water. Isn't it curious that virtually every creation "myth" from around the world claims the Earth was once covered with water and that something happened to bring forth the land?

Gen 1:3-5 The primordial atmosphere thins so that some light can get through, but light is very scattered and hazy. Earth now has daylight.

The "Light" in Gen 1:3 is the light of creation, the "act" that began the process of (planet) Earth's evolution. Why does Earth have daylight and night? Because it spins within fairly close proximity to a star. So this "Light" of creation produced this spin, if not the close proximity to a star as well.

Gen 1:6-8 atmospheric water separates. Vapor water layer and ozone above the atmosphere and liquid water below. Earth now has atmosphere with protective layer above and water below which are both critical for life.

There's a big problem with that. Remember, Heaven - the firmament - was used by God to separate the waters above from the waters below. If Heaven is the universe as you suggest, there can be no waters above. "Heaven" must be relatively close by.

Gen 1:9 weight of the oceans and tectonic activity pushes land upwards to form Pangea continent. Earth now has dry land.

The land appeared when God gathered together the waters below the firmament. Now, if Earth was once covered with water, which is perfectly reasonable given that plate tectonics is the scientific explanation for the creation of the continents, then the Bible is in accordance with science. But why? Rather strange these peoples knew what took centuries to discover.

Gen 1:14-19 Vegetation ( through photosynthesis) produces viable atmosphere now fully transparent so that stars, Sun and Moon are visible. Advanced life now possible.

Actually, the atmosphere clouds our view of the sky, not enhances it. The view from the Moon is much more clear, so it wasn't the atmosphere that allowed for celestial viewing. However, we wouldn't see the night sky as it is without the Earth or it's rotation. There may be a clue in that Genesis, I believe, refers to the stars, etc., being "made" to serve as signs for the seasons. Were they merely "appointed" to serve as signs by virtue of Earth's orbital characteristics? If the ancient Egyptians could "appoint" Sirius to serve as the harbinger of spring, or whatever, then maybe a similar "metaphor" was used in the Bible.

Gen 1:20-23 God creates aquatic life and flying animals.

Gen 1:24-25 God creates land animals.

And now we get to another interesting feature of Genesis. Notice how "Earth" is always used to reference only the "land"? When God names the land that had appeared once the waters were gathered together into "Seas", he calls it "Earth". The land is "Earth", not this planet. Nowhere in the Bible (OT of course) does it say God created the waters above the Heaven or the waters below, only that God formed the Seas by setting up "borders" to keep it restrained. God neither created the universe or this planet, and that comes straight from Genesis! But that's what all those other creation myths say too, God observed the primordial Earth covered with water and began producing the land.

[Alexander's Horse]

Just to confuse you all further I thought I'd throw in this link to other gospels:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/othergospels.htm

The bible as we know it today, and there are many different versions even of what we call the bible, is not the be all and end all of Christian belief, teaching or ancient writings in the broad judeo-christian tradition. Some of the gospels and other writings referred to are very interesting.

The "Q" document is one of the most interesting. It is lost but thought to be the common source of the 4 gospels included in the Christan bible.