Did You know the line in the Koran that says something along the lines of "If you die in Allah's name you will recive 72 virgins" is actually a mistranslation the true reward is 72 white raisins things like this happened with the bible as well as it followed this path: word of mouth to wrriten hebrew rewrote in a more modern hebrew passed to greeks who translated it to greek then on to romans who changed it to latin and so on until you have the twenty odd versions we have today anything 2005 years old is not going to be an exact translation.

quote:

Originally posted by WorthWaitingFor:
I love how you twist my words.

Are you seriously saying it is their fault that they were taught certain ways of living by their culture and upbringing?

I never said it was their fault that they were taught certain ways of living. I'm just saying that they committed the human error of bias. I wish you wouldn't put words into my mouth.

I fail to see how I twisted your words. As I see it, I used different words to say what you said. In contrast, what you accredited to me comes from nothing I said.

I'll stop paraphrasing. Here is the contradiction I pointed out:

quote:

That is not a human error, as anyone but the Son of God would more than likely write something according to what he/she had been taught in the past.

We can't just eliminate common errors from the category of human error; human error is error that comes from being imperfect, not unusual error that comes from being imperfect.

I fail to see the difference in our positions, apart from the names we attach to those positions.

Still, I am sorry that my previous post displeased you. I regret the confrontational tone that has come into this topic from the start.

It was their fault for trying to translate the untranslatable. Even today, we wouldn't be able to accurately translate the Dead Sea Scrolls into English and keep all the meaning. Something is always lost in translation, regardless of what era the translation occurs in.

I love how you twist my words.

Are you seriously saying it is their fault that they were taught certain ways of living by their culture and upbringing?

And, clpo, are you saying it is their fault that they didn't have good knowledge or technology in translating?

quote:

Originally posted by WorthWaitingFor:
I mean that, since the Bible was written in times when certain things (slavery, for example) that we find unacceptable were the norm, it's understandable that we may find errors in what Jesus is credited as saying vs. what the men wrote. Jesus was a very wise man and could see past his culture, upbringing, etc. The other (what I would call "more human") men tried to follow Jesus' word but could not see past their customs.

That is not a human error, as anyone but the Son of God would more than likely write something according to what he/she had been taught in the past. It is simply due to history.

Let me restate what you just said:
People made errors in promoting what was typical to their culture; this is a common human error.

However, this is not human error, since all humans make this kind of error.

I think that is a faithful paraphrase of what you said. Do you see the contradiction? I don't see how this isn't a case of human fallibility.

You credit history with the error; however, history is simply a record of that which occurs. In this case, history is a record of human actions.

Therefore, when you credit history with the error, one can say that you are crediting human actions with the error. Again, we return to human fallibility.

That's true. The Bible is outdated, in other words. But you still can't deny the other errors caused by years of retelling and rewriting. The five books of Moses were really written by four different people, in four different time periods. You can't take a book like the Bible at face value. One has to account for a certain number of...inaccuracies.

quote:

What do you mean by history?

I mean that, since the Bible was written in times when certain things (slavery, for example) that we find unacceptable were the norm, it's understandable that we may find errors in what Jesus is credited as saying vs. what the men wrote. Jesus was a very wise man and could see past his culture, upbringing, etc. The other (what I would call "more human") men tried to follow Jesus' word but could not see past their customs.

That is not a human error, as anyone but the Son of God would more than likely write something according to what he/she had been taught in the past. It is simply due to history.

quote:

You state that the errors are because of human fallacy. I disagree and say that they aren't really errors because they were generated by history.

What do you mean by history? If you mean that over time, the Biblical writings distorted from their original content, then I'd have to say that, no, that is indeed human error. The Bible and other similar writings have been retold, redacted, rewritten, transcribed, translated, lost, found, stepped on, buried, found, burned, torn apart, put back together, and overly messed up, all the fault of humans in various ways (although natural disasters could account for some of the mess-ups). Ever play Telephone? Then you'll know what I mean. The message gets screwed up, either intentionally (probably not likely in this case) or mistakenly.

Let's look at one word in particular in the New Testament to show how translation can really mess with the message of something. When Paul wrote his letters, he wrote in Koine Greek. In that form of Greek, there is a word logos. It doesn't translate easily into any other language. It is a word unique to Greek. In English, it's meaning is closest to "all-encompassing force" or something of the sort, but that definition isn't completely accurate. It's not what Paul meant when he used it. And he used it a lot. A lot a lot. So when his letters were translated from Koine Greek into Latin, German, English, etc., they lost a bit of their meaning because logos didn't translate well. And that was the fault of the translators, who were (hopefully) human.

This scenario has repeated itself many times in various ways during the thousands of years during which the Bible has been carried down from generation to generation. It has been modified in quite a few ways, and the blame lies squarely on those who passed it down, either verbally or written. It is their fault the message is skewed, no shoving it off on history.

I'm not arguing for or against Bible inerrancy - just against your argument against it. You state that the errors are because of human fallacy. I disagree and say that they aren't really errors because they were generated by history.

Are you referring to the topic "[Are] God and the Bible phony, or real?" If so, then I want to explain that I'm not asking about the existence of God or the validity of Christianity; I just want to discuss biblical inerrancy.

You mention that one must take into account the historical context.

quote:

...this is a history thing more so than a simple human-caused problem. If you take into account the way women for treated back in Paul's day, I would think this could be considered an upgrade.

My point is basically this: That human fallacy did not create contradictions in the Bible but that the time period they lived in and were brought up in did. Yes, it is in their nature to follow what they were taught all their lives as opposed to what Jesus taught them...

(My emphasis)

I don't see how this refutes biblical inerrancy; rather, you just supported it. If there had been no error, then the writer would have written that which was correct instead of that which was a flawed improvement. Instead, the authors made an error based on the teachings of their society.

quote:

This isn't a repeat, Worth. The only thread even close to this one is about how the Bible is wrong. Ian wrote this thread about a specific topic: Biblical inerrancy.

quote:

Originally posted by iankinzel:
don't know of a nicer way to say this. Be careful about when you choose to be condescending; whether or not I'm "fairly new" is of no matter.

Also, I checked the board; there has not been any other topic that addressed general biblical inerrancy. The closest topic was one that touched upon the Bible's teaching of creationism. Thus, this is not a repeat.

I'm sorry that I come off as hot-headed, but erroneous criticism irritates me. I'll try to be nicer! : )

Damn. I was unaware that that one little comment would be such a big deal. First of all, clpo, I said kinda - in other words, in the multiple "bible is wrong" threads, I have stated most of what I just relayed to ian. That is why I find this to be a repeat.

And I didn't mean to sound condescending. It's not my fault if you took it that way, ian.

quote:

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body."

True, Paul does say after this that husbands must "love [their] wives just as Christ gave his life for it." However, even taking into consideration that second part, Paul's message is that women are to be subordinate to men. He doesn't say why a husband has authority over his wife; he just uses an inappropriate analogy. Therefore, Paul's teaching is arbitrary (and based on none of Jesus' teachings).

Good example. I happen to have a huge problem with Paul on the whole, anyway.

But, again, this is a history thing more so than a simple human-caused problem. If you take into account the way women for treated back in Paul's day, I would think this could be considered an upgrade.

My point is basically this: That human fallacy did not create contradictions in the Bible but that the time period they lived in and were brought up in did. Yes, it is in their nature to follow what they were taught all their lives as opposed to what Jesus taught them...they were trying to apply Jesus' teachings to their everyday living and sometimes, I guess they got it backwards or didn't do a very good job. But I don't think it was due to simple human fallacy.

quote:

Precisely. This was another opportunity to take out whatever church leaders disagreed with, hence another potential source of error.

But the verses themselves aren't in error. Merely the church leaders' decisions.

quote:

If God spoke to the authors, then their writings would hold up on their own; however, in some cases, they don't.

They do. First of all, a lot of the stuff that happens in the Bible would be pretty darn hard to make up. Second of all, why would someone who could potentially be persecuted for doing so even bother presenting what he feels God wants him to write? And, finally, if read in the correct mindframe (as previously stated), the verses would indeed hold up on thier own.

quote:

It is common (though not necessarily ubiquitous, nor even predominant) to find churches teaching that the Holy Spirit guided the authors and kept them from committing error.

If this was so, I repeat, then the teachings would hold up on their own; however, they don't.

Same argument here. They do.

quote:

Based on the first sentence, you sound like you're disagreeing with me, but you provide the exact same viewpoint.

Even the policy of relying on the New Testament is fallible, for the New Testament contains the following teachings of Paul:
-male authority (see also Ephesians 14:34-35).
-submission of slaves to masters
-salvation by faith alone (Jesus did teach that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation; however, he also taught that one must demonstrate the qualities that God values)
-1Cor 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; don't even sit down to eat with such a person." This is in clear contradiction to Jesus' ministry to the sinners (e.g. adulterers, whores, tax collectors, etc.)
-Romans 1:27 repeats the ban on homosexual acts without any justification, and is therefore arbitrary; Jesus, however, never addressed the issue of homosexuality. Thus, one can judge that the issue didn't matter to Jesus.

Again. Not a fan of Paul.

And, just in case you are assuming that I disagree, I am in full support of homosexuality and I can prove to you that the passage in Romans (and any other passage supposedly doing so) that supposedly bans homosexuality in fact does not.

quote:

This split in two already exists.

How does your third category differ from my second category? It's just a better definition, very similar to one that I have used in the past on other sites. One who believes that the Bible is with error attempt to look at it critically, not accepting anything only on merit of being in the Bible and also not rejecting anything only on merit of being in the Bible.

But I see no error.

quote:

I think that the primary source of our misunderstanding is that you're not part of the audience I intend to address. There are churches that believe every word of the Bible is free of error and applicable to modern life. You don't appear to belong to such a church, so you're not one of the people with whom I disagree on this issue.

It doesn't matter if I am your direct audience or not. I was aware that I wasn't to begin with. However, I am still a Christian and in support of the Bible and what it says, even if I also form modern-ized views.

I do belong to such a church (because every church is like that) but I am an individual who can form her own opinions.

Just because I am in support of such so-called "un-Christian" issues such as homosexuality (and I'm pro-choice), doesn't mean that I don't believe in the Bible.

This isn't a repeat, Worth. The only thread even close to this one is about how the Bible is wrong. Ian wrote this thread about a specific topic: Biblical inerrancy.

You wrote a good bit about it, ian. I don't think I have anything to add.

quote:

Um...this is kinda a repeat but since you're kinda new and you seem fairly intelligent, I won't berate you for it.

don't know of a nicer way to say this. Be careful about when you choose to be condescending; whether or not I'm "fairly new" is of no matter.

Also, I checked the board; there has not been any other topic that addressed general biblical inerrancy. The closest topic was one that touched upon the Bible's teaching of creationism. Thus, this is not a repeat.

I'm sorry that I come off as hot-headed, but erroneous criticism irritates me. I'll try to be nicer! : )

quote:

Ian Kinzel: 1. Humans wrote the Bible. God-breathed or not, the Bible was written using the hands of humans. Humans are fallible, and as humans continue to write, errors become more and more inevitable.

WorthWaitingFor: I would like to see a verse that you think is something that humans may have been fallible in writing.

If you give me anything in Leviticus, you are wrong. Yes, Levite law sucks. However, those laws were written for the nomads traveling in the desert with Moses and were therefore necessary. Also, those laws were written were that time period in history in which they make perfectly logical sense.

It's not so much that humans were fallible in writing the Bible but that they wrote it at several different times in history. Therefore, us humans today must read it in the mind frame that some of it - due to changes in history - may not apply at all or at the very least word-for-word...So what if Jesus' teachings conflict with other verses in the Bible? Those other teachings are most likely in the Old Testament...and we're supposed to follow the New Testament (i.e. Jesus' teachings) over the Old Testament anyway. Problem solved.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body."

True, Paul does say after this that husbands must "love [their] wives just as Christ gave his life for it." However, even taking into consideration that second part, Paul's message is that women are to be subordinate to men. He doesn't say why a husband has authority over his wife; he just uses an inappropriate analogy. Therefore, Paul's teaching is arbitrary (and based on none of Jesus' teachings).

quote:

The creation of the Bible was not one action, but literally thousands of actions; every verse was an opportunity for error. Humans screw up every once in a while, and it is only reasonable that such happened on a verse here and there throughout the Bible

I doubt this. Especially when it comes to the New Testament. The books in the New Testament were picked out. Constantine and the Nicea Council looked over several different accounts of Jesus' life and his teachings and purposefully picked out which ones to include in the New Testament. One of the facets that were looked at when deciding was to include the books that made Jesus seem more godlike. So, as you can see, verses (at least in the New Testament - I don't know about the history of the Old Testament) weren't just picked out willy-nilly. I'm sure all of this was read over and over to decide what should be put in and what should be left out.

Precisely. This was another opportunity to take out whatever church leaders disagreed with, hence another potential source of error.

quote:

2. We only have the word of biblical authors that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; reliance on such testimony is like letting a defendant free because he protests his innocence.

This is a skeptic's general view. This is unfair to those who wrote the Bible. If you heard God speak to you (and, no, I don't mean that literally) today but no one believed you, you would completely understand these biblical authors' point-of-view.

If God spoke to the authors, then their writings would hold up on their own; however, in some cases, they don't.

quote:

3. To say that God inspired the authors of the Bible still leaves the option that their beliefs were the motivation for writing the Bible; this differs significantly from the accepted explanation that God spoke to the authors, and then the authors transcribed God's word.
I will never understand how Christians and non-Christians alike can think this.

God does not physically come down from the Heavens to speak to anyone and He didn't during the writing of the Bible either.

That's not to say that the Bible is not God's word. It's just to say that we hear God in different ways that the literal way...a way that is infalliable because, well, it's God.

It is common (though not necessarily ubiquitous, nor even predominant) to find churches teaching that the Holy Spirit guided the authors and kept them from committing error.

If this was so, I repeat, then the teachings would hold up on their own; however, they don't.

quote:

4. In my mind, there is enough evidence that Jesus was a real person, the son of God, who truly preformed miracles. Thus, one could argue that Jesus' teachings came straight from God/the trinity. This brings me to my main point: Jesus' teachings conflicted with teachings (advocated by fallible humans) found elsewhere in the Bible.

This is yet another common misunderstanding of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Yes, Jesus was real. He was human. He was good guy. I believe he was the Messiah but I understand why others would not (ask why and I shall answer but I won't get into it now).

As Christians, we are always, always, always supposed to follow the New Testament over the Old Testament if they contradict. The end. That is what we are supposed to follow because the New Testament created Christians.

Based on the first sentence, you sound like you're disagreeing with me, but you provide the exact same viewpoint.

Even the policy of relying on the New Testament is fallible, for the New Testament contains the following teachings of Paul:
-male authority (see also Ephesians 14:34-35).
-submission of slaves to masters
-salvation by faith alone (Jesus did teach that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation; however, he also taught that one must demonstrate the qualities that God values)
-1Cor 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; don't even sit down to eat with such a person." This is in clear contradiction to Jesus' ministry to the sinners (e.g. adulterers, whores, tax collectors, etc.)
-Romans 1:27 repeats the ban on homosexual acts without any justification, and is therefore arbitrary; Jesus, however, never addressed the issue of homosexuality. Thus, one can judge that the issue didn't matter to Jesus.

quote:

However, those who believe that the Bible has errors also believe that there are different categories for the teachings of the Bible: those that come from God (ie. the teachings of Jesus), and those that don't.
You have split Christians in two and I think there is a third category. You say there are those who believe the Bible is without error and those who do, yet fault the men and not God.

This split in two already exists.

How does your third category differ from my second category? It's just a better definition, very similar to one that I have used in the past on other sites. One who believes that the Bible is with error attempt to look at it critically, not accepting anything only on merit of being in the Bible and also not rejecting anything only on merit of being in the Bible.

I think that the primary source of our misunderstanding is that you're not part of the audience I intend to address. There are churches that believe every word of the Bible is free of error and applicable to modern life. You don't appear to belong to such a church, so you're not one of the people with whom I disagree on this issue.

Um...this is kinda a repeat but since you're kinda new and you seem fairly intelligent, I won't berate you for it.

Now, on to my response.

quote:

1. Humans wrote the Bible. God-breathed or not, the Bible was written using the hands of humans. Humans are fallible, and as humans continue to write, errors become more and more inevitable.

I would like to see a verse that you think is something that humans may have been fallible in writing.

If you give me anything in Leviticus, you are wrong. Yes, Levite law sucks. However, those laws were written for the nomads traveling in the desert with Moses and were therefore necessary. Also, those laws were written were that time period in history in which they make perfectly logical sense.

It's not so much that humans were fallible in writing the Bible but that they wrote it at several different times in history. Therefore, us humans today must read it in the mind frame that some of it - due to changes in history - may not apply at all or at the very least word-for-word.

quote:

The creation of the Bible was not one action, but literally thousands of actions; every verse was an opportunity for error. Humans screw up every once in a while, and it is only reasonable that such happened on a verse here and there throughout the Bible.

I doubt this. Especially when it comes to the New Testament. The books in the New Testament were picked out. Constantine and the Nicea Council looked over several different accounts of Jesus' life and his teachings and purposefully picked out which ones to include in the New Testament. One of the facets that were looked at when deciding was to include the books that made Jesus seem more godlike. So, as you can see, verses (at least in the New Testament - I don't know about the history of the Old Testament) weren't just picked out willy-nilly. I'm sure all of this was read over and over to decide what should be put in and what should be left out.

Now, they may have made some mistakes in their decision but not in what was written.

quote:

2. We only have the word of biblical authors that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; reliance on such testimony is like letting a defendant free because he protests his innocence.

This is a skeptic's general view. This is unfair to those who wrote the Bible. If you heard God speak to you (and, no, I don't mean that literally) today but no one believed you, you would completely understand these biblical authors' point-of-view.

As a Christian, who else am I to trust if not the ones who wrote the book which is the foundation of my religion?

quote:

3. To say that God inspired the authors of the Bible still leaves the option that their beliefs were the motivation for writing the Bible; this differs significantly from the accepted explanation that God spoke to the authors, and then the authors transcribed God's word.

I will never understand how Christians and non-Christians alike can think this.

God does not physically come down from the Heavens to speak to anyone and He didn't during the writing of the Bible either.

That's not to say that the Bible is not God's word. It's just to say that we hear God in different ways that the literal way...a way that is infalliable because, well, it's God.

quote:

4. In my mind, there is enough evidence that Jesus was a real person, the son of God, who truly preformed miracles. Thus, one could argue that Jesus' teachings came straight from God/the trinity. This brings me to my main point: Jesus' teachings conflicted with teachings (advocated by fallible humans) found elsewhere in the Bible.

This is yet another common misunderstanding of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Yes, Jesus was real. He was human. He was good guy. I believe he was the Messiah but I understand why others would not (ask why and I shall answer but I won't get into it now).

As Christians, we are always, always, always supposed to follow the New Testament over the Old Testament if they contradict. The end. That is what we are supposed to follow because the New Testament created Christians.

So what if Jesus' teachings conflict with other verses in the Bible? Those other teachings are most likely in the Old Testament...and we're supposed to follow the New Testament (i.e. Jesus' teachings) over the Old Testament anyway. Problem solved.

quote:

In another part of the Bible, Jesus teaches that what you eat does not make you unclean, but that which you say and do makes you unclean. This is in direct contradiction to all the dietary laws in the old testament.

See my rant about Leviticus.

quote:

However, those who believe that the Bible has errors also believe that there are different categories for the teachings of the Bible: those that come from God (ie. the teachings of Jesus), and those that don't.

You have split Christians in two and I think there is a third category. You say there are those who believe the Bible is without error and those who do, yet fault the men and not God.

I think there are also those (at least me) who don't necessarily see the Bible as having error but as history with morals and beliefs in a higher being and after-life thrown in. If you look at it that way, then whatever apparent contradictions or unreasonable laws that exist can be ignored and stated as a part of the history.

Some will come and say, "But then you can do whatever you want and state that the Christian law that prevents you from doing so is just history." No, not true. It's clear within the Bible what is completely ridiculous, slightly in the gray area, and completely wrong (i.e. rape).

Basically there are those who see it without error, those who see the error but still believe in God, and those who look at it objectively, form their own opinions but still believe in God and follow the basic moral principles that Christianity presents.