The Holy Bible

#1

MyBloodRunnethOrange

Jesus is Lord
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
116,843
Likes
24,383
#1
Is the Bible inerrant?

How do we know for certain that what we have is what God want's us to have?

What about the Apocrypha?

What about some of the other NT era texts?

What about the Epistle to the Laodiceans?

What about the Shepherd of Hermes?

The Gospel of Pilate?

The Gospel of Thomas?

The newly discovered Gospel of Judas?

The Apocolypse of Peter?

The Song of Soloman is an erotic love letter. Why is it in the Bible?

Any thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Is the Bible inerrant?

No. Unlike certain religious books, the Bible was written and compiled by man. It was inspired by God, however, many things are inspired by God and have numerous flaws.

How do we know for certain that what we have is what God want's us to have?

We do not. This is why I do my best to read from many different sources.

What about the Apocrypha?

The "Apocryphal" Books of the Bible are actually referred to in the Gospels and the other New Testament books. If they were good enough for Jesus and his disciples to study and preach, then I feel they are good enough for everyone else.

What about some of the other NT era texts?

It depends. Gnostic texts and Arian texts are texts in which the basic message completely counters the basic messages of Gospels, NT books, and many other books that were written about Jesus and the Apostles during the time. There is a lot of fascinating research concerning the selection of the the books that make up the New Testament and which ones did not make it into the Bible. There were many that did not make it into the NT because they were more biographically centered than centered on the message of Christ. Most of these books are approved of by the Catholic Church.

What about the Epistle to the Laodiceans?


What about the Shepherd of Hermes?

The Gospel of Pilate?

The Gospel of Thomas?

The newly discovered Gospel of Judas?

Not newly discovered at all. Was one of the foremost Gnostic gospels early in the history of the Catholic Church.

The Apocolypse of Peter?

The Song of Soloman is an erotic love letter. Why is it in the Bible?

Also known as Song of Songs, this book is one of the most beautiful books in the Bible...IMO

Any thoughts?
The questions I did not answer all refer to more Gnostic Texts.

 
#3
#3
(therealUT @ Aug 7 said:
It depends. Gnostic texts and Arian texts are texts in which the basic message completely counters the basic messages of Gospels, NT books, and many other books that were written about Jesus and the Apostles during the time. There is a lot of fascinating research concerning the selection of the the books that make up the New Testament and which ones did not make it into the Bible. There were many that did not make it into the NT because they were more biographically centered than centered on the message of Christ. Most of these books are approved of by the Catholic Church.
the Gnostic texts teach a different message obviously, but I wonder if there is a deeper reason for their exclusion, or did the Church just exclude everything which went against their teachings. I would love to see some of the research you're talking about if you'd point me in the right direction to find it.

(therealUT @ Aug 7 said:
The Song of Soloman is an erotic love letter. Why is it in the Bible?

Also known as Song of Songs, this book is one of the most beautiful books in the Bible...IMO
I agree it is one of the most beautiful writings in the Bible. I just don't see what it has to do with God, which is why I wonder why it is in the cannon.
 
#4
#4
Is the Bible inerrant?

No. Unlike certain religious books, the Bible was written and compiled by man. It was inspired by God, however, many things are inspired by God and have numerous flaws

How do you know this? Where in the Bible does God declare he inspired it's writing? I believe man has made a lot of comments along the way that have lead people to believe many things about the Bible and the New Testament that may not be true. This is one of them. If God inspired the writing of the Bible, why is it so vague, confusing, frustrating and at times contradictory of itself? Did God want us to have several hundred Christian denominations and sects? IMO if the Bible were inspired by God, it would have been (as my 8th grade english teacher said) complete, concise and to the point. It ain't.

The wonderful thing about all those transcripts and manuscripts that are not in the Bible (some men made those decisions as well) is that there is a wealth of additional written history that substantiates the Bible as we have it now.
 
#5
#5
(BHAMVOLFAN @ Aug 7 said:
How do you know this? Where in the Bible does God declare he inspired it's writing? I believe man has made a lot of comments along the way that have lead people to believe many things about the Bible and the New Testament that may not be true. This is one of them. If God inspired the writing of the Bible, why is it so vague, confusing, frustrating and at times contradictory of itself? Did God want us to have several hundred Christian denominations and sects? IMO if the Bible were inspired by God, it would have been (as my 8th grade english teacher said) complete, concise and to the point. It ain't.

The wonderful thing about all those transcripts and manuscripts that are not in the Bible (some men made those decisions as well) is that there is a wealth of additional written history that substantiates the Bible as we have it now.

I did not say that the Bible is the only work of literature inspired by God. I also clearly stated that it is flawed. On the subject of how I know this and how I can prove this, I cannot.
 
#6
#6
Wow, this could be a long subject to talk about............................. :air_kiss: Thank you!

It is well known that the Bible is the most translated book in the world. In 1994 the United Bible Societies recorded that, of the estimated 3,000 languages in the world, 341 had complete Bibles, 822 some parts of the Bible, and that Bible translation was in progress in an additional 1,000 languages. The lack of ability to speak the languages in which the Bible was originally written and continual changes in the languages we speak have created the need to translate the Bible. Therefore, throughout the years, there have been many who have translated or tried to translate the Bible.

However, translating the Bible is not an easy task, since there are many problems inherent in Bible translation. If we think how hard it is to translate modern languages into English, then how much more difficult it must be to translate 3,000-year-old Hebrew and 2,000-year-old Greek!

One basic problem inherent in Bible translation is that we do not have the original manuscript of the Bible, but copies of copies of copies... and this causes many problems because translators do not know which of all these copies is correct and which is not, since none of them are identical. The differences are not very significant in the Old Testament, but they are in the New Testament. According to research, "about 3 per cent of the Bible's texts varies across all the manuscripts. Nowadays, we have about 1,500 complete or partial manuscripts of the New Testament." Bible Translation

There are two main approaches to solving this problem. The more common one is called the ecletic approach. Scholars put together a text from all the available manuscripts using various rules to sort out differences.
But this approach is not accepted by many people, for it gives too much scope to human judgment.

Another approach that has been used in the past is that of Ivan Panin. In 1890 Ivan Panin, after his conversion from atheism, discovered that the entire Bible was full of hidden numerical patterns largely based on the number seven. This discovery had two major implications. First, it gave striking proof of the inspiration of the Scripture. Every sentence, every word and even every letter had the divine seal upon it. The patterns could never have been placed there by human wit. Second, it gave him a method of deciding in every instance which was the correct text; and this numerical theory even enabled Panin to resolve ambiguities of punctuation (ibid). However, Ivan Panin's work has been almost entirely ignored by academics.

Most people know, the Bible in its original untranslated form is a collection of ancient writings; the New Testament in Greek (though parts may have been previously written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek), the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, some passages of the Old Testament, mostly in Daniel, spanning many cultures and more than a thousand years. The 66 books into which the Bible is divided represent "a greater variety of literary styles e.g. historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, instructions and exhortation etc.

Another problem that many translators face in Bible translation is that the Bible is addressed to a huge variety of people, e.g. theologians, adults, children, believers and non-believers, etc. The Bible is written for different uses, i.e., for both readers and listeners. Thus, we could say that it is very difficult for a translator to translate the Bible since s/he must 'reproduce' an equivalent text in the Target Language, which can be 'used' for the same purposes as that of the Source Language.

One must point out that "since no two languages are identical, there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no fully exact translations. The total impact of a translation may be reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail.

No one English word is exactly equivalent to it. It can mean a word, a thought, a saying, a discourse, a narrative, a matter and many other things. The translator must choose the best equivalent in each situation. To illustrate grammatical problems we can consider tenses. English has two present tenses whereas most other languages only have one. Εσθίω in Greek or ich esse in German can mean 'I eat' or 'I am eating'. Pronouns are also full of problems. Hebrew has four words for you distinguishing between masculine and feminine and singular and plural. English has only the one. In the Song of Solomon, in the Hebrew it is always clear from the gender whether the bride or bridegroom is speaking, but some English versions lose the distinction.

Another problem inherent in Bible translation is comprehension of the intended meaning. Here, in fact, there are at least three problems. First, there is the problem of understanding the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. No one who spoke those languages is around to tell us what they mean. We all know that languages continually change over time. New words are always being added and others take on different or added meanings.

Second there is also the problem of cultural understanding. With an imperfect knowledge of ancient cultures it is not always possible to understand references of various kinds. Bible scholars are continually learning things about ancient Israel and the Near East that can help us understand the historical and cultural context out of which the Bible emerged.

The third and most important problem in understanding the Bible is the spiritual problem. "The natural mind does not receive things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:14). Anyone who knows God has had the experience of reading a Bible passage a hundred times and then suddenly seeing what it means. As we grow in spiritual understanding, the Bible continually reveals its deeper meanings. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. Who then would claim to understand every word of the Bible? Hidden gems may well lie beneath the surface of its every sentence.

To conclude, we should admit that the task of the Bible translator is not an easy one since there are many problems inherent in Bible translation. The Bible is a book that was written long ago in three ancient languages, which are unfamiliar to present-day laymen. It involves a greater variety of literary styles than can be encountered in any other piece of literature in the history of the mankind.

The Bible is addressed to a huge variety of people and was written for different 'uses' e.g. listening, reading etc. This makes the Bible hard to translate since it is very difficult—for some people impossible—to transfer all these features from the Source Languages into the Target Language. Because of all the above-mentioned problems (as well others which were not mentioned in this essay) inherent in Bible translation, we have many dozens of Bible translations today.

Nevertheless, no one translation (for instance, The King James Version) can be declared the 'correct' one, since each of them has contributed to our knowledge and understanding of the Bible. Finally, it should be added that in the future we should expect more translations, for languages continually change and Bible scholars are continually learning from archeological findings and newly discovered documents that help translators understand the ancient Greek and Hebrew better. It is certain that there will always be a need for new translations of the Bible because we still have a lot to learn about it.

Some other links of interest.
Index
Translators Tools
Bible Resource Center




 
#7
#7
Good article. I guess the implications there ar where I could see difficulties in saying it is 100% correct to TRUT's and MBRO's point. But, I still feel it is as correct as we can know it to be at this time, and would be more accurate still than any later writings wherethe authors have no ties back to Christ. I am referrring there basically to the new testament, as that is the law I believe is our salvation and we'll be judged by.

AS far as TRUT's post, I would like to see your references from the new testament to the other apochrihpa. I know they exist, and that sounds interesting. Where do you find them for reading. there only a couple of christian book stores near me, and I don't think they carry these writings. Most basis for the new testament being quite accurate a flawless is that all the writers of the new testament books were able to show their authority to write the letters to their audience by stating basically their relationship with Christ, their presence with him, etc., something their audiences did know to be true. Being able to identify that authenticity by the authors is one way translations basically observe when including or precluding letters in teh new testament.
 
#8
#8
(GVF @ Aug 8 said:
Good article. I guess the implications there ar where I could see difficulties in saying it is 100% correct to TRUT's and MBRO's point. But, I still feel it is as correct as we can know it to be at this time, and would be more accurate still than any later writings wherethe authors have no ties back to Christ. I am referrring there basically to the new testament, as that is the law I believe is our salvation and we'll be judged by.

AS far as TRUT's post, I would like to see your references from the new testament to the other apochrihpa. I know they exist, and that sounds interesting. Where do you find them for reading. there only a couple of christian book stores near me, and I don't think they carry these writings. Most basis for the new testament being quite accurate a flawless is that all the writers of the new testament books were able to show their authority to write the letters to their audience by stating basically their relationship with Christ, their presence with him, etc., something their audiences did know to be true. Being able to identify that authenticity by the authors is one way translations basically observe when including or precluding letters in teh new testament.

Every time that Jesus and his Apostles refer to Scripture, they Aramaic and Hebrew words they use actually refer to the Septuagint. Which was the Jewish scripture at the time of Christ and contained 46 books, to include the 'apocryphal' texts of Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, etc.
 
#9
#9
Good article OE. I agree with the translation problems noted, and it is very diffucult to get an exact translation. What I'm really looking for is not whether they are translated correctly as much as whether they are the "inspired Word of God" . The method used by Ivan Panin sounds interesting to say the least. It remonds me of the Bible Code somewhat.

I'm really interested in whether the books that we have should be there, and whether others should be included. One of the books which is considered gnostic, Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans, is actually mentioned in the bible. In Colossians 4:16, he tells the Colossians to read the epistle from Laodicea.

It is a deep subject to be sure, as most topics on religion are.
 
#10
#10
So with all the confusion and incosistancies in the texts, does anyone think that God sent Jesus for a lot of reasons one of them being he knew men would screw up the written word?
 
#11
#11
(dan4vols @ Aug 8 said:
So with all the confusion and incosistancies in the texts, does anyone think that God sent Jesus for a lot of reasons one of them being he knew men would screw up the written word?
It's good to see you back Dan :toast:

I think that is a very good possibility. I tend to give more weight to the gospels than to other texts as well, especially the synoptic gospels, since they deal more with the words of Jesus than the words of Paul or Peter.
 
#12
#12
(BHAMVOLFAN @ Aug 7 said:
How do you know this? Where in the Bible does God declare he inspired it's writing?


II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"




 
#13
#13
(LadyinOrange @ Aug 8 said:
II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And, the Vulgate version of the same chapter and verse:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Notice how different those editions are. One has to wonder if Queen Elizabeth I and King James intentionally altered that in order that their version be accepted...
 
#14
#14
(therealUT @ Aug 8 said:
And, the Vulgate version of the same chapter and verse:
Notice how different those editions are. One has to wonder if Queen Elizabeth I and King James intentionally altered that in order that their version be accepted...

Let's all memorize the Greek NT. Everything else is just a watered down version anyway. "Orthodox" (for lack of a better word) Muslims all memorize the Koran in Arabic.
 
#15
#15
(Lexvol @ Aug 8 said:
Let's all memorize the Greek NT. Everything else is just a watered down version anyway. "Orthodox" (for lack of a better word) Muslims all memorize the Koran in Arabic.

Interesting that you bring that up. I was reading through one of Scott Hahn's many books, and he referenced a study that showed that over 90% of all Protestan theologians (all ministers in their respective churches) who learned Greek and then read the Septuagint and the Greek New Testaments, converted to Catholicism. I just found that very, very interesting.
 
#16
#16
(therealUT @ Aug 8 said:
Interesting that you bring that up. I was reading through one of Scott Hahn's many books, and he referenced a study that showed that over 90% of all Protestan theologians (all ministers in their respective churches) who learned Greek and then read the Septuagint and the Greek New Testaments, converted to Catholicism. I just found that very, very interesting.

I wonder what the time frame was for the study? With liberalism and humanism running rampant in most protestant theological seminaries, unless you are going to be a southern baptist minister, Catholicism now offers the most reasonable alternative to the modern day "mega church". At the mega church proof texting reigns supreme, and exegesis is a thing of the past.

Catholicism offers a formal, traditional worship style, with theological parameters accepted by most conservative protestants.
 
#17
#17
(Lexvol @ Aug 8 said:
I wonder what the time frame was for the study? With liberalism and humanism running rampant in most protestant theological seminaries, unless you are going to be a southern baptist minister, Catholicism now offers the most reasonable alternative to the modern day "mega church". At the mega church proof texting reigns supreme, and exegesis is a thing of the past.

Catholicism offers a formal, traditional worship style, with theological parameters accepted by most conservative protestants.

I am not sure exactly what the time frame was. However, their have been plenty of conferences in the past two years between the leaders of the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church, and I believe one of the things that came out of the talks is that Episcopalians are now allowed to say the Rosary and have Marian devotions. I feel it is only a matter of time before the Episcopal Church returns to its Catholic roots.
 
#18
#18
Is that all Muslims?...or just the ones that disregard the parts speaking to non violence, mercy, and love and blow people up? Take many of the Gay and Lesbian crowd that attend a church and somehow get past that part that speaks to homsexuality is an abomination. Mankind seem to delight in putting a human spin on the scriptures, how convienient it is it always seems to benefit the 1st person.
 
#19
#19
(therealUT @ Aug 8 said:
I am not sure exactly what the time frame was. However, their have been plenty of conferences in the past two years between the leaders of the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church, and I believe one of the things that came out of the talks is that Episcopalians are now allowed to say the Rosary and have Marian devotions. I feel it is only a matter of time before the Episcopal Church returns to its Catholic roots.

I was unaware of the developments. It will be interesting to see if that happens considering what the Episcopal bishops are doing regarding homosexuality.

I will persist in my protestant ways regardless. I will say that "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" is a very good read.
 
#20
#20
(dan4vols @ Aug 8 said:
Is that all Muslims?...or just the ones that disregard the parts speaking to non violence, mercy, and love and blow people up? Take many of the Gay and Lesbian crowd that attend a church and somehow get past that part that speaks to homsexuality is an abomination. Mankind seem to delight in putting a human spin on the scriptures, how convienient it is it always seems to benefit the 1st person.

Good to have you back Dan. Mankind does have a bent toward self destruction....don't know if that has anything to do with homosexuality, but nevertheless there has never been a forbidden fruit that wasn't enjoyed somewhere by someone.
 
#21
#21
(dan4vols @ Aug 8 said:
Is that all Muslims?...or just the ones that disregard the parts speaking to non violence, mercy, and love and blow people up? Take many of the Gay and Lesbian crowd that attend a church and somehow get past that part that speaks to homsexuality is an abomination. Mankind seem to delight in putting a human spin on the scriptures, how convienient it is it always seems to benefit the 1st person.

The problem with radical Islam is less a problem with the Koran and more a problem of power. Many fundamentalists Muslims feel powerless on the world stage, and therefore to serve their God the only way they can push Allah's agenda is through violence. I have a feeling that a lot of fundamentalist Christians would find themselves acting much the same way if they too were powerless on the world stage (abortion clinic violence studies corroborate this statement.)
 
#22
#22
(therealUT @ Aug 8 said:
The problem with radical Islam is less a problem with the Koran and more a problem of power. Many fundamentalists Muslims feel powerless on the world stage, and therefore to serve their God the only way they can push Allah's agenda is through violence. I have a feeling that a lot of fundamentalist Christians would find themselves acting much the same way if they too were powerless on the world stage (abortion clinic violence studies corroborate this statement.)

Agree and disagree. I have taken part in several community roundtable discussions with the people of the Islamic faith, and my instincts tell me that all are most concerned with developing a theocracy everywhere that they can.

That does in fact draw some comparison to the radical element of the Christian right, but the percentage of Christians that want a theocracy is 10%, compared to the 90% of Muslims that want a theocracy.
 
#23
#23
(Lexvol @ Aug 8 said:
Agree and disagree. I have taken part in several community roundtable discussions with the people of the Islamic faith, and my instincts tell me that all are most concerned with developing a theocracy everywhere that they can.

That does in fact draw some comparison to the radical element of the Christian right, but the percentage of Christians that want a theocracy is 10%, compared to the 90% of Muslims that want a theocracy.

The extremely religious right would love to have a theocracy. These are the people who lobby for Amendments to ban gay marriage, greater legislation against alcohol consumption, more Federal control over what is appropriate for television, etc. I would state that the fundamentalist Christians, in America, are using a less direct method, than radical Islam, to attain a theocracy, however, they are most definitely aimed at that end state.
 
#24
#24
(therealUT @ Aug 8 said:
The extremely religious right would love to have a theocracy. These are the people who lobby for Amendments to ban gay marriage, greater legislation against alcohol consumption, more Federal control over what is appropriate for television, etc. I would state that the fundamentalist Christians, in America, are using a less direct method, than radical Islam, to attain a theocracy, however, they are most definitely aimed at that end state.

While I too despise the legislation of morality, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Mostly because freedom of religion in the US will never be touched, even by fundamentalist christians.
 
#25
#25
(Lexvol @ Aug 8 said:
While I too despise the legislation of morality, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Mostly because freedom of religion in the US will never be touched, even by fundamentalist christians.

Does Freedom of Religion have to be touched if their morals are legislated upon everyone?
 

VN Store



Back
Top