Why is the Bible so imperfect?

PDN · 07-06-2008 07:16PM

Akrasia wrote: »

How many copies of 'the dictionary' are sold every year?

(I'd say just as many people read it cover to cover as read the bible)

There are loads of different versions of dictionaries, but there are loads of different versions of the bible too, and all are included in the '100 million a year' figure.

Or how many copies of 'the newspaper'?

The best selling dictionary is Chinese - Wei Jiangong's Xinhua Dictionary. It has sold 400 million copies in total over the last 50 years.

(I'd say just as many people read it cover to cover as read the bible)

You'd say wrong.

Thousands of Christians follow reading plans to read the Bible cover to cover in a year. I've not heard of too many people who follow a plan to read a dictionary cover to cover in a year.

There are loads of different versions of dictionaries, but there are loads of different versions of the bible too, and all are included in the '100 million a year' figure.

Is this a serious point? Or is it a case of too much alcohol consumed on a Saturday afternoon?

The different versions of the Bible are different translations of one text.

The different dictionaries (hardly 'versions) are different texts.

Schuhart · 07-06-2008 07:35PM

PDN wrote: »

The Christian position is that God inspired the Biblical writers but that their different personalities are recognisable - ruling out any idea of mechanical dictation.

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

Black Swan · 07-06-2008 07:44PM

There appears to be a lot of inconsistency between the mood, spirit, and intent of the Old and New Testament. Of course, the New is informed by Christ? The Old is so violent, angry, and vengeful in parts, that I find it hardly consistent with the Christ ethic exhibited in the New. Vaporizing an entire city, claiming that there was not one innocent person to be found, not even infants? That sounds more like the anthropomorphic justification used to A-bomb two cities in Japan by the US, where there were thousands of innocent infants vaporized? Before I drifted off from my Catholic upbringing, I found that I would avoid the often capricious and inexplicable violence of the Old Testament; although being younger, I could not articulate why (and still can't with any confidence today). There is some beauty in the Christ ethic, in terms of how we should treat each other, hence I find parts of the New Testament having value, even to one who no longer belongs to a religion or systematic belief system.

iUseVi · 07-06-2008 08:13PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

This is actually a really good question so I'll just +1 and wait for the answer.

PDN · 07-06-2008 08:17PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Apologies if this is already covered recently, but what's the basis for the idea of divine inspiration? I mean, clearly the career of Jesus (for the sake of argument) would have to be something deemed to involve God pretty directly. But presumably it could be said that the record of that career was just up to folk to record as best they could, without any particular divine inspiration or guidance. That might even fit in with why the written records available to us date to a few decades after than time.

Is the position that the Biblical writers were divinely inspired based on an assumption that God must have wanted an accurate record of events? Or is there some particular ground taken as support for this belief?

The basis would be the claims of Scripture itself.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

We know that the NT use of the word Scripture applies to more than just the Jewish Scriptures when Peter applies it to the writings of Paul:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

philologos · 07-06-2008 08:18PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also despite everyone owning a Bible very few actually read it. I'd say most Christians who actually do read it completely skip the Old Testament and read the Nativity and Passion of Jesus and skip all the boring middle bits.

Now is that based on assumption or fact?

I personally found the "boring middle bits" to be facinating, and bring a connection between the Jewish Tanakh and the New Testament.

iUseVi · 07-06-2008 08:27PM

PDN wrote: »

The basis would be the claims of Scripture itself.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16)

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

We know that the NT use of the word Scripture applies to more than just the Jewish Scriptures when Peter applies it to the writings of Paul:

Little bit of circular reasoning there.

-Why is bible God's inerrant word?
-Because the bible says so.
-So what?
-God wrote the bible so it must be true.

Besides, when these verses that you quote were written, the writer had no idea what scripture would be in our bibles. Especially things that were written afterwards.

PDN · 07-06-2008 08:27PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also despite everyone owning a Bible very few actually read it. I'd say most Christians who actually do read it completely skip the Old Testament and read the Nativity and Passion of Jesus and skip all the boring middle bits.

I had missed this. Thanks, Jakkass, for highlighting it!

Undoubtedly many people do own a Bible and don't read it. The same would be true of many books. For example, I often see surveys listing James Joyce's Ulysses as one of the best books ever written. Yet how many people who have a copy of Ulysses have spent the necessary hours wading through 900 pages of literary crap from cover to cover? (I did, and at the end of time I'm going to ask God to give me back the two days I wasted reading it)

Also, in many parts of the world Bibles are hard to come by. I visited a Chinese village where they only had one Bible between 100 villagers. I wondered why all the pages were ripped out until I realised that each family would take a few pages home each week and commit them to memory. I had smuggled a suitcase of Chinese Bibles in with me and you should have seen the joy when they were handed out!

PDN · 07-06-2008 08:35PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Little bit of circular reasoning there.

-Why is bible God's inerrant word?
-Because the bible says so.
-So what?
-God wrote the bible so it must be true.

Besides, when these verses that you quote were written, the writer had no idea what scripture would be in our bibles. Especially things that were written afterwards.

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

iUseVi · 07-06-2008 08:36PM

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

Fair enough, I see what you getting at.

MooseJam · 07-06-2008 08:39PM

All the letters in the bible, are they like letters as we know them today ? there were no postmen in those days so who delivered them, also they were addressed to whole piles of people, like Johns letter to the Irish, of course in the bible it's not the Irish but some group of eastern chappies, did they actually get the letters and how did all of them read it, did they pin it up on a noticeboard ?

PDN · 07-06-2008 08:48PM

MooseJam wrote: »

All the letters in the bible, are they like letters as we know them today ? there were no postmen in those days so who delivered them, also they were addressed to whole piles of people, like Johns letter to the Irish, of course in the bible it's not the Irish but some group of eastern chappies, did they actually get the letters and how did all of them read it, did they pin it up on a noticeboard ?

They were real letters, probably carried by messengers.

The Cursus publicus, founded by Augustus, carried the mail of officials by relay throughout the Roman road system. The vehicle for carrying mail was a cisium with a box, but for special delivery, a horse and rider was faster. A relay of horses could carry a letter 500 miles in 24 hours. The postman wore a characteristic leather hat, the petanus. The postal service was a somewhat dangerous occupation, as postmen were a target for bandits and enemies of Rome.

Private mail of the well-to-do was carried by tabellarii, an organization of slaves available for a price. http://www.crystalinks.com/romeroads.html

We know that the people did actually get the letters as we see follow ups. For example, Second Corinthians and Second Thessalonians address issues and questions arising from First Corinthians and First Thessalonians.

Many people were illiterate, so churches had a lector, or 'reader', who would read the letters to the church when they were gathered together.

Zombrex · 07-06-2008 09:03PM

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

Well its still circular reasoning.

The assumption is that the Bible would only really be helpful and lead to a profound change in a persons life if it is accurate in it's claims of being from a supernatural source. This is an idea re-enforced by the Bible itself.

If one works on the idea that this effect could only be produced through a supernatural source of information (ie God), then the effect is then used as reverse confirmation of this claim.

Using your analogy of the motor bike from an earlier post, it is the assumption that without knowing the inner workings of the motor bike in question the manual could not have produced information that would help you get the bike working.

Derren Brown has done some very interesting TV programs about this psychological phenomena, such as when he wrote out a personal description of 10 people in a room, which the 10 were totally amazed at how accurate it was, until they swapped them around and found that the 10 descriptions were exactly the same.

Pompey Magnus · 07-06-2008 09:56PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Now is that based on assumption or fact?

I personally found the "boring middle bits" to be facinating, and bring a connection between the Jewish Tanakh and the New Testament.

This is based on personal experience as a one time Christian myself and through observing the attitude that people I know who are Christian have towards the Bible. One of my best friends considers himself a fairly strong Catholic (no sex before marriage, drinks alcohol very rarely, mass every Sunday, prays every night etc etc) yet he has only a very basic knowledge of the Bible. He doesn't know who wrote the Gospels or when, and has just a vague knowledge of what Jesus actually said and did apart from the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and some of the more well known miracles. He has never read the Bible and has no intention to, even though I try to get him to read it.

I believe he is no different to the majority of Christians today in his knowledge of the Bible. I was exactly the same up to a few years ago and it wasn't until I became an atheist that I began to take an interest in the book. It would be interesting if lay Christians were given a general knowledge test on the Bible to see just how well average Christians know about this book that they supposedly revere. For example:

(1) What language were the Gospels originally written?
(a) Hebrew (b) Greek (c) Aramaic (d) Latin

(2) How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written?
(a) 0 - 15 years (b) 16 - 30 years (c) 30+ years

(3) Which was the first Gospel written?
(a) Matthew (b) Mark (c) Luke (d) John

(4) Fill in the blank with either love or hate: "If anyone comes to me and does not ____ his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."

etc

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

PDN · 07-06-2008 10:01PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This is based on personal experience as a one time Christian myself and through observing the attitude that people I know who are Christian have towards the Bible. One of my best friends considers himself a fairly strong Catholic (no sex before marriage, drinks alcohol very rarely, mass every Sunday, prays every night etc etc) yet he has only a very basic knowledge of the Bible. He doesn't know who wrote the Gospels or when, and has just a vague knowledge of what Jesus actually said and did apart from the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and some of the more well known miracles. He has never read the Bible and has no intention to, even though I try to get him to read it.

I believe he is no different to the majority of Christians today in his knowledge of the Bible. I was exactly the same up to a few years ago and it wasn't until I became an atheist that I began to take an interest in the book. It would be interesting if lay Christians were given a general knowledge test on the Bible to see just how well average Christians know about this book that they supposedly revere. For example:

(1) What language were the Gospels originally written?
(a) Hebrew (b) Greek (c) Aramaic (d) Latin

(2) How long after Jesus' death was the first Gospel written?
(a) 0 - 15 years (b) 16 - 30 years (c) 30+ years

(3) Which was the first Gospel written?
(a) Matthew (b) Mark (c) Luke (d) John

(4) Fill in the blank with either love or hate: "If anyone comes to me and does not ____ his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."

etc

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

Not a great quiz. Numbers 2 & 3 are really about what scholars say about the Bible, and respected theologians who know the Bible very well give differing answers.

iUseVi · 07-06-2008 11:38PM

PDN wrote: »

Not a great quiz. Numbers 2 & 3 are really about what scholars say about the Bible, and respected theologians who know the Bible very well give differing answers.

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

PDN · 07-06-2008 11:55PM

iUseVi wrote: »

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

Yes, I think it is important, which is why I teach it in classes. I think the evidence for the authenticity of the documents is pretty compelling, so the more informed people are about them the better.

Pompey Magnus · 07-06-2008 11:56PM

iUseVi wrote: »

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

Quite right. I would hazard a guess that most Christians would assume the Gospels were written in the immediate aftermath of the resurrection, that the authors were eye witnesses to the events, that the versions we have now are as they were originally written with no additions/subtractions by later scribes, and that the four Gospels were the accepted texts of Christianity from the very beginning.

I think they just have this vague idea of what the Gospels says, they assume Jesus condemned homosexuality when in fact he never mentioned it, they assume the story about Jesus saving the adulteress really happened, they assume the Gospels are completely compatable and accurate historical accounts. They are happy enough to live with these assumptions.

Húrin · 08-06-2008 01:21AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Then you have many examples of later people claiming to be representatives of God on Earth claiming that God has told them go and kill, destroy, genocide etc etc.

Most of the time the Hebrew soldiers were not directly told by God anything, they were told through their leaders, who claimed direct communication with God (as leaders often do). And they followed their leaders because the soldiers believed they did have communication with God (and wouldn't you follow God's representatives on Earth? This is a perfectly acceptable way to wage war in the Old Testament.

Moses and Joshua did not just claim to their soldiers that they had a divine mandate: according to the text, they proved it. God performed miracles in front of all the Israelites to prove the credibility of their leaders.

MooseJam wrote: »

is the bible copyrighted ? where does the master copy lie, if it's not copyrighted could I publish my own version of the bible, is it OK to make money selling bibles, surely selling the word of god is a big no no.

Thomas Jefferson did it. He shredded the gospels to make a deist version of Christianity.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There appears to be a lot of inconsistency between the mood, spirit, and intent of the Old and New Testament. Of course, the New is informed by Christ? The Old is so violent, angry, and vengeful in parts, that I find it hardly consistent with the Christ ethic exhibited in the New.

Jesus did not appear on earth to merely serve as a moral teacher. He left his followers, like Paul, to elaborate on ethics. I think that his most important role was as an eschatological figure. That is, he came to tell us that God intends to renew the world soon, and that he has provided a salvation plan for those who wish to be a part of that new world of heaven on earth.

Most of the books of prophecy in the Old Testament are somewhat, or entirely concerned with the coming of Christ and the ensuing renewal of the world. This, the two Testaments are indivisible.

Húrin · 08-06-2008 01:28AM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that most Christians would struggle when quizzed on their faith.

I agree, and I also think that most atheists would too.

You would have a hard time converting even a Biblically ignorant Christian to atheism merely by quizzing. Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist, but it is an entirely different question to get them to realise that God does exist, and probably beyond my power.

iUseVi wrote: »

True, but they don't you think they are important?

Although I have noticed that the authenticity of the documents isn't really a blip on the radar of most Christians. It's usually assumed. Do you not think that people should know this stuff? Or is it better just to take it for granted?

I agree. I think that most Christians do not learn enough about the authenticity of the documents. It should not simply be assumed. It would be dishonest not to apply the same intellectual rigour to the Bible as one does to other texts.

Zombrex · 08-06-2008 09:59AM

Húrin wrote: »

Moses and Joshua did not just claim to their soldiers that they had a divine mandate: according to the text, they proved it. God performed miracles in front of all the Israelites to prove the credibility of their leaders.

All religious leaders that claim communication with a deity prove they are in communication with their god. They all perform miracles or have miracles preformed for them to demonstrate this ability.

That is how one becomes such a figure in the first place

Zombrex · 08-06-2008 10:02AM

Húrin wrote: »

Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist

Pompey Magnus · 08-06-2008 10:13AM

Húrin wrote: »

I agree, and I also think that most atheists would too.

Well, to be fair atheists don't believe the book to be inspired by the creator of the Universe. That said I know for a fact that I myself have a far better knowledge of (and interest in) the Bible now than I did when I was a believer, I'm in no way an expert today but I knew next to nothing about it back then.

You would have a hard time converting even a Biblically ignorant Christian to atheism merely by quizzing. Equally, it is often easy to refute the feeble arguments employed by most atheists as to why God does not exist, but it is an entirely different question to get them to realise that God does exist, and probably beyond my power.

The point of quizzing Christians would not be to convert them to atheism. It would be to get them to realise the truth about what their Holy book really is. I imagine many almost assume that the Bible descended from Heaven on a cloud and is completely accuate and completely honest. When they realise that the 27 books of the NT aren't inerrant, they aren't the only writings about Jesus from early Christians, and that they have been changed over the years, it may not convert them to atheism, but it would hopefully dent their over confidence in what is a very imperfect book.

PDN · 08-06-2008 10:31AM

Wicknight wrote: »

All religious leaders that claim communication with a deity prove they are in communication with their god. They all perform miracles or have miracles preformed for them to demonstrate this ability.

That is how one becomes such a figure in the first place

Really? That must make the papal elections very interesting indeed. And there I was thinking they were probably quite boring affairs.

So, what kind of miracles do you think the various candidates perform before the white smoke appears from the Vatican chimney?

I now feel a bit of a fraud since I didn't work any mighty miracles in order to be appointed as a pastor or as a bishop. I do hope that this dos not mean I can be booted out as improperly qualified.

PDN · 08-06-2008 10:42AM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I imagine many almost assume that the Bible descended from Heaven on a cloud and is completely accuate and completely honest. When they realise that the 27 books of the NT aren't inerrant, they aren't the only writings about Jesus from early Christians, and that they have been changed over the years, it may not convert them to atheism, but it would hopefully dent their over confidence in what is a very imperfect book.

One of the differences between us on this point is that you make judgements on Christians according to your imagination, whereas I make mine on evidence (interaction with tens of thousands of Christians over the last 27 years).

I've never met any Christian who believed the Bible descended on a cloud, but I guess such an imagination makes it easier for you to portray Christians as being ignorant or gullible.

Close study of the NT books has not lead me, or indeed many others, to deny their inerrancy, so that is your own subjective opinion. It is hardly reasonable to criticise Christians as ignorant simply because they fail to accept Depeche Mode's subjective and very fallible opinion.

I have had the pleasure, in both churches and classrooms, of introducing many Christians to the gnostic texts and other non-canonical books written about Jesus. In the vast majority of cases the result is a renewed appreciation for the Canonical Scriptures. I often hear comments like, "Wow! The guys who sorted out the Canon really knew their stuff. Thank God they didn't include some of that junk!"

Finally, a close examination of any 'changes' over the years, carefully comparing manuscript with manuscript, is the work of textual criticism. Again, such a task usually produces a sense of wonder at how accurately the texts were transmitted and an awareness of God's guiding hand in ensuring that any scribal errors were so minor and affected no major point of doctrine.

robindch · 08-06-2008 11:16AM

PDN wrote: »

One of the differences between us on this point is that you make judgements on Christians according to your imagination, whereas I make mine on evidence

A witty, but unhelpful conflation of two uses of the word 'imagination'.

DM's point is much the same as one I've been making. Namely that either believing de novo, or concluding from evidence, that the bible is largely or exclusively inerrant is a naive philosophical position, and I think it's quite fair to say that a lingering suspicion that the bible is not inerrant does not inform the theological musings of the vast majority christians. And none at all here, since I don't recall any christian poster over the last couple of years who has said that some biblical quote might be "wrong" in some context. Hence, DM's comment that the most christians seem to think that the bible descended from heaven, arrayed in a state of native purity, seems pretty much on target.

For myself, during the time when I was fed christianity, I do not recall a single comment to the effect that so much as a single word was doubtful. That doubt came later when I studied the NT in ancient greek and found it deeply unconvincing -- Plato's level of inspiration far exceeds the authors of the NT, as I suspect even you would agree. Had I not done greek, I might still think the NT a good book, so hats off to my old greek teacher, now a man of elevated position within the church

Pompey Magnus · 08-06-2008 11:40AM

I have had the pleasure, in both churches and classrooms, of introducing many Christians to the gnostic texts and other non-canonical books written about Jesus. In the vast majority of cases the result is a renewed appreciation for the Canonical Scriptures. I often hear comments like, "Wow! The guys who sorted out the Canon really knew their stuff. Thank God they didn't include some of that junk!"

Well, that they recognise what isn't in their canon to be be "junk" is only to be expected. Of course they have no means of actually knowing that what they read in their canon is in any way more plausible or believable than which the gnostics read.

Also, had the first Christian canon (that of Marcion) developed to be the orthodox canon of Christians today there would have been only 11 books in the Christian Bible. There would be no Old Testament, only 10 letters of St Paul and the Gospel of Luke. Your same Christian students today would be reading the Gospel of John in your "Non-Marcionite" classes and laughing at the junk that this early Christian group believed. You would be teaching that in the early years of Christianity some Christians actually believed that the inferior God of the Jews was actually the same God that Jesus taught of. You would tell your class that these non-Marcionites actually managed to selectively read the Hebrew Bible in such a way that they could fool themselves into believing that the God of Love that Jesus told us of was actually the same murderous God who killed men, women and children as and when he wanted. And your class would have said " "Wow! Marcion, who sorted out the Canon, really knew his stuff. Thank God he didn't include some of that junk!"

That Christians today accept the orthodox message and reject the gnostic message as junk tells us nothing about the intrinsic truth of the orthodox point of view.

Finally, a close examination of any 'changes' over the years, carefully comparing manuscript with manuscript, is the work of textual criticism. Again, such a task usually produces a sense of wonder at how accurately the texts were transmitted and an awareness of God's guiding hand in ensuring that any scribal errors were so minor and affected no major point of doctrine.

Well if God's guiding hand was at work why wouldn't he make sure their were no scribal errors whatsoever? I also wouldn't say that there is no major point of doctrine affected by the inaccurate copying of texts. I would suggest that the questions regarding the ending of the Gospel of Mark are extremely important. Our oldest and best copies of the Gospel have it ending with no-one ever seeing the risen Jesus. Also our first two scribes who reference the Gospel of Mark (Matthew and Luke) quote him frequently except when it comes to the passages in doubt, the post resurrection accounts of Matthew and Luke share no similar details with the last 12 verses of Mark that we have today. It is fair to assume that also had a copy of Mark which did not include the ending we have. I would think the question of whether anyone actually saw the risen Jesus is a very important question and this hinges on accepting verse which seem to have been added later and weren't actually part of the first written Gospel.

Also a major point of doctrine is that of the trinity. It is only explicitly mentioned once in the four Gospels, John 5:7-8.

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one"

This passage is not found in ANY of the Greek manuscripts written prior to the 16th Century. I would consider that also be to a fairly major matter of doctrine which is affected by scribal tampering.

philologos · 08-06-2008 11:53AM

Depeche Mode wrote:

Also a major point of doctrine is that of the trinity. It is only explicitly mentioned once in the four Gospels, John 5:7-8.

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one"

Matthew 28?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSV) wrote:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

Pompey Magnus · 08-06-2008 12:14PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Matthew 28?

Matthew 28 is an implicit reference to the Trinity, if you had no knowledge of Christianity and the Trinity and were just shown Matthew 28 you would not be able to extract from it the concept of a deity which was made up of three seperate, equal entities. John 5:7 is explicit, it leaves little doubt about the trinity, however it is not authentic and was added for the very reason that there was no explicit statement of this concept in the New Testament.

The Trinity is central to the orthodox Christian doctrine, it was a problem that this had to be inferred from various passages. How was the problem solved? A passage was created by scribes and inserted into the Gospel of John. No more problem.

Flamed Diving · 08-06-2008 01:45PM

PDN wrote: »

We have gone into this in more depth in other threads. The Bible makes claims about itself regarding inerrancy and inspiration. That, of course, will be totally unconvincing, and circular, to those who think the Bible is a heap of junk anyway. But for those of us who have found the Bible to be a suitable guide for life then such claims will be more convincing because they come from a source that has proved itself good and helpful.

Think of it this way. Imagine that a man claims to be totally honest and to always tell the truth. If he is a stranger to you, then you may well say, "Why should I believe in his honesty purely on his own say so?" But what if you live alongside the man for years and you never hear him saying or doing anything dishonest? What if all your friends have the same impression of him? It would become increasingly hard for you to believe that such an honest person would make a false claim concerning himself.

So, not so much a circle as a spiral.

But what if the man really was dishonest but the fact that everyone else was saying he is honest convinced you that even when the man was being dishonest, he was really being honest, and that it is just his mysterious ways?

There have been experiments done where a group of people are asked to look at three lines on a card. Two are the same length but one is clearly smaller. Of the group of people, only one is the control, the rest are in on the experiment. All of the group who are in on it individually state that the lines are clearly all the same size. When the control (who is last) chooses, almost every time he/she went with the group in stating the lines are the same size, and would even joke nervously about their mind playing tricks on them. This is referred to as groupthink and is common in many walks of life where people hold homogenous beliefs, which leads them to making decisions as a herd, even when their minds may tell them to act differently, humans would rather go with the crowd. Now, add to the mix the power of religious belief, and you have a rather potent cocktail.

Why is the Bible so imperfect?

Comments