Common ground for Baptists?

[TheChad1215]

no actually we don't. If you want to question the accuracy of the Bible then you are questioning the accuracy of the word of God and therefore God himself. That's not a leap I am willing to take..but it's a leap out of faith in God waaaaay too many are willing to take to try to conform to this world or somehow make Christianity more palatable to this world. nOt going to happen..we are warned against this line of thinking over and over again.

I'm one to agree with you about the accuracy of the Bible, but all you can really say is what those profs at UT said: that we have the Bible exactly how God wants us to have it. Does that mean it's 100% accurate? No actually...

Meanwhile, Icthus hit the translation arguement right on the head. It doesn't matter how languages have evolved (ie Olde English to English) because it's all translated straight from the original Greek/Hebrew. You can even get the Amplified Bible which covers the fact that Greek words have more than one meaning in English. The only real arguemnt people have is that it wasn't written down correctly in the first place.

The gospel authors accuracy is, unfortunately, a matter of opinion and belief as to when they were actually written. Some actually say it was their followers who wrote them down after they were dead. (<- personally, I think that's silly) The big OT debate revolves around the fact that the stories were passed down orally for hundreds of years before ever reaching paper. They use that telephone game as a visual aid... What I think they're missing is that this was a cultural dedicated to oral tradition. Nothing was written down (save the 10 Commandments ), so it's not the same as us playing the telephone game. They were masters.

In conclusion, everyone here should read Mere Christianity.

-Chadley

PS- Sorry, I know I'm not helping anyone get back to Baptists, but I think it's interesting that this whole debate popped up. There are all kinds of Christians on CGA, and I'm happy to say that I think most get along pretty dang well depite differences. I think what we have here is exactly what little convention was calling for.

 

[Whon]

He's my thought on who's right (yet again) no one... is right. Why do most protestant bibles have 39 books to the Old Testament, while Catholics have 46 books? Where did they go? Why in the Jewish faith are there added texts in the books of Esther and Daniel? How do we know which one is completely correct? simplest answer I have found is that we can't be 100% sure or it wouldn't be called "faith" but "fact" We have faith and for that there will always be questions til we get our answers from God himself. That's why I will always question things... I don't doubt them, but I question them, there is a difference.

 

[Odale]

no actually we don't. If you want to question the accuracy of the Bible then you are questioning the accuracy of the word of God and therefore God himself. That's not a leap I am willing to take...

I am questioning the people who wrote the Bible and how the Bible was written, not the God it represents. Also, I agree with Chad that what is in the Bible is what God wants us to read. I am absolutely sure that if God wanted something else to be in there he would have fixed it, but that still does not mean it is the same from when its contents were originally written.

As far as the telephone game is concerned... When different people tell the same story, elements of the story will affect people in different ways and effecting how the story is told down the line in the future, thus; changing the story before they were written down in Greek or Hebrew (substitution of words, degrees of the elements that affected the listeners).

I'm one to agree with you about the accuracy of the Bible, but all you can really say is what those profs at UT said: that we have the Bible exactly how God wants us to have it. Does that mean it's 100% accurate? No actually...

Well said.

 

[CGamer]

As Icthus previously stated

The Bible we have today, in all its many forms (IE english, spanish, french, vietnamese, chinese or whatever) that are based on the UBS Greek Text is the most accurate document from ancient history we have today.

To question the validity and accuracy of God's Word is to question God Himself and His ability to convey and maintain the accuracy of His Word.

I think the following verses state it simply enough

2 Tim 3:15 - 17 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If one word, one sentence is up for question then you lay grounds to question the reliability and truthfulness of the entire Bible.

A verse such as John 3:16 could then be brought into question and as such we could decide is that, Really what God Meant? Also to the question of interpretation there is very little discussion for interpretation, people like to take ONE verse and run with it and they base their whole theological basis off that one verse rather then looking at the verse in context of who it was written, what the audience at that time was experiencing and so forth and exactly how it applies to us in this age.

If people spent more time in study of the Bible and trying to understand it, we would have a better Christian populace on whole.

Personally I believe the Bible to be 100% true, cover to cover and the cover too...it says Holy Bible on the front and and genuine leather on the back..

 

[Whon]

Just for the sake of open thought, and I know some believe that open/free thought is frowned upon, but oh well. Has anyone besides me heard of the saying "History is written by the winners"? Would it be better to just read the Bible and only take that for what happened in that era or many documents from that era to compare and make up one's own mind? Just a thought.

 

[Bonk!Ow!]

I personally wouldn't compromise, but then again I am non-denominational.

 

[Hescominsoon]

Just for the sake of open thought, and I know some believe that open/free thought is frowned upon, but oh well. Has anyone besides me heard of the saying "History is written by the winners"? Would it be better to just read the Bible and only take that for what happened in that era or many documents from that era to compare and make up one's own mind? Just a thought.

that's the agnostic/atheistic way to look at The Bible.

 

[XionTawa]

The Apocrypha, the other books that we "left out", were REINTRODUCED by the catholics after the original Bible had been established, and on top of that, have you ever read those other books, they contradict the Holy Bible, and don't make much since, to me anyways...

 

[Bonk!Ow!]

The Apocrypha, the other books that we "left out", were REINTRODUCED by the catholics after the original Bible had been established, and on top of that, have you ever read those other books, they contradict the Holy Bible, and don't make much since, to me anyways...

That's right. The apocrypha often feature things like the giving of alms as a means of salvation and other things that contradict the Bible.

 

[Whon]

yes I have read the books it was required in my "intro to the old testament" class. So not only did I read them I studied them. I don't agree with most of it, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist and answer why one denomination includes them and others don't. An no it's not Atheistic to look at other reading from the era, It's atheistic to not believe in any form of religion. Nor is it agnostic, I never said there was not sufficient evidence to whither there is a God. If you read my earlier posts you would realize I do believe in God, I just don't believe an a human can be trusted to 100%. 99% maybe, but not perfect... after all we are all born into sin.

 

[Durruck]

Has anyone besides me heard of the saying "History is written by the winners"?

If that were true, you'd likely not see anything about the Israelites losing Jerusalem to the Babylonians for ~70 years (c.550 BC), about parts of the Ark being lost/destroyed by foreign invaders (where is Aaron's staff and the jar of manna?) We wouldn't see Israel (the country) dissected for hundreds of years, only to be re-formed by war in the 20th century, then have to fight to keep it still today.

Israel has *not* been the winners. Israel has been defeated, scattered, enslaved time and time again. It's been God's doing, but that doesn't mean that Israel won.

As for the telephone game, it's interesting what you can learn by studying bits of the culture. Yes, most of the Old Testament wasn't written until LONG after the events described within it's pages, but that's because information was passed down via oral tradition. If you read the earlier books of the OT, you'll see a lot of repetition. That's because we commit what we hear to memory via repetition. You can memorize some of the shorter books of the Bible in a matter of weeks. Word for word.

In Jesus' day, kids started learning the Torah (first 5 books of the OT) at 5 years old. That was their school - memorize it all, word for word

Once the scribes starting writing (another interesting history bit - abridged version) there would typically be one person dictating or reading, and several scholars writing the material. There actually is some evidence that while Paul was responsible for a large portion of the New Testament, he wrote very little of it. Paul had poor eyesight and penmanship in his later years. So he dictated to scribes, who made multiple copies and sent messengers out to read the messages. Kings dispatched messengers in the same way. Does that take away from our Bible? Absolutely not! The Bible says that some are meant to minister, some are meant to serve. Paul would have wasted a lot of time writing out dozens of copies of a letter and hand-delivering them across large regions.

As for translation issues - they mostly occur when there is no direct translation for a word in one of the two languages. For a series of documents that were as widely distributed, there are a remarkably low number of scribal errors.

Other "mistakes" are actually not mistakes at all - in those days, spelling wasn't considered important. Names were changed on a whim (Ref: Ruth1:20 - Naomi changes her name to Bitter. Saul changes to Paul, and countless more.)

Speaking of translations, another possible translation for 2Tim3:15 says that "All scripture is God-breathed..."

So which part are we, as fallible, corrupted humans, trying to explain away and insist that we know better?

 

[Hescominsoon]

yes I have read the books it was required in my "intro to the old testament" class. So not only did I read them I studied them. I don't agree with most of it, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist and answer why one denomination includes them and others don't. An no it's not Atheistic to look at other reading from the era, It's atheistic to not believe in any form of religion. Nor is it agnostic, I never said there was not sufficient evidence to whither there is a God. If you read my earlier posts you would realize I do believe in God, I just don't believe an a human can be trusted to 100%. 99% maybe, but not perfect... after all we are all born into sin.

You very skilfully danced around the issue. The issue is you are questioning the accuracy of the Bible. You have said multiple times that humans have effectively mistranslated it and that the chance of errors is too high for it to be accurate. That's the most common argument atheists and agnostics use to attack Christianity.The thing is you can take a look back at how many copies of the originals there are that are in lockstep with the originals we have. However I am not going to use secular reasoning to defend the Bible. If you are getting this opinion of yours from your classes(and it appears you have) then I suggest you remove that learning from your head by reading the Bible AND going under the authority of somebody who's knowledge is based solely on the bible and not some secular leaning book.

I might also suggest The Irrational Atheist by Vox day. You can download the entire book for free here There's three atheists that have become rather high profile and if you want to see a secular challenge to them and this way of thinking i highly suggest the read.

 

[Odale]

Just because Whon is taking a view of the Bible that is commonly adopted by non-believers and is used to "attack" Christianity, does not mean he is an atheist or is agnostic. He is adopting the viewpoint to get a better look at how the Bible can possibly differ now, compared to when it was initially written. If he were to ask someone who is so gung-ho about the Bible such as yourself, he would get no where.

Learning why some people take a certain stance in a conflict is often times the best way to understand why they have their point of view.

I see no harm in him questioning the Bible's accuracy when so many versions are different, ie. Catholic having a different amount of Books than the Protestant's Bible.

 

[Hescominsoon]

Your taking it out of context..not once did i say whon was in anyway a non-believer..i said his viewpoint is..big difference..I stand by the rest of my statements though.

 

[XionTawa]

ie. Catholic having a different amount of Books than the Protestant's Bible.

As I have mentioned before, pick up the Apocrypha and read it...the Apocrypha is the books we do not recognize that the catholics do...they contradict parts of our Bible...and were not added until many years after the Bible we use was established...

Now, time to walk on thin ice... I believe that whether or not you go to heaven is based on your relationship with God...however, catholics seem to not base their beliefs on their relationship with God, they do not even speak to God, though the Son (No one can come to the Father, except through the Son), this shows me that they do not SEEM to establish a relationship with God...now I could be wrong, but like I said before... Also, the fact that anyone would pray to dead people kinda freaks me out...

 

[Hescominsoon]

I have read the apocryha, as well as the gnostic gospels and various Druidic and Wiccan texts.

 

[Hescominsoon]

I believe that whether or not you go to heaven is based on your relationship with God

That part is true but it's very simple. If you accept Christ as your Savior you're in..if not..you're not.

 

[moxie]

In my opinion, the Bible that we have today is exactly what we were meant to have. It may not necessarily be the most accurate as far as literal word-for-word translation goes. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek, so a word-for-word exact translation isn't likely between those two languages. However, the MESSAGE is the same, and that is the most important part of all this.

It's important to remember that we worship Christ, not the Bible. We study the Bible to learn ABOUT Christ and how to better follow His example, but the Bible itself is not what saves us. And when we get so caught up in what translations are correct, what rules we have to follow, and argue among ourselves about who is right and who is wrong, we are no better than the Pharisees and religious leaders of Christ's day. He came to set us free, not tie us to the bondage of "religion" and it's rules and rituals. Religion doesn't save us. Christ does.

Peas!

 

[Odale]

Your taking it out of context..not once did i say whon was in anyway a non-believer..i said his viewpoint is..big difference..I stand by the rest of my statements though.

My post has been corrected, and I am sorry I somewhat misconstrued your intentions. However, since some of us are looking at this from a historical view point, why does it matter where he gets his information from? History is history and it will never change, but in my opinion, getting it from a neutral source (as teachers should be a neutral source of knowledge and have no bias) is better than getting it from someone "who's knowledge is based solely on the bible" (by this I am assuming you mean a Pastor of some sort or someone who is affiliated with the church), as you put it, HCS.

 

[Durruck]

History is history and it will never change,

(snip) I'm not sure about that - every few years, another artifact that is 1500-2500 years old gets dug up, and changes what we "know" about an ancient city, group, or culture. We make a lot of assumptions based on what we've found.

The interesting thing is, there have been a lot of discoveries that confirm things in the Bible. So for those that aren't sure exactly how to look at the Bible (really history, or just a bunch of stories?) it's nice to see bits of history come forward and prove what a lot of us have read & already believed.

On a side note, my wife bought an Archaeological Study Bible. Some of the things in it are fascinating!