Is the bible perfect in every way? It was written by men, and men chose the books to make up the testaments, and men translated it, and men made doctrinal judgements on it.

Thoughts?

R.C. Sproul has said that the bible is a, "fallible collection of infallible books"

You can count on this because Peter said it:

2 Peter 1:3
"seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence."

Of course Christians at the very time this was written did not have the whole Bible, but it was being written by the very men among them. All the writings of the Bible are scripture, that is the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of Him who calls us.

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 12/13/2005 1:08p).]

Although man did write the Bible, God told man what to write. So yes, the Bible is perfect.

The book of Enoch is referred to directly in the New Testament - why should it be out?

The books removed by Luther's followers that remain in the Catholic version - why should they be out?

The Bible is the word of God, but not like the Koran. We should always be aware of the processes that led to its formation when we argue about it.

quote:

---

Although man did write the Bible, God told man what to write. So yes, the Bible is perfect.

---

How did God do this to Paul, many of the books he wrote were letters, letters written in reaction to things he had heard from other men about how the churches in other lands were functioning.

The Bible is our handbook and is full of wisdom and reveals the word of God to us. However, it is not perfect, and we as believers should give any instructions found therein the wwjd test to see if the teaching fits in with the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus.

quote:

---

Is the bible perfect in every way? It was written by men, and men chose the books to make up the testaments, and men translated it, and men made doctrinal judgements on it.

---

The original autographa is generally presumed to be infallible. The translations which we have, while not guaranteed to be error-free, are generally considered to be the best we've ever had. So how good are they?...

(more later)

quote:

---

However, it is not perfect, and we as believers should give any instructions found therein the wwjd test to see if the teaching fits in with the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus.

---

Then you assert it is the gospels that are perfect, yet the rest of the good book is not...

That's a pretty tough assertion to defend.

I tend to view the gospels and the words of Jesus as a Rosetta stone for other parts of the Bible I struggle to understand and apply context. I don't use the gospels as a filter.

no, it is not perfect.

Yes it is the perfect spoken Word of God.

Here's a pretty good place to start: http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm

Generally when I see blanket statements like "it isn't perfect" or "it has errors" or "it is of man" then what I really hear is "it contains things I don't feel are right."

To split hairs, the translations we know as "the bible" aren't 100% perfect. But with the abundance of manuscript evidence available we can get very close to the originals. Thus, the translations we have today are the best of modern times and preserve God's message remarkably well. I think God has through the ages had a direct hand in this.

[This message has been edited by stubb (edited 12/13/2005 4:43p).]

Yes it is, when taken as a whole, and with the proper interpretation. It can be summed up:

God creates man. Man sins. All hell breaks loose. God comes down to save man. Man kills the God-Man Jesus. Jesus' death on earth and Resurrection saves man. Man struggles to overcome sin through belief in Jesus. Jesus comes back for the 2nd time. Game over...

no its only a pretend word of god. it was written by superstitious people. Its absurd, cruel, contradictory and FALSE.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part2.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

heritic on that skeptic site so many of the verses are slightly altered...for instance it says all the animals boarded the arc in one day...in my bible it said no such thing...it says noah and his family boarded and they were among the animals

Well, it's a really nice thing to say that all of the original autographs of the NT are infallible, but that idea is just kind of hanging up in the air. The fact is, we don't have any. We have about 5000 manuscripts from the early years of these writings, not one of which is the same. The absolute earliest document/fragment we have is from around 125, and it's tiny, like 4 verses or soemthing. (sorry, no link, it's from an actual book, and from memory. Stephen Harris, Understanding the Bible)

However, if you believe that God has had a hand in how his word to his people has been put together, then there's no reason not to trust the Bible as the source by which we live our lives.

[This message has been edited by setsmachine (edited 12/13/2005 7:46p).]

Since the fall, the universe, nature, and man is no longer a perfect reflection of God's original design and intention.

Paul, at least I think, addressed this partly when he said that "we see through a glass darkly."

I am a fallen being, reading a text,that even though inspired and preserved, is still the product of a fallen man.

When I read it, I am still a fallen, though redeemed, man, getting an imperfect "word" being processed through an inperfect mind. Yes, our spirits are something else, but our souls and our bodies are obviously flawed, and only a semblence of the awesome original matirx that was Adam and Eve.

I don't have time to go into it, but if any are interested there is a branch of communications called Information theory. It says that the second law of thermodynamics(the movement toward energy chaos) also manifests itself in all informational exchanges. In other words, always assume that, to a degree, that you are misunderstood.

That is another reason I rely on the Holy Spirit. Part of his goal is to guide me into truth. I believe that He can also reduce this information(truth) loss.

Sorry, I just got on a stream-of-consciousness roll.

I realize that some may misinterpret by diatribe as saying that the Word is fallable. The Word is infallable. It is me that is fallable.

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 12/13/2005 9:23p).]

pvsher,

They are using the king james version which is supposed to be the most literal one out there according to most fundamentalists. The niv is not a literal translation and the translators try and "save the bible" from its own absurdity. so if you want to accuse someone of a self surving bias in the translation accuse the translators of the niv and most any ultra modern translation.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1134534454-9804.html#13

I know about a million fundamentalists and none would say the KJV is the most accurate. I'm a beginning Greek translator and the NIV isn't bad at all.

sets- my dad studied greek and on our thursday night bible studies we go through slowly and it is extremely helpful to have him there translating words that otherwise you would read over and think nothing of...keep studying greek i wish i knew it for when i was reading thru on my own...it is unbelievable how many times it comes in handy

quote:

---

They are using the king james version which is supposed to be the most literal one out there according to most fundamentalists.

---

You don't know what you are talking about.

a question i always have is, yea it sounds crazy when you here about bible characters like methuzula(sp?) etc. living 700-900 yrs, but if it was all made up and fictional wouldnt the authors think to themselves "the people in the future are never gonna buy this lets give em lives of 80-100 yrs"?

quote:

---

You don't know what you are talking about.

---

you sure showed me.......that your clueless

quote:

---

The King-James-Only Movement is a position usually within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV). The nickname "King-James-Only" apparently originated within a popular book by American church historian and apologist James R. White (b. 1962) published in 1995 entitled The King James Only Controversy. It should be noted that this name and the claim that such advocacy of the KJV constitutes a "movement" have been hotly contested by some. (White himself addresses the idea that the term "KJV Only" may be an "insulting" and "inaccurate" term in King James Only Controversy, p. 248.)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only

quote:

---

the King James Version is my favorite. It is still recognized by Bible scholars and academics as the most accurate and most beautiful rendition ... and for the sheer beauty of the English Language the King James version has no equal…..alexander scourby

---

http://www.audio-bible.com

quote:

---

Q. I noticed that you use quotes from both the King James Version Bible (KJV) and the New International Version Bible (NIV) translations. Even though the NIV may be easier to follow in some instances is it safe to say that the KJV is the more accurately translated? Or is there really any difference at all?

(Submitted by: D. M.)

A. I do not trust the NIV in all instances because of certain prejudices on the part of the translators. Anytime I use it, I compare it with the KJV and several other translations to assure accuracy.

---

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/kjvaccur.html

So this "movement" includes "most fundamentalists"? How do you know it's not a movement of about 100 people? And who exactly are "most fundamentalists"? What are you talking about?

And yeah, Greek can be pretty difficult at times, but when you can actually pick up a Greek New Testament and translate it, it's really cool. Of course, to be proficient I'll need to learn a lot more vocab and still need help, but I enjoy it.

If you cannot read Hebrew then you've never actually read the scriptures -- all you've ever read is a translation of the scriptures, but not the scriptures themselves.

It's amazing to me how much Christian doctrine has been built by people who never actually read the scriptures.

Are you speaking specifically of the Hebrew Bible, or are you saying that the NT was originally written in Hebrew?

I just did a little research and found something on the subject of "Aramaic primacy". Is this what you are referring to? I've never heard this, and never spoken to or read a scholar that believes this. Interesting.

quote:

---

If you cannot read Hebrew then you've never actually read the scriptures -- all you've ever read is a translation of the scriptures, but not the scriptures themselves.

It's amazing to me how much Christian doctrine has been built by people who never actually read the scriptures.

---

You translate Hebrew just like scholars do so when producing the translations we use. If it makes you feel closer to God to say that you know Hebrew, dandy. You are not a Jew. Hebrew is not your original language. You will never have the understanding of Hebrew scripture as someone for who Hebrew is their natural language. As a result, you are a victim of your own proclamation and thus, your arrogance Bracy.

quote:

---

Are you speaking specifically of the Hebrew Bible, or are you saying that the NT was originally written in Hebrew?

---

Yeah so what about it Bracy?

quote:

---

So this "movement" includes "most fundamentalists"?

---

Heretic?

[This message has been edited by Nixter (edited 12/14/2005 7:28a).]

Bear,

quote:

---

However, it is not perfect, and we as believers should give any instructions found therein the wwjd test to see if the teaching fits in with the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus.

---

No WDJS

What did Jesus say? is the test, you don't know what he'd do...

quote:

---

Are you speaking specifically of the Hebrew Bible, or are you saying that the NT was originally written in Hebrew?

---

Yes, I believe that the "New Testament" was originally written in Hebrew. Underneath the Greek words is a Hebrew grammar and sentence structure.

Evenso, how do you know that the "New Testament" is scripture? On what basis do you accept it as scripture?

Bracy,

quote:

---

"If you cannot read Hebrew then you've never actually read the scriptures -- all you've ever read is a translation of the scriptures, but not the scriptures themselves.

It's amazing to me how much Christian doctrine has been built by people who never actually read the scriptures.

---

You forgot Greek then too... You know this is an insulting lie on your part, not reading Hebrew = not reading scripture.

Have you removed the veil?

Yep the Arabs say you can't understand the Koran unless you read Arabic...


[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 12/14/2005 8:12a).]

you could start here...

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

quote:

---

You forgot Greek then too... You know this is an insulting lie on your part, not reading Hebrew = not reading scripture.

---

I haven't forgotten Greek. The scriptures were only translated into Greek, not originally written in Greek.

There's no lie in what I've said. If you can't read Hebrew, then all you've ever read is somebody else's translation of the scriptures, and not the scriptures themselves. That should be simple enough for anyone to understand.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 12/14/2005 8:15a).]

No reading a translation (not limited to one) of anything is reading the thing (understanding the idea). The thing which is read is merely an expression of an thought in a particular language. A translation is not "someone's translation"

You could then also say Hebrew scripture cannot be understood in the 20th C.

I do agree with you on this, I think, that Hebrews cannot be understood without properly without the books of Law, espeically Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 12/14/2005 8:27a).]