Reply With Quote
I believe in the Bible because it is the word of God. And I know it is the word of God because the Bible tells me so.
To begin I would like to state that I consider myself a Christian, but very far from the puritan/fundamentalist views many will automatically associate with the word.
Now my question is what basis do Christians have for claiming that the bible is factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?
I have been confused on this, and realize this is political forum....but it doesn't have a proper home. Somebody help me out here, Im very confused on the logic behind this claim.
I believe in the Bible because it is the word of God. And I know it is the word of God because the Bible tells me so.
as christians, it is not our duty to claim anything. it is our duty to have faith and lead by example. people will always doubt. even when the truth is right in front of their faces. but at the end of the day, the only people we can control are ourselves. that's what we must focus on good brother. Godbless you.
as far as factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?
well...to each their own, but i believe that it is questioned by many. i believe it has been changed through the interpretation of man. and as far as factual? Yes. I believe it is factual. That's what faith is all about.
Hah, always good to get a response from the wandering Mr. Peabody. I love the use of the twisted logic, and I also realize youre not quite serious...so keep that in mind. But behind that christians claim that God would not allow somebody to change the bible, and change his word....but did not the 7th day adventists, the catholics, and the christians all start with the same bible? Why would God allow some bibles to be changed, yet exert all of his powers to protect a seperate one, so that only a portion of his "followers" are actually his followers. Also, the 4 gospels have different views of Christs last days....how does this happen if it is 100% divinely inspired...or even forced? And Christs own followers proved theyre untrustworthiness by denying and betraying him in his own days....
Well, it's not just the four inconsistent gospels. There's also the gospels that weren't selected for the Bible. So basically what we have is an abridged version of the story.
Amen brother
I will see it when I believe it...
See what, exactly? The "unconfirmed gospels" or a 100% non-fiction bible?
Hasn't this subject been discussed many times here?
It may have, but I am relatively new to Spurstalk, and have not been a very frequent poster, and thus have missed out. So be kind and pretend you have never had this debate before.
Okay with me. But duck. It isn't going to be a pretty sight.
Last edited by xrayzebra; 01-17-2006 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Misspelled a word
Thats the way I prefer it. Why do you think I brought it up? I could have struggled and kept it silent.
Now, what is your take, xray?
Xray is from Ye Olde Schoole
Even better
When, for example, a Reformed theologian is discussing the infallibility of Scripture, he is talking about "original manuscripts," that is, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians, that was inspired by God and is infallible for matters of faith and practice.
There are copying errors, however. That is why, for example, newer English translations omit clauses that are found in the King James Bible. The latter is based upon the Textus Receptus, a Middle-Age manuscript that shows evidence of centuries of copying errors, and instances where annotations got copied into the actual text.
Much older manuscripts have been found, and newer translations are more faithful to the originals. Despite all this, no significant points of doctrine are in question due to any manuscript discrepancies.
Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.
However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.
The Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, several late books included in their Old Testament. These once were in the Hebrew canon, but later were eliminated because anachronisms were found in the text. They are omitted from the Protestant canon for the same reason.
Presumably, the Catholic Church does not believe that any such anachronisms invalidate the reliability of those books for matters of faith and practice.
Other sects and heterodox groups will change the text to suit their particular quirks of doctrine. I do not believe such groups are legitimately Christian.
The 4 gospels tell the story from different perspectives. Matthew expressed it in terms of prophetic fulfillment. Mark expresses it with brevity. Luke goes into scholarly detail. John gives the personal details on a frend who walked with Jesus.
You may notice that the gospels conflict with one another chronologically. As Westerners, we assume that anything out of chronological order is in error. That assumption does not necessarily hold for the gospels, as vignettes may be expressed in terms of spiritual meaning, or prophetic fulfillment, or other intent of the author.
One more note about translation: you often will hear people that say the Bible cannot be reliable because it has been translated over and over again into so many languages over so many years. I guess the thought is that it went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to 17th-century English to Modern English. That is fallacious.
The scholars who translate the Bible translate from the best available manuscripts in the original languages for each new translation.
If our Bible were really a multi-generational translation, it would read like a Chinese electronics manual.
If I remember correctly from my college days, I think the bible was
originally written in Greek and then translated. I could be wrong, but
don't think so.
Old Testament: ancient Hebrew & Aramaic
New Testament: Koine Greek (not modern Greek)
Does half a correct answer count?
was it clown or barber?
Both! Want a haircut? I know I always give you a good laugh.
Ausgezeichnet.
d'oh
That was my needlessly opaque version of, BTW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
