Bible being inspired and inerrant

[laylow]

Many Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant and God-inspired. Although I realize these are 2 different things, there are plenty of questions that arise for both and some can be applied to both. If these things are indeed true then:

1. Why do we not have the original copies of the New Testament? Yes, many copies of the New Testament exist, more than any ancient book. However, the ones that do are copies of copies of copies. The first scrap of the Gospels that we have is P52, dated around 200AD, decades and decades from the original writings. Many others are much later. If God went through all of the trouble to inspire the Bible, wouldn’t he at least want his people to have the original copy? Would it have been that much trouble for God to preserve the original? There are other ancient writings where originals exist.
2. Why are there so many errors, discrepancies, contradictions in the Bible? Most Biblical scholars agree to this as virtually mere fact, except mainly strict fundamentalists, conservatives, and Evangelicals. If God inspired the writers, could he have not helped them divinely so they would not make these errors?
3. Why were books written at a later date and then prescribed to be written by another author, who was much more well known at the time of Jesus? For example, most Bible scholars agree that Peter did not write 1 Peter or 2 Peter. Why? Two main reasons. First the date they were written, but mainly because Peter was an illiterate fisherman who certainly didn’t know how to write! Most agree that the Gospels were not written be Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John based on many reasons, but certainly by dates as well.

There are more questions, but I wanted to start discussion with these 3 as it is enough information already.

 

[laylow]

If your secretary wrote it decades after your death, it may alter your work significantly.

 

[laylow]

Could we not agree that if God wanted to preserve those writings, that he would have been capable of doing so?

I agree that theology is distinct from history in many ways, but not all. To say historical discrepancies do not effect theology I believe is not being true to how the discrepancies affect the message and ignoring them make that argument look foolish. One very shortened example would be that Jesus in one Gospel is silent during most of his crucifixion and speaking only at the end saying “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me!” seemingly indicating that he is confused and not sure why this is happening to him, while in another Gospel, he is talking to the women, pray to God to forgive his murderers, and at the end says something like Father in your hands I commit my Spirit, that seems to indicate that Jesus that he did know the objective of his crucifixion and was accepting it. These “differences” change the message to a large degree, do they not?

This is essentially laughable. Your phone game that you are trying to avoid would already provide plenty proof of such a problem, but is not really needed. One can just merely look into the history. One may look at the teaching of the Trinity and see it’s evolution as one example.

 

[laylow]

If it was inspired by God, why the need to jump through all of these hoops? Why wouldn’t God just preserve the original without error?

 

[TheLeastofThese]

'Nuff said!

 

[Vonsalza]

1. Why do we not have the original copies of the New Testament?

I wanted to “jump in”, even as (name removed by moderator)'s done a great job.
We don’t have original copies because paper is flammable and degradable.

In the two millennia since authorship, there’s been Goths, Vandals, Slavs, Muslims, secular wars between Christian parties, revolutions… you get the idea. They all used fire when applying their particular understanding of “justice” to the cities and castles of their enemies.

Moreover, if the originals were truly passed around, Church-to-Church, it only takes a few passes for a paper document to suffer some serious damage.

Verily, virtually none of the writing world-wide we have that predates the modern era is the original physically written by the author named. The oldest copy of Homer’s Iliad date to approximately the Crusades - 1800 years or so after it was supposedly originally authored.

1. Why are there so many errors, discrepancies, contradictions in the Bible?

I’m not aware of any substantial examples beyond differences about lists and event sequencing in the Gospels (if they are indeed describing the same event; which we can’t know). Again, nothing that alters the message and isn’t readily explained by old men trying to recount things that occurred in decades past…
Now, if one were to interpret the bible as a single text rather than a meta-text containing contributions from a score of different cultures across a score of centuries, there may appear to be some consistency issues as different concepts are portrayed in different ways by different cultures. But to force these contributions under the same interpretive lens is the quintessence of anachronism. No bueno.

Are there any specific examples that you’d like to start a thread about?

1. Why were books written at a later date and then prescribed to be written by another author, who was much more well known at the time of Jesus?

I think you’re begging the question here. There are a slough of theologians who don’t reject claims of authorship for any of the NT texts. For 2nd Peter, many of the academia that reject Petrine authorship are doing so simply because its vogue in their profession - especially if they’re secularist theologians. The stylistic differences between then are readily explained in a context of Petrine authorship.

As to Peter’s supposed illiteracy; a 17 year old fisherman can’t learn to read? Especially after being placed as the head of an organization that spanned the Roman world and thus necessitated communication via writing and messengers?

To be sure, it seems like you’re not giving the counter-argument much, if any, consideration. Not a very good academic practice, I’m afraid. :nope:

There are more questions, but I wanted to start discussion with these 3 as it is enough information already.

Keep 'em coming!

And realize that the Catholic Church (as well as all the ancient communions of Christianity like the Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental) isn’t a “sola scriptura” Church. “Bible alone” wouldn’t come about until the 16th century, as a matter of historical fact.

 

[laylow]

Oral tradition is not the same as tapes, you are foolish to make that claim. Everyone knows the story changes as it is passed down. Things are left out, things are put in. It is not the ORIGINAL story. Does it change the message? I think you have to look at things individually and in a number of cases, that definitely seems to be the case.

 

[twf]

If it was inspired by God, why the need to jump through all of these hoops? Why wouldn’t God just preserve the original without error?

Why doesn’t the risen Lord appear in the flesh, face to face, to every human being on the planet and communicate the Gospel directly? He chose to work through His mystical body on earth, the Church. The Church, like Christ himself, is both human and divine. The incarnational principle - the idea that in Christ man and God become one - touches every aspect of the faith. God chose to work through human writers using human means to give us Sacred Scripture, just as He works through human clergy to help us understand that same scripture.

 

[laylow]

I wanted to “jump in”, even as (name removed by moderator)'s done a great job.
We don’t have original copies because paper is flammable and degradable.

In the two millennia since authorship, there’s been Goths, Vandals, Slavs, Muslims, secular wars between Christian parties, revolutions… you get the idea. They all used fire when applying their particular understanding of “justice” to the cities and castles of their enemies.

Moreover, if the originals were truly passed around, Church-to-Church, it only takes a few passes for a paper document to suffer some serious damage.

Verily, virtually none of the writing world-wide we have that predates the modern era is the original physically written by the author named. The oldest copy of Homer’s Iliad date to approximately the Crusades - 1800 years or so after it was supposedly originally authored.

If God can intervene to inspire the writings, surely he can intervene to preserve them?

I’m not aware of any substantial examples beyond differences about lists and event sequencing in the Gospels (if they are indeed describing the same event; which we can’t know). Again, nothing that alters the message and isn’t readily explained by old men trying to recount things that occurred in decades past…
Now, if one were to interpret the bible as a single text rather than a meta-text containing contributions from a score of different cultures across a score of centuries, there may appear to be some consistency issues as different concepts are portrayed in different ways by different cultures. But to force these contributions under the same interpretive lens is the quintessence of anachronism. No bueno.

Are there any specific examples that you’d like to start a thread about?

Dr. Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost leading scholars of the new testament. I’m guessing you would probably dismiss his teaching based on the fact that he is a converted Evangelical Christian, but now identifies himself as an agnostic atheist. I find his work to be mostly unbiased due to the fact that his beliefs have been all over the place and he claims that his mission is not to convert anyone from their faith. I think he does a good job with that in his arguments and teachings which come mostly from a historical perspective. Most of his contemporaries are believers and still share the idea that there are issues. As I mentioned, I’m sure Bart is known my people on the board and probably dismissed based on his views. That of course is perfectly fine, but I think a lot of scholarship opportunity would be lost by that way of thinking. He is very knowledge in his line of work. His teaching has not led me to lose my faith, but to think very critically about it. I see much issue with a church saying their way is the only right way and that things should not be questioned or thought about. That is basically being a cult.

I think you’re begging the question here. There are a slough of theologians who don’t reject claims of authorship for any of the NT texts. For 2nd Peter, many of the academia that reject Petrine authorship are doing so simply because its vogue in their profession - especially if they’re secularist theologians. The stylistic differences between then are readily explained in a context of Petrine authorship.

I think you’d be very surprised when researching what biblical scholars think of the peter books especially historical scholars.

As to Peter’s supposed illiteracy; a 17 year old fisherman can’t learn to read? Especially after being placed as the head of an organization that spanned the Roman world and thus necessitated communication via writing and messengers?

At the time of Peter, only 3% of people knew how to read, let alone write, which was much less. These are highly educated folk, it is very widely accepted that Peter was not educated.

To be sure, it seems like you’re not giving the counter-argument much, if any, consideration. Not a very good academic practice, I’m afraid. :nope:

I don’t see how that is true, I am writing this for the counter-arguments! That’s what I’m interested in. Doesn’t mean I will agree with them or not challenge them!

Keep 'em coming!

And realize that the Catholic Church (as well as all the ancient communions of Christianity like the Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental) isn’t a “sola scriptura” Church. “Bible alone” wouldn’t come about until the 16th century, as a matter of historical fact.

 

[laylow]

Why doesn’t the risen Lord appear in the flesh, face to face, to every human being on the planet and communicate the Gospel directly?

That’s what I’m wondering!

He chose to work through His mystical body on earth, the Church. The Church, like Christ himself, is both human and divine. The incarnational principle - the idea that in Christ man and God become one - touches every aspect of the faith. God chose to work through human writers using human means to give us Sacred Scripture, just as He works through human clergy to help us understand that same scripture.

But the Quran is inspired by God, or so I was told my a Muslim.

 

[laylow]

Reliability is definitely disputable. Wouldn’t it just be easier to provide the original, unadultered?

Laughable may have been a strong word. I rely on bible scholars who spend their entire lives studying this stuff. This isn’t one who would say it was passed down without error. Is there error in the message? There is where you will see disagreement. Some will come from the bias of the side they are taking, although most bible scholars are believers, so most skew it in that direction in my opinion.

I just challenged some of your answers. I guess I created some form of a debate, which can be a discussion, can it not?

I appreciate your contributions.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

I know this isnt what you meant when you said the Bible isnt meant to teach other things.
The Church has condemnd the view that innerancy is limited only to Faith and morals, I said this in case someone misunderstands what you mean.

God Bless

 

[Joe_5859]

There are other ancient writings where originals exist.

Really? Can you name some of them?

 

[Vonsalza]

If God can intervene to inspire the writings, surely he can intervene to preserve them?

Which is exactly what has occurred… (Not sure I see your point).

Dr. Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost leading scholars…

I’ve read him. And many, many, many more. Broaden your knowledge and include the voices of dissenters, as intellectual honesty requires.

I think you’d be very surprised when researching what biblical scholars think of the peter books especially historical scholars.

I’ve studied the historicity and authorship of the NT in an academic setting myself…

At the time of Peter, only 3% of people knew how to read, let alone write, which was much less.

For the Roman world, I’ve read the number was more like 10-15 and maybe blooming to 20 before the collapse of the western empire. Peter being the head of a large organization would have had easy access to the required education, particularly as provided by elite, educated converts (which were rather specifically targeted).

But I happily agree, when -]Peter/-] Simon initially encountered Christ, his literacy would have only extended to what was required to exercise his trade.

These are highly educated folk, it is very widely accepted that Peter was not educated.

And other very highly educated folk have issued rebuttals.

The issue here is revealed to be your lack of comprehensive exposure to the material or a preference for one particular presentation of it.

I am writing this for the counter-arguments! That’s what I’m interested in. Doesn’t mean I will agree with them or not challenge them!

If you want a comprehensive treatment then you need to look somewhere other than an internet forum, respectfully. This format doesn’t lend itself to what you claim to seek here. Long posts aren’t widely read. Find some contrarian authors to what you present (there’s a ton of 'em) and buy/borrow their books.

You only get samples here because that’s all this medium can provide by design. Internet forums are no substitute for a real education.

 

[po18guy]

If your secretary wrote it decades after your death, it may alter your work significantly.

If you are looking for reasons to doubt, there are many. If you are looking for a reason to believe, there is but one: Jesus Christ. He speaks through His Church. We are well advised to listen to that Church, as it explains all matters of faith and morals - including the scriptures.

If you demand point-by-point proof, no religion, philosophy, belief system or world view will ever be satisfying, whether it pertains to belief or non-belief.

You might consider obtaining a copy of Where We Got The Bible by the Rev. Henry G. Graham.

 

[laylow]

If you are looking for reasons to doubt, there are many. If you are looking for a reason to believe, there is but one: Jesus Christ. He speaks through His Church. We are well advised to listen to that Church, as it explains all matters of faith and morals - including the scriptures.

If you demand point-by-point proof, no religion, philosophy, belief system or world view will ever be satisfying, whether it pertains to belief or non-belief.

You might consider obtaining a copy of Where We Got The Bible by the Rev. Henry G. Graham.

I like and respect this answer. Do you think it is healthy to question and progress your knowledge when it comes to faith, or just accept what the church teaches?

 

[laylow]

Which is exactly what has occurred… (Not sure I see your point).

We agree to disagree on this, I’d like to have the original with no errors, which is possible with the will and power of God.

I’ve read him. And many, many, many more. Broaden your knowledge and include the voices of dissenters, as intellectual honesty requires.

I agree, have started that process.

I’ve studied the historicity and authorship of the NT in an academic setting myself…

Respect.

For the Roman world, I’ve read the number was more like 10-15 and maybe blooming to 20 before the collapse of the western empire. Peter being the head of a large organization would have had easy access to the required education, particularly as provided by elite, educated converts (which were rather specifically targeted).

But I happily agree, when -]Peter/-] Simon initially encountered Christ, his literacy would have only extended to what was required to exercise his trade.

Interesting. I tend to trust Dr. Ehrman when it comes to historical pieces during this time, simply because he has spent his entire life studying this, learning multiple languages to read the manuscripts himself. I rarely see people disagree with him on history. However, I know others have put in that time as well and also realize he could be wrong. However, I find him pretty unbiased and trustworthy when speaking of factual or historical information.

And other very highly educated folk have issued rebuttals.

I was actually speaking about the educated people in Peter’s day, not scholars today.

The issue here is revealed to be your lack of comprehensive exposure to the material or a preference for one particular presentation of it.

I suppose that is possible. But comprehensive knowledge is lacking all over these boards. Knowing what the church teaches is great but doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s biased, just as an atheists presentation is going to be biased.

If you want a comprehensive treatment then you need to look somewhere other than an internet forum, respectfully. This format doesn’t lend itself to what you claim to seek here. Long posts aren’t widely read. Find some contrarian authors to what you present (there’s a ton of 'em) and buy/borrow their books.

You only get samples here because that’s all this medium can provide by design. Internet forums are no substitute for a real education.

Why, you are doing such a good job of informing and entertaining me! I think it is healthy for people to think about these things for themselves, do you not agree?

 

[Vonsalza]

We agree to disagree on this, I’d like to have the original with no errors, which is possible with the will and power of God.

Possible, but not necessary or even probable. The demand for hand-on-paper originals isn’t a test that God needs to meet.

Interesting. I tend to trust Dr. Ehrman when it comes to historical pieces…

You seem to approach Ehrman in the same way I approach Oxford - the educational institute of the English-speaking world, if not the entire west.

As a best-practice, I’d resist academic discipleship to any one particular man. Too much opportunity for bias of the worst sort - the one you cant see.

I suppose that is possible. But comprehensive knowledge is lacking all over these boards.

An inherent flaw of the medium itself.

Why, you are doing such a good job of informing and entertaining me! I think it is healthy for people to think about these things for themselves, do you not agree?

I agree heartily. But in opposition to the common adage, I do find it useful to actually look the gift-horse in the mouth.

 

[laylow]

Possible, but not necessary or even probable. The demand for hand-on-paper originals isn’t a test that God needs to meet.

It would help immensely.

You seem to approach Ehrman in the same way I approach Oxford - the educational institute of the English-speaking world, if not the entire west.

Possibly, I don’t have unlimited time, but I am actively looking for other scholars who produce information that is widely available. I’d like to find a scholar who was an atheist that became a believer and follower. I feel they would have less bias than what I have seen from traditional scholars.

As a best-practice, I’d resist academic discipleship to any one particular man. Too much opportunity for bias of the worst sort - the one you cant see.

I can’t disagree here. But I rarely see scholars disagree with Ehrman on historical grounds. When they do, they stumble and dance around information. I will continue looking at I definitely want to see different views.

An inherent flaw of the medium itself.

Not only the medium. Most people have their biased view, which is natural, this is a Catholic forum!

I agree heartily. But in opposition to the common adage, I do find it useful to actually look the gift-horse in the mouth.

I think I know what you mean, but don’t want to interpret it incorrectly… Can you recite without using slang.

 

[Vonsalza]

It would help immensely.

The only question it would answer would be “how much have the current copies drifted from the original”. We can construct nearly the same test by pulling contemporary copies from geographically separate areas and comparing the drift between them.

There’s been very, very little from what we can see. Saw a neat study on drift in the gospels done by a man that professed no faith - it’s fairly recent too. Wish I could remember the names…

Not only the medium. Most people have their biased view, which is natural, this is a Catholic forum!

Yes, we do assume the religion is “true”.

I think I know what you mean, but don’t want to interpret it incorrectly… Can you recite without using slang.

Scrutinize what you receive. Consider the source. So on.

Here, “this is a public forum, so not all posts are created equal”.