The Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Singinbeauty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Singinbeauty

Guest
What do you believe? Do you believe that the bible is totally and utterly inerrant, meaning it has no ‘human’ errors in it, or do you believe that the bible was written by men so there are some things that contradict because humans wrote it although it is God inspired so the basics are all true.

For me… I believe that the bible is God inspired. Meaning, it has some contradictions but they are SO small and unimportant it doesn’t matter because the message is the same and comes across clear…

Take the four gospels and the differences in the stories of how many angels were waiting for those coming to see the place where Jesus was laid. In Mark it’s one angel who tells Mary Magdalene and Salome and Mary the mother of James to go spread the news of Jesus’ rising but in John it is Jesus himself who tells Mary Magdalene to go spread the news. In

Mark 16:5-7

5So they entered the tomb, and there on the right sat a young man clothed in a white robe. The women were startled, 6but the angel said, “Do not be so surprised. You are looking for Jesus, the Nazarene, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He has been raised from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7Now go and give this message to his disciples, including Peter: Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died!”

**John 20:11-17 **

11Mary was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in. 12She saw two white-robed angels sitting at the head and foot of the place where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13"Why are you crying?" the angels asked her.
“Because they have taken away my Lord,” she replied, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”

14She glanced over her shoulder and saw someone standing behind her. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. 15"Why are you crying?" Jesus asked her. “Who are you looking for?”

She thought he was the gardener. “Sir,” she said, “if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and get him.”

16"Mary!" Jesus said.

She turned toward him and exclaimed, “Teacher!”

17"Don’t cling to me," Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.”

=========================================================

So why are these differences here? Have you ever played that game ‘Telephone’ with a group of friends where one person whispers something to the next person and so on down the line and by the time it gets to the last person it is something completely different from the original message? I think that this has happened here. Both the authors of Mark and John heard the story of the discovery that Jesus had risen but each heard a different version. But the message is the same! Jesus has risen! He is alive and fulfilled the promise made to us! It doesn’t matter HOW they got the message but that the message was delivered!!!

Please put your 2cents in! I would love to hear EVERYONE’s opinions… Even if you are not a christian…
 
I believe fully in the Bible as the Word of God. I believe it to be inerrant and any problems we might have in thinking that it contradicts itself is a failure of our understanding.

The reason I believe it to be the Word of God is because the Catholic Church says it is so. This is the logic behind that.
I believe Jesus came here was crucified and buried. His apostles ran away and were scared. Many people have come before said they were God and then died, their followers scattered. The difference is that Jesus had a new credibility, because not only did He speak like no-one before, fulfill prophecy but He also came back.
These scared men were transformed into people who would die for their beliefs, die just to speak about Jesus and so were their followers.
This Church he founded grew, and spread. It was founded by Jesus to spread the Gospel. It decided the Canon of the Bible.
It preserved the understanding of the faith taught to the Apostles, it has stood for 2000 years and preserved the Bible.

That is why the Bible is true as it was given to us from the Church that Jesus created. No other book has been given to us in this way.

I fully believe in the Bible as inspired by God.

God Bless
Scylla
 
40.png
Singinbeauty:
For me… I believe that the bible is God inspired. Meaning, it has some contradictions but they are SO small and unimportant it doesn’t matter because the message is the same and comes across clear…

Take the four gospels and the differences in the stories of how many angels were waiting for those coming to see the place where Jesus was laid. In Mark it’s one angel who tells Mary Magdalene and Salome and Mary the mother of James to go spread the news of Jesus’ rising but in John it is Jesus himself who tells Mary Magdalene to go spread the news. In
Click to expand...
The differences aren’t contraditions. They can be easily reconciled, like this .
 
I, like St. Augustine, only believe in the Bible because the Church says so (although I used to believe it even before becoming Catholic, though I would not have been able to give you a logical answer for it, I would have said something like, “I believe because it is the Word of God…” and let it at that.)

However, along with the Church, I give Sacred Scripture the highest honor possible, precisely because it is the written Word of God.

No one holds Scripture so high as does the Catholic Church!
 
Just thought I would add this:

DECREE OF RECEPTION OF THE SACRED BOOKS AND APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS

(210) The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent…] has always this purpose in mind that in the Church errors be removed and the purity of the Gospel be preserved. The Gospel was promised of old through the prophets in the Sacred Scriptures; Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, first promulgated it from his own lips; he in turn ordered that it be preached through the apostles to all creatures as the source of all savings truth and norms of conduct. The Council clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following, then, the example of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with the same sense of loyalty and reverence all the books of the Old and New Testament-for the one God is the author of both-together with all the traditions concerning faith and practice, as coming from the mouth of Christ or being inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
Singinbeauty:
What do you believe? Do you believe that the bible is totally and utterly inerrant, meaning it has no ‘human’ errors in it, or do you believe that the bible was written by men so there are some things that contradict because humans wrote it although it is God inspired so the basics are all true.

For me… I believe that the bible is God inspired. Meaning, it has some contradictions but they are SO small and unimportant it doesn’t matter because the message is the same and comes across clear…

Take the four gospels and the differences in the stories of how many angels were waiting for those coming to see the place where Jesus was laid. In Mark it’s one angel who tells Mary Magdalene and Salome and Mary the mother of James to go spread the news of Jesus’ rising but in John it is Jesus himself who tells Mary Magdalene to go spread the news. In

Mark 16:5-7

5So they entered the tomb, and there on the right sat a young man clothed in a white robe. The women were startled, 6but the angel said, “Do not be so surprised. You are looking for Jesus, the Nazarene, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He has been raised from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7Now go and give this message to his disciples, including Peter: Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died!”

**John 20:11-17 **

11Mary was standing outside the tomb crying, and as she wept, she stooped and looked in. 12She saw two white-robed angels sitting at the head and foot of the place where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13"Why are you crying?" the angels asked her.
“Because they have taken away my Lord,” she replied, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”

14She glanced over her shoulder and saw someone standing behind her. It was Jesus, but she didn’t recognize him. 15"Why are you crying?" Jesus asked her. “Who are you looking for?”

She thought he was the gardener. “Sir,” she said, “if you have taken him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will go and get him.”

16"Mary!" Jesus said.

She turned toward him and exclaimed, “Teacher!”

17"Don’t cling to me," Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.”

=========================================================

So why are these differences here? Have you ever played that game ‘Telephone’ with a group of friends where one person whispers something to the next person and so on down the line and by the time it gets to the last person it is something completely different from the original message? I think that this has happened here. Both the authors of Mark and John heard the story of the discovery that Jesus had risen but each heard a different version. But the message is the same! Jesus has risen! He is alive and fulfilled the promise made to us! It doesn’t matter HOW they got the message but that the message was delivered!!!

Please put your 2cents in! I would love to hear EVERYONE’s opinions… Even if you are not a christian…
Click to expand...

ISTM that the differences can be accounted for by considering the theology & the ideas of the evangelists. In one the “men” are explicitly called angels; in another they are called men, meaning angels: as happens in the OT. The differences in style are a guide to the thinking of the evangelists; and thus, to understanding them.​

IMHO, inerrancy is unimportant. Speaking purely for myself, I don’t believe the Bible because of inerrancy, but because the Bible is the written Word of God. I don’t think much of the usual arguments for inerrancy, and I don’t believe that the Bible is, or needs to be, inerrant. I think all attempts to prove inerrancy that I’ve so far seen are completely beside the point - the Bible is a saving message, not because it is without error in reporting stats for casualties in battles or ages of patriarchs, but because it savingly communicates the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. My confidence in the Bible would be no stronger if I did believe in inerrancy, AFAICS. I firmly believe that the Bible is inspired - just what that adds up to, I’m not sure.

That is almost certainly a minority view. Inerrancy means a great deal to many Christians. ##
 
I believe in the inerrency of the Bible as a source for doctrine when properly understood in the light of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe the Bible to be materially sufficient but not doctrinally sufficient in and of itself. In other words, the Bible contains all of the information necessary, but one cannot simply read the bible from cover to cover and understand it all clearly. Although some teachings from Scripture are quite clear, others are quite complex. That is one reason why I believe Christ left a physical Church that settles disputes as to what is and is not true doctrine as taught from Scripture.

I will add that Catholics are not Bible literalists.
 
I believe in the inerrancy of the New Testament, and the inerrancy of the Old Testament, but the inerrancy of the OT has one caveat that the reader understand the history of the texts themselves (mostly due to the deuteronomists heavy revision of the Old Testament texts centuries before Christ’s birth). I believe that scripture can not be completely understood without the aid of Church tradition and I especially believe this to be true in the case of the OT (not because it is less valid than the NT, but because of the many revisions and differing versions of the OT books that exist and sometimes contradict each other).

All in all, the OT is inerrant, but you have to understand the context in which it was written to really understand its meaning since so much of it is either symbolic or has been heavily altered since it was originally written (and the original books, if there really were any, are long gone). Luckily, the early Fathers of the church and many other theologians have written at length about the books of the OT so a lot of our homework is done for us already.
 
The Bible is the Word of God written through the hands of men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Those men were part of the Catholic Church - the only Christian church at that time.

There were many writings in the early Church. It was the job of the Catholic bishops at the African synods to determine which were inspired and which were just inspiring. The canon was set at the end of the 4th century after a series of synods of Catholic bishops.

The Bible was not intended to be the sole source of teaching for the faith. It was meant to be a companion to the faith. The oral teachings/tradition and the Scriptures are one cohesive unit. We call the oral teachings passed down from the Apostles and Christ and the Word of God the “deposit of faith”.

These are all important elements of the faith and none are meant to stand alone.

When Luther took the Bible, which was intended to be understood through the framework of the Church, he made it the sole authority - Sola Scriptura. This was not an ancient Christian belief. He also removed several books - the deuterocanonicals - which Protestants call the “Apocrypha” which had been included in the Bible since the canons were set over a 1,000 years before.
 
From a Protestant Q & A site. The facts in bold are my additions.

Question: “How and when were the books of the Bible put together?”

Answer: The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. Ultimately it was God who decided what the Biblical canon was. It was just a matter of God convincing the church (the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church) which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament…

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter (first Pope) recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome **(Pope Clement - Pope #4 - See list of Popes here: **newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm ) mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch (first to use term "Catholic Church - Bishop of Antioch martyred on the road to Rome) acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp (martyr: cin.org/saints/polycarp.html) , a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus ( catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=291 ) mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus (Martyr of Rome) recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).

The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170) (was written in Rome itself or in its environs about 180 - 200). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea (newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm )stated that only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. (It is the Catholic canon i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”. The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”. … newadvent.org/cathen/01199a.htm )

The councils (full of Catholic Bishops) followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

Article source: gotquestions.org/canon.html
 
I love the Bible. I believe it’s the Word of God & if I could only have one thing with me on a deserted island it would be a Bible. (Ok, maybe a cellphone if that was an option, but if not, definatly the Bible.)

But I agree with what others have said - Jesus didn’t leave his followers with a copy of the NIV and say, “Here you go… all you need to know is in this book - read it & interpret it for yourself…” He didn’t do that because look what happens when people decide for themselves what the Bible means - THOUSANDS of different denominations that all believe differently yet claim to follow the Bible alone. That’s why Jesus left us a Chruch.

But I do LOVE the Bible !!! (And the Church! :))
 
One more thing I wanted to add… In his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic David B. Currie has a chapter on the Bible. He wanted to compare the amount of time 3 different type of churches spent in Scripture on a regular Sunday. What he found was that the Evangelical Church spent less than 6% of it’s Sunday service in Scripture, the Fundamentalist Church spent 2% and the Catholic Church spent 26%. He points out that the percentages may change a bit week to week but still, the contrast is great.

He also points out that "a Catholic who attends Mass faithfully will hear almost all of God’s word over a period of three years -with the exception of geneologies etc. (pg. 99)

If you’ve never attended a Mass I’d encourage you to… I think you’d be suprised at how much of the Bible is read & discussed.

God Bless,
CM
 
I believe that the Bible is infallibe. It has no error on it.

But the New testament is not enough because it doesn’t contain all the teachings of Jesus. The New testament is just the supporting document of the Sacred Tradition.
 
I believe the bible to be the inspired work of God through men. The individual men who wrote the old and new testament had style, audiance, talent, world-view and language issues that found their way into their writing. None of these human things muted or perverted the word of God. However, you cannot take a casual or cavalier attitude when reading the bible to hear the Word of God. It still requires the Holy Spirit and real work.

Translating the bible; old testament and new, into modern language is an immense challange. Languages are dynamic and the writing of the bible spanned more than 2000 years. Ancient Hebrew had approximately 2500 words; modern English has about 860,000 words. Many of these words have multiple meanings. For example, the word ‘run’ has 134 different definitions in a Websters college dictionary, the word ‘set’ has 86.

The following quote was written in English about 1100 AD; 900 years ago.

Ða wæs on burgum Beowulf Scyldinga, leof leodcyning, longe þrage folcum gefræge (fæder ellor hwearf, aldor of earde), oþþæt him eft onwoc heah Healfdene; heold þenden lifde,
gamol ond guðreouw, glæde Scyldingas. ðæm feower bearn forð gerimed in worold wocun, weoroda ræswan, Heorogar ond Hroðgar ond Halga til; hyrde ic þæt wæs Onelan cwen, oscilfingas healsgebedda. þa wæs Hroðgare heresped gyfen, wiges weorðmynd, þæt him his winemagas
georne hyrdon,

I hope that isn’t fowl or insulting but I really have no idea; remember that’s English.

The bible spanned 1500 years of changes in the Hebrew language. The new testament was written in Aremaic and Greek by men who regularly spoke and heard three languages. Even if you work spend your life and work very hard studying ancient languages and the cultures that used them, you will not really know that there are not some things that could be clearer. In fact with a perfect translation (if there could be one) you could not be sure you could think like the author.

St. Augustine realized this in ‘Confessions’, when he described three or four possible meanings of the beginning of Genesis and stated that all of the meanings could in fact represent God’s truth.

We profit by reading the bible with the help of the Holy spirit in prayer. As individuals we can never exhaust or completely understand the meaning.

Nothing helps bible study like true humility. It seems very dangerous and arogant to think you understand what God means. He has told us in His word, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways (Isaiah, 55:8). Notice the translation is not “My thoughts are usually not…” or, “My thoughts are often not…”

We need the resources of 2000 years of thoughtful reading and the infallability of Christ’s church to know the basic dogma and God’s Holy Spirit to begin to understand.

Vic
 
I’ve encountered the “Telephone game” objection before. It does not work because a. ancient peoples had better trained memories and b. we have other examples of traditions being passed down through centuries orally completely intact. Here is a link from an Eastern Orthodix site: Holy Tradition vs. The Game of Telephone. If anyone knows of other links that deal with this particular objection please link 'em.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top