The Bible is NOT Error-Free (page 14)

wizzstick

Not proving that the Bible is inspired does not invalidate it from being inspired.

So how does one 'validate' divine inspiration?

OneGenTwoGroups

Is logic man made? Might be the most intellectually dishonest question I've seen in a JW forum.

Is Fisherman actually Ray Comfort or Eric Hovind?

FusionTheism

OneGen,

If the rules of logic aren't man-made, then what invented logic?

Viviane

It's nothing more than a deputy type of question. It sounds deep and interesting but it's nothing, which is all they have.

They're pro-rape and, since i've got no of otherwise, they have a thing for sheep. That's literally the level of their thinking. They've got nothing else.

The New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

18 Wallace, Daniel, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?," Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8.

[19] Geisler and Nix, 475.

[20] Carson, D.A., The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56.

Source: http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#ANCHOR19

TheWonderofYou

Inspiration how to understand?

Take the gospel called Matthew it was written for a special purpose, it is a redacted compendium for the church that was created to serve the church in the "evangalisation" work and to be read in the congregations.

As in the book are many references to customs and lifesituations that only eyewitnesses could have known played a role for people lifing before at 70 CE. the desctruction of the Jewsih community and social life in Jerusalem and the destrcution of the communitey in Qumran occured, the sources are from people that lifed in the 1 st century.

Mattew is alos based on the same sources as Marks gospel. But Mark used the words sources and eyewitness, testimonals for another gospel with another audience. We have 4 gospels that were not harmonised to delete some different text traditions, no the church let all 4 gospels stand for itself, to show that they had a real descent from the early church in a special need situtation. Sometimes we read and think, why 4 different reports about Jesus?

Was it inspired by God.?

The gospel of Matthew contains the point of view of the 1 st century, the jewish traditions, the world view of the antic and jewish time.

The catolic church does not belief that every single word is a direct memorandum of God, that had a direct line to the writer of the gospel and dictated him, no the gospel contains the beliefsystem of the early church, it is a handbook for the evangelisation, that was the purpose. Matthew very strong concentrated on Jesus Parables about the Kingdom of God, Jesus was obviousley a splendid speaker because the parables brought the listeners to thing about not what future fictive rulership could bring peace and security but about what Gods Kingdom meant for them in their daily life.

The parables contain customs that like the typical sowing method in Judean agriculture at that time that makes the farmer loooking very awkward.....(read Mattew 13-19, 18-23, Mark 4,13-20, Mark 4,1-9). The farmer sows the seed on the trampled bottom where is only few humus, because it was typical in that agriculture, to sow before the plowing. Did you know that Jesus wanted to say not that there will be good and bad results, or god and bad people but that God somehow will arrive the goal anyway. We can trust in his ability as farmer. His empire is blesssing and fullness, despite opposition, despite separated churches, the unity was lost,

This message and good news of mercy and joy about the loving God changed already in the 1 century hundred thousands in their thinking about God and brought the christian belief to Alexandria, to Antiochia, to Babylon, to Rome, to Spain......to Damaskus...Yes it was a hunted and trailed church (by the Jews and the Romans and many other cults) that needed a handbook and so Mattew wrote it whith the aim to tell about the good news about Jesus. Although Jesus did say nothing about that his words should be written down or written down fast to be not forgotten.

Based on early written sources of Jesus words and eyewitnesses and testimonials and using the greek Septuagint -Old Testmant Version for interpretation of the happenings, (but also citing Jesus words that are not in the Jewish bible canon, texts we dont have today) it was put together as compendium for the early church for a special purpose

It was created by Matthew for the church.

punkofnice

TWoY - Not sure what your paragraphs are saying IRO 'was it inspired by god'.

Just quote mining but - The catholic church does not believe that every single word is a direct memorandum of God I understand from this that the Gospel of Matthew, at least, is NOT considered inspired.

This message and good news of mercy and joy about the loving God changed already in the 1 century hundred thousands in their thinking about God

This seems to me that there is no inspiration in the OT either if a loving god changed. God is supposed NOT to change according to Micah.

It was created by Matthew for the church.

So, again. NOT inspired. What church?

Half banana

Would it not be more accurate to say that the Bible is not totally truth free?

Fisherman

So how does one 'validate' divine inspiration?-wiz

Valid question but different topic for another thread.

TheWonderofYou

Half banana,

the only Truth in the bible is: Jesus is the Truth, he is a person, he is god because a man cannot be truth,

The bible is not to be understood as compendium about dogmatic sentences, but as report, as good news about Jesus. The word of god is not called word of god because it is without error but because it reports about Jesus christ.

The Bible is NOT Error-Free

Share this