-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do You thing ANY errors in the Bible?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Define error
Please work on your spelling and grammar. It only takes a few extra seconds to fix. I'm very bad at spelling, but I try. It makes it easier to read and understand what you are saying. 
You: Do you thing[sic] ANY errors in the Bible?
Correct: Do you think there are ANY errors in the Bible?
1. The only "errors" are scribal and translational errors.
2. The original autographs had no errors.
You: Do you thing[sic] ANY errors in the Bible?
Correct: Do you think there are ANY errors in the Bible?
1. The only "errors" are scribal and translational errors.
2. The original autographs had no errors.
Please work on your spelling and grammar. It only takes a few extra seconds to fix. I'm very bad at spelling, but I try. It makes it easier to read and understand what you are saying.
You: Do you thing[sic] ANY errors in the Bible?
Correct: Do you think there are ANY errors in the Bible?
1. The only "errors" are scribal and translational errors.
2. The original autographs had no errors.
I corrected it!
Basic problem fat fingers small smart phone keys!
Any historical facts that differ in the Bible from history, or any theological facts/doctrines that you would hold to be wrong!
Anything that you would see clashing with either history/modern science?
Which would make the reporting of history or science wrong. Not scripture
Don't even we baptists though differ on just HOW we define terms like Inerrancy/infallibilty of the Bible though?
I understand that. What's annoying is that it likes to correct things that are not mistakes, but ignore actual mistakes.
I believe the difference in definition stems between theological conservatives and theological liberals.
Robert Snow
New Member
I believe it depends on the translation and the verse in question. For example, in 1Sam. 6:19 there is a vast difference in the number mentioned.
Conservative tend to see it as being "fully" while liberals as being "partially/limited"?
Greektim
Well-Known Member
My mind goes quickly to the gospel accounts with this issue. I see conservatives (like myself) use exegetical gymnastics to deny an apparent discrepancy. I find these apparent discrepancies easier to solve through the study of the Jesus tradition and ipsissima vox (used in a broader sense than just Jesus' sayings). The gospel accounts were not chronologically ordered historical renderings. That was not the historical practice of ANEers then.
Another issue I have with the concept of inerrancy as it relates to doctrine is that we are so western oriented (pun?) that we have to solve and systematize all paradoxes in the Bible. We come up with huge terms and highly philosophical concepts to explain things that were in the eyes of the original writers not that big of a deal. I just wish we would approach the text for what it is (premodern ANE literature) rather than what we need to make it as post-enlightened modernists. Logic has its place, but not at the expense of understanding the text in the mindset of the original audience.
Conclusion: no, the Bible has no theological errors. The writers and redactors made the theological point that they intended. How much they tell us, don't tell us, and perhaps even change (intentionally or unintentionally) is really up to them being led by the Spirit. Historical errors? Depends on what the criteria is for determining historical errors. A 21st century scientific method western post-enlightenment kind? Or the recording of history by the ancients in the ANE (and even ancient Europa)?
Really? kind of petty isn't it?