"Truth without any mixture of error"

[Revmitchell]

In his book "The Battle For The Bible" Harold Lindsell writes of a letter writen by Jack U. Harwell, who was at the time the editor of the Christian Index, to Joe Dunaway of Rome Georgia dated December 31, 1974, he wrote:

"I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I do not use the word infaliable because the Bible is written by men. I would ask you to check very closely the statement "truth without any mixture of error". The statement says that truth is not mixed with error but it does not say that the Bible is not mixed with error. I could cite many, many instances where a literal, absolute, blind acceptance of the Bible without any understanding of human nature leads to all types of contradictions.......I do not believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible.......I do not believe that Adam and Eve represented mankind and womankind. There are volumes and volumes of Biblcial scholarship which document this theory many years back....... "



Do you agree with harwell? Why or why not?

 

[reformedbeliever]

I believe its true without any mixture of error in the original autograph. Jesus quoted it and affirmed it (the OT) why should I not believe it to be absolutely true?

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe its true without any mixture of error in the original autograph. Jesus quoted it and affirmed it (the OT) why should I not believe it to be absolutely true?

Do you believe the copies we have today hold error in doctrine, geography, science etc.?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Do you believe the copies we have today hold error in doctrine, geography, science etc.?

No. But you have to be careful with some translations. In the science and art of hermeneutics, you have people who come to the table with some pre-conceived theological ideas. Any time you have to translate anything, including the bible, you have translative difficulties. It is in those difficulties that IMO the problem arises. Then again we have the bible versions ( a translation of a translation). Not all versions are completely reliable...... do you think?

 

[Revmitchell]

No. But you have to be careful with some translations. In the science and art of hermeneutics, you have people who come to the table with some pre-conceived theological ideas. Any time you have to translate anything, including the bible, you have translative difficulties. It is in those difficulties that IMO the problem arises. Then again we have the bible versions ( a translation of a translation). Not all versions are completely reliable...... do you think?

I do not think they are all reliable. I have some use for the NIV and the Message but I won't share that here.

 

[Abell]

I believe God, Himself, to be perfect and without error. Therefore I believe His word is just as perfect. Especially in view of God saying that He holds His Word above His own name (PS.138:2); and the He would preserve His Word forever (Ps.12:6-7).

We must keep in mind that not all translations meet God's perfection, and therefore cannot be considered His Word.

It is not a stretch for me to believe God can keep His Word from human error. I believe in His omnipotent power.

 

[MB]

In his book "The Battle For The Bible" Harold Lindsell writes of a letter writen by Jack U. Harwell, who was at the time the editor of the Christian Index, to Joe Dunaway of Rome Georgia dated December 31, 1974, he wrote:

"I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I do not use the word infaliable because the Bible is written by men. I would ask you to check very closely the statement "truth without any mixture of error". The statement says that truth is not mixed with error but it does not say that the Bible is not mixed with error. I could cite many, many instances where a literal, absolute, blind acceptance of the Bible without any understanding of human nature leads to all types of contradictions.......I do not believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible.......I do not believe that Adam and Eve represented mankind and womankind. There are volumes and volumes of Biblcial scholarship which document this theory many years back....... "



Do you agree with harwell? Why or why not?

I do not agree with him. I can't agree without doubting the existence of God. If there is one mistake that changes what it says then the whole of it is false. I take scripture literally,,,completely literal. That may be trusting in those who translated it for me but what choice do I have. I know in my heart that it is the inspired word of God because it's concepts are true. I can see how the belief in this book has led to things that were other wise impossible for me. For me it has made the impossible, possible. It has led me to Christ. It has caused my belief in Him. Whom I would not have known with out it. I suspose you could say that I first knew because of a preacher which is true but, what he preached was the WORD.
I have no doubt that since man has translated it there could be errors although those errors are miniscule because they didn't change the concepts. The grammar may not be what we would like but then there were no rules for grammar during the time of Christ.
If this poor soul doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God, then as long as he believes this he is hopelessly lost. There is no other way I know of, to know about God.

There are other translation that are called bible but I wouldn't call them that. I use the KJV but it isn't the only good translation as some might claim.
If the Bible isn't the word of God and it's concepts are untrue then why does it speak to mens hearts changing them from the inside out?
MB

 

[Crabtownboy]

I do not agree with him. I can't agree without doubting the existence of God. If there is one mistake that changes what it says then the whole of it is false.

To me this is one of the saddest comments I can imagine.

 

[Palatka51]

If this poor soul doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God, then as long as he believes this he is hopelessly lost. There is no other way I know of, to know about God.

There are other translation that are called bible but I wouldn't call them that. I use the KJV but it isn't the only good translation as some might claim.
If the Bible isn't the word of God and it's concepts are untrue then why does it speak to mens hearts changing them from the inside out?
MB

Amen, However I'd like to state that it is the only Great Translation, a few of the others are good translations and the rest are fit for the garbage pail.

 

[Revmitchell]

To me this is one of the saddest comments I can imagine.

Please enlighten us with your view on the op. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Please enlighten us with your view on the op. Do you agree or disagree?

I do not believe there are any translations that are without error ... error in the sense that the exact meaning has been retained from the original. Why? Because meaning is lost in any translation. There are words that denote concepts in one language that cannot be translated into another with one word. For instance the Chinese word Guanshi cannot be translated into English with one word. We simply do not have that concept as a word in English. It would take several pages, if not more in attempting to give the correct meaning of the word. The same is true in translating from Hebrew or Greek into English. The Greeks had four words with very different meanings that have to be translated as love in English. By being limited to one word, love, we loose meaning in the translation. This is especially true in the passage where Jesus asks Peter three times if he [Peter] loves him. Jesus uses one Greek term and Peter answers with another, one meaning a lesser love that what Jesus is asking him. Big loss in meaning there. So, we do not have the exact meanings in our translations and it is impossible to do so.

Did the originals have errors. I doubt it, but we do not have any originals and we will never have an original. It is an article of faith to say they did not have any errors. The devil has used the word inerrancy well in driving a wedge between Christians.

We should never put our entire faith in whether written word is infallabe or not. What is critical is our personal realtionship with God and if God is found faithful in that relationship. If some error were absolutely proven to be in the Bible it would not shake my faith in God. The Bible brings me head knowledge, my life experiences brings me proofs of God. Now this has been a long process. When I was young I held pretty much the same position as many other posters here. I am no longer young and my life experiences has changed my faith into a much deeper walk and trust of and in and with God.

 

[Revmitchell]

According to scripture the Word of God is used by God to do more than bring a head knowledge:


1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.


Our relationship is completely beholden to the Word of God. If it is in error then so is our relationship.

 

[Crabtownboy]

According to scripture the Word of God is used by God to do more than bring a head knowledge:


1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.


Our relationship is completely beholden to the Word of God. If it is in error then so is our relationship.

Can you only quote scripture? Do you have no knowledge or widsom from your own life. Of course it is more than head knowledge. But in a three paragraph summary not everything can be covered or explained fully.

What does your faith rest on? Words in a book, or that plus your experiences with God?

How would it affect your faith if a biological fact, or a geographic fact in the Bible were shown to be in error?

What if a historical event recorded in the Bible were proven to be in error, how would that affect your faith?

 

[Revmitchell]

Can you only quote scripture? Do you have no knowledge or widsom from your own life. Of course it is more than head knowledge. But in a three paragraph summary not everything can be covered or explained fully.

What does your faith rest on? Words in a book, or that plus your experiences with God?

How would it affect your faith if a biological fact, or a geographic fact in the Bible were shown to be in error?

What if a historical event recorded in the Bible were proven to be in error, how would that affect your faith?

Can't be done. While there are some copiest errors which all can be explained the events, geographic, biological facts as a whole can never be found to be in error. And I take exception to your reference to the Bible as "a book". It is the very words of God. It is what our "experiences" are to be measured against. It is the only standard for living.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Can't be done. While there are some copiest errors which all can be explained the events, geographic, biological facts as a whole can never be found to be in error. And I take exception to your reference to the Bible as "a book". It is the very words of God. It is what our "experiences" are to be measured against. It is the only standard for living.

Well that is one way of side stepping the question. IMHO if such a fact were proven an error and it hurt or destroyed a person's faith, then I question if that person's faith has any depth to it in the hear and now. And to me, now at this stage of my life, faith is more of a verb than a noun. What do I mean? Well, anyone can say I believe and it may or may not be true. But show me your works, as James calls them, and I will show you your faith. I am not saying that works saves, but that works shows what a person's faith is all about.

Dietrich Bonehoffer gives great insight into this in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. If you have not read it I strongly recomment it. As he points out, we are not to dispense cheap grace as grace is not cheap just as discipleship is not cheap. In fact, true discipleship may cost a person his/her life. To be a true disciple of Christ we give him our life, it is no longer our own. We must be willing to go where he leads, to do what he wills. We are to give all to him and if we are unwilling to give all, then we are still small in our faith.

Christ spoke very little about what we are to believe, but he spoke a lot about how we are to treat others. Remember the judgement as recorded in Matthew. It was not beliefs by which the "sheep" and "goats" were judged, but by what they did ... what their faith led them to do or not to go.

 

[Allan]

Well that is one way of side stepping the question. IMHO if such a fact were proven an error and it hurt or destroyed a person's faith, then I question if that person's faith has any depth to it in the hear and now. And to me, now at this stage of my life, faith is more of a verb than a noun. What do I mean? Well, anyone can say I believe and it may or may not be true. But show me your works, as James calls them, and I will show you your faith. I am not saying that works saves, but that works shows what a person's faith is all about.

Dietrich Bonehoffer gives great insight into this in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. If you have not read it I strongly recomment it. As he points out, we are not to dispense cheap grace as grace is not cheap just as discipleship is not cheap. In fact, true discipleship may cost a person his/her life. To be a true disciple of Christ we give him our life, it is no longer our own. We must be willing to go where he leads, to do what he wills. We are to give all to him and if we are unwilling to give all, then we are still small in our faith.

Christ spoke very little about what we are to believe, but he spoke a lot about how we are to treat others. Remember the judgement as recorded in Matthew. It was not beliefs by which the "sheep" and "goats" were judged, but by what they did ... what their faith led them to do or not to go.

Very poor logic.

You can only do that which you know to do, and you can only know to do something if you have some sourse from which to aquire that knowledge.

God gave us His word to know his will, and His Spirit to reveal His will through His word. Study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God who needs not be ashamed. It goes hand in hand.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Very poor logic.

You can only do that which you know to do, and you can only know to do something if you have some sourse from which to aquire that knowledge.

God gave us His word to know his will, and His Spirit to reveal His will through His word. Study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God who needs not be ashamed. It goes hand in hand.

I am curious, what has God called you to do recently? What has the cost been?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would expand your thought on logic further. I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you were saying. Thanks in advance.

 

[MB]

To me this is one of the saddest comments I can imagine.

Why do you think it's sad? Don't you believe what the Bible says is true? Why not explain to us how you came to know the Lord. That way, I might better understand why you made such a statement.
MB

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why do you think it's sad? Don't you believe what the Bible says is true? Why not explain to us how you came to know the Lord. That way, I might better understand why you made such a statement.
MB

Please read my longer posts following the one you quoted. Thanks.

 

[Alcott]

The Bible brings me head knowledge, my life experiences brings me proofs of God.

As you say inerrancy can be a driven wedge between believers, how can one's own perception not be? If the real truth is something revealed outside scripture, what has that wrought?... the Catholic heirarchy which cannot be opposed; the monarch of Engalnd and head of the church there who could not be opposed; Joseph Smith and the Mormon church; George Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses; Jim Jones and Guiyana; Heaven's Gate; homosexual churches,..... Depending on one's own experience and perceptions of the divine is a wedge that does a lot of splitting.