What would the consequences be...

[ScottEmerson]

...if the Bible actually contained a few errors? If the actual text contained some mistakes? Would you reject your faith all together? Would it change your faith a little? Would it not change it at all?

And then a second part: Do you think that part of you explains away alleged contradictions in order to keep your faith "safe?"

And finally a third part: What is your response to various web sites that list things such as "101 Contradictions in the Bible?", some of which deserve to be carefully examined?

 

[rbrent]

ERRORS
The type of ERRORS seems important here.

Errors of historical or scientific fact would be troubling. If the God who claims “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” includes errors and inaccuracies in His written revelation, honesty would force us to question His accuracy and reliability in all other areas.

Some folks view printer’s errors as errors and the correction of printer’s errors as “revisions” - for example, it is alleged that the KJV has word errors but many of the citations of these alleged “errors” are merely printer’s or type-setters errors - not errors in the written revelation of God.
(The other changes in the KJV from 1611 to 1769 or whenever are debated elsewhere on this board).

Alleged “errors” are a different matter. For example, in Acts 1:3 - “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs...”

Most ‘new’ versions omit infallible. That seems to leave room for sceptics to argue that the “proofs” of the resurrection are “many” or “convincing” but NOT infallible.

INFALLIBLE proofs are much different than "many proofs" or "convincing proofs". A lie can be convincing but not infallible...

But, most MVs would claim that having the word infallible IN the KJV is an error.

CONTRADICTIONS

I do not regard “contradictions” as “errors”. They are two separate things.
I believe the way to deal with “contradictions” in the scriptures is to always give God and the scriptures the benefit of the doubt. Our lack of understanding is always the problem and prayer and study usually provide an answer.
The contradictions that folks have pointed out to me were not contradictions. They simply looked like contradictions because we hadn’t studied enough to be able to understand the passages at issue.

We took a course in Bible School back in the 70ies called PROBLEM TEXTS. (Name of the book has been changed with the latest edition and its called THE “ERRORS” IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE).
The textbook was written by Pete Ruckman (yeah, THAT guy!) and covers most of the alleged contradictions in the KJV.
Interesting book and helpful on most of the difficult verses that are labelled contradictions.
The proofreading on the first edition was not very good so there are some typos but it does have a lot of good answers for the alleged contradictions - all without correcting the text or blaming the "contradictions" on errors and mistranslations in the text.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
...if the Bible actually contained a few errors? If the actual text contained some mistakes? Would you reject your faith all together? Would it change your faith a little? Would it not change it at all?

And then a second part: Do you think that part of you explains away alleged contradictions in order to keep your faith "safe?"

And finally a third part: What is your response to various web sites that list things such as "101 Contradictions in the Bible?", some of which deserve to be carefully examined?

First answer: Never, I know the Savior personally.

Second answer: I think we explain too much without thinking. God wrote the book, let him explain. Our ways are lower than his. so is our thinking.

Thirdly, I try to stay focused on the growth topic God has put in my life at any given point. I have never considered those websites. (I have too much fun on Baptistboard!!!

 

[gb93433]

When one understand the historical context behind what is written there are no contradictions. I have dialoged with some of those and have pointed out to them their errors and find they do not like that. They are like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set. One I talked with claimed to have read a number of books on the subject trying to find answers. I told him that he didn't read the right books that had answers to his questions. He also mentioned at how high up he was in the local church and how he had talked with his pastor. I told him that the majority of pastors are not vey well equipped to deal with some of his questions. I gave him the name of a man who could easily deal with his questions. But he wasn't interested.

How can someone say God doesn't exist if he really knew God?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott, some good questions.

"...if the Bible actually contained a few errors? If the actual text contained some mistakes? Would you reject your faith all together? Would it change your faith a little? Would it not change it at all?"

Scott, Of course it would change my faith. That is because the Holy Bible claims for itself to be the inspired, true and perfect words of God. It is not a book of philosophy or a man made religion, but God Himself who speaks to us. God says He doesn't lie, and God says in His word that if a prophet is wrong just once he is a false prophet. God is perfect and so is His true word.


Scott>>>And then a second part: Do you think that part of you explains away alleged contradictions in order to keep your faith "safe?"

Yes, I think so. I really believe the KJB is God's word. I have seen and heard of many alleged contradictions, and these often force me to go to God in prayer and ask Him to give me understanding. I have run into several apparent contradictions that bothered me for awhile, and then God has opened up to me an explanation and it has been a tremendous blessing. I believe God uses these "contradictions" to help us to grow spiritually. The only Bible that has always proven to be correct is the KJB.


Scott>>>And finally a third part: What is your response to various web sites that list things such as "101 Contradictions in the Bible?", some of which deserve to be carefully examined?
---------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen these sites and most of the examples are really silly, but some of them make me think and go to God for understanding. So far, He has always come through for me using the King James Bible.

What the niv, nasb, esv, etc. often do is change the texts because they think there was some kind of "scribal error" in the Hebrew texts. This is not my approach at all.

Will K

 

[Walls]

Trusting Christ as our saviour is going on blind faith unless of course you were raised in a church. Then the more you know you gain confidence in that faith.

Most people when they get saved don't question the Bible, they just take it on blind faith that whatever they are using is the word of God. Then if they are in a church that uses a certain Bible exclusively, they adopt those views.

They will adhere to those views unquestionably until there may come a time where either God or satan tries to get them thinking as to whether or not they are holding the right Bible. I would prefer to think that on this Board it is God that is showing us things.

There are websites that can support any view, that doesn't mean they are accurate. Just as one may at some time question his salvation, it is up to him to pray about it and search the matter out, so that he has assurance.

It is the same principle when dealing with the Bible. If you are ever at a place where you would question the Bible you are using, you study it out and seek the Lord's will in the matter so you can be sure and say with out a doubt, I have God's word in my hand.

 

[Ed Edwards]

ScottEmerson: "What would the consequences be
...if the Bible actually contained a few errors?
If the actual text contained some mistakes?
Would you reject your faith all together?
Would it change your faith a little?
Would it not change it at all?"

It would increase my faith in the rest of the Bible.

Romans 8:24 (KJV1769):
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope:
for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

ScottEmerson: "And then a second part: Do you think that part
of you explains away alleged contradictions
in order to keep your faith "safe?"

Of course, I always do this on aledged contradicitons/errors
betwen versions.

ScottEmerson: "And finally a third part: What is your response
to various web sites that list things such
as "101 Contradictions in the Bible?", some
of which deserve to be carefully examined?"

I don't have much time to check these.
One of the most interesting has a error category,
a self-contradiction category, and their third
category shows how ugly the Bible is with
instructions from God for genocide, ugly urinary
"P" words, etc.

 

[robycop3]

Seeing as how these discrepancies DO exist, there should be no consequences for one who truly wants to understand God's word as much as possible. I bear in mind that the same God who preserved perfectly some of the writings of civilizations older than the first Scriptures, chose NOT to preserve the original writings of His word. We KNOW it was easily within His power to have done so, and we must remember He had His reasons for not preserving the autographs.

Had God chosen to have preserved the autographs, there would be far fewer of these versions discussions, although there would still be discussions about the exact translation of some words or passages.

There should be no consequences when we remember that our Bibles are God's perfect word handled & translated by imperfect men, albeit under the auspices of God.

 

[HankD]

There are no errors or contradictions with God. That which we call "errors" of the Scripture are those introduced by man in the copying of the original MSS from the hands of the prophets and apostles.

That which some call "contradictions" are attibuted to our lack of knowledge or misunderstanding or a weakness in translation.

Also, it is my belief that God would have no problem at all in the perfect reconstruction of the copies of the books of the Bible through His Church were it not for our lack of faith and wisdom (I'm not exempting myself).

In fact, I hold as a belief that the Scrivener TR is the reconstructed Word of God. Not as a radical and not to say that there are no flaws whatever in this TR and also not to condemn others whose faith points them to the 1880 work of Wescott and Hort rather than the 1611 churchmen of the Anglo-Catholic Church followed later by Burgon and Scrivener.

I also agree with the KJB translators that even the "meanest" of the translations are the Word of God. Of course today we do need some qualification for works such as the NWT. Of these which are doctrinally skewed there must be the qualification: "as they are faithful to the original language texts".

In short I won't even entertain the thought of an "error" or "contradiction" in the Scriptures.

HankD

 

[russell55]

In short I won't even entertain the thought of an "error" or "contradiction" in the Scriptures.

Yep. This is one of my basic presuppositions. The writings, having as their immediate source the God of truth, could have contained no errors or contradictions.

They may have contained things that appear to be contradictions to me, but they were not. I will never "find out" that the original text contained some mistakes, because the errorlessness of the text as written is one of the filters I am viewing everything through.

 

[ScottEmerson]

This brings up another question about inspiration. We know from reading the documents that each of the different authors of the Bible has a different style - John is stylistically much different than Hebrews, for example. Is it possible that God could have inspired the writings of the documents, but that because they were put down on paper by fallible man, that the texts themselves could have small errors? What prevents us from that presupposition, instead of the other one?

 

[robycop3]

I still believe that the fact God chose not to preserve the originals has great significance for us today. I believe God wished to retain the flexibility, by human reasoning, to present His word in relevant fashion to the various types of people He creates. There's a central theme running through all the Scriptures in all the versions: the one thing God wants from us is OBEDIENCE, and the beginning of that obedience is coming to Jesus Christ for salvation and forgiveness, recognizing Him as the ONLY Savior, our Lord, and Son of God who bore the penalty of our DISobedience by becoming a man & dying on a cross.

 

[Walls]

Originally posted by robycop3:
There's a central theme running through all the Scriptures in all the versions: the one thing God wants from us is OBEDIENCE, and the beginning of that obedience is coming to Jesus Christ for salvation and forgiveness, recognizing Him as the ONLY Savior, our Lord, and Son of God who bore the penalty of our DISobedience by becoming a man & dying on a cross.

Amen!

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
...if the Bible actually contained a few errors? If the actual text contained some mistakes?

Every translation is bound to contain translational errors.

Would you reject your faith all together? Would it change your faith a little? Would it not change it at all?

Change my faith? I worship God, not the Bible. It would change my understanding of the Bible, but it would not change my faith in it or in God.

Do you think that part of you explains away alleged contradictions in order to keep your faith "safe?"

I'm not one who explains away biblical contraditions. I accept thet they exist if I read the verses in a manner in which the writer did not intend. Such contraditions that have been discussed don't change the Bible's inspired value, nor do they change the message contained in the texts.

What is your response to various web sites that list things such as "101 Contradictions in the Bible?", some of which deserve to be carefully examined?

They're worthy of looking at and understanding (it's valuable for Bible study), but for the Christian, it doesn't make a difference as far as matters of faith, or the message contained within pages of the Bible.

 

[russell55]

Is it possible that God could have inspired the writings of the documents, but that because they were put down on paper by fallible man, that the texts themselves could have small errors? What prevents us from that presupposition, instead of the other one?

What prevents me from that supposition is that Paul says the "writings" are God-breathed.

I do agree with you that each man wrote in his own style, etc, meaning that there are some who had better grammar, etc, than others. But the words which were written down were approved by the Holy Spirit as adequate to express the God-intended meaning, so there were no errors, contradictions, etc in the writings. We, of course, may misunderstand the God-and-human-author-intended meaning of those Holy- Spirit-approved-as-adequate words, and see contradictions or errors where they don't exist.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by russell55:
What prevents me from that supposition is that Paul says the "writings" are God-breathed.

To be accurate, when Paul wrote that, he was referring to the OT scriptures. THe NT had not yet been compiled, and many of the books of the NT had not yet been written. Of course, we believe the NT writings are inspired as well, and rightly so.

But the words which were written down were approved by the Holy Spirit as adequate to express the God-intended meaning, so there were no errors, contradictions, etc in the writings. We, of course, may misunderstand the God-and-human-author-intended meaning of those Holy- Spirit-approved-as-adequate words, and see contradictions or errors where they don't exist.

Well, there are indeed contradictions, but they are not contradictions to the message contained therein. There's no need to think that such contradicions are in any way compromising of the scriptural message.