Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

Why Trust the Bible?

Recommended Posts

That's the question usually asked by non-believers. 

This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers.  For those who want to discuss, please watch and we'll discuss the points given in this video on why we should trust the Bible.

 

Honesty test.

Telephone Test.

Corroboration test.

 

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two kinds of information are given in the Bible.....some can be checked, while some can't be checked. 

As an example would be our inability to check for the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1:1 ( “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” ).........although science does not rule out that possibility, and that declaration is in no way inconsistent with current scientific data.

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible has a unique structure.  And it should be pointed out, and stressed!

 

Despite being a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men from various walks of life, over a period of 2,000 years......

 

.......it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Which bible is being represented here? And why should I trust one version over another?

 

Have you watched the video?  Talk about the points given.

 

  The message has not differed in the different versions that are mainstream.  Of course, we're not talking about versions that are re-worded, edited and designed to cater to special interest groups, or political correctness.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I haven't heard any believers claim it to be imperfect.  How so?     Explain what in your view, makes it imperfect.

There are contradictions in there.  I'm sure the link I provided will outline some.  The bible doesn't need to be perfect to have value for believers, though, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are contradictions in there.  I'm sure the link I provided will outline some.  The bible doesn't need to be perfect to have value for believers, though, IMO.

 

I'd like you to give the specific contradictions that you assume are stated in the article.  Surely, you don't expect me to search for them.

 

Furthermore....

Though I've never heard of anyone describe the Bible as "imperfect," you misunderstood what you'd quoted.  I was talking about PERFECT UNITY.....

..............which means, the consistency throughout from beginning to end, despite having been written by various authors from various walks of life, from various time-lines.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not assume that ALL translations are Biblical. They're not.

Just because a book calls itself the Bible does not necessarily mean that everything in it is Biblical. There are books that pass themselves as Bibles but some of the fundamental message are revised to suit whatever doctrine they believe. Now, those are no longer the Word of God.

I know it's confusing to know which Bibles are reliable for accuracy.

 

Quote

The most accurate Bible translation

Question: What is the BEST, most accurate Bible translation? Which one is more faithful to the original manuscripts?

Answer: Before we arrive at which modern translation is the most accurate we need to know a little bit about the manuscripts (writings) translators have used to produce copies of the Bible such as the King James Version and others.


Read more at: The most accurate Bible translation

Edited by Greg
removed full article - left external link to article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KJV has the highest rank of agreement with Nestle-Aland.

Though there may be some variants, key doctrines are not affected.
Since the reliability of the Bible is being questioned (due to many translations), that's good to know.

 

What is  Nestle-Aland?

 

Quote

Novum Testamentum Graece is the Latin name of a compendium source document of the New Testament in its original Greek-language, and the modern day standard for translations and analysis. The first printed edition was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, printed in 1514, but not published until 1520. The first published edition of the Greek New Testament was produced by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516.

Today the designation Novum Testamentum Graece normally refers to the Nestle-Aland editions, named after the scholars who led the critical editing work. The text, edited by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research) is currently in its 28th edition, abbreviated NA28.

The Nestle-Aland text is the primary source for most contemporary New Testament translations, although most are translations of the edition that was available at the time of translation. The Nestle-Aland text is also the standard for academic work in New Testament studies.

 

Accuracy of the New Testament

In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[12] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected […]. In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater"[12] For over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects key Christian doctrine


Earlier translations of the Bible, including the Authorized King James Version, tended to rely on Byzantine type texts, such as the Textus Receptus. A number of translations began to use critical Greek editions, beginning with the translation of the Revised Version in England in 1881-1885 (using Westcott and Hort's Greek Text). English translations produced during the twentieth century increasingly reflected the work of textual criticism, although even new translations are often influenced by earlier translation efforts.

A comparison of the textual and stylistic choices of twenty translations against 15,000 variant readings shows the following rank of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 27th edition:[14]
NIV = 10
NKJ = 19
KJV = 20

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are contradictions in there.  I'm sure the link I provided will outline some.  The bible doesn't need to be perfect to have value for believers, though, IMO.

 

We're not talking about contradictions in the Bible.

 

BUT.....alleged contradictions in the Bible will make for an interesting thread.  I'm sure you guys have lots of "contradictons" to cite.  One of these days, I'll create that topic. 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I'd like you to give the specific contradictions that you assume are stated in the article.  Surely, you don't expect me to search for them.

 

 

Quote

Modern Christian approaches to biblical consistency are reminiscent of the split between Luther and Osiander, and can be broadly divided between inerrancy and infallibility. The former, followed by the Southern Baptist Convention and by evangelical Christians in general, holds that the original biblical manuscripts have "God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter", so that "all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy":[26] Its most erudite proponents, such as Gleason Archer, whose reconciliation of difficult texts echoes that of Osiander, allow that textual scholarship and an understanding of the historical context of individual passages is necessary to establish true, original biblical text, but that that text, once discovered, is without error.

The infallibility approach followed by some theologians and scholars, primarily of the Catholic and Anglican churches, and some mainline Protestant denominations, avoids many of the pitfalls of inerrancy by holding that the Bible is without error only in matters essential to salvation,[27] and that guidance is necessary for the correct interpretation of apparent inconsistencies;

"apparent inconsistencies" as seen by Christian groups.  I think this explains it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

We're not talking about contradictions in the Bible. 

Maybe you're not, but you should be.  You offered that up as a reason to trust it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

"apparent inconsistencies" as seen by Christian groups.  I think this explains it.

 

Well, it's not what's written in it.  It's how they view or take it!   Some Christians don't even believe in the deity of Christ!  But that doesn't mean it's the Bible that's inconsistent!

 

The message in the Bible - from Old Testament to the New.....is consistent.  It speaks of the Messiah, all the way to the fulfillment of that prophecy - which means that Christ had died for us - and it's about salvation and  God's love for us.

 

  The inconsistency is not in the message of the Bible - it's in the way these groups had taken it.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe you're not, but you should be.  You offered that up as a reason to trust it.

 

The reason I don't want to talk about specific contradictions, is because I'll create a separate topic for it.   I'll start it now, for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

1) Well, it's not what's written in it.  It's how they view or take it!   Some Christians don't even believe in the deity of Christ!  But that doesn't mean it's the Bible that's inconsistent!

 

2) The message in the Bible - from Old Testament to the New.....is consistent.  It speaks of the Messiah, all the way to the fulfillment of that prophecy - which means that Christ had died for us - and it's about salvation and  God's love for us.

 

1) Yes, it's true.  I do think that to say there are no inconsistencies, or that it's perfect is an abuse of language and not a solid argument to make, generally.  If some Christians don't believe in the deity of Chris, that's neither here nor there.  it doesn't mean that using the word 'consistency' is subject to ones faith.

If you tell me the book is consistent, then that should mean the same thing to both of us: there is no "Christian definition" for consistent.

2) Yes, the message is consistent which is what 'infallability' means as opposed to 'inerrancy'.  That is to say, it doesn't matter if one Gospel said there were 3 apostles with Jesus on the mount and another says there were 12 but the point is what he said there.

But the bible is not 'inconsistent'.  I can buy that it IS perfect... to believers only.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

If you tell me the book is consistent, then that should mean the same thing to both of us: there is no "Christian definition" for consistent.

 

It depends on how you view the message in the Bible.  The message is consistent, whether you're consistent with how you accept it or not.

 

I don't get "there is no "Christian definition" for consistent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Yes, the message is consistent which is what 'infallability' means as opposed to 'inerrancy'. 

 

 

 

Definition of inerrancy

  1. :  exemption from error :  infallibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, betsy said:

I don't get "there is no "Christian definition" for consistent."

If there are two different versions of the same thing, it's not consistent.  You can accept it, which is an article of faith, but you can't honestly declare the book 'consistent' as that word has objective meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, betsy said:

Let's not assume that ALL translations are Biblical. They're not.

Just because a book calls itself the Bible does not necessarily mean that everything in it is Biblical. There are books that pass themselves as Bibles but some of the fundamental message are revised to suit whatever doctrine they believe. Now, those are no longer the Word of God.

I know it's confusing to know which Bibles are reliable for accuracy.

 


The most accurate Bible translation

Unfortunately this is not a good website.   The website appears to be associated with Dr. Jeremiah, who is a well-known TV preacher but whoever wrote the website does not appear to be particularly knowledgeable on the version issue or a defender of the King James Version (1611).   Probably not written by Dr. Jeremiah but it does appear to be associated with him.   Like most modern preachers, they have adopted modern versions and are not particularly interested in the issue of the versions or they have fallen for the arguments of modernists on the version issue.  Most churches use corrupt modern versions.  Therefore it is no surprise to find much of these modern versions being advocated on the internet.   This website recommends the New King James Version which is also a unsatisfactory version with many changes in it.  Also it recommends the Good News Bible which is more like a newspaper or a Readers Digest type of Bible.  Very inaccurate and far from the accuracy and trustworthiness of the King James Bible (1611).   This site is into modern versions of the Bible which have departed in many respects from the inspired original.  It is not good to recommend even a new christian or a prospective christian use a modern version because this will be teaching them the serious error using corrupt modern versions and teaching them it is not really important what version they use.  

Another point to remember is many if not most of these modern preachers do not believe that any Bible today is the inspired Word of God.  If you look at their church websites and see what they believe, you will see they profess to only believe the original manuscripts are inspired.  This is incorrect and misleading information.  God promised in his word he would preserve his word forever.  "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  Ps. 12:6,7,   "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  Matthew 24:35  How can a believer have confidence that he really has the word of God if he believes these modern preachers who deny there is an inspired Bible.  He cannot.

  I would recommend the website which has countless articles defending the King James Version 1611:      http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a critique of the New King James Version.   Lots of information which should set off warning bells to anyone who is seeking the truth.  One of the things about the NKJV is the marginal notes which may introduce false teachings or pervert the true meaning of scripture. 

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/130-1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a statement from Desmond Tutu can be as applicable to North America as it was to South Africa.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."

Desmond Tutu
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Omni said:

I think a statement from Desmond Tutu can be as applicable to North America as it was to South Africa.

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."

Desmond Tutu
 

 

That's a trite comment which is fiction.  The land disputes in Africa are complex and cannot be described in a silly statement like that.  Try googling land disputes in Africa and see for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

That's a trite comment which is fiction.  The land disputes in Africa are complex and cannot be described in a silly statement like that.  Try googling land disputes in Africa and see for yourself.

I guess you missed the point, but yes I am quite aware of the land disputes in Africa having worked there for many years. A lot of the problems were created by the Brits drawing boundaries in the wrong direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...