How many people who profess to be Christians...

[georgina]

believe that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God, 100% accurate and without error?

Just curious...

I am a Christian - which means a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not take the Old Testament literally or as historically accurate - there are many literary genres in the Bible. Even in the New Testament, it is generally agreed upon that Paul didn't write about half of the letters attributed to him, that his followers did in his name. It doesn't make them less important, just not quite accurate in authorship. After all, being a Christian is all about loving God and your neighbor!

 

[sodaseller]

But therein lies the importance of at least using Bible study tools (such as concordances, Bible dictionaries, key word study Bibles, etc...) to help "bridge the gap" between the meaning of the original language and the language in the translation. It doesn't mean that there are now errors in today's Bible (though there would be if the translators departed from what the original Scriptures meant or said and infused their own meaning into what they "translated"; has this happened before? Sure it has.); the Bible itself is intact and without error (at least that's what I believe).

I will respond only to the excerpted point as it evokes a significant debate of recent years within the Roman Catholic Church. The Congregation for Divine Worship, the Vatican Congrgation charged with liturgical texts, has directed that translations into the vernacular (local language) must be verbatim without judgment, and must obtain the approval of Riome rather than the Bishops' conference that actually speaks the language, such as English in the US.

Many translators responded by saying that there is no such thing, that languages evolve from cultures that do not necessaruily have words that correspond to one another. By way of the noncontroversial example, I think (from memory) that Eskimos have 32 words for varieties of ice, for ibbvious reasons. Many Island cultures do not have lnaguge for e hconcept of a shepherd and all of the imagery Christ used in that respect. Here is a passage from Bishop Dinald Trautman talking about some of the difficulty in the "no judgment" approach

Word-for-word translation produces not only poor vernacular linguistics, but in many ways distorts the true meaning. Anscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B., former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, wrote in the newsletter of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commisions for December 1994: “Fidelity to the original refers to the content or meaning of the text, not to its form or component words and phrases. That is why a word-for-word translation is not a guarantee of fidelity to the original text.”

Liturgical translation is an art rather than a purely mechanical operation. Liturgical translation deals primarily with the art of communication. Roman collects are Roman collects, not American prayers, and yet they are destined to become prayers expressed in contemporary culture and in contemporary English idiom. No translator can render a Latin text into a living language in a way that has exactly the same meaning, form, nuance, tone and feeling as the original. The translator will always be faced with choices between legitimate word alternatives and constructions. The translator will always be involved in adapting to a new grammatical structure and lexicon system. An accurate translation cannot be judged on the basis of individual words, but rather the total content, as well as the liturgical form proper to the respective language. At its very heart, translation is a transcultural act whereby words and concepts of one culture are rendered in the words and concepts of another culture.

Another translator detailed the difficulties in perfectly "faithful" translations at http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2218&issueID=383
An excerpt

Psalm 8:5 is another matter, as a comparison of translations shows:



RSV ...what is man that thou art mindful of him,

and the son of man that thou dost care for him?

Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.

NRSV ...what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor.

ICEL... what is humankind that you remember them, the human race that you care for them?

You treat them like gods, dressing them in glory and splendor.



Among scholars the original meaning of the text is not in doubt. The psalm contrasts human insignificance with God’s grandeur. Yet in the New Testament, this section of the psalm is specifically applied to Jesus as a Christological statement (Heb. 2:5-8). The RSV’s more literal and traditional translation preserves this Christological sense as interpreted by the Letter to the Hebrews; ICEL’s and the NRSV’s do not. This indeed raises a doctrinal issue, but the issue goes beyond translation into the realm of hermeneutics, touching on the complex relationship between the New and Old Testaments. In such instances, I think it prudent to retain the traditional translation, but one should recognize that this is not a frequent occurrence.

 

[DisneyDotty]

A guy dies and goes to meet St Peter at the Pearly Gates. St Peter asks if he want a tour, the guy say "sure".
As they're walking around Peter shows him where the Methodists hang out and play bridge, and there are the Baptists......just being Baptists.
The guy says "who's up on the hill way over there"? Peter says "shhhhh, that's the Catholics, they think they're the only ones up here"

Unfortunately, don't we all know Catholics and other Christians with this belief?!

 

[Puffy2]

Originally Posted by Boater
A guy dies and goes to meet St Peter at the Pearly Gates. St Peter asks if he want a tour, the guy say "sure".
As they're walking around Peter shows him where the Methodists hang out and play bridge, and there are the Baptists......just being Baptists.
The guy says "who's up on the hill way over there"? Peter says "shhhhh, that's the Catholics, they think they're the only ones up here"

Funny, when I heard that joke, it was the Baptists who thought they were the only ones up there...



And to address the question:

"And he made a molten sea, 10 cubits from one brim to the other; it was round all about, and his height was 5 cubits: and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about."
1 Kings 7:23 ...describing part of a temple Solomon constructed (I believe)

Impossible.

The circumfrence of a circle is Pi R squared. or Pi times Diameter (which is R squared).
Pi is equal to 3.14159...

In the above scripture , it would be 10 times pi which equals 31.4159...

It certainly would NOT equal 30 as indicated by the scripture (regardless of whether it was meausred in cubits, or feet, or meters or whatever).

 

[Buckalew11]

Funny, when I heard that joke, it was the Baptists who thought they were the only ones up there...

Me too. I've heard it for every denomination of Christianity!

 

[jimmiej]

And to address the question:

"And he made a molten sea, 10 cubits from one brim to the other; it was round all about, and his height was 5 cubits: and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about."
1 Kings 7:23 ...describing part of a temple Solomon constructed (I believe)

Impossible.

The circumfrence of a circle is Pi R squared. or Pi times Diameter (which is R squared).
Pi is equal to 3.14159...

In the above scripture , it would be 10 times pi which equals 31.4159...

It certainly would NOT equal 30 as indicated by the scripture (regardless of whether it was meausred in cubits, or feet, or meters or whatever).

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

[VSL]

I heard a similar joke... but it was longer and included many other faiths and I so wish I could remember! It's in a thread on another forum I frequent, but the thread is a good 100 pages long!

It included Buddhists, Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.

 

[jimmiej]

I am a Christian - which means a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not take the Old Testament literally or as historically accurate - there are many literary genres in the Bible.

Luke 4

*14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

*16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
*18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
******because he has anointed me
******to preach good news to the poor.
***He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
******and recovery of sight for the blind,
***to release the oppressed,
****19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

*20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Historically accurate? Maybe, maybe not. Jesus obviously thought the words of the prophet (Old Testament) were important and it appears He was showing the "literal" fullfillment of those words. We may be talking about different things here; not sure what you meant by "literal."

Even in the New Testament, it is generally agreed upon that Paul didn't write about half of the letters attributed to him, that his followers did in his name. It doesn't make them less important, just not quite accurate in authorship. After all, being a Christian is all about loving God and your neighbor!

I must admit, I don't remember ever hearing this.

After all, being a Christian is all about loving God and your neighbor!

We're in 100% agreement here!

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Literal -
---
I was listening to the 1st/2nd grade Sunday School class a couple of weeks ago. They were covering the section of Acts where Paul's ship gets caught in a storm and he washes up on the Island of Malta.

While there, some of the inhabitants come down to the beach and start to help out. They build a fire. Paul picks up some wood to throw on the fire, and a snake comes out of the woodpile and bites his hand. The people expect him to die -- but he suffers no ill effects at all. The citizens of Malta take this to be a sign, and invite him into their lives to learn about God's word.

Now listening to the story, I had to wonder about the symbolism in the passages and what was being written. To me, the metaphorical images of the snake and the fire in story speak volumes. I have to think that the writer was probably trying to describe an anti-Christian power structure that was in place on Malta. Paul had to face and deal with these people in order to do his job of spreading Christianity. I wonder, and mostly believe, that the Bible is trying to put the events into terms that the society of the time could understand. Snake, Fire, Evil -- God Wins.

And that is where I come into differences with the Bible. Do I believe that the Earth was literally completed in 6 24 hour days, with one day of rest? No, I believe God created the Earth and all its inhabitants through Evolution.

Do I believe that Noah's Ark could have literally held all the animals needed (including Dinosaur eggs according to my son's Old Testament Teacher) to re-populate the Earth? I'd be lying if I said I did. But I think the story of God's unhappiness with corrupt society speaks volumes.

Do I believe a snake literally crawled out of that woodpile and bit Paul? Perhaps, but I have a feeling that something much more complicated took place. I think the writer of the passage was trying to convey the struggle and constant danger Paul faced from his Ministry.

just a few examples......

 

[eclectics]

FWIW: I believe the Bible is the word of God written by man. And my question above points to its complexity and my belief that it is not meant to be taken literally--because Christian religions cannot even agree what belongs in it. I would never suggest one version is correct.

I agree. I believe the Bible is a Guide Book, not an Owners Manual.

 

[ChrisnSteph]

I'm still trying to figure out the "...who profess to be Christians" part!

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

The Bible is what it is. It does not claim to be history. It is salvation history

 

[VSL]

Do I believe that Noah's Ark could have literally held all the animals needed (including Dinosaur eggs according to my son's Old Testament Teacher) to re-populate the Earth? I'd be lying if I said I did. But I think the story of God's unhappiness with corrupt society speaks volumes.

I've actually heard a theory on this. Now, I'm no scientist, but this was it:
___
Noah's Ark could, theoretically, explain the whole 'millions of years thing' because such a massive flood could create that much silt and that many layers - with all the animals dying along with it. Also, Noah would have taken two of each breed of animal onto the Ark (ie, instead of two jackals, two wolves, two dogs, etc. he would just take two - whichever those two may be). Then, through some kind of evolution, the other dogs would have appeared again.

Also, to add my own bit, if this were true then surely Noah would have taken two smaller lizards rather than two dinosaurs onto the Ark, and so they would have been wiped out the flood, therefore explaining the sudden wipeout of the dinosaurs.
___

Like I said, I'm no scientist (as you can tell!).

 

[saucymb]

I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe it is 100% reliable and that I can trust it.

Well put, Elisabeth. I agree.

 

[Saxsoon]

I bet you can't figure out what I am rofl.

I believe that the bible is Divinely Inspired nothing to it.

Also how many of you have read the Case For Christ. In there there was historical evidence that proves many parts of the Bible, obviously mostly around Jesus. It is a very interesting read. I believe my youth leader was telling us that there is more and more historical evidence about the Bible than before.

For example, Nazereth was believed to not exist, but then they found it and voila. (I may be wrong on the town, but I know they found a town in the Bible not previously discovered)

 

[binny]

I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I believe that God has promised to miraculously protect the integrity of His Word.

Unfortunately, I believe that we often misunderstand, misinterpret or choose not to listen to what the Bible says!

agreed.


I believe that the Bible is inspired and yet sometimes it is taken so literally when perhaps God didnt mean it to be literal but figurative.


and really, "profess to be Christinans"???? even I think that was a low blow.

 

[jimmiej]

and really, "profess to be Christinans"???? even I think that was a low blow.

Well, consider the words of Jesus:

A Tree and Its Fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[binny]

I understand the Bible verse but the context of this thread had me questioning the motives behind it.

 

[Caradana]

Believing that the Bible is 100% sacrosanct and accurate is to want something larger than ourselves to exist in our own world. It provides a lot of comfort to believe that - it makes some people whole. If the Bible is wholly literal and a complete depiction of truth, then there is order in the world, and there is a salvation awaiting us, and there is black and white when daily life is shades of gray - etc.

I don't see God as having endpoints, or existing in any dimensional space that we understand. Look at the trinity: "I am the father, I am the son, I am the spirit" ... if the Lord himself wasn't any one thing, or any one finite set of traits, why would his book be?

And if the Bible is complete, intact and irrefutable, not to be interpreted - then why did Jesus speak almost exclusively in metaphor? And what will the Savior have left to tell us when He returns?

I see how some take strength and faith from the belief, but I hope against hope that the Bible isn't irrefutable and complete, because I find that some of the "lost and rediscovered" books of the New Testament - the ones stripped out of today's conventional Bibles by Popes and politicians in the centuries immediately following Christ - are the ones which move me most deeply. From the Gospel of Saint Thomas, discovered in Egypt 60 years ago but widely believed to contain the words of Jesus:

"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, "Look - the Father's kingdom is in the sky," then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea," then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father ... I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I am guarding it until it blazes."

 

[jimmiej]

And if the Bible is complete, intact and irrefutable, not to be interpreted - then why did Jesus speak almost exclusively in metaphor?

Why are these things mutually exclusive? Can't it be complete, intact, irrefutable AND useful to us?


2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And what will the Savior have left to tell us when He returns?

The scripture doesn't imply that Jesus will have anything left to tell us.

John 19

The Death of Jesus

28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.