How closely do you follow the Bible?

Question

If Biblical scholars were to find out that they misinterpreted certain sections of the Bible, and that the scripture really condoned some activities that you think are immoral now, would you engage in those activities?
Lets say that Biblical scholars (all of which are in agreement about this) find that the Bible says "Husbands, thou shall beat thine wives should they disobey thee." Would you think it is ok for husbands to beat their wives?
I just want to know if the Bible is the absolute final authority for Christians, or if they have an internal moral compass that may tell them that something in the Bible simply is not Godly.
(Please do not tell me "God would never say that!" I just want an answer to my question.)

Answer 1

Read it everyday and practice what you have read !!!

Answer 2

the bible is the absolute authority. as you stated the bible would never say anyhting like that. "all scripture is beneficail for reproving, teaching and setting things straight".

the bible does not contradict its self anywhere. if you think or believe ot does thats becuase you have the incorrect understanding of certian scriptures. you've taken them out of context. thats why so many people dont put faith in the bible. they just dont know the real truth cause they have been taught confusing lies their entire life. thats just what satn wants...confusion. that way he makes God look bad and himslef seem good.


btw: the bible says that those who are humble will know the scriptues. not scholars. thats why they all have conflicting viewpoints when it comes to the bible. God knows the type of individuals he wants to draw. so many people can figure out the bible b/c they have the wrong heart condition. until they change no amount of studying will ever help them learn God word the bible coprrectly. they will only fall victim to lies creadted by satan.

if you notice, the bible says that "braod and spacious is the raod leading off into destruction" and "narrow and cramped the raod leading to life". if thats the case that would mean taht most are not serving God correctly. so most would be "most mainstream religions". most have it wrong. thats why they all seem like they cant get the bible right and that they all have diffeant views when it comes to what the bible really means. they are all on the wrong road. why? b/c its easier to follow that raod rather than have to give up sins that they really like. for example...homosexuality, forniocation, drunkeness, ect.....

Answer 3

Well, that stuff is already in the bible.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.


These are just a few I found. You can find more of this stuff from the bible at this link.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Now some will say that these are just bad translations. Well, then if it is possible to translate this "holy" book wrong, then how can we believe anything in it. Once you point to a part and say well that is not right because it was not translated correctly then a shadow of doubt is cast over the entire thing. How do we know if any of it is translated correctly?

Answer 4

That is a thoughtful question. I can add that even my own main copy of the Bible says that eating shellfish is an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:9-10) Heck, I can't even make gods of metal! It's good to know about the nod towards beating our wives... I'll look into that and see if I am up to code.

Answer 5

Good translations of the Bible over the years, do not come from just one scholar, but several scholars. Thus, 'personal opinion' stays out of the translation (Hebrew and Greek to English, for example) process.
So, what is your point?

Answer 6

The Bible In English

The first major English translation of the New Testament was completed by John Wyclif in 1382 after 22 years of hard work. In 1456 printing was invented by Johanne Gutenberg, making it possible to publish Bibles much faster and virtually eliminating typographical errors so common in hand copies. In fact, the first book printed by Gutenberg was a Latin Bible. The first printed English Bible was the New Testament as translated by William Tyndale in 1525. He was strongly opposed in this by the Catholic Church and he found it necessary to have his Bibles printed on the continent and smuggled into England. Most were publicly burned in London. He was betrayed, and burned at the stake for giving the Bible to the people. His final words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

The first complete English Bible was the work of Miles Coverdale. Other versions soon followed and by 1604 the King of England’s eyes were opened. He authorized the translation of a new version, the work of 54 scholars. It was completed in 1611 and is known as the King James Version after the monarch who authorized it. Although it was translated over 350 years ago, it is still one of the most widely used English versions. In 1982, the New King James revision was published. It follows the same basic text as the King James, but updates much of the archaic speech to make it more readable.

The discovery of additional Bible manuscripts not available to the King James translators and the inevitable change of the English language prompted the publication of other versions that would be more readable and accurate. An 1885 revision of the King James by 84 British and American scholars was called the English Revised Version, and was followed in 1901 by an American edition called the American Standard, a highly literal rendering of the scriptures. Other revisions of the King James and American Standard followed: The Revised Standard Version in 1952 and the New American Standard in 1970. These translations were intended to combine the finer characteristics of their predecessors with improved readability and increased accuracy based on recent manuscript findings.

The New International Version (1978) is comparable in its approach to translation with the Revised Standard and New American Standard, but unlike these is a completely new translation rather than a revision of its predecessors. The New English Bible and the Good News Bible (or Today’s English Version) are typical of recent free translations that are less literal and concentrate on capturing the sense of the original. The Living Bible of Kenneth Taylor is a paraphrase rather than a translation and reworks the original in an effort to capture the intent of the original writers. The Roman Catholic Church has produced its own translations. The Rheims-Douai Bible appeared in 1582. It has been replaced by the New American Bible of 1970. Catholic versions include the same books found in other versions (sometimes under a different name) plus fourteen more in the Old Testament usually called the Apocrypha. This word means “hidden” and is applied to these books because of the doubtful origin. They are found only in the Greek, not the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, and have been rejected by the Jews and most non-Catholics as not belonging in the Old Testament. However, their exclusion from the Old Testament does not materially affect any Bible doctrine.

The Bible Is God’s Word

The Bible claims to be inspired. Peter said, “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (II Peter 1:21.) The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) so guided the writers of the Bible that they could not make mistakes. “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (I Corinthians 2:13.) Because of this there are no real contradictions in the Bible. Those things which appear to be contradictions disappear under close investigation.

That the Bible is true may be shown by several of its characteristics. It is scientifically accurate, even though it is not a book of science. It is historically accurate. Every attempt to prove it historically wrong has failed. It is prophetically correct as is seen in many prophecies which have been fulfilled beyond question. It is impartial, presenting both good and bad of all men, not trying to gloss over the sins of any man who might be “a man after God’s own heart.” It presents the world’s highest standard of morality. Finally, it has never been destroyed in spite of dozens of attempts to exterminate it.

Answer 7

No one follows the Bible closely in the US (thank God! irony intended). In the Middle East, you can stone your sister for premarital affairs, which is a direct order of God within the bible. So unless we want to stone females for losing their virginity before marriage, or not crying out during a rape, I think it's best we follow morality as defined by modern man and not ancient man.

Answer 8

Here is a harsh example of elisabethian translating:

Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

And the same passage in New Living Translation:

Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death.
Pro 23:13,14

Many things are common sense. Even atheists don't eat their children.

Answer 9

I stay as far away from the Bible as possible.

Nature tells me that men who beat on women are the men who are too weak to beat on other men.

Answer 10

I try to follow the Golden Rule. The rest of it is crap and only causes trouble for humanity.

Answer 11

I don't believe in the bible!