Does the accuracy of the Bible really matter as much as fundamentalist Christians claim?

Question

Let's say that the Bible is (as it appears to be) the work of fallible human beings, talking about their experiences and their faith in fallible and at times inaccurate ways, but accurately enough to point us in the direction of the God they worship and who has changed their lives. Why must so many Christians say that you must either accept the whole thing as inerrant or dismiss the whole thing as fairy tales? If we applied the same criterion to Christians' testimonies about their faith and experience today, everything would have to be dismissed, since we are clearly fallible humans (even if not always willing to admit it). Why not forget fighting the already long-lost battle about inerrancy and instead focus on doing what the Biblical authors did, i.e. using inadequate human language to point to our experience of transcendence, which will by definition be inadequate but will hopefully point in the right direction?

Answer 1

Nicely put, James.

To answer your question, no, the Bible should not be judged on factual accuracy, but on whether it speaks to you on some higher plane. To read it as a book of historical events + a rulebook of behavior is to view the Bible in the shallowest of ways. It is also impossible, as the Bible contains factual inconsistencies (two descriptions of events that cannot both be true), and has draconian rules that no modern believer would support (like the death penalty for adultery or disobeying your parents).

Answer 2

There are 5 unique texts of the recent testomony that pass back to the third century. i think those are spoke of as the Septuagint. i think one is interior the Vatican, one is interior the British Museum, and the different 3 are probably in Greek monasteries(i'm unsure of this). you could Google this. i don't think interior the literal certainty of the bible. a number of that's poetry, some is allegory, some is hyperbole. that's solid literature. some is historic, some is theological, and a few is prophetical. the completed bible grow to be written over a era of purely approximately 2,000 years. The Torah (the 1st 5 books) grow to be not written down formerly each and every thing. have you ever heard of the Rainbow Bible? that's now believed by many scholars that those 5 books initially got here from 4 distinctive materials. initially each and every source wrote not something down, yet grow to be exceeded on from technology to technology by word of mouth in track. The words of a track do not substitute. interior the rainbow bible, passages are highlighted by 4 distinctive hues to tutor the source. The 4 materials are Yahweh, Elohist, the priestly, and the Deuteronomic traditions.

Answer 3

You must remember that the Bible for many people is their sole source of faith and teaching. For these people the acuracy of the Bible is extremely important as they do not recognise the teaching authority of the Church as given by Christ. This allows for literally millions of different interpretations and polarizes peoples beliefs around charismatic men who agree with their suppositions always failing to fully understand the faith delivered by the Church. The Bible speaks of this when it says that people have "itching ears" and that it is not the truth that many seek but agreement. Clearly they can see from Scriptures that the Church established by Christ and the disciples is the ark where the truth can be found as the Scriptures clearly say the Church is the "bulwark and ground of the truth". To ignore this some even justify their refusal to accept Scriptural truth by fundametallly changing the teaching of the body of Scriptures. In this case as an example they change the meaning of Church by using proof texts to support their view and ignoring those Scriptures that are contradictory, failing to reconcile their doctrine with the body of Scriptures. Often to those outside of their ecclesiastical group or seekers this appears that the Bible is inaccurate because of apparent unreconciled contradictions and they dismiss even the Gospel as nonsense. To those doing eisegesis and using proof text methodology there is always another proof text to twist the meaning of Scripture and set one on the wrong path to salvation through heresy.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 4

The gotcha is that there are so many errors (as well as internal contradictions) that one must pick and choose to come with anything that is even remotely consistent with reality. But no two such interpretations will agree. It is impossible for a rational person to accept the whole thing as inerrant, because it obviously isn't. But once you allow for the possibility of errors, where do you stop? The fundamentalists correctly recognize that you can't.

Answer 5

The Bible was assembled from dozens of writers who didn't know each other over many hundreds of years. It was translated many times from many languages.

Anyone with experience in translating will tell you that it is not an exact science and the bias of an interpreter leaves a book open to many translations.

Certain parts were left out in later translations because they were deemed to be inconsistent with newer beliefs.

It is ludicrous to believe that every word of the Bible should be taken literally. Heck, there are many parts of the Bible that even conflict with themselves.

Factual statements regarding the size of an army, the age of an individual, the population of a village, etc. do not even agree in different parts of the Bible.

reference: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Answer 6

The bible was written by man for man about God. It was written from oral tradition passed down from different groups of Christians. They all got together and voted on what to put into the book so that they would all have the same general doctrine. It was never meant to be taken literally. Its a guide book of lessons to make yourself a better Christian. It was never meant to be the center of religion,

Answer 7

Liberal theologians have been saying this kind of statement for years now. After they get people on board with this feel good thinking, we then have to turn to them to find out what is truth and what is error. So much for perspicuity of Scripture. Thank you, but I would rather follow Christ.

We need to understand that Jesus is King, and Lord. The church needs to be committed to Him, by following the Scripture alone. All 66 books of the Bible 'by his singular care and providence' have been 'kept pure in all ages' and are wholly inspired, infallible and authoritative .

"the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8, 2 Tim 3:16, 17)

Answer 8

I will respond only to the highlighted portion of your question as that seems to be the only part worth responding to.

Yes, the accuracy of the Bible is important since almost all atheists seem to badger and screw-up any and all interpretation of its contents.

Yet they continue, and to their own embarrassment, to claim that they know more about the Bible than believers do.

The self-contained accuracy of the Bible was obviously by "design" and not by accident. Apparently God saw then what believers have to deal with now, as the rest of your question more than abundantly exemplifies.

Answer 9

Excellent question. I don't think it matters. I was always taught that the Bible was a guide. I've never understood the people who take it literally.

Answer 10

well said