Question for Christians?

Question

How many of you have read Misquoting Jesus by Bart. D Ehrman? If you have read it, did it affect your understanding of biblical inerrancy?

Why do you think biblical inerrancy is so important to so many Christians? Do any of you remain Christians while believing the Biblle does have errors? If not, why does the Bible having errors bother you?

Do you think the reason for so many people upholding the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has to do with their ignorance to textual criticism? If so, do you think awareness of textual criticism should be raised?

I am asking these questions because it seems the Bible has become an idol to many Christians and the discovering of textual criticism for some has wrongfulyl swayed their faith.

By the way, I'm a loyal Christian but I do not believe the Bible is inerrant or needs to be for the accounts of Jesus' resurrection and the gospel to be true.

C. L. Richardson, according to Bart Ehrman, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is very modern. The Bible does not need to be perfect to be inspired and you certainly do not need to believe the Bible is inerrant to be a Christian.

As for the inspiration of Scripture, I take John Goldingay's stance:

"I believe that the God of Israel who is also the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is capable of knowing future events and thus of revealing them, and is capable of inspiring people to write both history and fiction, both actual prophecy and quasi-prophecy, in their own name, anonymously, or – in certain circumstances – pseudonymously."

As for those who suggest the original manuscripts are inspired, how is the relevant for us today? We don't have the originals! In fact, we don't have the first copies of those originals, or the copies of those copies, or the copies of those copies, and so on.

Dr. Zoom, you suggested that Erman "fails to mention that most of these are either spelling variations (e.g. "Colossae" or "Colassae") and minor disagreements (e.g. "Christ Jesus," or "Jesus Christ," or "Jesus," or "Christ")." The fact is, he does mention this many times. But he also points out variations that are doctrinally significant.

As for the Byzantine texts you mention, the reason the Textus Receptus tends to agree with them is because they were written around the same time period by skilled scribes. The Alexandrian texts are much, much earlier and more reliable but tend to differ from each other because they were written during a time when people still did not fully realize the importance of having a skilled scribe copy the manuscripts. On the other hand, the Alexandrian texts are more trustworthy than other early texts because the Alexandrian's were known as intellectuals and would have copied the manuscripts better than the average literate Christian

Answer 1

I think there's things in the here and now that are of bigger concern than worrying about things that "may or may not" come into being after we're dead or that happened 2 millenia ago.

Answer 2

I used to fall for books like that too when I was younger. I lost my faith in Christianity in fact partly due to The Passover Plot. Long story short, since then I rediscovered my faith and have gone to seminary and have a Bachelor's in Sacred Theology.

Eventually I found out these books are the author's opinion and usually rely on faulty evidence. Erhman's too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Example: The story about Jesus chasing people might be out of place in John, but telling something out of sequence doesn't invalidate a story! It's also possible there are two incidents of Jesus overturning the tables, the synoptic Gospels mentioning one, and John the other.

Erhman also laments about things I learned in seminary, such as the King James manuscripts (Textus Receptus) supposedly being faulty. The manuscripts agree with 98% of known Biblical manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscrips make up 2%...but some scholars consider them more "authentic" simply because they might be a little older. Furthermore, most modern Bible translations are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts anyway, so what's the big deal?

Erman makes claims about the number of textual variants in the New Testament, but fails to mention that most of these are either spelling variations (e.g. "Colossae" or "Colassae") and minor disagreements (e.g. "Christ Jesus," or "Jesus Christ," or "Jesus," or "Christ"), and would rarely affect meaning, let alone doctrine!

Erhman is a big fan of Gnostic Gospels, which are about as authentic as The Urantia Book or the Book of Mormon. The Gnostic scriptures were written 400 years after Christ. They are a rebellion against Christianity, combining Pagan beliefs with the Gospel. If Erhman was really worth his salt, he would realize this. They're hardly a credible source. Apparently niether is Erhman!

Lay people might find this book interesting (Just as the DaVinci Code is a runaway hit), partly because they don't know any better, but most ministers have heard this stuff before.
Those examples which he claim do affect doctrines, are many times cited misleadingly and the doctrines are in fact supported elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. in parallel synoptic texts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

If you really want to study the bible, dowload a free copy of Esword. It will allow you to look up the Greek or Hebrew word of any word in the Bible and see it's meaning (and it's easier than learning Greek or Hebrew).

Answer 3

I am not one who thinks that the Bible is inerrant. So the argument is wasted on me. The Inerrant Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. The Bible is merely inspired, which is good enough for me.

The reason why there are so many Christians who think that the Bible is inerrant is because they were poorly taught. Especially the "King James only" people, who have no idea how lacking English is to the older languages.

But please, don't worry about Christians so much! I know you are really concerned about us. . . . . thank you for that. But we answer to a higher calling. We are in good hands and it's been my observation that God doesn't need any help from non believers.

Thanks anyway.

Answer 4

The bible is not a historical text, well...at least not one that is particularly accurate. It is also not a scientific text. The bible is a spiritual text, and in that light I have never had problems in my life as a christian.

Some people have problems with the word of God being "wrong", but considering there were multiple human authors, filtiering the divine through their own understanding of exsistance, factual errors are not only expected but unavoidable.

If the realization that every little detail of the bible isn't true sways your faith, you honestly never believed to begin with. Jesus spoke in parables, silly little stories that told a message. Simply consider the bible as one long parable.

I feel it is now appropriate to say: Praise be to god!

Answer 5

Well I believe there is a difference between inerrancy and infallibility.

The Bible only has "errors" if you try to read it strictly as a historical book. But the Bible has other purposes in mind such as theological and aesthetic purposes.

One Example:
In the Gospel of John Jesus dies on the Sabbath, why? Because John wants to focus on Jesus being the lamb of God and what that means for his followers.

Answer 6

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But I also know that in the transcription and translation from the originally written languages, there will be human error. Those that are aware of such variations will know what to look for and what to be aware of. They will not be shaken or allow their faith to waiver at such controversy.

I will give only one example:
In the book of Luke, chapter 23, one of the thieves that was crucified alongside Jesus, was aware of his transgressions. In his final hours, he begged Christ for forgiveness of his sins, and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom.
Jesus then responded to the thief (in verse 43): "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Punctuation marks are not part of the written Greek language. Therefore, the comma was placed by the scribes when it was translated into English. There is the possibility that this could also mean: "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise."

Do you see what a big difference the placing of a comma could make?

In the first quote, Jesus is promising the thief that he will be in paradise THAT SAME DAY, which is not possible.

In the second quote, Jesus is promising the thief that day, that in a future time, he will be in paradise.

There are many such tiny errors in the Bible, but it will not make me lose my faith in God.

Oh, by the way, I did not read Bart Ehrman's book.

Answer 7

I believe the Word of God (Jesus Christ) is inerrant. Through the spiritual rebirth (born again) this Word becomes etched upon ones heart, and is only given witness byway of the written word.

I believe that God is quite capable of keeping His written word inerrant also, but in that I know that there has been much change in the meaning of words throughout the ages. Therefore, I believe that there is a reason the bible includes the verse to study to show yourself approved.

Answer 8

There are many great truths in the Bible, but yes there are errors because of the mistranslation of man over the years since it's been written. I have found that the King James version is the most correct and I also believe in continued revelation. I know most Christians don't but whatever. I know what I believe and I know there is more scripture out there to support that and to show the truth of the Bible.

Answer 9

Nope never read it. I do believe the original Bible does not have errors or contradictions. However there are plenty of errors from trnslating it. A lot of meaning are lost or skewed. I rely on the Holy spirit to guide me to the truth.

Answer 10

Sorry, I lost ya after Byzantines. I don't think we need to put much faith in a civilization that didn't succeed. If we're gonna beleive whatever a book says, why not pick a newer book and start worshipping the characters in it?

Answer 11

Perhaps, but the greatest errors are made by those who interpret scripture according to their own authority which is usually biased,only the church of Christ has the authority to interpret scripture faithfully.