Does the Holy Bible claim it is a perfect, infallible book?

Started by fauxlaw

Replies
89
Posts
90
Page
3 / 3

Conversation

#61 •••
@Debby

The Holy Spirit remedies the fallen nature of humanity by empowering, guiding , sanctifying and comforting believers, making them more like Jesus Christ. It also remedies the spiritual weakness, separation from God, and corruption caused by sin.


Which has nothing to do with the BIBLE subject we are discussing here..


I asked you. I asked you which parts of the bible were "remedied" by the ghost? 4TIMES NOW!!! and you have failed to answer.


You just cannot keep up with your ow BS can, you?


This is what you wrote above:


Debby wrote: #46 above "The Bible is infallible because it is God’s inspired WORD. The errors we see in the Bible are human errors and translation errors which the HolyGhost was sent to remedy."


So AGAIN! which "human errors" and "translation errors" did the ghost remedy and correct?




Edit post

#62 •••
@fauxlaw
Stephen wrote: you have rendered all bibles written in the English language pointless and redundant.


fauxlaw Wrote: No, I have not. I am very careful to write what I think, and that is not the conclusion to which I arrived on this string.



I understand your conclusion. Yours are almost the same as mine. Only its that you just cannot admit that in addition, I also conclude that because the BIBLE written in English (new testament in particular) is riddled with flaws, inconsistencies, contradictions and errors and half told ambiguous stories that all simply jump off the page and which therefore renders it useless, pointless, redundant and unreliable as source of information regarding the life time of the Christ. And by admitting to us that the BIBLE written in English is "fallible" simply means that it cannot be trusted as a reliable source and may as well be condemned to the trash can.


Get over yourself faux.


fallible

: faliable to be erroneous:

 capable of making a mistake


erroneous: Wrong. incorrect.


Edit post

#63 •••
@Stephen

The Jews rejected Jesus as the promised messiah and demanded that he be crucified. But the Holy Spirit corrected the lies and saw the resurrection of Jesus and restored Jesus to his promised place in human history. Today there are over 2 billion Christians who follow Jesus.

The idea that the Holy Spirit remedies everything is generally understood within the context of spiritual, emotional and sometimes physical restoration through faith.

Edit post

#64 •••
@Debby

Debby wrote: #46 above "The Bible is infallible because it is God’s inspired WORD. The errors we see in the Bible are human errors and translation errors which the HolyGhost was sent to remedy."


So AGAIN! for the sixth time which BIBLICAL "human errors" and "translation errors" did the ghost remedy and correct?


You just can't point out a single one can you?

Edit post

#65 •••
@Stephen

The most obvious error corrected by the Bible is the status of Jesus.The Jews rejected Jesus, but the Bible and his disciples restored Jesus as part of the trinity. The Jews were expecting a Messiah to save them from the Roman occupation , but the bible corrected the understanding of Jesus’s mission which was to save the world from spiritual damnation and not just save the Jews.

Edit post

#66 •••
@Debby
The Latin version is a translation of the original Bible.


Wrong. There never was an "original Bible" in antiquity, There were just separate scrolls, never considered to be combined together in a single volume. And these translations were not from original scrolls - we don't know of anything "original" than those of the Dead Sea, which were not yet discovered in the 4th century, but inl the 1940s. What was translated originally were from Hebrew and Greek scrolls written, at earliest, in 300-400 BCE. "Bible" is a 14th century invention of language from Greek βιβλος [biblos - the original Greek meaning of the word referred to the inside rind of the papyrus plant [Cyperus papyrus] used for making paper by the ancient Egyptians from whom the Greeks learned. C. papyrus was not native to China, so they used other plant material in antiquity for the same purpose. The mention in Revelation [John] of a curse if anything were added to or taken from his "book" [another translated meaning of "scroll"] [Rev. 22: 18-19] referred only to Revelation, and not to the entire Bible [which is a common error made by many today], of which John would have been entirely unaware, since its creation was only centuries later. Less would he ever conceive that his "Revelation" would happen to be the last "book" of a "Bible," the latter of which of which he was totally unaware. The Latin Vulgate is, apparently, the first "Bible" to exist as a single volume of Old and New Testaments [but included more "books" than is typical of at least English translations of the Bible] from the late 4th century, some. decades after the conclave of the Nicaea Council in 325 CE. Other translations of single scrolls ["Books"] preceded the Latin Vulgate.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#67 •••
@Stephen
fallible is to be erroneous


Completely? No, the word does not necessarily imply total error, but does allow partial error to still be erroneous.

Einstein, for example:


  1. The Cosmological Constant (1929/1931): To keep the universe from expanding (a concept he originally believed), he added a constant to his equations. After Edwin Hubble proved the universe is expanding, Einstein discarded this term, calling it his greatest mistake.
  2. Gravitational Waves (1936/1937): Einstein initially submitted a paper arguing that gravitational waves did not exist. After the Physical Review peer reviewers (specifically Howard P. Robertson, though Einstein did not know it at the time) pointed out errors in his mathematics, Einstein corrected his work and later agreed they were a valid prediction of his theory.
  3. Light Bending Calculation (1911-1915): In his early work on general relativity, he calculated that starlight would bend by a certain amount, but later realized he had missed a factor of two. He corrected this before the famous 1919 eclipse expedition.
  4. Quantum Mechanics (throughout his life): While not a formal "admission of error," he was often in the minority regarding his discomfort with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics,, particularly in his debates with Niels Bohr, and he was ultimately proven wrong on his belief that it was an incomplete theory. 
  5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-got-wrong/#:~:text=Einstein%20had%20demonstrated%20that%20matter,done%20in%20the%20new%20world.


Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#68 •••
@fauxlaw

The Latin Vulgate (completed 400 AD by St Jerome ) was not the first Bible. It was the first, and most successful , attempt to translate the entire Bible into Latin directly from the original Greek and Hebrew , but it was preceded by older Greek and Syriac translations.

Edit post

#69 •••
@fauxlaw

Stephen Wrote: And by [ YOU] admitting to us that the BIBLE written in English is "fallible" simply means that it cannot be trusted as a reliable source and may as well be condemned to the trash can.


fallible

: faliable to be erroneous:



Completely? No, the word does not necessarily imply total error, but does allow partial error to still be erroneous.
  1. Einstein, for example:The Cosmological Constant
  2. Gravitational Waves
  3. Light Bending Calculation

Quantum Mechanics (throughout his life):





But we aren't talking any of the above, now are we. We are talking about a book written by human hand in the English language that you have admitted is not without flaws nor mistakes. And the particular copy we are discussing is the copy written in English.


You have have rendered it unreliable as a source of information regarding the life and time of Jesus and by your own admission condemned it to the trash can sunshine, not me.




Edit post

#70 •••
@Stephen

You even acknowledge that I have said there are instances of unreliability to the Bible as a whole, but that it also contains understandable trut5h. It is both, and we must be careful to be able to distinguish which is which by honest, sincere, and hopeful prayer, as Paul described in Hebrews 11; the entire chapter, which I have urged to be read many times. Therefore, to say "ou have have rendered it unreliable as a source of information regarding the life and time of Jesus and by your own admission condemned it to the trash can sunshine, not me."


That is disingenuous. Every book of non-fiction has truth and error. even some fiction has truth; I dare say a lot of it. Don't throw out the truth with the error and think you have fairly comprehended what you read. Well, first read it, cover-to-cover. That you have not is evident. Do it!

or, shut the piehole and put down you pen. Scholarship requires reading, doesn't it? Have you forgotten how that is done?

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#71 •••
@fauxlaw

The Bible has stood the test of time. The errors in the Bible are human errors made during the copying and reproducing process which scholars have identified and corrected.

Edit post

#72 •••
@Debby
The Bible has stood the test of time. The errors in the Bible are human errors made during the copying and reproducing process which scholars have identified and corrected.


Ok. First you have said it was the ghost that corrected the multiple errors in the bible now you are saying it is scholars that have made these corrections.

So give me biblical examples that have been corrected by the scholars. ie which verses and or chapters have been corrected.

Edit post

#73 •••
@fauxlaw
Therefore, to say [Stephen] "you have have rendered it unreliable as a source of information regarding the life and time of Jesus and by your own admission condemned it to the trash can sunshine, not me."


That is disingenuous. Every book of non-fiction has truth and error. even some fiction has truth; I dare say a lot of it.

Nope. It is, as I have said, worthless. It is supposed to be the teachings of god but by your own admission it has been corrupted and therefore it has been rendered worthless.


Don't throw out the truth with the error and think you have fairly comprehended what you read.


Who is to say which parts are truth, You!?


Well, first read it, cover-to-cover. That you have not is evident. Do it!


Well that is rather assumptious of you. You really are a arrogant prick aren't you.


or, shut the piehole and put down you pen. Scholarship requires reading, doesn't it? Have you forgotten how that is done?

Now now. Don't get angry with me because of your own haughty assumptions about me have backfired. I'll say it again, YOU have condemned ALL bibles written in the English language to the trash can. YOU have proven to anyone reading here that the bible written in English is not worth the paper it is written on. Not me.


I happen to believe quite a bit of the bible. I believe many of the characters existed and many of the stories therein. I just don't agree with the way it has come down to us and they way it has been preached to us by arrogant gasconading haughty pricks like yourself , Faux


Off you go now faux. Oh and re-read your bible. I have read quite a few times myself.



Edit post

#74 •••
@Stephen
Who is to say which parts are truth, You!?


No. I have already said: the truth comes directly from God to each person who asks with sincere faith that an answer will be given. Which means that even biblical translation that is troublesome to understand can be made clear and powerful, therefore, not "worthless." What is disingenuous about that, unless you reject the existence of God. That seems to be your starting point. I can't help you until you move past that obstacle yourself. You and I have had this argument for a number of years. I stand ready; you seem to stand defiant. So be it.



Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#75 •••
@Stephen

Scholars have pointed the human errors caused by scribes during their reproduction of the Bible by using Textual Criticism which have been very useful in restoring the original message. Bart Ehrman wrote several books on the subject and pointed to the many minor errors scholars have identified. You should read his books for more details.

Edit post

#76 •••
@fauxlaw
Stephen wrote:Who is to say which parts are truth, You!?


fauxlaw wrote: No. I have already said: the truth comes directly from God to each person who asks with sincere faith that an answer will be given.


And what truth has god revealed to you concerning the multiple flaws, mistranslations and out-right contradictions in the Bible?


 I can't help you until you move past that obstacle yourself. You and I have had this argument for a number of years. I stand ready; you seem to stand defiant. So be it.


You have also rendered the bible pointless and redundant by crowing about one has to understand Ancient Greek and Hebrew, there by condemning the bible written in English deeper in the trash can. you just cant decide it that it is now up to god who and who doesn't get to understand the bible.writen in plain English. You make yourself out to be the clown that I believe you are.

Edit post

#77 •••
@Debby
Scholars have pointed the human errors caused by human error

Stop making me laugh, I take my favourite subject quite seriously at the best of times.

So you believe that one has to be a "scholar" to point out and highlight the multitudes of errors, flaws, mistakes, and outright contradictions that make up these ambiguous half stories in the English bible.


Can name for me a few of the hawkeyed scholars please?

Edit post

#78 •••
@Stephen

Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman studied Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so they could read the original Old Testament and NewTestament copies of the manuscripts and point to the errors in translation from the originals.

people who can only read the translated versions have nothing to compare it with. Bart Ehrman has written several books on these errors he found which are used in Theology colleges.

Edit post

#79 •••
Debby Wrote: Scholars have pointed the human errors caused by human error
Stephen wrote: Stop making me laugh, I take my favourite subject quite seriously at the best of times.
So you believe that one has to be a "scholar" to point out and highlight the multitudes of errors, flaws, mistakes, and outright contradictions that make up these ambiguous half stories in the English bible.
Can name for me a few of the hawkeyed scholars please?


Debby Wrote:Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman studied Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so they could read the original Old Testament and NewTestament copies of the manuscripts and point to the errors in translation from the originals.

people who can only read the translated versions have nothing to compare it with. Bart Ehrman has written several books on these errors he found which are used in Theology colleges.


I see. So there two things there that prove my case and not yours, you absolute clown.

(1) Bart Ehrman , as I have shown you many times now doesn't believe Jesus was god . he doesn't believe Jesus died on the cross and he has pointed out that the so called "miracles " said to have been performed by Jesus were nothing more the were initiation rituals into his sect of followers.

(2) by reminding everyone reading here that Bart Ehrman had studied other languages such as "Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic" to get to the "truth" of what the gospels are trying to convey to its readers further supports my case that the BIBLE written in ENGLISH isn't worth the paper that it is written on. And further if you have read or watch anything by Bart Ehrman (which I doubt very much) you will learnd that he believes the gods(PLURAL) and that they came to earth in vehicles .


And no surprises Other BIBLICAL scholars that have also studied those languages you mention above don't agree with at all with you favoured scholar Bart Ehrman . So suck it up and choke on your own BS.



Did Jesus Even Claim to be God? Bart Ehrman Says No...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STiabRV8TE












Edit post

#80 •••
@Stephen

Bart Ehrman was a brilliant scholar but he was human too and lacked the faith to believe in Jesus as anything more than a historical figure.

That is why Jesus preached the importance of faith.

Top Bible verses about Faith.

matthew 21:22 and whatever you ask in prayer you will receive. For nothing will be impossible with God.


2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

john 3:16 for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.






Edit post

#81 •••
@Stephen

You may have no interest in researching Greek and Hebrew. You may have no interest in seeking God in prayer for answers. That is all on you. I prefer doing those things, and it is not worthless to me. People are different my friend. What's good for you is good for you and may not be for me. What's so hard to understand about that?

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#82 •••
@fauxlaw
You may have no interest in researching Greek and Hebrew.

More presumptions about me. You really are a haughty prick aren't you Faux?



You swerved my question gain, faux: HERE> And what truth has god revealed to you concerning the multiple flaws, mistranslations and out-right contradictions in the Bible?


Edit post

#83 •••
@Debby
Bart Ehrman was a brilliant scholar 


I agree and a lot more knowledgeable than you. And more honest too.

Edit post

#84 •••
@Stephen

Unfortunately Bart Ehrman despite his brilliant scholarship will stand behind 2 billion Christians who will be chosen over him because of his lack of faith.

Edit post

#85 •••
@Stephen
And what truth has god revealed to you concerning the multiple flaws, mistranslations and out-right contradictions in the Bible?


The answer is not a simple one, In fact, I am presently writing a book entitled "Translation: the nemesis of language." I'm about 100 pages into it, roughly half-way, and plan on a release late summer, early fall, depending on publisher. However, I will offer an excerpt from a chapter specifically dealing with mistranslation:


In Matthew 16, we read of a critical moment when Jesus asks his apostles who others say that he, Jesus, is. This is significant because in the first verses of the Chapter, Jesus tells the apostles they must be careful about interpreting the leaven in bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They misunderstand Jesus is not really talking about physical bread; he is using "bread" by parable referring to the flawed teaching by the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were both serious interpreters of the Law, but often opposed one another in specific doctrine. 

That matter resolved, Jesus later asks them:

"Whom do men say that I, the Son of man am?"

They replied naming various prophets of old or John the Baptist.

"He saith unto them: But whom say ye that I am?

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."


Let's see verses 17 and 18 in Greek:

"...Μακάριος εἶ Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ ὅτι ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι σὰρξ σὰρξ αἷμα ἀλλ μου Πατήρ ἐν οὐρανοῖς 

"δέ κἀγὼ λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς,"

The key verse that is widely misunderstood is the 18th, wherein, so is commonly interpreted by the English translation from Greek in three critical instances which allege Peter is the rock and foundation of the church: 

First, with "...thou art Peter." In Greek, "Peter" is rendered as "Πετρος" [Petros], which is a name, nominative masculine singular, not an ordinary noun, "rock," which in Greek, is ρετρα [petra]. 

Second, "...upon this rock" in Greek, "this" is rendered as ταύτε [tautē], demonstrative pronoun, dative feminine singular [therefore, not referring to a man]. And, "rock" is rendered as ρετρα [petra], noun, dative feminine singular; again, not referring to a man, but some other, foundational something which must be identified by going back to verse 17 to discover that to which "this" is referring. Why? Because both words, "this," and "rock," are feminine, not masculine, and, therefore, cannot refer to Peter. English is one of several languages that do not use grammatical gendered nouns, whereas Hebrew and Greek both do so, and all "romance" languages, i,e., Latin-based, and virtually all Semitic languages, such as Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, do so, as well.

Third, Jesus tells us Peter knows who the Savior really is, not by "flesh and blood" but by "hath revealed it." "It" is a specific revelation from God, ἀπεκάλυψέν [apekalypsen], verb, aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular; to uncover, or reveal something.

Therefore, the correct sense of verse 18, as revealed by analysis of verse 17 from Greek is, according to Christ, himself, "You are Peter [an apostle] and upon [revelation from God - from verse 17] I will build my church..." 


Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#86 •••
@fauxlaw

In Matthew 16, we read of a critical moment when Jesus asks his apostles who others say that he, Jesus, is. 


Indeed he does. But if you read your bible written in English it leaps from the page that Jesus didn't trust Simon as far as he could throw him.

He simply had to keep Simon/peter on side by making promises about who would receive what when the/his mission was complete. . Simon didn't just betray Jesus three times at cock crow as most of you Christians believe. He turned up as a witness against Jesus at his trial. He also didn't believe Jesus was a Messiah. And on that particular point - Jesus was supposed to have said to Simon and the others: " do not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah" Mat 16:20, when no one had mentioned the word Messiah . Simon only called him " son of the living god" which, before you decide to claim have the same meaning are not the same thing..


There is no way on this earth that Jesus would have handed "the keys to the kingdom" (Jerusalem) to Simon, because he knew what a 19 faced bastard he was and that Simon (just like Joh the Baptist) was working for his own ends. Indeed Jesus wouldn't have trusted Simon with the keys to the local ἀφεδρών. All my own opinion of course..


And from the same chapter that you chose(Matthew 16) and just as he told Simon not to mention that he was a Messiah in other places he told others not to talk about his so called "miracles" and identity. He certainly wanted to keep his mission under wraps, didn't he faux?


And for all of your filibustering above, you have still managed to swerve my question Why so?


Here it is again>>And what truth has god revealed to you concerning the multiple flaws, mistranslations and out-right contradictions in the Bible?



Edit post

#87 •••
@Debby

Unfortunately Bart Ehrman despite his brilliant scholarship will stand behind 2 billion Christians who will be chosen over him because of his lack of faith.

Ok so just like you like to only choose the chapters and verse from the bible that suite you, are choosing to cherry-pick only the parts from Bart Ehrman's work the you like. Well what a hypocrite you are. And how many times: appealing to numbers counts for nothing.

Edit post

#88 •••
@Stephen

Jesus spoke about people like Bart Ehrman as finally lost.

Based on Matthew 16:26 and Mark 8:36 the rhetorical question highlights that gaining the entire world -wealth, power and pleasure - is worthless if it cost a person their eternal soul. It emphasizes that the soul is an infinite , irreplaceable value, making such a trade a foolish, eternal loss, and nothing can be given in exchange for it.

mark 8:36 for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world , and lose his soul.

Edit post

#89 •••
@Debby

The soul or to have a souls simply means to be a living being that thinks , has varying emotions and conscience.

Edit post

#90 •••
@Stephen

According to Jesus the soul (Greek:psuche) represents a persons inner self , consciousness , and eternal life essence , rather than just the physical body. It is immensely valuable , distinct from the body , and survives physical death. Jesus taught the soul is the core of personality, mind, will and emotions - which must be guarded against spiritual loss.

read verses Mark 8:36-37, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 26:38,

Edit post