Can the Bible contain mistakes?

[GodsGrace]

My view is that the Bible is inspired in main theological and moral points, everything else is a human work. I would even propose various places or books in the Bible have various degrees of inspiration. Which seems quite obvious if one reads the Bible with it in mind. Messianic prophecies are surely of a different importance from (for example) the verses about the firmament with holes in it for rain.

Textual problems with the Bible:

1. Preservation errors - copy errors, different textual families errors
- the Bible you are holding in your hand is a compilation made by various scholars from many various manuscripts; many places differ greatly
- probably the most known problem is that the NT writers used a different OT that differs from the OT in the majority of Bibles

2. The ambiguity of the original languages and texts
- this is not technically an error, but its an imperfection that leads to many errors in translations and interpretations

3. Internal errors and mistakes, in the "original" text
- can be seen when comparing two gospels side by side - inspiration certainly is not a perfect dictation; basically any fundamentalist view of the Bible can be easily debunked by the Bible itself, when comparing two gospels

4. Canonical problems - there are no clear rules why some writing should be in the Bible or not, its all more or less based upon what the majority used and what some human authority said

I agree with all of the above.
Some believe God actually wrote the bible - very different from having inspired the writings.

1. Re the copy errors, it's my understanding that there are errors but they do not change any theological belief.

2. I see the language as being a problem...as witnessed on this forum when many post reference to Strong's.
A word can have different meanings and we tend to choose the meaning that most confirms our private belief.
(instead of using exegesis and hermeneutics).

3. I don't understand this point.

4. Re the canon....I seem to remember (not sure) that a letter/gospel had to be written by either an Apostle or a first-hand witness. I believe this was the requirement of most importance since I know of 2 writings that almost made it into the NT but did not meet the above requirement. The Didache. The Letter of Barnabas (I forget to whom).

 

[HealthyShape]

1. Re the copy errors, it's my understanding that there are errors but they do not change any theological belief.

This is a vague statement. Whose theological belief? Many people would argue a lot about for example trinitarian formulas found in some textual families and not
in others.

3. I don't understand this point.

Basically contradictions in how the events are described in various gospels. Differences in citations of Christ etc.

4. Re the canon....I seem to remember (not sure) that a letter/gospel had to be written by either an Apostle or a first-hand witness. I believe this was the requirement of most importance since I know of 2 writings that almost made it into the NT but did not meet the above requirement. The Didache. The Letter of Barnabas (I forget to whom).

This has not been proven, it is just some idea somebody proposed posterior into the canon and other people just repeat it. And it does not work for the Old Testament at all. Most of the books in the Old Testament, if not all, are anonymous/pseudonymous and the ascribed authorship is just traditional.

The authorship of some of the New Testament books is also being debated till today.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is a vague statement. Whose theological belief? Many people would argue a lot about for example trinitarian formulas found in some textual families and not
in others.

ANY theological belief.
Wes Huff and even Bart Ehrmann have stated that the differences/errors have no bearing on any theology...they change nothing...the are irrelevant.

It would be interesting, if you could, to show some scripture re the trinity that is different from another...or something that is added on or deleted.

I've just never heard of this before.

Basically contradictions in how the events are described in various gospels.

Ok.
These do exist but eyewitnesses do see events differently and some timing is even different.

This was not proved, it is just some idea somebody proposed to project back into the canon and other people just repeat it. And it does not work for the Old Testament at all.

No Apostles at the time of the OT.

The following criteria had to be met:

1. Church leaders often appealed to the agreement of the book with what they called “the rule of faith.” This meant that the teaching of the book followed the beliefs the church regarded as acceptable and correct.

2. The book had to demonstrate apostolicity. This criterion required authorship by an apostle or by the associate of an apostle (as in the instance of Mark and Luke).

3. The church applied the test of universality. This required that the book be accepted by a broad geographical segment of the church.

These three criteria can be described as orthodoxy, apostolicity, and universality.

A Criteria for the Canon

The Operation of Bishops in the Early Christian Era

episcopalschool.teachable.com

I used the above article for support,,,however these 3 are accepted by all mainline denominations.

 

[HealthyShape]

ANY theological belief.
Wes Huff and even Bart Ehrmann have stated that the differences/errors have no bearing on any theology...they change nothing...the are irrelevant.

It would be interesting, if you could, to show some scripture re the trinity that is different from another...or something that is added on or deleted.

I've just never heard of this before.

Comma Johanneum is a very famous issue. Or the ending of Mark. Or John 1:18 etc.

Ok.
These do exist but eyewitnesses do see events differently and some timing is even different.

That is the point - human errors.

No Apostles at the time of the OT.

The following criteria had to be met:

1. Church leaders often appealed to the agreement of the book with what they called “the rule of faith.” This meant that the teaching of the book followed the beliefs the church regarded as acceptable and correct.

2. The book had to demonstrate apostolicity. This criterion required authorship by an apostle or by the associate of an apostle (as in the instance of Mark and Luke).

3. The church applied the test of universality. This required that the book be accepted by a broad geographical segment of the church.

These three criteria can be described as orthodoxy, apostolicity, and universality.

A Criteria for the Canon

The Operation of Bishops in the Early Christian Era

episcopalschool.teachable.com

I used the above article for support,,,however these 3 are accepted by all mainline denominations.

We can agree that canonization was not about some clear cut rules, but a mixture of usage in the churches, traditions, subjective preferences, debates etc. And various "canons" existed in various churches, the book of Revelation was not accepted by many, Didaché, Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas were... it was not easy.

And the OT canon is also not one and was various in history.

 

[GodsGrace]

Comma Johanneum is a very famous issue. Or the ending of Mark. Or John 1:18 etc.

I tell you today,
makes no sense and I do believe this redering has been discarded.

The ending of Mark is also found in the other gospels so no problem there.

I'm not familiar with John 1:18 so I have no comment.

Just to say that there is no IMPORTANT difference in any of the NT writings.

That is the point - human errors.

But it's not an "error" if two persons explain the same even in slightly different ways.

We can agree that canonization was not about some clear cut rules, but a mixture of usage in the churches, traditions, subjective preferences, debates etc. And various "canons" existed in various churches, the book of Revelation was not accepted by many, Didaché, Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas were... it was not easy.

And the OT canon is also not one and was various in history.

I'm not familiar with the canon of the OT and so am not making any statement.

You're right that we're looking back on the canonization of the NT,
however, the writings DO follow the same pattern...for instance they WERE all written by an eyewitness or someone immediately following. The writings were universally used and accepted by the church at that time.

IOW,,,they weren't just picked at random.
I think this is important to know.

 

[Jay Ross]

The original text does not contain mistakes, but our contextual translations do.

 

[HealthyShape]

I tell you today,
makes no sense and I do believe this redering has been discarded.

The ending of Mark is also found in the other gospels so no problem there.

I'm not familiar with John 1:18 so I have no comment.

Just to say that there is no IMPORTANT difference in any of the NT writings.

You are not familiar with the problematic (as you admit), but you are making absolute claims about it. Why?

But it's not an "error" if two persons explain the same even in slightly different ways.

"Slightly" is a subjective judgement. It is technically an error, because, well, those are mistakes, errors. If the authors differ in what Jesus said, at least one of them is mistaken.

they WERE all written by an eyewitness or someone immediately following.

Was Genesis written by an eyewitness? Was the gospel of Luke written by an eyewitness? Nope. Who even wrote Hebrews, Jonah, Ester, Job etc? And when, where? We do not know.

The writings were universally used and accepted by the church at that time.

Nope. The canon was being developed through centuries and even today is different for different branches of Christianity. Compare the RCC, Orthodox and Protestant canons, for example.

IOW,,,they weren't just picked at random.
I think this is important to know.

Nothing is random. But it does not mean there has been some definitive and clear canon for everybody.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are not familiar with the problematic (as you admit), but you are making absolute claims about it. Why?


"Slightly" is a subjective judgement. It is technically an error, because, well, those are mistakes, errors. If the authors differ in what Jesus said, at least one of them is mistaken.


Was Genesis written by an eyewitness? Was the gospel of Luke written by an eyewitness? Nope. Who even wrote Hebrews, Jonah, Ester, Job etc? And when, where? We do not know.


Nope. The canon was being developed through centuries and even today is different for different branches of Christianity. Compare the RCC, Orthodox and Protestant canons, for example.


Nothing is random. But it does not mean there has been some definitive and clear canon for everybody.

Wow.
Since you're not responding to what I posted,,,
I cannot respond to you.

And your information is not all correct either.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are not familiar with the problematic (as you admit), but you are making absolute claims about it. Why?

Do you read what persons post??
Did I say I was not familiar with ALL of the problems you proferred...
or just one?

"Slightly" is a subjective judgement. It is technically an error, because, well, those are mistakes, errors. If the authors differ in what Jesus said, at least one of them is mistaken.

I SAID THAT THE "errors" as you call them...
are not significant.

Was Genesis written by an eyewitness? Was the gospel of Luke written by an eyewitness? Nope. Who even wrote Hebrews, Jonah, Ester, Job etc? And when, where? We do not know.

Why are we discussing Genesis?
Did you read my post?

And WHO did I say the gospels or letters had to be written by?
Maybe you could REPEAT what I stated, since there seems to be a comprhension problem here.

Nope. The canon was being developed through centuries and even today is different for different branches of Christianity. Compare the RCC, Orthodox and Protestant canons, for example.

The CANON of scripture is different today?
Maybe because some books were removed the the reformers?

Now we would need to discuss THIS?

Nothing is random. But it does not mean there has been some definitive and clear canon for everybody.

The NT has a definitive canon.

No need for you to reply since I won't be repying to you.
Basically, because you don't READ what I posted, so the conversation goes haywire.

 

[HealthyShape]

Wow.
Since you're not responding to what I posted,,,
I cannot respond to you.

And your information is not all correct either.

Do you read what persons post??
Did I say I was not familiar with ALL of the problems you proferred...
or just one?

I SAID THAT THE "errors" as you call them...
are not significant.

Why are we discussing Genesis?
Did you read my post?

And WHO did I say the gospels or letters had to be written by?
Maybe you could REPEAT what I stated, since there seems to be a comprhension problem here.

The CANON of scripture is different today?
Maybe because some books were removed the the reformers?

Now we would need to discuss THIS?


The NT has a definitive canon.

No need for you to reply since I won't be repying to you.
Basically, because you don't READ what I posted, so the conversation goes haywire.

You are quite imprecise/ambiguous in your statements and you are then offended or upset when a correction or facts are given back to you. Weird, but as you wish.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Hello ProverbsInPink, I'm fairly certain that it was several regional councils that defined the 73 Book Canon of the Catholic Church, the first being in Rome (382 AD), then in the cities of Hippo, Carthage, & Florance (who all affirmed the same 73 Books set down by the Council of Rome, I think), and then finally at Trent (where the CC Canon was finally made official doctrine or dogma of the RCC).

As far as I know, those first seven ecumenical councils had little to nothing to do with establishing the Canon of Scripture (please let me know if I am wrong about that, thanks).

As far as Luther's quote goes, I believe that all he was saying is that whenever we read the Bible or hear something read from it, whether from the OT or the New, we are hearing from God Himself

Finally, it seems to me that determining which Books/Epistles are actually Holy Scripture (and which ones are not) is a related but very different matter.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

​

View attachment 73331​

The first seven ecumenical councils did not determine the biblical canon from scratch, as the canon was already forming, but they affirmed and made official the canon of scripture that was already in use.

The first seven ecumenical councils took place between 325 and 787 AD and addressed issues of Christian doctrine, particularly Christology, and also issued canonical legislation. They include the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Nicaea (Second).
The seven ecumenical councils
First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)
First Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)
Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD)
Third Council of Constantinople (680–681 AD)
Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD)

Source:Google AI

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hello again @ProverbsInPink, I'm not saying that I do not trust your Ai's findings, but I thought that I'd go and have a look for myself, just to make sure. So, I did a search on my Edge browser and guess what popped up as the top entry in my search, that's right, you guessed it, Google Ai ;)

The thing is, my Google Ai results and your Google Ai results seem to disagree with each other

So that you can see what I'm talking about, here's the search that I used and the initial result from that search, again, from Google's Ai.

Google: Did the first seven ecumenical councils affirm and make official the Canon of Scripture​

​

AI Overview​

​

No, the first seven ecumenical councils did not affirm and make official the canon of Scripture; this was a process that took place over centuries and was formally agreed upon by later councils. While discussions about which books to include occurred before and after the councils, the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not officially settle the biblical canon, as the canon was not standardized at that time. The canon of the Catholic Church, for example, was later affirmed by councils like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD).​

• No official action at Nicaea: The First Council of Nicaea focused on theological issues like Arianism and did not discuss or settle the biblical canon. The idea that Nicaea established the canon comes from later sources, not contemporary records.
• Canon was not standardized: The biblical canon was still in flux during the time of the first ecumenical councils. Different "proto-Bibles" from that period contained varying collections of books.
• Later councils set the canon: The canon of Scripture was officially defined later by councils. For the Catholic Church, this occurred with the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, followed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD, and later confirmed by ecumenical councils like Florence and Trent.

I've done internet searches for years, but I'm completely new to Ai (and, in fact, I rarely, if ever, read the Ai results that appear before going to see the regular search results that I'm used to getting). Is it possible that I've done something wrong? Did I ask the wrong question of Google Ai? Or is this just as good as it gets right now doing an Ai search? (if so, I think that I'll stick to the regular kind of searches that I've done for decades, at least for now).

BTW, thanks for bearing with me concerning this Ai topic, as I know that this wasn't our topic of discussion (but it seems important enough, to me, at least, to take a quick look into).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I also found it interesting that my Google Ai search failed to mention the Council of Rome in 382 AD (as I believe that council was the first to establish the 73 Books of the Catholic Canon in an offical sense). Perhaps a deeper Ai search would have revealed more.

Also, my Ai search mentioned using Wikipedia as its source material (or, at least, as "a" source perhaps .. but it didn't mention any others) and I'm wondering why an Ai search would choose Wikipedia as a main source of information in a search (considering who the authors of the Wikipedia articles are). Do you find that odd, as well, that Google Ai, which looks at everything out there I am told, wouldn't choose to at least include far more scholarly sources in its searches? Thanks again

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Hello again @ProverbsInPink, I'm not saying that I do not trust your Ai's findings, but I thought that I'd go and have a look for myself, just to make sure. So, I did a search on my Edge browser and guess what popped up as the top entry in my search, that's right, you guessed it, Google Ai ;)

The thing is, my Google Ai results and your Google Ai results seem to disagree with each other

So that you can see what I'm talking about, here's the search that I used and the initial result from that search, again, from Google's Ai.

Google: Did the first seven ecumenical councils affirm and make official the Canon of Scripture​

​

AI Overview​

​

No, the first seven ecumenical councils did not affirm and make official the canon of Scripture; this was a process that took place over centuries and was formally agreed upon by later councils. While discussions about which books to include occurred before and after the councils, the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not officially settle the biblical canon, as the canon was not standardized at that time. The canon of the Catholic Church, for example, was later affirmed by councils like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD).​

• No official action at Nicaea: The First Council of Nicaea focused on theological issues like Arianism and did not discuss or settle the biblical canon. The idea that Nicaea established the canon comes from later sources, not contemporary records.
• Canon was not standardized: The biblical canon was still in flux during the time of the first ecumenical councils. Different "proto-Bibles" from that period contained varying collections of books.
• Later councils set the canon: The canon of Scripture was officially defined later by councils. For the Catholic Church, this occurred with the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, followed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD, and later confirmed by ecumenical councils like Florence and Trent.

I've done internet searches for years, but I'm completely new to Ai (and, in fact, I rarely, if ever, read the Ai results that appear before going to see the regular search results that I'm used to getting). Is it possible that I've done something wrong? Did I ask the wrong question of Google Ai? Or is this just as good as it gets right now doing an Ai search? (if so, I think that I'll stick to the regular kind of searches that I've done for decades, at least for now).

BTW, thanks for bearing with me concerning this Ai topic, as I know that this wasn't our topic of discussion (but it seems important enough, to me, at least, to take a quick look into).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I also found it interesting that my Google Ai search failed to mention the Council of Rome in 382 AD (as I believe that council was the first to establish the 73 Books of the Catholic Canon in an offical sense). Perhaps a deeper Ai search would have revealed more.

The keywords in the Google search box influences the AI findings. Which are compiled using multiple sources the AI then compiles so to post a result.

Which is why at the end of each paragraph there's a link. Which doesn't copy when wanting to post those full results here. But the icons for the source links do appear on the Google AI site.

My keywords in the search box were, 7 ecumenical councils determined canon.

When I input that again just now the same result appears.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Thanks @ProverbsInPink, I need to spend a little time learning more about Ai searches, as I'm certain that I'm part of the problem because I haven't. Still, it seems to me that results from the old-school type of internet searches resulted in conclusions that were far more similar to one another (even when the search phrases that were typed in were like the two that we just typed in .. on a regular search, I don't think the results of our two searches would have contrasted with one another like our Ai searches did).

Oh well, again, thanks for your patience as I took a look at this problem.

I'll go see what additional information I can find (about the 7 Councils and the Canon) and get back to you after I do.

Blessings to you in Christ!

--Papa Smurf

 

[GodsGrace]

Hello again @ProverbsInPink, I'm not saying that I do not trust your Ai's findings, but I thought that I'd go and have a look for myself, just to make sure. So, I did a search on my Edge browser and guess what popped up as the top entry in my search, that's right, you guessed it, Google Ai ;)

The thing is, my Google Ai results and your Google Ai results seem to disagree with each other

So that you can see what I'm talking about, here's the search that I used and the initial result from that search, again, from Google's Ai.

Google: Did the first seven ecumenical councils affirm and make official the Canon of Scripture​

​

AI Overview​

​

No, the first seven ecumenical councils did not affirm and make official the canon of Scripture; this was a process that took place over centuries and was formally agreed upon by later councils. While discussions about which books to include occurred before and after the councils, the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not officially settle the biblical canon, as the canon was not standardized at that time. The canon of the Catholic Church, for example, was later affirmed by councils like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD).​

• No official action at Nicaea: The First Council of Nicaea focused on theological issues like Arianism and did not discuss or settle the biblical canon. The idea that Nicaea established the canon comes from later sources, not contemporary records.
• Canon was not standardized: The biblical canon was still in flux during the time of the first ecumenical councils. Different "proto-Bibles" from that period contained varying collections of books.
• Later councils set the canon: The canon of Scripture was officially defined later by councils. For the Catholic Church, this occurred with the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, followed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD, and later confirmed by ecumenical councils like Florence and Trent.

I've done internet searches for years, but I'm completely new to Ai (and, in fact, I rarely, if ever, read the Ai results that appear before going to see the regular search results that I'm used to getting). Is it possible that I've done something wrong? Did I ask the wrong question of Google Ai? Or is this just as good as it gets right now doing an Ai search? (if so, I think that I'll stick to the regular kind of searches that I've done for decades, at least for now).

BTW, thanks for bearing with me concerning this Ai topic, as I know that this wasn't our topic of discussion (but it seems important enough, to me, at least, to take a quick look into).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf
p.s. - I also found it interesting that my Google Ai search failed to mention the Council of Rome in 382 AD (as I believe that council was the first to establish the 73 Books of the Catholic Canon in an offical sense). Perhaps a deeper Ai search would have revealed more.

Also, my Ai search mentioned using Wikipedia as its source material (or, at least, as "a" source perhaps .. but it didn't mention any others) and I'm wondering why an Ai search would choose Wikipedia as a main source of information in a search (considering who the authors of the Wikipedia articles are). Do you find that odd, as well, that Google Ai, which looks at everything out there I am told, wouldn't choose to at least include far more scholarly sources in its searches? Thanks again

Papa Smurf
I'm rather dismayed that some may use googleAI for their information.
Why? Because it will reply depending on HOW a question is asked.

This happened with a reformed believer some time ago.
HE received the reply HE wanted....
I asked google for the same information but in a different way and I got the OPPOSITE reply.
(it had to do with Calvinism's theology)

So, here we are.
As if Christianity doesn't already have enough problems going into the 21st century.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks @ProverbsInPink, I need to spend a little time learning more about Ai searches, as I'm certain that I'm part of the problem because I haven't. Still, it seems to me that results from the old-school type of internet searches resulted in conclusions that were far more similar to one another (even when the search phrases that were typed in were like the two that we just typed in .. on a regular search, I don't think the results of our two searches would have contrasted with one another like our Ai searches did).

Oh well, again, thanks for your patience as I took a look at this problem.

I'll go see what additional information I can find (about the 7 Councils and the Canon) and get back to you after I do.

Blessings to you in Christ!

--Papa Smurf

Let me add something that both AI searches did not establish.
The actual, OFFICIAL canon of the 73 books was not established by the CC until the Council of Trent in about 1550.

You can look that up the good ole' fashioned way---
which is much more trustworthy.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Papa Smurf
I'm rather dismayed that some may use googleAI for their information.
Why? Because it will reply depending on HOW a question is asked.

This happened with a reformed believer some time ago.
HE received the reply HE wanted....
I asked google for the same information but in a different way and I got the OPPOSITE reply.
(it had to do with Calvinism's theology)

So, here we are.
As if Christianity doesn't already have enough problems going into the 21st century.

Hello again GodsGrace, maybe I'm not as much of a problem as I assumed that I was (concerning my lack of knowledge about Ai, that is). I find all of this not only odd, but quite frankly, a bit disturbing, as well. I'm pretty sure that this cannot possibly be true, but it almost feels like Ai is playing some kind of practical joke on some of us, but surely that cannot be, can it

Some forums have boards that are set aside to discuss conspiracy theories (perhaps this one does?). It seems to me that, at the very least, today's Ai might make a very good/ongoing source for creating discussions on those types of boards

Whatever the case may be, thank you for letting me know about the experience that you had with Ai (again, I find this disturbing in several ways).

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[Debp]

Re the copy errors, it's my understanding that there are errors but they do not change any theological belief.

I believe that as well. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Usually it's Muslims that try to tear apart the Bible. I'm very sorry to see some Christians doing it here. I'm out of this topic now.

 

[MonoBiblical]

2. The ambiguity of the original languages and texts
- this is not technically an error, but its an imperfection that leads to many errors in translations and interpretations

Actually, the ambiguity is not the original languages, but the translation languages.

4. Canonical problems - there are no clear rules why some writing should be in the Bible or not, its all more or less based upon what the majority used and what some human authority said

The clear rule is that it has to be inspired by God. The book or Esther was never inspired by him.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

I believe that as well. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Usually it's Muslims that try to tear apart the Bible. I'm very sorry to see some Christians doing it here. I'm out of this topic now.

Not everyone who says they're Christian are.
Sometimes those that aren't will expose themselves eventually.