Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Monipenny · 11-05-2011, 04:58 PM

(11-05-2011 03:06 PM)Mathis Wrote:
(11-05-2011 01:45 PM)Donb123 Wrote: I've read this in books and other sources but wiki confirms it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

+1 for quoting wiki!

I believe the Bible translations most modern Christians use are innerent. Sure there are syntax and numerical discrepencies, but the amazing thing is there dispite these differences, there are no doctrinal errors. I heard of a story where a publisher accidentally forgot to put a "not" in one of the 10 Commandments. Proptly that book was decried. God promises to preserve His word. Does that mean every little minute detail? Perhaps if you are dealing with the original documents which are no longer around sure, but we are left with a book that has no original manuscripts. Bar the small gramatical mistakes, and the clear issues of doctrinal fallicies due to scribal error, yes Scripture is innerent.

It is when man places his hand upon it in an effort to perfect the Word or change something that it becomes corrupt.

The only proof I have that the Word is innerent is my faith, and that will never be shaken.

1 Chron. 21: 1 and 2 Sam. 24:1 Please read these verses, read both passage too if you need to so that it's clear that the bible is talking about the same event.

Question; WHO moved David to number Israel, God or Satan?

When you find that either they both did (a clear contradiction), or it appears that God and Satan are one and the same (Oh that can't be), what kind of mental gymnastics will you do to reconcile this difference?

Just saying.

lucrezaborgia · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2011 05:22 PM by lucrezaborgia.)

"I believe the Bible translations most modern Christians use are innerent. Sure there are syntax and numerical discrepencies, but the amazing thing is there dispite these differences, there are no doctrinal errors.

Bar the small gramatical mistakes, and the clear issues of doctrinal fallicies due to scribal error, yes Scripture is innerent. "

Um...this second sentence pretty much negates the first.

Is there no way to describe the process of the copying of the bible over the centuries that isn't based on the supernatural? It seems to me, even without a lot of studying in the matter, that it's not impossible for a document to survive the ages (especially such an important document as the bible) mostly intact. One has to look at the cultural issues and the exact mechanics of how texts are passed down and therein can we find explanations as to how it happens.

Now, if several copies of the bible turned up in cultures that had absolutely no contact with each other and no way for there to have been copying...THAT would be supernatural.

Tooktheredpill · 11-05-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:go of the inerrancy doctrine will encourage you to pay more attention to your personal relationship with God and to the traditions of the church. Without inerrancy doctrine we free up resources that can be used to better share our experience of a living God.

I agree with you on this, Ricardo. Inerrancy is a completely untenable doctrine, and far too much time/thought has been wasted on attempts to defend it.

**myotch** · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2011 07:15 PM by myotch.)

Ricardo,

Not to nitpick, but Magisterium does not mean "tradition", but rather the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium is "a" tradition, not tradition in and of itself.

For better or worse, all churches and likely all Protestant pastors hold for themselves some kind of magisterium.

Monipenny · 11-05-2011, 09:13 PM

(11-05-2011 04:58 PM)Monipenny Wrote:
(11-05-2011 03:06 PM)Mathis Wrote: +1 for quoting wiki!

I believe the Bible translations most modern Christians use are innerent. Sure there are syntax and numerical discrepencies, but the amazing thing is there dispite these differences, there are no doctrinal errors. I heard of a story where a publisher accidentally forgot to put a "not" in one of the 10 Commandments. Proptly that book was decried. God promises to preserve His word. Does that mean every little minute detail? Perhaps if you are dealing with the original documents which are no longer around sure, but we are left with a book that has no original manuscripts. Bar the small gramatical mistakes, and the clear issues of doctrinal fallicies due to scribal error, yes Scripture is innerent.

It is when man places his hand upon it in an effort to perfect the Word or change something that it becomes corrupt.

The only proof I have that the Word is innerent is my faith, and that will never be shaken.

1 Chron. 21: 1 and 2 Sam. 24:1 Please read these verses, read both passage too if you need to so that it's clear that the bible is talking about the same event.

Question; WHO moved David to number Israel, God or Satan?

When you find that either they both did (a clear contradiction), or it appears that God and Satan are one and the same (Oh that can't be), what kind of mental gymnastics will you do to reconcile this difference?

Just saying.

Is anyone going to take a stab at this? This would be good for the KJV only camp who hold to the inerrant infallibility position of the book. I especially would like to hear their answer to this one.

**myotch** · 11-05-2011, 09:49 PM

The Catholic NAB explains it this way:

Quote:A satan: in the parallel passage of ⇒ 2 Sam 24:1 the Lord's anger. The change in the term reflects the changed theological outlook of postexilic Israel, when evil could no longer be attributed directly to God. At an earlier period the Hebrew word satan ("adversary," or, especially in a court of law, "accuser"), when not used of men, designated an angel who accused men before God (⇒ Job 1:6-12; ⇒ 2:1-7; ⇒ Zechariah 3:1-2). Here, as in later Judaism (⇒ Wisdom 2:24) and in the New Testament, satan, or the "devil" (from the Greek translation of the word), designates an evil spirit who tempts men to wrongdoing.

Mathis · 11-05-2011, 09:57 PM

(11-05-2011 09:13 PM)Monipenny Wrote:
(11-05-2011 04:58 PM)Monipenny Wrote: 1 Chron. 21: 1 and 2 Sam. 24:1 Please read these verses, read both passage too if you need to so that it's clear that the bible is talking about the same event.

Question; WHO moved David to number Israel, God or Satan?

When you find that either they both did (a clear contradiction), or it appears that God and Satan are one and the same (Oh that can't be), what kind of mental gymnastics will you do to reconcile this difference?

Just saying.

Is anyone going to take a stab at this? This would be good for the KJV only camp who hold to the inerrant infallibility position of the book. I especially would like to hear their answer to this one.

Sure. God wanted the census to be taken inorder to show his providence, but allowed Satan as a vehicle to incite David to take the census.

Perfectly clear to me Smile

Monipenny · 11-05-2011, 10:27 PM

(11-05-2011 09:57 PM)Mathis Wrote:
(11-05-2011 09:13 PM)Monipenny Wrote: Is anyone going to take a stab at this? This would be good for the KJV only camp who hold to the inerrant infallibility position of the book. I especially would like to hear their answer to this one.

Sure. God wanted the census to be taken inorder to show his providence, but allowed Satan as a vehicle to incite David to take the census.

Perfectly clear to me

Not logical, you are reading into scriptures and making the assumption that God used Satan to provoke David to number the Israelites when the bible does not say this. 2 Sam. 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord (God) was kindled against Israel, And he (God) moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. Here God himself specifically moved David, no middle agent is mention, God did it himself.

Now looking at 1 Chron. 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel. This verse does not say that God used Satan to provoke David, doesn't even give room to assume that God permitted this especially when the other verse says that God himself moved David or provoked David as Satan himself did in 1 Chron. 21:1.

Monipenny · 11-05-2011, 10:34 PM

(11-05-2011 09:49 PM)myotch Wrote: The Catholic NAB explains it this way:

Quote:A satan: in the parallel passage of ⇒ 2 Sam 24:1 the Lord's anger. The change in the term reflects the changed theological outlook of postexilic Israel, when evil could no longer be attributed directly to God. At an earlier period the Hebrew word satan ("adversary," or, especially in a court of law, "accuser"), when not used of men, designated an angel who accused men before God (⇒ Job 1:6-12; ⇒ 2:1-7; ⇒ Zechariah 3:1-2). Here, as in later Judaism (⇒ Wisdom 2:24) and in the New Testament, satan, or the "devil" (from the Greek translation of the word), designates an evil spirit who tempts men to wrongdoing.

That does not correct the contradiction of the 2 verses. The change in what terms?

Mathis · 11-05-2011, 10:43 PM

(11-05-2011 10:27 PM)Monipenny Wrote:
(11-05-2011 09:57 PM)Mathis Wrote: Sure. God wanted the census to be taken inorder to show his providence, but allowed Satan as a vehicle to incite David to take the census.

Perfectly clear to me
Not logical, you are reading into scriptures and making the assumption that God used Satan to provoke David to number the Israelites when the bible does not say this. 2 Sam. 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord (God) was kindled against Israel, And he (God) moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. Here God himself specifically moved David, no middle agent is mention, God did it himself.

Now looking at 1 Chron. 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel. This verse does not say that God used Satan to provoke David, doesn't even give room to assume that God permitted this especially when the other verse says that God himself moved David or provoked David as Satan himself did in 1 Chron. 21:1.

I don't believe that it is reading into it. I know because of faith that scripture is innerent. I mearly suggested the first example I could think of to reconcile the verses.

That said, I'm a proponent of not having to know everything. Scripture talks of man having free will but yet somehow God chooses His children. Theologians have been debating that for years yet there is no perfect answer to one extreme or the other. We won't know the exact oddities of that paradox until Heaven.

I suspect this passage will similar. If a church member came to me and asked me to explain that passage I would tell them exactly the same thing. I have my assumptions but I can't be 100% sure. Either way I know its right!