Something I don't understand...

Why do people, Christians, not trust the Bible and take the word of the clergy for what they should believe or even make up it for themselves rather than believe God's Word?

 

Because the bible has been perverted from it's original form. It has been changed and mistranslated so many times. And it has a lot in it written by Jesus's followers who he was constantly admonishing for getting the message wrong.

 

I guess my questions to you then would be:

Why do you feel this way? Do you feel that God would allow the Bible to be perverted from its original form? Do you think God does not have the ability to keep the Bible from being perverted from its original form? Why do you feel that God would allow what has been called his Word to contain the wrong message?

It is interesting to note that the Dead Sea Scrolls show that we have almost unchanged the same book of Isaiah that was available to people over 2000 years ago. That would seem to point to a Bible that has not been substantially changed over the years.

 

We have hundreds upon hundreds of NT manuscripts and none of them are identical. When they were copied, they were not copied like the OT, wih the greatest care. NT manuscripts were often dictated to 50 or so people, and then were scribbled down.

Case and point: Romans 5:1. Half of the manuscripts read "we have" and the other half read "let us have" producing very different theological implications. Why these two phrases. Well it is a difference of one greek letter that is pronounced almost the same as another unless you really emphisise it. So there you go. The NT is still reliable, but we have to look at the texts critically. The Hebrew scriptures on the other hand were copied with the utmost care and are extremely reliable in that regard.

If God had wanted his Church to be perfect, it would not have been entrusted to humans.

 

So are you saying that it's okay for people to believe anything they want and worship anyway they want and God will find that worship acceptable?

 

Ummm, no.

The last line is a tongue in cheek joke.

I don't know where you got universalism out of my post.

 

I got it, thanx.

Okay, doesn't a lack of trust in the Bible leave us without a reliable source to turn to for answers? Where does one draw the line? If the Bible can't be trusted how do we know what to believe? Doesn't that leave us with, we can believe everything or anything?

 

You need to have a strong relationship with God. If you talk with Him always, He will guide you in the way he wants you to live. It's not just whatever you want to believe, it's what He shows you. He has a different plan for everybody, you just have to open your heart to be able to hear it.

 

If you don't trust the Bible then how do you know who this God is that you have a strong relationship with?

 

The thing is, I do trust the Bible. I do not have a juvenile faith where everything is perfect. I don't look at Jesus through the rose coloured glasses of Romantic Tradition (which may seem odd coming from a Catholic).

I believe the Hebrew Scripture and the Greek translation of said Scripture as revealing God's truth. It is a little easier with these because of the meticulous copying. I do still regard the Nt as reliable even without a single manuscript that has God's Red Stamp of Approval. I trust the NT as we have it to reveal God's Truth, it just requires a little digging to find. We can compare texts, if 100 manuscripts say one thing, but one says another, which is probably more correct? If something from the 4th Century says one thing, but a few from the 2nd say another, which is more correct? Which make sense in light of constant revelation (that is to say, which line up with revelation in the Hebrew Scripture and LXX)? This is how we should figure out what are good manuscripts. That is why people spend years coming out with a translation of the text.

OWB, I think you are loading your questions. I use a RSV translation mainly. I find other benifits in other translations as well. You, I assume, use a New World Translation. When you say "why don't we trust the Bible" are you really saying "why don't we trust the NWT Bible (since none of us are Koine Greek and Hebrew scholars and cannot read the original texts). Because I use the RSV, am I automatically following clergy, others, or my own interpretation over God's word?

 

God can comission a book from on high, but He can't reveil Himself to people without said book? Do you need to read a book about everyone you meet before you can have a relationship with them? You want to know why people can't believe this book about someone who you think is so very devine and able to do all things. Yet you don't believe that he can make a relationship with someone unless they get the back story first? That is somehow beyond his capabilities?

 

Not at all. But said book does say that there are two that are seeking your worship, one is God and the other is someone who can transform himself into an angel of light, making himself a god and is misleading the entire inhabited earth. My question
was directed more toward that. To me the Bible makes it easier the figue out who you are actually dealing with. Now I'm not calling you a Satan worshiper but without trusting the Bible how does one make sure they are not?

 

I'm not saying that I fully don't trust it. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church and had service and Bible study 4 times a week. I also grew up in the best church possible. I loved it. Stayed at that church for 18 years. I know the bible. What I'm saying is that I don't trust it enough to be taken so literally. There are many things in there that are so vague that you can't tell what it's really saying. Plus, it seems like every five minutes someone is saying, "oops, translated that wrong, it now means something completely different." or "well it could mean this or could mean that, we really have no clue." Added to that the fact that people on both sides of every issue can use the same verse to prove their argument. It's a loose guideline. If you only take one this from it, take the most important. Love. No matter the person, ideas or sins. Love everybody. But for some reason that seems to be the part that organized religion forgets. Everything that I take from the bible has to be centered on one idea. Does it advocate and encourage love? If it encourages hate or separation from fellow man, it does not strike me as true. Does this answer your question?

 

2Timothy3:16

 

eyeagainsteye, you have to realize that 1) that probably wasn't written by Paul, but by a pseudo-author (which is not necessarily a bad thing, just a fact) and 2) "Scripture" here most likely refers to what we call the Old Testament, and arguably Paul's letters.

I've seen a couple arguments for Pauline authorship, but none that are inspiring.

Should we "throw it out" as OWB seems to imply that people do? No, we just have to look at it slightly differently. We have to look at it through a 2nd (rather than 1st) Century lens. This is the problem with a canon, how do you make a limited number of things apply to everything. We have to read them and interpolate them.

OWB, why do some people follow a bible that inserts a Anglicized version of the Holy name of God (YHWH and in your case Jehovah) into the New Testament where it never existed before? Yeah, the term "Lord" is used, most often in greek in the LXX in place of YHWH, but it isn't in the NT. Yeah, it may have been there, but without any manuscripts to support this, we cannot make the claim that it does. Why do you take the holy Name of god so lightly as to follow a bible that uses it so liberally? (not to sound mean spirited or anything, but these threads often consist of you on an offensive while everyone else remains on a defense).

 

Other than you do trust the Bible, I don’t know what in the world you are talking about here.

I agree with you here and that is why I believe the translations we have today are trustworthy and can be used to determine our beliefs. That is why the OP asks; why don’t people trust the Bible in determining their beliefs, because time after time in these forums people keep saying the Bible can not be trusted and thus they can believe whatever they want.

Loading my questions? Well of course I am, that’s half the fun, getting people to think about what’s been said and what they believe.

I do use a NWT but I too find benefits in other translations, even the KJV and the RSV, although I find them to be very bad translations.

No, I’m not saying "why don't we trust the NWT Bible”. The truth can be found in any translation of the Bible. In fact this is the first time in hip forums I've even talked about the NWT.

No, using the RSV does not mean you are automatically following clergy, others, or your own interpretation over God's word. But not carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so, could mean you are automatically following clergy, others, or your own interpretation over God's word. (Acts 17:11)

 

2 Peter 1:21

 

On No, you didn’t go there?

So you’re saying that you think a Bible translation that is deliberately wrong over 6000 times is a better translation the one that may be wrong about 200 times?


PS You're going to have to sound a lot more mean spirited than this, to sound mean spirited to me, after some of the things people have said to me and called me in these forums.

 

In a way.

But let me ask you another question.

Do you think that God wants people not to trust the Bible or is there someone else that would benefit from people not trusting the Bible?

 

UK, in your opinion is the RSV the most accurate? Since you have indicated studying theology (I think I recall), what is promoted as being the best "version" of the bible as far as accuracy in translation?
I find myself always more drawn to the (old, standard) KJV; but have been considering purchasing (for my tax splurging ) another biblical text (or 2)...what would you recommend?