Featured The Bible Is Clear: Adam Was a Historical Person

Did the original inspired manuscripts contain any errors/mistakes?

 

Paul said they didn't always know what they were writing.

 

Paul said the witness was true.

 

Getting back to the historicity of Genesis:

Why an historical Second Adam if not an historical first Adam?

 

Indeed, as his entire point regarding salvations rests upon BOTH Adam and Jesus being historically persons!

 

zBecause Paul was a master with the Greek language and John was poor does give scripture a distinctiveness among writers but does not change its source of inspiration and the inspired message.

 

Are grammatical mistakes errors?

 

Did you not read post 40? How is that any different than what inspiration is?

For you to make a different claim is to make God a liar and that his way of doing things is full or errors.

 

So there were those in the original manuscripts then?

 

Of course. Most all of the writers of the NT wrote using Greek as a second language and wrote using some Hebrew phrases when the equivalent could have been expressed using what Greeks would have used. So in that sense there were grammatical errors.

The people I rescued people from having left the faith because they have read or heard that scripture is without errors with no explanation about inspiration. When they were challenged by some who showed them "errors" they found the person believable because they had no answer to dispute the statements. An example may be how dates in scripture do not always agree with no explanation of the calendar changing and so they see the "error" (which is not an error) but have no explanation about the difference. So the person has been left with nothing to defend the faith with other than what someone said they should believe.

To make blanket a statement that scripture is completely without any errors of any kind can be easily disputed and that does not faithfully represent what inspiration from God is actually about. Scripture must interpreted in light of its historical and literary context. When done in that light then it is without flaws. When interpreted in any other way then that leaves open interpretations that are not correct and can be disputed and misleading.

 

And yet, Christ said, "Have not I said in your law . . . ?"

The tendency in this age is to elevate the role men played in the production of the Scriptures. It's a very attractive proposition, because if the assumed contributions of pagan sources is really Christ speaking, then my pride and love for philosophy and what is truly a vain deceit is suddenly a holy thing. I've hallowed my pride of life in hallowing the wisdom of this world. Bring on those highly esteemed by the world! It's only through their writings that one can properly understand the Scriptures.

And is the aforementioned "rescuing" really rescuing, or is it merely the pollution of something holy to make it palatable to dogs and swine?

And is Menander really the source material for 1 Cor. 15:33? Folks who fancy themselves educated will assert it time and again. In how many stories will one find oft-quoted adages today? Really think those authors coined the phrases? See the raw and arbitrary assumption being put forth as fact to prove and hallow pagan contribution to the Scriptures?

Devout men from ancient times to now downplay man's role in the Scriptures, because the Scriptures, through hallowed and sanctified channels, are the work of God.

Christ said something very simply: he that does the will of the Father will know of His doctrine. It's obedience in the Spirit that enlightens.

 

Whoever elevated the work of man above God by pointing out the responsibility and work man God has given to him to do. In Genesis wasn't man to cultivate the land. Anyone who does not cultivate the land cannot blame the lack of crop on God. Jn 15 also talks about that. To ignore God using men and women is to ignore God's way of doing some things. God does what man cannot possibly do. God has given man tasks that he is commanded to do such as making disciples, work (labor), using their gifts wisely, being disciplined and many more.

A good example of minimizing God's method of using men can be found in misinterpreting Phil 1:8 by taking it out of the context of Phil 1:3-11. Paul gives the reason why he is confident and commends them in that passage. He is not giving out some kind of magical theology where man does not need to be obedient to God and obey His commands, and then he will be blessed. I cannot find anywhere in scripture where God blesses someone for doing nothing and being lazy.

In Mt. 28:19, 20 Jesus gave the command to make disciples. Is that man's responsibility or God's. Just because man is given tasks does not make it any less God's work. When God chooses to require one's life he will cease to do anything. Man cannot do anything physically or mentally without God's hand. However that does not mean man can be lazy and expect to grow a great crop. Wasn't it Jesus who taught about the talents. Look at who he rebuked and named as worthless.

I cannot even breathe or work unless God gives me another day of life. I see God's work in which He chooses to use men to accomplish the part of His work He wants man to do. Man cannot do God's work apart from God either but that does not mean man can be lazy and expect to be blessed.

When has man been blessed with fish from a river or ocean by standing on the shore and praying for fish. I cannot think of any case where God blessed men with fish while the men sat on the shore. They prepared and went fishing.

It does seem often the text of scripture is emphasized often forget about the fact that God's word is living and active . . ." The Gospels were around for a long time before they were written down. It has been shown that transmission by oral tradition is much better than writing something down. No copiest can reproduce a written text by hand many times with 100% accuracy. However by oral tradition the accuracy is far greater.

 

Are you saying that the original books, those penned down by Moses/paul etc had some mistakes /errors in them, or that those crept in when copying of the originals started?

 

Paul as well as others wrote using Greek as his second language. He did not write as one whose mother tongue was Greek. It would much the same as one whose second language is English. It is noticeable by those who mother tongue is English and know correct grammar. Would you call those mistakes? When I took English my teacher would have marked those kind of things wrong. When I took Greek my teacher would have marked those kinds of mistakes as wrong. Are those errors?

It might be similar to one who gives a sermon from God and does not always use correct grammar. Does it change the message? No, but the sermon has language errors. The language errors will depend on the messenger and his mastery of the language. The NT has Hebrew phrases that are not typical Greek usage of the time.

I see no indication that there are any message errors when interpreted in light of its historical and literary context. The fact is that all of scripture is insoired by God and that should be the start and end of any discussion. The rest is left up to study and understanding not the sharing of ignorance.

 

Your definition of inspiration seems to be faulty, as the Holy Spirit used human instruments to record down the reverlation from God, but he watched over that to make sure NO errors/mistakes in final product!
The Holy Spirit was the final Agent here, do you think he has problems with first/second languages in the Bible?

 

That was my point. So I am wondering where you believe I am wrong.

The message you wrote is fully understood even though you made a mistake in spelling "revelation". Does that mean the message of what you wrote is wrong? No, but the text contains a language error. Does the language error mean the text was error free? No, but the message was perfect. If we see scripture as the written word only and without any errors of any kind I do not believe that is what scripture declares inspiration is all about. Why not explain inspiration to people rather than use the man made modern-day talk of error free. I see no place in scripture where that language is used in reference to the Word of God but man has chosen to adulterate what God chose. It falls way short of the language God chose. Scripture is God breathed, period. Scripture goes no further and so why should we? If it was God's choice then what try and reinvent the wheel. How can we do better than what God chose?

If we say that scripture does not contain errors and judge it by the standard we have for writing today then we open up the text to all kinds of misleading examination, and that is not what God intended. I believe that God's word is far more than the text on the basis of Hebrews 4:12, " For the word of God is living and active . . . " We cannot treat scripture as though it were just another text from history. If we do that then we treat the Bible as a static group of words and not the dynamic, living, breathing word of God.

I think we need to be very careful in what we say and teach to make sure people understand what inspiration (God breathed) really is. That is the reason I prefer to use the language scripture uses and explain what that meant to the listeners then. We must have a good handle on what inspiration means and what is scripture. Making general statements about scripture is like writing a systematic theology and declaring it as explaining scripture. Why not discuss and explain the text of scripture itself such as 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

Could you give some examples of these errors?