Is the bible corrupted.

[JosephM]

The original question is: Is the Bible corrupted? May I address that issue directly with as much love as I can.

Whether or not the Bible is the inerrant (100% accurate) word of God has been an explosive issue for over the last 1600 years. Debating this point is an emotion packed event that defies rationality by rational human minds. One insists it is inerrant and another that it is riddled with errors. One says it has withstood the test of time and that it has never been disproved and another says it has already been disproved many times. If it cannot be done in Love, then getting to the truth is not worth the effort concerning this issue.

I am reminded of a true story told to me by a friend who has a granddaughter about 5 years old named Autumn. He baby sits for her most weekends and has become quite fond of their close relationship. One day he grabbed her Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck dolls and held them behind his back. He then asked her, “Autumn, how many fingers including thumbs do Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck have on each hand?” Her reply, as a matter of fact was, “PapPa, you know they have five fingers on each hand!” To which he replied, “Autumn, what if I were to tell you that they only had four fingers including the thumb on each hand? She answered immediately and said, “PapPa, that can’t be. You know they have five fingers on each hand. They are my dolls and I know it is so!” He responded, “What if I was to show you they only had four?” With irritation as if being teased she replied, “That impossible and can’t be PapPa cause they definitely have five.” Seeing her irritation, he pulled the dolls out from behind his back and presented them to her and said, “Count them then”. She looked at the Dolls and said. “See they have five fingers” And then proceeded to count them to show him he was wrong but could only count four fingers. Immediately she became extremely upset and stormed away. Whether she yet believed him or not, I do not know. She might have said to herself it was some kind of trick.

Sometimes we are so sure of something that we fail to even check it out when someone offers an opposing view to a position we hold. So what has this to do with the topic of the Bible’s inerrancy? Well, I would think mostly, everything. When our mind is so made up about anything it is near impossible to change it either way unless the truth stares us right in the eyes and even then we still have the option to choose to not believe or to believe what we see.

So to answer this question, whether it is inerrant or not is up to you and whether or not you really want to know the truth for yourself. So I would only ask you to read one story from the Old Testament for yourself. It is located in 1 Samuel 16: 14-23 and 1 Samuel 17:32–58. I would ask you to read it carefully and with understanding of the words taking special note to the last 5 versus. Is there anything wrong with this story? Does it contain an error that shows corruption or contradiction? You be the one to answer that question after careful reading. If God doesn’t show you an error then neither can I. I will include the KJV text for your reading convenience but you can use your own Bible if you like.

1 Samuel 16:14-23
But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. [15] And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. [16] Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well. [17] And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. [18] Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him. [19] Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep. [20] And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a kid, and sent them by David his son unto Saul. [21] And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. [22] And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. [23] And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 17:32-58
And David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine. [33] And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. [34] And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: [35] And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him. [36] Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God. [37] David said moreover, The Lord that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the Lord be with thee.
[38] And Saul armed David with his armour, and he put an helmet of brass upon his head; also he armed him with a coat of mail. [39] And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him.
[40] And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine. [41] And the Philistine came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him. [42] And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. [43] And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. [44] And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. [45] Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. [46] This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. [47] And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands. [48] And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. [49] And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. [50] So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. [51] Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. [52] And the men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until thou come to the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even unto Gath, and unto Ekron. [53] And the children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they spoiled their tents.

[54] And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent. [55] And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. [56] And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. [57] And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. [58] And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.

If you see no error then the Bible to you is indeed inerrant and you have no conflict with me. If you find something wrong or in error then the Bible is not inerrant and you still have no conflict with me.
Love in Christ,
Joseph Mattioli

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Why not?

Is this in response to my comment about not having a dog in the fight? If so, it's because I don't take on faith the inerrancy of any scripture, so I have no vested in interest in proving that somebody else's inerrant scripture is errant.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I am simply looking for the origin of who created the Trinity... because its not in the bible.

Actually you asked two questions that are related, but not quite the same. You asked first "who came up with the Trinity?". You then asked "who first said Jesus is God?" (paraphrased) And now, in your latest post, you contrast Tertullian in the Adversus Praxean as taking issue with Praxeus's statement that God and Jesus are the same by responding with the doctrine of the Trinity. BTW, "Praxeus" is an unknown person some think Tertullian created as a strawman for Irenaeus himself! - sort of a Platonic Dialogue in this particular anti-heresy tract.

I tried to clarify this above, but left out too many details to be helpful I think. As to whether the doctrine of the Trinity posits that Jesus is God, you'll generally find yourself in a giant game of 'Whack-a-Mole' with most orthodox christians on that one. I think you'll generally find that Trinitarians will agree with the statement "Jesus is God," but they won't agree with the statement "Jesus is the same as God."* This is the difference between Tertullian's trinitas and the more general concept that Jesus is God (i.e. the "same as" God), which he claimed to be refuting. BTW, if you can make logical sense of the distinction between the two, then you're further ahead than any orthodox Christian ever has been, because they're still calling it a "mystery" after 2000 years.



*Again, your mileage may vary.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Who wrote the word Trinity? Is it a word from God (swt)? Is it a word Jesus (pbuh) spoke of? Did the Holy Spirit give it to you?

Ok Jesus never said the word car either does that mean they dont exist?

The bible speaks about the Trinity which you have been shown time and time again. It might not say the word and the word is not the big deal the concept is there and thats the important part.

[Dor]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Dor,

I am still trying to get a handle on which bible versions you believe to be sanctioned or ok, and which versions you feel are corrupted.

I truely believe we are supposed to judge things because we are told to in the bible and we have seen Jesus do it.

That being said Im not going to on this forum cause people tend to get hammered when they do.

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

What do you mean by worship? The same word used in the gospels in the bible? Who wrote this belief?

Dear cyberpi,

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him He said to Him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him.

John 9:35-38

There are other examples such as doubting Thomas and others but basically Jesus did not rebuke those who worshipped Him knowing that they are worshipping the Almighty Alpha and Omega...the Beginning and End... the One who will die yet lives forevermore! The Everlasting Father and Prince Of Peace! Praise Jesus All Creatures great and small!

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Is this in response to my comment about not having a dog in the fight? If so, it's because I don't take on faith the inerrancy of any scripture, so I have no vested in interest in proving that somebody else's inerrant scripture is errant.

Yes, I will talk about a couple of dogs on a different thread. I loved the way you stated 'no faith in its inerrancy' and I hated the way you stated 'no vested interest'. I question everything, trying to not judge what I can't see, and yet hopefully not presenting an apathetic ambivalence to what I do see.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Actually you asked two questions that are related, but not quite the same. You asked first "who came up with the Trinity?". You then asked "who first said Jesus is God?" (paraphrased) And now, in your latest post, you contrast Tertullian in the Adversus Praxean as taking issue with Praxeus's statement that God and Jesus are the same by responding with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes... sorry, the content of my posts was not addressed specifically to you. I'm not sure you have stated a belief, but I have witnessed that some people state across different threads that Jesus (pbuh) is God (swt), and the Trinity either says God (swt) is one of three or that God (swt), Jesus (pbuh), and Holy Spirit are the same. So I find it ironic that Tertullian and his real or imaginary Praxeus were opposed with differing sides of the issue.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

you'll generally find yourself in a giant game of 'Whack-a-Mole'

Of course, if you don't play 'whack-a-mole', then you are not loving others as you love yourself. For when you seek and find a truth, you will have whacked the one that you have.

Stated another way, how popular is the guy in the office who did not play 'whack-a-mole' by installing the anti-viral software?

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I think you'll generally find that Trinitarians will agree with the statement "Jesus is God," but they won't agree with the statement "Jesus is the same as God."* This is the difference between Tertullian's trinitas and the more general concept that Jesus is God (i.e. the "same as" God), which he claimed to be refuting.

I find the wordplay extraordinarily ordinary. My wife and I are one. Are my wife and I one? If you ask my wife a question are you asking me? Are her rhetorical questions my rhetorical questions? When my wife takes a shower am I cleaned? If my wife is good, am I good? Well, no... we are only one flesh. There is a relationship quite literally in the flesh.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear cyberpi,

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him He said to Him, "Do you believe in the Son of God?" He answered and said, "Who is He, Lord that I may believe in Him?" And Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you." Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" And he worshiped Him.

John 9:35-38

There are other examples such as doubting Thomas and others but basically Jesus did not rebuke those who worshipped Him knowing that they are worshipping the Almighty Alpha and Omega...the Beginning and End... the One who will die yet lives forevermore! The Everlasting Father and Prince Of Peace! Praise Jesus All Creatures great and small!

Have you considered there might be more than one definition of the word worship?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...9173-8653.html

When I combine with your former statement:

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Plus, only God can be without sin and forgive sin to the extent of wiping it clean! Jesus fits this criteria and allowed Himself to be worshiped.

The verse you quoted states Jesus (pbuh) saying he is the Son of God, whereas you are using the verse to state that he IS God (swt)?

On the 'forgive', are you able to reconcile the words from Jesus (pbuh)?
Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,
Mark 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Luke 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins...
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith
Plus, only God can be without sin and forgive sin to the extent of wiping it clean! Jesus fits this criteria and allowed Himself to be worshiped.

Also Note: John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: [23] Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

His disciples were also given power to remit sins..... does that make them 'God's' ? To remit is wiping it clean! It was the same greek word aphiemi that Jesus used when he said "Thy sins be forgiven thee".

JM

[RubySera_Martin]

Cyberpi, you ask if worship has more than one meaning. Sorry but I did not read through all the detailed discussions and biblical passages posted on here but I saw nothing to the effect I am saying here.

I certainly think the word "worship" can have more than one meaning. I cannot imagine that the man who "worshiped" Jesus in John 9:35-38 worshipped in the same way as one worships an invisible deity.

I think that situation has more to do with an honour-shame society's ettiquette than religious worship. Of course, the entire language of the divine-human relationship in the Bible is based on that kind of culture. I just think worship of a deity must of necessity be different from obeisance done to one's social superior.

But that may have more to do with me being in a Western Christian society where one simply does not "worship" a flesh and blood human being than it has to do with what actually took place in that passage.

Those are my thoughts on that for what they're worth.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I loved the way you stated 'no faith in its inerrancy' and I hated the way you stated 'no vested interest'. I question everything, trying to not judge what I can't see, and yet hopefully not presenting an apathetic ambivalence to what I do see.

Can you elaborate on this, please?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So I find it ironic that Tertullian and his real or imaginary Praxeus were opposed with differing sides of the issue.

I don't know about "ironic," but it is interesting. Irony is how the Church came to view Tertullian despite the fact that his trinitas ultimately became a central defining characteristic of "orthodoxy" 120 years later.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Stated another way, how popular is the guy in the office who did not play 'whack-a-mole' by installing the anti-viral software?

You may have misunderstood the metaphor. "Whack a mole" is a game where there are several holes and you have a mallet. Every few seconds a mole sticks its head out of one of the holes and you knock it back down. When you knock one down, another one pops up elsewhere and when you whack that down, another one pops up and it may be the one you just knocked down before. The sense I was using it in is when someone has a constantly shifting position in a discussion so that by the time you start responding to one position, they are changing their position to something else, making it impossible to square in on what the discussion is about.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I find the wordplay extraordinarily ordinary. My wife and I are one. Are my wife and I one? If you ask my wife a question are you asking me? Are her rhetorical questions my rhetorical questions? When my wife takes a shower am I cleaned? If my wife is good, am I good? Well, no... we are only one flesh. There is a relationship quite literally in the flesh.

So you can say that you are one flesh metaphorically and that be true despite the fact that you and your wife can also be two separate people.

Of course, depending on the time and place, suggesting that the oneness of "Jesus" and "God" is metaphorical could get you into some serious trouble. There are people who understand it experientially, too. Quahom1 has a nice description of what "the Trinity" means to him.

[RubySera_Martin]

Cyberpi, you asked some specific questions about the Trinity. I will look to see if there is a thread on it and if I don't find one, I'll make one in the Christianity section.

[RubySera_Martin]

Cyberpi, see my response in Post 99 in "The Trinity of Christianity."

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by cyberpi in #73

I am simply looking for the origin of who created the Trinity... because its not in the bible. If it were the word of God (swt), then I don't want to counter it... so I look up Tertullian's literature to see if he claims God (swt) told him. No... Tertullian was not a profit. In fact he was countering Praxeas who thought Jesus (pbuh) and God (swt) were so much the same that you could say god the Father died on the cross.

Cyberpi, I suspect there may be important differences between the Christian and Muslim ways of establishing doctrine. I know next to nothing about Islam so I speak only for Christianity. In Christianity, a belief does not have to be explicitly stated in the Bible in order for it to become a test-of-faith doctrine (i.e. if you accept it you're in; if you reject it you're out).

It does have to have basis in scripture. And that is what people have been giving you as answers that you rejected. Thus, I will try to explain from a different angle. I don't know how to explain without looking at the history of Christianity and how it has developed over the millennia so here goes.

My own understanding of the origins of Christianity suggests that it was very fragmented and diverse. (Some Christians will deny this version but it is the one that makes most sense to me so it is the one I will use here.) One of my teachers said it was more diverse than today. I cannot imagine how that was possible but he knows the history so I'm taking him at his word.

Perhaps we might view it as the roots of a tree as viewed from the bottom up. They come from many different locations but all join in the trunk of the tree. So with the origins of Christianity. The way I see it, by the third to the fifth centuries AD Christianity was solidifying into one like the trunk of the tree where all the diverse root system comes together.

For about a thousand years there were two branches of Christianity: The Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church, and the Western or Roman Catholic Church. In the sixteenth century the Reformation took place in Western Christendom. I don't know the history of the Eastern Church and will here focus on the Western one.

This is when the Lutheran Church, and a number of others, started. By now, the tree of Western Christianity has been branching out for several centuries, like the top of the tree. Today we see a new form of Christianity developing. See the subsection on "Liberal Christianity" in the Beliefs and Spirituality forum of this site.

The way I see it, there are central tenets of the Christian faith that have been largely unchallenged throughout its history. Some of these are the belief of the trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, etc. I understand these were established in the church councils Constantine called after he legalized Christianity as the formal religion of the Roman Empire.

I understand the Eastern and Western Churches split over the question of what/who Jesus really was, whether he was the very same substance as the Father i.e. the same as God. The Western Church resolved this problem by wording it in such a way as to allow personal interpretation without saying so.

Cyberpi, can you see that you are asking for clarification on a question that is older than the Muslim religion itself? Perhaps you can understand why nobody is giving you clear answers that also make sense. Does that discredit the religion? Of course not!

This does not mean you and I have to believe it. We do have to acknowledge that there is a major belief system in this world known as Christianity. And I think we are bound by human decency to be respectful of it and its adherents and their beliefs. When and if I have to choose loyalty between Christianity and Islam, I naturally choose Christianity. Why? Because it's in my blood and the blood of my ancestors from time immemorial.

As to the new form of Christianity that is forming--it challenges some of the basic tenets of the religion that were established under Constantine. What defines it as "Christian"? I don't think anybody knows for sure at this point in history. (I might post this question in the Liberal Christianity section.) But you can be sure the old question as to exactly who/what Jesus is/was is a key issue.

As has been the age-old tradition, I expect it to be figured out via dialogue and general consensus and/or compromise. It may become part of church politics as in the past, or it may be discarded in the name of peace as an unimportant question. Of course, traditional Christians would be horrified by such a move but so be it.

Back to the topic of this thread. Since this question is older than the closed canon of Scripture itself, it can hardly be considered to be the result of corruption in the Bible. The disagreement on this issue may be the reason the Bible is not clear on it. Maybe the decision-makers re closing the canon could not agree so they left it ambiguous. Who knows?

The guy first known to write about a Trinity was AGAINST saying Jesus (pbuh) and God (swt) were the same.

The very fact that he used the word in the context of a heated argument tells us how the word came into common usage. Even in conflict we humans will borrow ideas from our enemies if they are more effective than our own. Perhaps Muslims don't do this but it looks like we Christians sure do.

That is my pesonal position on this at the moment. I tend to change and grow in my thinking as new information comes in. I do not pretend to speak for anyone beside myself, Christian or otherwise.

Ruby

[kenod]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

In Christianity, a belief does not have to be explicitly stated in the Bible in order for it to become a test-of-faith doctrine

There are many Christians who would not be able to agree with that. I think it is true if you are referring to the liturgical churches who place great emphasis on traditions handed down from early times (eg RC, Anglican). From my experience, it is not true of the evangelical and pentecostal churches.

You gave a very neat description of the history of the Christian churches. I think there is an important distinction between the churches/denominations and Christianity though. If we only see the history of Christianity as the wrangling between churches, we miss that all the while Christ's church has been flourishing. The universal body of believers, believing and practising the teachings of Jesus Christ, make up His Church - and not even the gates of hell can prevail against It! I am not a member of a church, but I am a member of The Church.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by kenod

There are many Christians who would not be able to agree with that.

Kenod, I have not read up on all your posts so I don't know your exact religious position. Do you believe in the Trinity? If so, you accept a belief that is not explicity stated in the Bible, as Cyperbpi has so adequately shown. I think this includes most Christians.

In case I am wrong, I mention throughout the post that I am speaking only for myself and out of my own understanding. I also stated clearly that not all Christians agree with me.

I think it is true if you are referring to the liturgical churches who place great emphasis on traditions handed down from early times (eg RC, Anglican). From my experience, it is not true of the evangelical and pentecostal churches.

I include all the churches that believe in the Trinity.

You gave a very neat description of the history of the Christian churches.

No, I don't think I gave a description of the history of the Christian churches. I aimed only at a summary of the history of Christianity and how it establishes beliefs or doctrines. Since for a significant portion of world history of the past 2000 years there were only two churches, it might be said that I described churches but I did not try to go beyond generalities.

I think there is an important distinction between the churches/denominations and Christianity though. If we only see the history of Christianity as the wrangling between churches, we miss that all the while Christ's church has been flourishing. The universal body of believers, believing and practising the teachings of Jesus Christ, make up His Church - and not even the gates of hell can prevail against It! I am not a member of a church, but I am a member of The Church.

Kenod, I think you missed the point of my post. The point of my post was to explain to Cyberpi why nobody can satifactorily answer his question about the relationship between Jesus and God. If you read it closely I think you will see what I mean, that I stated my reason and purpose for writing it. It is hardly reasonable for anyone to blame me for not doing what I never set out to do.