The inerrancy of the scriptures

[John]

Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible Has anyone read this book and what do you think? How doe sit compare to other books in this category?

[Karen]

I have not read this, but sounds good. Like salvation I trust by faith.

[Rod]

This book sounds fun. I've read many just like it: that's why I didn't bother to buy it.

Apparently that book is a little easier to read than others - like The New Evidence That Demands a verdict by Josh McDowell. I prefer enjoyable ones like Strobel's the Case for the Real Jesus.

I'm not sure what all Erwin Lutzer believes. Apparently he's an expert on Hitler and the Nazi's. So he might have some wisdom on how the Bible gets distorted for mankind's desires.

For way more than seven reasons I use the E.S.V. study Bible. It'll answer a lifetime's worth of questions.

[John]

I use the ESV & the NIV.

Rod wrote: "This book sounds fun. I've read many just like it: that's why I didn't bother to buy it.

Apparently that book is a little easier to read than others - like The New Evidence That Demands a verdict..."

[R.J.]

My church used the NIV for years. We had our pews stocked with them and the pastor always taught out of the same version so folks could follow along word-for-word. We'd also give them out to people who had no Bible to take home, so we'd have to replenish stock once in a while.

The last time we ordered more NIVs, we got the new translation. It was an immediate eye-opener. Try reading out loud in a Bible study with a bunch of teenagers who all assume they are following the NIV, but the verse reads completely different in half of their Bibles.

I was first to notice that the 2011 NIV went gender-neutral anywhere they could, including the removal of the term "son of man". That's not only confusing, but could be construed as a major difference in theology. I started joking that they changed the story of creation so God was a woman and Eve came first (they didn't), but some of the translation differences weren't so funny. In the end, we switched our entire church's Bible stock to the NASB. I love the NIV, and I have at least four of them (the older translations) at home, but the new translation disturbs me.

[Margaret]

Robert wrote: "My church used the NIV for years. We had our pews stocked with them and the pastor always taught out of the same version so folks could follow along word-for-word. We'd also give them out to people..."

I agree. Many people find the ESV easier to read and it's as accurate as the NASB.

[John]

Robert wrote: "My church used the NIV for years. We had our pews stocked with them and the pastor always taught out of the same version so folks could follow along word-for-word. We'd also give them out to people..."

I am talking about the 1984 NIV not the 2011 NIV!

[Rod]

I had a thought this week:

I try to defend the Bible to many atheists and agnostics. As well as Muslims etc.

I'm always trying to understand how specific God is. Does God want us to have a word for word accuracy? Or just general meaning? Or somewhere in the middle?

I was chatting with some J.W.s last Saturday. And explaining to them how poorly translated their New World Translation is (they didn't believe me of course.)
But the larger issue is: How properly translated is OUR Bible? Most would agree that its never been 100% accurate.

So what is God up to?
I think God can use anything. Within reason of course - The New World Translation is beyond reason I think.
Same goes for the Mormon translation.

It'll be great to get to Heaven and read the original.

[Margaret]

When you translate anything from one language to another it isn't going to be 100%. If you take something in . . . German and translate it word for word it doesn't make any sense at all. It sounds like someone has drunk too much. You have to . . . look at what they mean and then write it accordingly. That's why they have teams of translators, scholars, and theologians that work on Bible translations. When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls they were nearly identical to the Bible we have today - even though the oldest were 1000 years older than any Biblical material available.

I think you need to make a wise choice about the translation (the new NIV being a case in point) but the Bible is trustworthy.

[Patricia]

Robert wrote: "My church used the NIV for years. We had our pews stocked with them and the pastor always taught out of the same version so folks could follow along word-for-word. We'd also give them out to people..."My first Bible was the American Standard which my sister suggested as being a good Bible and I loved it. Now you can't find it. It went to the New American Standard. Now I read NIV. If I want to check a quote from the American Standard I have to go to Bible Gateway. Why do they feel the need to keep re-translating the Bible? I understood re-translating the King James Version because it used antique language that confuses us now--though it's still the best in some cases. But there is no reason to change the NIV for example. We can understand it. And gender neutral is just silly.

[Margaret]

The New American Standard is widely held as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible available. I love it.

As for why they change translations? Sometimes it's because they can make them better, more accurate, or updating the language to make it more understandable (like with the New King James) or by making it more politically correct (like with the new NIV), or sometimes to be some new thing - like The Message.

[Patricia]

Margaret wrote: "The New American Standard is widely held as one of the most accurate translations of the Bible available. I love it.

As for why they change translations? Sometimes it's because they can make them..."I don't know about the Message. It seems like it should be strictly backup--too simplified. You can dilute the meaning when you put some things in totally modern language.

[Rod]

I enjoy flipping through numerous translations. It sure opens your mind to the possibilities that the original might of said and meant.

The N.I.V. does have some weird choices on occasion. But still useful. Some translations definitely PUSH the verses in a very specific direction. This is not always good. I used to love the Good News Bible - but found some strange wordings that greatly distract from the truth about some issues. But the King James did this on occasion too! Now I enjoy the E.S.V.. But I still compare it to others on occasion.

But I think they are all good. There's enough Of God's holiness in almost all of them to offer Salvation.

[R.J.]

The Good News Bible was translated with simplicity and global distribution in mind. The translators wanted a Bible for readers who spoke English as a second language and for translators who could easily translate it into other languages. There are tens of thousands of different words in the vocabulary of the other translations, which makes it hard for a reader who is not fluent with English. The Good News Bible brought the vocabulary down to only a few thousands.

I have another Bible translation, the Living Bible (paraphrased) that was written originally as a translation for young readers. It's funny to read how the "police" arrested Jesus in the garden, but the translator had good intentions when he set out to provide a Bible that children could understand.

My neighbor has a wonderful book I borrowed years ago about this subject. I'll have to ask her what its title is and get back to you if you're interested in a recommendation.

[Janette]

I was raised using strictly the King James Bible. I still use it today. It is my main Bible. Most of the people in my church use NIV (not the new translation). However, there are alot of people who use alot of different translations too. Our previous pastor used to quote most scripture from the King James (which I liked) but he retired & our new pastor uses NIV & sometimes The Message (which I also like).
I really like group Bible study,& Wednesday and Sunday night services because it is less formal & everyone can freely comment on scripture as they have read it from their version. I learn alot this way.
My strict fundamental background made no room for other translations & I think it made the scripture much less for each individual & limited spiritual growth.
I think:
All scripture in given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17

I agree with Rod: "They are all good. There's enough of God's holiness in almost all of them to offer Salvation."

[R.J.]

I got the name of that book from my neighbor. It is

The modern translations are featured at the very end of the book, but the rest of it was fascinating, too.

[Rod]

Wow Janette, I don't know many people who stick to the King James Version. I'm still trying to understand their use of the Unicorn word for farm animals. Dated but fascinating.

Its amazing how much the King James version accomplished throughout history. It changed the world. And some of its translations are still the best there has been.
William Tyndale is my hero. He's the guy who got the King James Version started. Then they killed him.

One of my favourite quotes by William Tyndale:
"If God spares my life for a few years, I'll see to it that a boy pushing the plough knows more of the Bible than you do." (He was speaking to the clergy of his time).

[R.J.]

My church is planning a church-wide Bible study on "The Story". It is the Bible re-written from a chronological perspective. The problem I have with it is: which story are you making it? There are so many doctrinal interpretations of what exactly happened in Eden, what exactly God's covenant with Moses entailed, and what exactly Jesus did to fix it all. Which one does "the Story" tell?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's the story of atoms. (I use this one a lot, so if you've heard it already I appologize). Back in about 500 BC, Aristotle wrote a bunch of books on "physics" in which he pretty much cemented the theory that all matter was made up of "elements" of either earth, wind, fire, or water. For more than 2000 years this idea perpetuated. The great minds of the renaissance agreed to this theory. Much of the scientific revolutions made before 1900 were based on that presumption. Life got on just fine all over the world with that flawed idea of what made up our world.

In the late 1800s, a chemist used the word "atom" to describe a unit of measurement he had discovered when dealing with "elemental" components. In actuality, the word "atom" came from before Aristotle's time, but had been scorned for thousands of years because Aristotle's model was more popular. When the chemist was awarded his nobel prize for this discovery, he was chastized by one of the most famous scientists of that era, Humphrey Davies, in a speach that essentially stated: "Atoms do not exist."

The story I get from the Bible is kind of like the story of the atom. There was a truth, always calling out to mankind, but always ignored. We look at the old covenant and see man's flawed understanding of the relationship God wants to have with us. But so many Christians don't understand the original truth. They want to slip back into the primitive, human thinking that God is an angry, anthropomorphic being and sacrifices and blood and rituals are something necessary to restoring our relationship with Him.

One of the worst ways to read the Bible is with the assumption that every word is truth or law. There's a lot of men and women in there who just didn't get it. And interspersed between them are men and women who did. Read about the spirit of God who descended on Abram--no temple was needed there. Read about the spirit of the Lord who called out to Samuel in the dead of night; why did He wait until Samuel was asleep if all of Samuel's day was spent in the tabernacle? Could it be that God wants us to listen to Him more than He wants us to polish the sacred lamp-stands? Could it be that Abram was God's friend because he did not reject God's offer for friendship?

Atoms have always existed. They just were not made known to us (and accepted) until only recently. The same can be said of the relationship God wants to have with us. The way mankind relates to God throughout the Bible may change, but only because mankind couldn't get it right...over and over again. Christ's coming in the new testament, and the subsequent epistles, serve as a beacon to us to finally find our way to where God, and the truth, waits. But are we going to just slip back into our own version of the story--one that mimicks most of the other religions of this world that are built upon human understanding?

Another case in point are two comic-book Bibles available in my local Christian book store for young readers. One is called the Action Bible, and focusses on the historical stories of the Bible and gives a very good introduction to the historical aspect of the old and new testament. The other is called "Good and Evil" and focusses on the presupposed spiritual battle between good and evil. It deviates quite far into demonic doctrine before the story of Adam and Eve is even finished. Though I love the ministry of the people who have published Good and Evil, I choose to supply my students with the Action Bible because it does not deviate from scripture to tell its own version of the story.

Back to "The Story"...
Is anybody else planning to do "The Story" in their churches? I have an old chronological Bible titled "The Story" from the '80s but I'm not sure if it is the same book or a new version by the same title. Could anybody give me a breakdown of what this version's idea of "the story" is?

[Rod]

The STORY sounds inspiring but possibly dangerous.

Honestly i'm glad if people pay attention to the Bible's content at all.
My son and I enjoy the ACTION Bible. It does have a few small problems...but it's a good place for a kid to start.

The older I get the more I realize people need to read the Bible with a purpose. And everyone definitely has a different purpose or quest. I think God gave us a book that covers everything.

The Bible is so much more than just a story. The words speak directly to our heart and conscience.

[Johnnie]

Why not just follow the tried and true Historic/Redemptive (Covenantal) out line, sometimes called Biblical Theology? It is a staple for reformed churches and has been for many years. Early proponents were Jonathan Edwards and Geerhardus Vos. More recent is James Dennison and Michael Horton. I am personally not enthralled with this type of study but I do see the value. BTW the preaching style from this is called Christocentric and is the predominate style in the PCA and OPC.

But then again, it is reformed and Calvinist so often discounted and ignored as not relevant. Besides, we don't have any really cool graphics, or picture books, or charts or power points. Just the Bible and Christ.

[Rod]

The more researching I do Johnnie the more I realize there are many drastic separations based on Biblical theology.
I'm surprised Christians agree on anything, even the covenants, Jesus' nature, salvation, creation, eschatology, God himself (or herself?)etc...

If it wasn't for the reformation theologians we'd be in even more serious trouble. But that only paused the issues for a few years. Liberal theology has corrupted just about everything.

All we have left to do is read the Bible as literally as possible...whenever possible.

[Johnnie]

Are you retreating to paleo-theology? yet, there are many excellent and contemporary and agreeable theologies within the reformed faith. We generally agree on covenant theology at least regarding Biblical revelation, the Nature of Christ is never questioned, salvation is set under the Canons of Dordt and Five Points, creation is limited to the Genesis account (some discretion is allowed for the six views but all confess six days) but the Creator/creature distinction cannot be questioned or doubted, there is a difference in eschatology (postmil vs amil) and we (PCA/OPC/RPNA/URC/RCUS all condemned the NIV gender acceptance and paid for the ESV Translation and continue to fund the further printing.
I do understand the divisions within the Biblical Theology discussion but I know of no Biblical Calvinist who denies the science of Historic Redemption or of any Presbyterian who has denied covenant theology (hence our position on paedobaptism). As Presbyterians we certainly have suffered the most in divisions and heresies but we also have traditionally also been the strongest voice against Biblical heresy and apostasy, after all we are the ones who still have trials (and will have a major one next year).

As a postmillinian I do not share your pessimism and defeatest attitude. I see the church stronger now than ever and the Knowledge and fear of God increasing in strength and faith by the Holy Spirit. The USA may be suffering some from immoral propensities but these dark times are often followed by Revival and greater personal devotion.

Maybe this is not the group for me. I think I shall retire. May God Bless. Eph 1:3

[Janette]

Robert, Our church has offered The Story to members for personal study or small group study (I am not sure if anyone decided to do small group). I do have a copy of The Story. However, I have not picked it up to read it yet. The thought of a bible in Chronological order does appeal to me. Many times in Bible study I have thought where/when in history was this written & what exactly are they referring to?

In a small group study I attend, one of the ladies is very into the history & timing in the Bible and she has provided alot of very insightful information about some why some scripture is worded in a certain way or what was happening in history during this particular passage.

So I do think it could have value. I also think we have to be very careful in how we use something like this.

I would be interested to hear from people who have read this or studied it.

[Rod]

I enjoy timelines. That's always a good tool.

Wow, you're a postmillenialist Johnnie? Amusing. :D
As pessimistic as I am about the human race...I sure don't think we are without hope or backin' down from the win! But this world sure ain't getting any better soon. The only thing I see growing is unemployment and Islam.

[R.J.]

When I went off on a tangent about the theory of atoms, what I was getting at was that there is no sect of people who are still saying "Yes, atoms do exist," then try to make atomic theory fit back into their ideas of earth, wind, fire, etc. However, inside of Christianity, I still see this behavior quite regularly.

Inside the Bible and through history we have record over and over again of individuals documenting their personal, close-encounter relationship with God, but within a generation or two their culture has reverted right back to the same old primitive understanding. Jesus came to set us on the right path, but so many denominations try to take what he did and cram it right back into their OT mold of what religion "should be".

For instance: the idea of the resurrection. You must realize that the idea of an afterlife was not native to the Jewish culture. It was most likely a doctrinal blend of the Greek idea of Hades and the egyptian idea of Abydos. Does that mean that when Jesus uses the word "Hades" he is validating the Greek's understanding of mythology?

Jesus was not the first diety to be raised from the dead (although his body was in quite better shape than Osiris' mummified form). That being said, who can truthfully argue that those who came to Jesus asking how to gain eternal life weren't looking for him to agree with their Greco-Egyptian ideas of an afterlife? Did you ever notice that Jesus always seemed to answer those questions with riddles or indirect explanations? Maybe he thought they were as stupid a question as asking "what does the green cheese on the moon taste like?" in modern times.

What I'm getting at is that it does not matter how smart your doctrine sounds or how big a word is used to name it. It's just your doctrine. What we all need to want to discover is the truth. It can't be created by even an unanimous vote by a council of holy men any more than Ptolomy could control the orbit of the moon.

[R.J.]

Janette wrote: "Robert, Our church has offered The Story to members for personal study or small group study (I am not sure if anyone decided to do small group). I do have a copy of The Story. However, I have not..."

Now to offer a positive word...

My church has discovered "What's in the Bible", which is a children's puppet curriculum created by Phil Vischer (of VeggieTales fame). We started teaching it in pre-school, but when I sat in on one of the sessions I immediately reguested it be taught in middle-school. You'd think middle school boys would run from a movie about puppets, but it's real meat they are teaching and they make it fun and funny. They even offer an entire curriculum package for churches who want to use the videos as teaching tools.

[Rod]

I think everyone enjoys a good puppet-show.

[R.J.]

When we first saw the DVDs, we thought "nobody does puppet shows anymore". We were lucky enough that a Summer intern thought she'd show it to the pre-school class.

Rod said "I think everyone enjoys a good puppet-show.

Most people enjoy puppet shows, but there is an exception. I have a friend who is hard of hearing and reads lips to understand. Puppets don't have lips. We were teaching pre-school together and it annoyed her that I kept laughing at the jokes that she could not understand. The DVD does have subtitles, but she did not want to confuse the pre-schoolers, so she transfered to another class.