Can Christians see the bible as flawed due to its nature: a HUMAN recording?

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

First off, the bible is the inspired word of God, we should not add or subtract words that we find inconvenient.

But every time a book of the Bible got translated into a new language, words were added and subtracted en masse.
Now, if you're referring to PC, I agree...

Secondly, there are no serious contradictions in scripture, just difficulties that can be explained.

If you read "The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Barbara Thiering, you'll see some interesting "difficulties" explained. For example, she explains numerous geographical and distance oddities in the NT. She shows how mundane information, like "Jesus and the gang walked 5 miles" is in conflict with actual (as opposed to biblical) geography around Galilee; and that the only way to resolve these conflicts is to accept that Jesus was an Essene of sorts and the northern end of the Dead Sea was his/their hangout.

[Berzerker]

Firelad -

Berzerker, the text I have in front of me is proof to the immense loss of translation. The Bible ain't Harry Potter, you know.

Again, what is the book? And what english translation do you consider the best?

[Heresson]

Re: Can Christians see the bible as flawed due to its nature: a HUMAN recording?

Originally posted by Zylka
Not necessarily flawed to the point of it being irrelevant and inferior to verbal legend... but can Christians logically admit to inconsistencies, since the bible is not God's direct voice? How did the idea come about, for instance - that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. were credible in perfection of description of the events?

I always hear that the bible is "God's word" - but as it was described and physically created through human medium, can imperfections not be expected?

I believe they do, because it we have a doctrine of inspiration. Islam has much bigger problem with that, again

[Az]

I would caution you just because the bible isn't infallibale doesn't mean you can just decide God's teachings to be anything you want them to be.

Why not?

[Ben Kenobi]

And yet you rely on the faulty NIV?

So does my pastor! I have the same copy that he uses.

[Berzerker]

diplomat -

Gen 1:1 God creates the universe, galaxies, stars, Sun and everything.

God creates the Heaven and the Earth, not the universe. If you look at the following text describing God's creation, you'll see "Heaven" is a "firmament" (some kind of barrier or demarcation line) used by God to separate the pre-existing waters.

Gen 1:2 describes the primordial Earth.

Covered with water. Isn't it curious that virtually every creation "myth" from around the world claims the Earth was once covered with water and that something happened to bring forth the land?

Gen 1:3-5 The primordial atmosphere thins so that some light can get through, but light is very scattered and hazy. Earth now has daylight.

The "Light" in Gen 1:3 is the light of creation, the "act" that began the process of (planet) Earth's evolution. Why does Earth have daylight and night? Because it spins within fairly close proximity to a star. So this "Light" of creation produced this spin, if not the close proximity to a star as well.

Gen 1:6-8 atmospheric water separates. Vapor water layer and ozone above the atmosphere and liquid water below. Earth now has atmosphere with protective layer above and water below which are both critical for life.

There's a big problem with that. Remember, Heaven - the firmament - was used by God to separate the waters above from the waters below. If Heaven is the universe as you suggest, there can be no waters above. "Heaven" must be relatively close by.

Gen 1:9 weight of the oceans and tectonic activity pushes land upwards to form Pangea continent. Earth now has dry land.

The land appeared when God gathered together the waters below the firmament. Now, if Earth was once covered with water, which is perfectly reasonable given that plate tectonics is the scientific explanation for the creation of the continents, then the Bible is in accordance with science. But why? Rather strange these peoples knew what took centuries to discover.

Gen 1:14-19 Vegetation ( through photosynthesis) produces viable atmosphere now fully transparent so that stars, Sun and Moon are visible. Advanced life now possible.

Actually, the atmosphere clouds our view of the sky, not enhances it. The view from the Moon is much more clear, so it wasn't the atmosphere that allowed for celestial viewing. However, we wouldn't see the night sky as it is without the Earth or it's rotation. There may be a clue in that Genesis, I believe, refers to the stars, etc., being "made" to serve as signs for the seasons. Were they merely "appointed" to serve as signs by virtue of Earth's orbital characteristics? If the ancient Egyptians could "appoint" Sirius to serve as the harbinger of spring, or whatever, then maybe a similar "metaphor" was used in the Bible.

Gen 1:20-23 God creates aquatic life and flying animals.

Gen 1:24-25 God creates land animals.

And now we get to another interesting feature of Genesis. Notice how "Earth" is always used to reference only the "land"? When God names the land that had appeared once the waters were gathered together into "Seas", he calls it "Earth". The land is "Earth", not this planet. Nowhere in the Bible (OT of course) does it say God created the waters above the Heaven or the waters below, only that God formed the Seas by setting up "borders" to keep it restrained. God neither created the universe or this planet, and that comes straight from Genesis! But that's what all those other creation myths say too, God observed the primordial Earth covered with water and began producing the land.

[Alexander's Horse]

Just to confuse you all further I thought I'd throw in this link to other gospels:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/othergospels.htm

The bible as we know it today, and there are many different versions even of what we call the bible, is not the be all and end all of Christian belief, teaching or ancient writings in the broad judeo-christian tradition. Some of the gospels and other writings referred to are very interesting.

The "Q" document is one of the most interesting. It is lost but thought to be the common source of the 4 gospels included in the Christan bible.