Replies

Not at all -- but take it for what it is: a book of inspirations, some of them contradictory, written by human beings to tell a story and promote certain ideas.

So, when the Apostle Peter refers to St. Paul's epistles as divinely inspired Scripture, we should not take that literally? When Paul said "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for all good works", we should ignore him because he didn't mean it? When Jesus said, "It is written..." in answer to every challenge tossed at him by Satan, we shouldn't follow his lead? Because, if, as you say, it is merely man's clumsy work, then you'd have to call it a lie and toss it all out. There is no middle ground.

You are perfectly free to take what the Bible says only as it applies to you and as you are most likely to recognize and understand it and not as THE Word of God that guides our paths. I, on the other hand, KNOW what I believe and why I believe it because GOD said it. The Bible is far more than simply a "book of inspirations". I see it as an "owner's manual" for how we work best and to our fullest potential and how we can relate to our Creator. It tells us how to be saved for eternity. I'd warn you to ignore it at your own risk.

Chances are that you may be missing THE component that will open your eyes to the treasure we have in this amazing book - it's called the Holy Spirit. The natural man doesn't receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. It sounds like foolishness to him. Maybe that is why you don't recognize how remarkable the Bible is.

So, when the Apostle Peter refers to St. Paul's epistles as divinely inspired Scripture, we should not take that literally?

First of all, Paul didn't actually write several of the Epistles attributed to him -- which is why he sometimes appears to say one thing in one place and something very different in another. One of those things may have come from Paul, the other from someone writing in his name, but who was not Paul.

This is common in the Bible, BTW. Many of the books, including the four Gospels are almost certainly pseudonymous.

It may be inspired. That does not mean it's to be taken literally in every jot and tittle. There is much wisdom but it is not literally "dictated by God" or anything of that ilk.

I believe it because GOD said it.

There is the problem. You believe it because God said it. How do you know that? Well, the Bible says so. And how do you know we can believe the Bible? Well, God said so. Your position is circular. You believe it's so because you believe it's so. But if you're asked to show it to someone reasonably, you can't do it. Your case is weak.

Furthermore, a reading of the books of the Bible shows contradiction after contradiction. This undermines your view that it's God's infallible word (because He said so, after all -- it's right there in the Bible!) so you simply ignore or deny that the contradictions that are in the text even exist.

I see it as an "owner's manual" for how we work best and to our fullest potential and how we can relate to our Creator.

Yes, and that is also what the Scriptures of all religions are, if you examine them. What makes the Bible any more valid, true, or inspired on this or any other issue it addresses than the Adi Granth, the Tao, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other "holy book"? Don't they all contain wisdom on how we work best and to our fullest potential and how we can relate to our Creator? Isn't that what religion is about, whatever its expression?

It tells us how to be saved for eternity.

From what and to what? Why would the image and likeness of God need saving?

http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible

Besides the fact that the original Bible and modern Bibles are in different languages, one of the major problems is that the original manuscripts don’t exist anymore. So we can’t compare modern Bible versions directly to the originals. Furthermore, the manuscripts which we do have are not exactly what was originally written. To explain, the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament go back to 250 BCE. Yet, the Old Testament was being written over a period of time long before that, from 1400-400 BCE. That’s a long time, especially for the earliest books – nearly 1200 years between original and copy!
Why don’t we have the original copies which were penned by the Bible writers? A number of factors caused the disappearance or destruction of ancient manuscripts. They were normally written on papyri (ancient paper-like material) or animal skins. Over time, these materials would decay and no longer be readable. Simply being used for many years could also ruin the manuscripts. In many areas of the world, humidity destroyed them. The only reason we have some manuscripts from as far back as 250 BCE is that they were found in desert areas with very low humidity. In times of war manuscripts were sometimes destroyed as part of the pillaging. The Bible is not unique in this aspect – the earliest copies of other ancient writings are missing for similar reasons.
What is left are copies of the original Bible manuscripts, and these do not all match each other perfectly. This fact has led many people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible’s transmission. However, we shouldn’t be too hasty and conclude that an accurate biblical text is a lost cause. Let’s first look at exactly how Jewish and Christian scribes over the centuries did their job and what the scholars who study this area have learned about the surviving Bible manuscripts.
Copying the Bible
First, we need to learn a little about the copying process for the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, a language which originally did not use written vowels. Ancient Jews were able to read this vowel-less text because they knew the language intimately, especially the traditional reading. To preserve this traditional reading, a group called the Masoretes added vowels and punctuation between 500 C.E. and 1000 C.E. That means they added vowels from 1000 - 3000 years after the books were written. This version of the Hebrew Old Testament was known as the Masoretic Text.
The care with which these Jews edited the text has been described by F.F. Bruce, a well-respected biblical scholar:
[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these.1
In 1948, some Old Testament manuscripts (along with some non-biblical writings) were found in caves near the Dead Sea which dated as early as 250 B.C.E., about a thousand years before the Masoretic text. These are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead of being anywhere from 1000-3000 years from the original, these are as close as a few hundred. In the case of one of these scrolls – a copy of the book of Isaiah – the only difference between its text and the Masoretic text, was three words, and these only differed in spelling! Though over 1000 years separate these two texts, there are only three spelling changes! This shows the care with which the Masoretes and other scribes had worked.2
The New Testament was copied more quickly, and thus less carefully, than the Old. It is likely that this happened in order to immediately spread the good news about Jesus. F.F. Bruce wrote, “The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this.”3To those of us who have become accustomed to hearing today’s news about the world, 50 years between event and record may seem like a lot. However, this seems like a moment in time compared to other ancient literature.
In philosophy and history classes, for instance, students read the works of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient writers, assuming that the authors wrote exactly what they study. Unfortunately, much time passed between the original writing and the earliest surviving manuscripts. So we cannot know how much the text was altered in the in-between time.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/originalbooks.htm

We do not have the originals of any of the books in the Bible. Before the invention of the printing press, books (originally scrolls) were copied by hand. Many copies were made of the biblical books for use in the early churches. What we have today are actually copies of copies. As far as what happened to the actual originals, we don’t know but they probably deteriorated from use. The Greek manuscripts which we do possess today are kept in various museums and institutions, mostly located in Europe but there are a few in the United States. Scholars now must compare the various Greek manuscripts we have to try and determine what the original said. This process is known as textual criticism. The standard Greek texts of the New Testament are the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bibles Societies’ 4th edition. They both contain footnotes throughtout the text indicating where there are major differences between Greek manuscripts.

Here is one example of a verse that just doesn’t belong:

http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/does-mark-16-belong-in-the-bible/

“Here’s the issue as I see it. There’s some good circumstantial evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the Gospel of Mark. The same can be said of John 7:53-8:11 (which some scholars say should really be at the end of Luke 21). But that’s not the same as saying these passages don’t belong in the Bible.

The main arguments against Mark 16:9-20 are related to vocabulary and writing style. While some of the theological content is different from the rest of Mark’s gospel, it isn’t incompatible with either orthodox beliefs or the other Gospels. Mark 16:9-20 first appeared early in the 2nd Century and seems for the most part to be a compilation of verses from Matt. 28, Luke 24 and John 20. The intent was to give Mark a proper ending since without these verses it appears unfinished.”

This is but one of many such cases.