The Bible is reliable

On TranslationsPro asks: Can you prove the Bible was not translated correctly? Proof in this case is providing two documents that claim the same origin for comparison. First, I've explained how the Bible has been mistranslated many times over as verified by etymologists, historians, biblical scholars and archeologists. But more importantly, I've explained how even without potential LITERAL mistranslations, that CULTURAL mistranslations have necessarily occurred. The stories, lessons, images and messages from the Bible can be easily misconstrued based on the cultural interpretation of the text. The message changes based on the reader and teacher, which is not very reliable. Pro says: You are wrong again, there is lots of proof, the works of the Church Fathers are available today in its entirety and therefore we can compare the texts. Comparing the tests doesn't prove that their interpretation is 100% correct and verifiable, obviously. This is fallacious as it uses circular reasoning and the two sources in question to prove and validate the claims itself. Pro says: You do realize that the English language also contains metaphors, figurative language, euphemisms etc right? Is it possible to interpret and translate the English language correctly? One - two people can look at the exact same thing, see it differently, and both be correct [1]. Two, people study the Bible like they study other forms of literature, meaning it must be filtered through lens of different perspectives. Nevermind the fact that reality is subjective in and of itself. "Students are told that this literature contains brilliant and timeless insights into human nature. Conflict may arise, however, when the attitudes of a particular time are reflected in a text. Critical analysis encourages students to look beyond this conflict by examining the relationship between the text and a reader's interpretation" [2]. Even the most devoutly religious people accept that the Bible is complex. One minister wrote, "But there it is. God's Word! One of the most complex and difficult books in the world. People of great intelligence and integrity spend a lifetime trying to understand and interpret it... The Lord's ambiguity, then, our difficulty in bringing Him into focus, the difficulty of the Bible, is not only the Lord's mercy, it's also His fairness and genius!" [3]. Not everybody can understand the Bible even if they want to and try.Even honest and sincere Christians can legitimately find the Bible UNreliable by their own admission. "On the essentials, the Bible is abundantly clear. There is nothing ambiguous about the deity of Christ, the reality of heaven and hell, and salvation by grace through faith. On some issues of less importance, however, the teaching of Scripture is less clear, and this naturally leads to different interpretations. For example, we have no direct biblical command governing the frequency of communion or the style of music to use" [4].The source continues, "The important thing is to be dogmatic where Scripture is and to avoid being dogmatic where Scripture is not." Yet that obviously leaves much to one's individual and wholly subjective interpretation, i.e., is not reliable. << I'd like to reiterate that I won't waste time, character space, or the audience's time debating Evolution which is accepted as scientific fact by virtually every single honest, credible and accredited scientist on the planet -- indeed if Pro had legitimate evidence negating Evolution, he would get off DDO and go claim his Nobel Price... but he does not >>More On Biblical Misunderstandings Biblical passages can be interpreted literally, historically or using Midrash - that is under the supposition that whether Biblical events happened or not was not important. The stories showed how God continued to work through various heroes and prophets, and how subsequent water separation events were linked to the first event at the Red/Reed sea [5]. Now if you interpret the Bible as a historical document for example, John's conceptions might have happened when his parents were older than normal. The author of Luke may have exaggerated the age of John's parents to make the conception appear miraculous, etc. [5] which again just reiterates that EVEN IF the actual translations were 100% on point, we still don't know how to theoretically apply the text. Were they totally literal? Were some myths included to explain lessons and not be literal or totally accurate? These are questions Pro skirts around but does not answer. Pro's PointsPro writes completely unintelligible points such as this: 1. The Bible says there is a nation called Israel. That is obviously a literal reference and intended to be interpreted literally. Is this false because it is literally interpreted as you claim? Obviously not. Say what? This doesn't make sense. Sure, it can be literally true there is a nation called Israel. Does that prove that the Bible is reliable or meant to be interpreted literally? Absolutely not. Pro writes, 2. The New Testament was not translated from Greek, it WAS written in Greek. That doesn't change that many translations have occurred and that there is no completely literal or objective way to translate metaphors, etc. He then writes, "3. Do you really think a supernatural being with powers beyond human capabilities would need a man made sword? 4. The rest of the examples is about how woman and slaves were treated and said to be treated... This is going on today, it is not a MYTH." Again these are not coherent points or legitimate arguments in his favor, so I won't waste time responding to each individual claim. There are no legitimate points at all listed at 1-10 in the last round. Conclusions The Bible itself does not claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters. 2 Timothy 3:16 reads "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Ergo the Bible ITSELF says it is open to interpretation and therefore NOT reliable in terms of perfect accuracy or totally withstanding human error and misapplication. The Bible contains many morally questionable claims (to say the least) as well as factual inaccuracies. It was written by fallible men even if it was divinely inspired. Furthermore, divine inspiration does not indiciate how the Bible must be read (literally or otherwise). There is no physical, tangible, reliable evidence to verify any of the supernatural claims in the Bible that my opponent accepts on faith and the *alleged* word of witnesses. Some witnesses. After all the Bible was largely inspired by oral tradition, which is incredibly problematic and notorious for passing on misinformation or changing stories and important details. As was pointed out earlier, "The Bible is a collection of manuscripts compiled by humans, not God. There is no single, agreed-upon, authoritative Bible; rather, different sects of Christianity consider a wide variety of books to be Biblical canon. Thus, we (and I) err when we speak of 'the' Bible, singular. In reality, we are talking about various compilations assembled and debated by ordinary people." For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand. It contains both mistakes and intentional changes; there are multiple manuscript versions.By not having an objective meaning or direct instruction, application, message or version of history, the "intended message" can easily be lost, mistranslated or manipulated. Indeed a reader can subjectively interpret or apply the message however they see fit, regardless of whether or not it is valid. This can totally skew their alleged understanding of the text. That is not reliable; that leaves a lot of room for error. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...