In need of some religious expertise....

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. I was thought that the word of the bible was absolute, delivered by god through the holy ghost, who "possessed", in lack of a better term, all the various writers of the bible, thus making it god's own words. Also, the holy ghost has protected every single translation of it, so every translation of the bible is just as correct. But the normal view is that the bible was written by men, isn't it?

I don't think anyone would argue that the holy spirit possessed every translation, but many people do believe that for the original versions, or at least that enough was inspired to give us what we need. Historically, pretty much everyone believed the scripture was inspired, at least for use in spiritual matters if not scientific or historical ones. Nowadays, this view is only really found amongst the more conservative Protestants, I suppose as a consequence of the whole 'Sola Scriptura' idea.

Alas, I am somewhat torn on this issue of late. From my reading of the Bible, I've always thought it to be divinely inspired (even if my translation, which is a KJV, doesn't always get it 100% right), but this is really only from my personal conviction and not a lot else. And so I've been looking into the issue a bit of late, and a fresh perspective entered my head the other day... what if the respect we Protestants give to the Bible is a form of idolatry? The thought really smacked me in the face when I was mulling over the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin's main work. What really got me was when I recalled how Calvin argued that God and the word play a duel role in people's salvation, with the scripture being a sort of anchor to give all people a common root in their understanding of God, and which they can use to better understand their relationship with him. The problem with this is that it reduces the role of God so that He is not the sole author in bringing about our salvation, although at the same time of course Calvin would believe that God is sovereign in choosing who is saved. To bring me further confusion of the matter, John 1:1 has the whole "in the beggining was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" verse... which while I'm well aware does not actually clarify what books ought to be seen as the 'word' (apocrypha etc), it does suggest the scripture shares some sort of common essence with or in God while being distinct, kind of like with the elements of the Trinity. While I have always held the scripture in high regard, I'm aware that many do the same with their idols, even if they are something as simple as a cross, and so I must always be aware of the risk of idolatry distracting me from direct communication with God. Gah! When I see people sitting in from of images of Jesus, or even just praying near a cross, it makes we want to jump in front of them and smash them in front of their faces, and tell them that God is living still! Now, I can perhaps see the hypocrisy in this... when praying in the past, I would usually have the Bible in front of me or resting on my chest if I was in bed... if this made me feel closer to God then it was very immature of me. I feel Calvin must have been like me when it came to reverence for the scripture. He was such a logical and methodical guy, in terms of volume and originality his work is unparalleled... but I am also aware that in the 'Institutes', he never gives a sufficient answer as to why he holds the scripture in such high regard, it is the one weakness I can see in an otherwise brilliant work. Although in fairness he was also aware of this himself, he often says that there is not sufficient evidence to back up his views in this respect, and while he does go some way to proving his point, he still leaves some purely to his own convictions.

And if I may give some anecdotal evidence, so you know where I'm coming from if nothing else, I was praying for a bit of guidance on the issue a couple of days ago, and asked if God would give me a bit of a hint as to what I ought to believe. And that night I happened to be going over Ephesians again, and just a couple of verses in, I was sure I saw a mispelling, and I thought that maybe was a hint I was looking for. And so I was thinking over it for a few minutes, and making sure it was indeed a mispelling, I concluded that God had given me a hint and that I should seriously think about my views. But then, when I realigned me eyes to the book to continue reading, I reread the verse to pick up at the next one, and I noticed that the word had in fact been spelled correctly all along. There it was plain as day, I had been sure I had all the proof in front of me, I checked and checked, and yet I was wrong all along, the scripture had it right. Doubly interestingly, the rest of the chapter went on to some up all my Calvinistic beliefs, it was all about predestination etc. Which made me think... maybe the scripture exists to give us a basis for our doctrines, while at the same time not necessarily being divinely inspired or beyond error when it comes to historical events etc. Generally speaking, the canon of most churches are (considering the vast number of books in circulation amongst the early Christians) are very similar, and plus points go to us Proddies for our OT alinging almost exactly with the Jewish 'Tanakh'.

In the Reformation we took away idols from the church, we ended the select priesthood, we strived to worship in a more acceptable manner centred purely on God, maybe there is one last bastion of idolatry remaining in the church today?

No one is seriously going to dispute that translations are inperfect if they have actually studied the Bible. I think Rhy would happily agree with me on this point, at least.

I would indeed. I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that all or, for most people, any translations are divinely inspired. Not even the US Evangelicals would believe that, there was quite a bit of controversy over the 'King James Only' movement, where some people claimed that the KJV was divinely inspired just as the original translations. However, the movement was shunned by most people and is seen almost as heretical by some, it gets lumped into that borderline orthodox area alongside ideas such as annihilationism and soul sleeping.

This, I have not seen in a while. It comes, I believe, from the same determinist school of thought that says the Bibile must be infallable, just because. Basically, this is the idea behind the "Gospel of Judas" recently translated and published. The first known reference in the Letters of the Church Fathers is about 120 AD when it is denounced as heresy.

Judas willingly transgressed against Jesus, and acted sinfully in betraying him. Jesus does indeed tell his disciples that he chose them, and that the prophecy regarding his being betrayed must be fulfilled, but at the same time it is clear from several parts of the NT that Judas was not doing Jesus a favour (otherwise it couldn't properly be called a betrayal), but in fact willfully sinned agaist him, as Jesus knew he would.

It all hinges on predestination and free will.
Either Judas could've chosen to betray or not betray Jesus. Which makes his choice to betray a sacrifice. Or else mankind would not have been saved. (And thus, this is an anti-argument, neither would Judas have been. Poor bugger. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. One way or another he was going to burn)
Or Judas was destined to be a betrayer. And burns not for his sacricife but for his sin.

In Reformed theology at least, the idea of Judas sacrificing Jesus is completely incompatible with other core beliefs. A crucial part of the whole argument for predestination rests on Jesus being the ultimate high priest as was prophecied, in that Christ offers the payment to God as part of a substitutionary atonement, which only he is able to do due to his role as a 'mediator' for humanity. Also, Christ is himself the 'lamb without blemish', the thing sacrificed itself. And finally, as the high priest, Christ is also seen as having the role of applying the things obtained by the sacrifice, namely forgiveness to those for whom it has been purchased. To be the high priest, Christ must be mediator, oblation, and intercessor. If you attribute any of these characteristics to another person, he could not have fulfiled the prophecies, or have been a truly perfect sacrifice before God.