|
|
Post by medowbrookgoer39 on Nov 3, 2006 1:49:18 GMT -5
I don't question the goodness of the bible so much. I question the notion that it is 100% God breathed. God breathed would imply God's direct writing of it, even if through man. I find that the bible is a great tool for living ones life, but to say that something which was written by man, and then put together by man was 100% written by God is not something I wish to base my faith on. I believe that man had the ability to interpret what God was saying to them.
It's more the interpretation of God's interpretation that gets me most of the time, not really so much just the translations. People who take small quotes out of context to prove a point that is irrelevant to the topic its discussing in the bible. I'm sure I've been guilty of that too at one time or another, but I really try not to do it now realizing that each sentence by itself doesn't mean anything unless compared to the ones following or preceding it.
There's no question to me that what we have in the bible is truly good insight as to how we should live our lives. However, I feel that words in the bible directly from God or Jesus are much more important than anything else. The disciples were close with Jesus, but to say that they didn't have the ability to interpret what Jesus taught them at all is foolish. Just living on Jesus' teachings alone is enough I think. If everyone were to follow even the beatitudes for their entire lives, we wouldn't need the rest of the stuff which has caused the legalism throughout the ages and division amongst believers.
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Suppose Christians used only what God or Jesus said as their bible, and used the rest as a commentary including examples of good Christian living. Wouldn't that make more sense? I think it would do alot to bring Christians together for the true meaning of Christianity rather than the senseless bickering about different things disciples said that may or may not be completely what God intended.
Of course it wouldn't make much sense to throw away entire lives filled with insight either. But, if everything in our lives were lined up next to the teachings of Christ and asked if they were peaceful, pure in heart, charitable, or merciful, would we need much anything else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Nov 3, 2006 9:23:47 GMT -5
I still am hearing a lot of great thoughts, but you must systematically and logically piece them together to come to a real conclusion about the Bible. The number of copies is important for the simple reason that it: 1. Helps to date the original text… 2. Provides confidence in the system of publication of the texts in that period… If we only had one copy of the text from the time period in which it was originally written - that would leave a lot of room to say that the hand written copies of that time (the only way to reproduce literature at that point) created a lot of variations from the original text. Multiple copies show us that they were very dedicated to the process and were very careful to keep every copy accurate. The Essenes were not playing the "telephone game", where each copy deviated farther from the original text… Why is this important? I restate a previous statement... [Given all of the evidences of authenticity and the revelations found within the Scriptures themselves, this leads me to believe, as many others have found, that God inspired these writings himself.] We can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority of the Bible was written before Jesus Christ walked on this earth. This creates an interesting situation, since there are hundreds of revelations in the OT that did not come to pass until after the birth of Christ. Hearing this evidence is not nearly as powerful as discovering it for yourself. I would suggest looking up the 300+ messianic prophecies for yourself sometime and then match that with what can be proven as historical fact (even in secular documents outside of the Bible's own records). That is just a starting point, there are many more prophecies that have been fulfilled by this point in history. If our oldest copies of Scripture are dated before these prophecies had been fulfilled, then you cannot deny the supernatural revelation held within the Scriptures. Now you have only a couple of choices to make. Either the Biblical claims about itself, its authors, and its purpose are all lies or they are true... If you do not believe the Bible's claims about itself, then the explanation for the accuracy of its revelations would have to be very unbelievable. I guess it would go something like this... The original authors got very lucky (over 300 times at least). They made it all up and by golly it actually came true!or maybe like this... There was actually a different power at work in the lives of these authors, not God. This other power made up this whole God/Jesus/Spirit thing to fool the authors and future readers of the revelations, so that they would not ever know his existence, but rather worship something else, something fake.Now the last post brings up a new twist to this discussion, to which I would like to make a few observations... [There's no question to me that what we have in the bible is truly good insight as to how we should live our lives. However, I feel that words in the bible directly from God or Jesus are much more important than anything else.] I have just a few questions... 1. Why did Jesus commit himself to the study of the Scriptures and constantly quote passages if He did not believe the integrity and inspiration of the OT? 2. Why does Jesus talk about the inspiration of the OT writers, if God did not give it to them. (Ex. Matt. 22:43-45) 3. If Jesus was who he said he was and cared about starting the early church on the right foot - why did he NEVER warn them about the dangers of trusting the inspiration of the OT? 4. Why did Jesus charge the disciples (not the twelve - all of the followers btw) to carry on His work and "teach the world everything He had taught them" (Matt. 28:19-20) before His ascension to heaven? Don't you think He knew that they would have that same inspiration? I do not believe a person can deny the supernatural found in the revelations of the OT except out of ignorance. (Which is why our job is just to share the message - that is enough, the Scripture is powerful by itself.) I also believe that you cannot believe in the OT or in Jesus Christ and not have total confidence in His immortalized teachings found in the entire NT. I will end this dialogue this morning with a quote from the lips of Jesus Christ himself... "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."Matt. 5:17-19 |
|
|
|
Post by Princess180 on Nov 3, 2006 10:14:54 GMT -5
One quick comment. If you (you is being used generally, it is not directed at anyone) believe in the God of the OT wouldn't you think that He is powerful enough to make sure that what is put in the canon is what He wants in the canon, and that those books will be transcribed correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by medowbrookgoer39 on Nov 3, 2006 11:29:20 GMT -5
[1. Why did Jesus commit himself to the study of the Scriptures and constantly quote passages if He did not believe the integrity and inspiration of the OT?]
-I believe that because he used scripture from the old testament that he was in fact ok with the old testament being used as scripture, and therefore it must be looked at (especially the prophets) with much consideration. It's more the claim that most christians make about 100% God breathed, meaning being written by God completely.
Questions 2+3 were basically answered with the first.
[4. Why did Jesus charge the disciples (not the twelve - all of the followers btw) to carry on His work and "teach the world everything He had taught them" (Matt. 28:19-20) before His ascension to heaven? Don't you think He knew that they would have that same inspiration?
I do not believe a person can deny the supernatural found in the revelations of the OT except out of ignorance. (Which is why our job is just to share the message - that is enough, the Scripture is powerful by itself.)]
-I think you're right, but he didn't say that what they taught would become scripture, he just said to teach what he taught them. I think the biggest issue I have is with certain sections of the new testament that merely show disciples living out their interpretations of what Jesus showed them. They don't claim that God told them precisely what to say, they are just living their lives according to his teachings. Which is where my whole ideas of the bible not being 100% God breathed comes from.
I have the confidence that they are in fact his teachings, but not that God wrote the bible, and therefore man's interpretation is more likely to not be perfect as are the direct sayings of God.
Even still, it is important to take what the bible says very seriously, even the new testament, no matter what I feel about the lack of or non lack of evidence as far as proving God told the disciples precisely what to write down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Nov 3, 2006 12:27:00 GMT -5
I see where your concerns are now.
Your questions are based around whether the exact wording that the original authors used was dictated by God exactly as it was written. There are certainly those who fall on both sides of that issue. (You could have the same issue with preaching God's message to the people.) I personally see a difference in God's interaction between say, the giving of the 10 Commandments to Moses and the Psalms of David.
I have to believe that the inspiration of God was captured exactly as He wanted it to be or else He would stepped in.
As for the post-Christ writings - again remember that Jesus commanded those that were present to share His teachings to the whole world. They did their part and now we are doing our part to carry on and finish that task.
God's Word is the only way that happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Nov 3, 2006 14:03:52 GMT -5
And furthermore... If the exact wording was crucial, we would all have to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to experience the power of the Word of God. (Anyone that has taken a foreign language knows that you cannot do a word for word translation across different languages and preserve the meaning.) Maybe that is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding of Scripture. I guess this is further evidence that the apostle Paul did NOT use the King James version  |
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Nov 3, 2006 16:13:40 GMT -5
Well I've really been enjoying the latest twists in this conversation. I'm probably gonna ruin it all when I open my mouth again, but there's always the delete button if I mess it up too badly (just lemme know).
Just in response to the feel that I'm getting off meadowbrookgoer... It kinda seems like you're saying that the Bible is a pick-and-choose book. That you don't have to believe all of it. It's a very strange concept to me. I mean Jesus was alive for only 33 years. Those were the only times that God spoke directly, aside from the burning bush perhaps. So if people were to only take from Jesus words, they'd have to conclude that the early people of Israel were a bunch of loonies following an old guy through a desert for 40 years, even though they were going in circles. In Hebrews 1:1 (one of the most notorious books here, I know) it says "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways." The prophets were men, as were the patriarchs. Yet they led the nation of Israel successfully in tune with God. So we see that from the beginning God subjected himself to man's interpretation. I can't believe that with those 300+ prophecies coming true, that the interpretation was all that heavy. God is powerful, more than powerful enough to ensure that what he says gets across.
Sorry if this comes across as confusing.
|
|
Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Nov 3, 2006 16:49:29 GMT -5
Man, I need to sit down and reply properly this weekend but just a quick opinion on the 300 some prophesies. I haven't studied all of them, but I know of several that in my opinion just seem to be taken completely out of context, including the virgin birth. I know people study these things and come up with different ways to classify them and I'm not one of those people so I could be wrong, but I'm terribly skeptical of the "proof" they lend to the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Nov 4, 2006 12:38:12 GMT -5
Well then I guess we both know what your next step needs to be, if you are really concerned about getting to the bottom of this through an intellectual method of personal discovery...
To be content with your own opinion without any evidentiary support seems to me to be more foolish than blindly believing the childhood teachings of more studied individuals.
I am very interested in the catalyst that has driven individuals to their conclusions about God, the bible, and other stuff. Would any of you care to elaborate on that?
For instance, my beliefs are based on childhood teachings that became challenged at a college of a different doctrinal persuasion. This caused me to re-discover what I believed on my own, to be able to speak my beliefs in my own words clearly and with evidence.
-------------------------------------------
(the flip-side)
Might I be allowed to flip the tables for a moment, as a person who does have confidence in his own journey of intense study?
Why don't you find some proven historical evidence that the bible is not what it claims to be?
(To be honest, I do not know of one individual that has made a genuine effort to intellectually disprove the bible that has not come to the conclusion that it is in fact, as it claims to be. Maybe someone in this group could be that first person in all of history to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is in deed false.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess180 on Nov 4, 2006 13:59:01 GMT -5
I am very interested in the catalyst that has driven individuals to their conclusions about God, the bible, and other stuff. Would any of you care to elaborate on that? Most of what I believe is based on what I have been taught since I was a baby, what I have learned in my Bible classes, what I have heard on Christian radio and my classes at Central Penn Christian Training Institute. |
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Nov 5, 2006 13:04:14 GMT -5
My beliefs are based on what I've learned from my mother since I was born, and what I have learned from the church. All of the things I have been taught seem to hold up pretty well in the 15 years I've been alive (so I guess I'm not all that qualified to speak).
|
|
|
|
Post by medowbrookgoer39 on Nov 6, 2006 17:11:11 GMT -5
I am very interested in the catalyst that has driven individuals to their conclusions about God, the bible, and other stuff. Would any of you care to elaborate on that? My conclusions about Christianity have been shaped from the many Christians in our culture who make me wish I was not a "Christian", along with the past Catholicism crusade days and our current war mentality. I find that the idea of Christianity is a good one if truly put into practice, but in general has lost alot of credibility due to our past and present. I am a Christian, but wish instead to be called a follower of Christ. I dislike most set authority, which in this case refers to churches, because of the general utter failure in reaching lost people in our culture for Christ and failure to show Christ to the people. (not referring to Christ Wesleyan) My conclusions about Jesus and God are derived mainly from biblical means but also alot through historical documentation and alot of indepth extra-biblical studies. I'm still working on my opinions of the bible and really haven't settled in on any one idea of whats the absolute correct answer yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Nov 7, 2006 12:07:27 GMT -5
Why would you let the ignorant men of our past and present ruin the truth for you?
Aren't you just giving them another victory?
I would think that it is far more vindicating to redeem the truth that has been abused and twisted by others...
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Nov 7, 2006 15:39:55 GMT -5
Can I ask just one question? When did you get started on Christianity and how? I mean... where did you start if not from the Bible?
|
|
|
|
Post by medowbrookgoer39 on Nov 7, 2006 19:36:35 GMT -5
Why would you let the ignorant men of our past and present ruin the truth for you? I don't think I am letting them ruin the truth for me. Calling it something different isn't the same as not believing it. "Can I ask just one question? When did you get started on Christianity and how? I mean... where did you start if not from the Bible?" -Uh I was pretty much sent to a good news thing when I was 5, and I had no idea what I was doing then. |
|
