The Bible, an important document. How can it be understood?

[billthecat]

The useful parts are not very different from the useful parts of any other human stories, though. I believe we all have certain aspirations in common, and most of our holy books - including the gospels - touch on them, if only briefly. Even our ordinary books which make no claims to holiness communicate these aspirations. Peace, security, health, compassion, kindness, etc.

A (relatively) consistent set of moral principles that are revered by people, without boundaries of time or geography. One could think it was an inherent part of human nature.

 

[billthecat]

In complete seriousness, I did once meet a man who was convinced the Lord of the Rings was literally true. He was my neighbour in Toronto. He was going through a phase of extreme hallucinogenic drug abuse, and probably a schizophrenic episode as well.

Was he really short and wore size 17 shoes?

 

[Alceste]

A (relatively) consistent set of moral principles that are revered by people, without boundaries of time or geography. One could think it was an inherent part of human nature.

A taste for fairness and a desire for security is an inherent part of primate nature in general, and most other mammals. I don't see anything mystical or supernatural about it, personally. Fairness is conducive to social cohesion, and security is its own reward.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I tend not to agree. Anything surviving TIME is History.

Yes. However, if I start a thread with the title "the roman Empire was an important civilization" or "the lord of the rings was an important document", the fact that both Tokien's work and the roman empire are elements of history (i.e., they belong to the past), this does not mean I have begun a historical debate. In all seriousness, I do actually believe that Tokien's work is important. But if I want to start a debate about it's importance, I would have to say something like
"Although many of his colleagues thought that Tokien's literary accomplishments were a waste of his energy and great intellect, Dr. Michael D. C. Drout rightly points out the influence his stories had on later generations of scholars. Many medievalists, anglo-saxon scholars, experts on germanic languages, and scholars from other related fields at least partially chose that academic track they did thanks to the love of antique language and culture they developed reading Tolkien. It may even be argued that his stories about middle earth are not only an excellent demonstration of the link between culture and language, but also unparalleled from a pedagogical perspective. Finally, quite apart from the secondary influence the LOTR and other middle earth writings had on academia, the impact they had on fantasy literature cannot be overestimated."

In other words, I don't just make a statement about something that happened in the past. I make a claim and support it (rightly or wrongly) such that others can agree/disagree with or add to the points raise. Simply bringing up some aspect of history with a single bone of a skeleton of a would-be argument doesn't a debate make.

It has survived, wounded though. Is it important? Why or why not?

It has directly and indirectly influenced billions of people. So it's important.

 

[savagewind]

Yes. However, if I start a thread with the title "the roman Empire was an important civilization" or "the lord of the rings was an important document", the fact that both Tokien's work and the roman empire are elements of history (i.e., they belong to the past), this does not mean I have begun a historical debate. In all seriousness, I do actually believe that Tokien's work is important. But if I want to start a debate about it's importance, I would have to say something

In other words, I don't just make a statement about something that happened in the past. I make a claim and support it (rightly or wrongly) such that others can agree/disagree with or add to the points raise. Simply bringing up some aspect of history with a single bone of a skeleton of a would-be argument doesn't a debate make.



It has directly and indirectly influenced billions of people. So it's important.

Right. Is the Bible a message from the past? Can it be trusted? Is it still possible for it to be understood as passed down? It has not done much obvious good so far. Why not? Is it because it was corrupted? I say it has been corrupted. Now prove me wrong.

 

[savagewind]

Someone once said scripture is for "setting things strait". Can it do that if it is not original? Isn't it important to fix the errors? HOW?

 

[savagewind]

Wouldn't it be making history to prove the Bible is wrong? Yes, of course it would. No one wants to do it. Why? The most important reason is money. Isn't it?

 

[Alceste]

Wouldn't it be making history to prove the Bible is wrong? Yes, of course it would. No one wants to do it. Why? The most important reason is money. Isn't it?

Are you kidding? We are completely certain the Bible is wrong on a great many factual subjects. We know, for example, that the whole human race is not descended from a single couple. We know the earth is not flat, that it revolves around the sun, that nobody ever stuffed two of every living species on a boat, that sacrificing animals does not cure skin diseases, that the presence or absence of blood on your wedding night has no value in determining whether or not you are a virgin. Those are only the things that we know for certain are untrue.

Then there are the things that are so implausible that no reasonable person could believe them without a lifetime of indoctrination, such as a whole city turned to salt, the parting of a body of water for a whole tribe to pass through, etc.

So, no, if further evidence were added to the huge pile of evidence that the Bible got it wrong most of the time, it would not be a major discovery. After all, the writers were only human, and humans are prone to mistakes and exaggerations.

 

[savagewind]

I mean in all the places where the translation makes God look like a hater.

"Though seeing, they can not see and though hearing they can not hear" so the Spirit communicates in illustrations. The illustrations are not wrong. I have published many alternate explanations of scriptures that are wrong. Guess how many people I have persuaded? Go ahead guess.

 

[savagewind]

I'll give you a hint. Try googling 'is zero a number?' I wasn't the first one to ask that.

 

[savagewind]

An example?

In the last days will come ridiculers with their ridicule proceeding according to their own desire saying where is this promised presence of his.

But the word for ridicule is mock. The Israelites rejected YHVW for a human leader. What do people still do? They reject the Spirit of God for human leaders. Are they not looking for the Savior? Where is he? It is the people who are waiting for him that say "where is he?" Christians are mocking Israel.
See? Totally different. How do I know? No one in their right mind would bother transcribing anything about ridiculers. Why would they? It doesn't make sense. I can make sense of it but zero people care.

 

[savagewind]

More reason it isn't about opposers is that they are CALLED "ridiculers". Why would someone ridiculing be called a ridiculer? They wouldn't unless what they are doing is their lifestyle. Who makes a lifestyle out of ridicule? I have never heard of it. Have you? It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense should it be discarded? Many people have discarded it. But isn't The Word the only thing promised to last? Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away. The words remain but they remain twisted.

 

[savagewind]

One more reason. It is the will of God that all men be saved and come to knowledge. By saying in the last days opposers will still be present making you trouble is the same as saying God's will will not be done. SIGH

 

[Alceste]

I'm not really interested in these types of exercises, savagewind. "How can I alter the meaning of the plain, brutal language I see in front of me to make it consistent with my inherent sense of right and wrong?"

What's the point? Why not accept that there is no hidden meaning - when Paul wrote "Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling" he literally meant that slaves should follow his advice. When he said "Better to marry than burn" he literally meant that in his opinion premarital sex was worthy of the punishment of eternal torment.

In my humble opinion, it would be a more useful exercise for you to accept that your innate sense of right and wrong is superior to the underlying message of the Bible, and that's completely OK. The books were written by ignorant people in a brutal time, and compiled by politicians. We live in a more enlightened time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Right. Is the Bible a message from the past?

No, of course not. I'm not entirely sure what that would mean from a historical perspective if anything. Perhaps a time capsule or something similar could be called that as it is there solely to impart information to people in the future in a particular way. Lots of works continue to have value to people centuries later. But this does not make them messages. The bible contains lots of information about the past in more than one way.

Can it be trusted?

In some ways yes, in many no.

Is it still possible for it to be understood as passed down?

No. In fact, it requires a great deal of study just to get a pretty good idea how it was understood by the early audiences.

It has not done much obvious good so far.

"Good" is subjective (inasmuch as whatever objective morality might exist, we can only access it subjectively). If the KJV only crowd is correct, then a lot of the things done in the name of Christianity that I find reprehensible or bad are in fact "good."

And if by "good" we use some fairly typical standards, it is not true that Christianity hasn't done much good any more than it is that it has only done good. For example:

Galileo and the Origin of Science

Why not? Is it because it was corrupted? I say it has been corrupted. Now prove me wrong.

I don't know what you mean by corrupted. If you mean the original intent in the texts which make up the bible differ from most or all modern understanding, then this was true as the bible was being written. The texts in it represent a changing understanding of theology, morality, history, identity, and a good deal more. Reinterpretation of biblical texts is a part of the bible itself, as later portions often involve revaluations or a different understanding of the earlier portions.

 

[savagewind]

Uh, I think it means marry rather than be inflamed with passion. And that is correct for some people, although I'm only guessing.

I think Paul was not saying fear your masters. I think it means despite fear and trembling continue to listen and attend to your master.

 

[savagewind]

I'm doing the best I can with this lap top.

"Of course it is not a message from the past". What about the promise made to Abraham? He is called Father of Nations. It is my belief he left a legacy for these children of his. I believe the scriptures are God breathed. You do not.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm doing the best I can with this lap top.

"Of course it is not a message from the past". What about the promise made to Abraham? He is called Father of Nations. It is my belief he left a legacy for these children of his. I believe the scriptures are God breathed. You do not.

If you wanted to debate religious aspects of the bible, then the historical debates section is not the place. The belief that the scriptures are "God breathed" isn't a historical stance. It's a religious stance. Anybody who writes about God's message is not writing a historical work, and has left the realm of historical inquiry. And there's nothing wrong with that per se. But there is a reason for the different names of the sections here. It's so that people who wish to discuss historical issues from a historical perspective can do so in e.g., this section ("historical debates"), while those who wish to bring up topics relating to the religious messages in the bible and what God intended by them can do so in a section devoted to religious debates. If you wish to debate religion, you may want to ask a moderator to move this thread to an appropriate section.

 

[Alceste]

Uh, I think it means marry rather than be inflamed with passion. And that is correct for some people, although I'm only guessing.

I think Paul was not saying fear your masters. I think it means despite fear and trembling continue to listen and attend to your master.

See:

"How can I alter the meaning of the plain, brutal language I see in front of me to make it consistent with my inherent sense of right and wrong?"

 

[savagewind]

If you wanted to debate religious aspects of the bible, then the historical debates section is not the place. The belief that the scriptures are "God breathed" isn't a historical stance. It's a religious stance. Anybody who writes about God's message is not writing a historical work, and has left the realm of historical inquiry. And there's nothing wrong with that per se. But there is a reason for the different names of the sections here. It's so that people who wish to discuss historical issues from a historical perspective can do so in e.g., this section ("historical debates"), while those who wish to bring up topics relating to the religious messages in the bible and what God intended by them can do so in a section devoted to religious debates. If you wish to debate religion, you may want to ask a moderator to move this thread to an appropriate section.

Thank you. :sorry1: I appreciate your participation. The thread is over so I will be more considerate next time where I put my words. I think the superior secular authorities should be interested in what the original message of the Bible is. Why? Because it is warning of the end.