Understanding the bible

[Silvanus]

One of the biggest reasons why the 3 synoptic Gospels are not God-inspired are that they contradict each other during a parallel event. Lets take the sermon on the mount/sermon on the plain for an example.

In Matthew, Jesus went up on a mountainside and spoke to all the people about his new teachings.
In Luke however, Jesus went down from the mountainside and into a level plain, and spoke to the crowds in a similar manner. Now taking this one single scenario, both events could not have happened at the same time. It would either be Jesus speaking on the mount, or in the plain. It cannot be both. Either one is true or both are false.

Now go all throughout Matthew and Luke, since they are the most numerous synoptic gospels. Compare each and every story, from beginning to end, all the similarities, and you'll come up with over 100 differences in these same scenario events, where different things happen in each. In the story of the centurion again, in Matthew the centurion himself comes up to Jesus and tells him about his severly paralyzed servant who needs help. But in Luke, the centurion himself never meets Jesus, sending out his friends instead to give him the message about his ill servant. Now again, which is the true story? Either one is true, or both are false.

Now I have just proven without a shadow of doubt that these contradictions eliminate the possibility of all 3 synoptic Gospels of the NT being God-inspired and uncorrupted. Now either one is true, or all are false. What remains however, is a bunch of church fathers, preachers, and history that has lied to the public majority of the world and Christianity itself throughout these 2,000 years. While those small neglected heresies who suffered in Christ's name had only ONE GOSPEL, yet no one cares enough to wonder who they were or what they stood for. Instead they were slain out of fear that they would reveal to the public the lies of church history.

There is truth out there, but perhaps truth is entered by the narrow gate which stands above the ways of the world, for not all who say "Lord!, Lord!, will understand the ways of the Christ. To the elect, that is, to the pure in heart Christ gives the secrets to the kingdom of heaven, but to many though they may see and hear, Christ speaks only in parables....

 

[Montalban]

One of the biggest reasons why the 3 synoptic Gospels are not God-inspired are that they contradict each other during a parallel event. Lets take the sermon on the mount/sermon on the plain for an example.

In Matthew, Jesus went up on a mountainside and spoke to all the people about his new teachings.
In Luke however, Jesus went down from the mountainside and into a level plain, and spoke to the crowds in a similar manner. Now taking this one single scenario, both events could not have happened at the same time. It would either be Jesus speaking on the mount, or in the plain. It cannot be both. Either one is true or both are false.

Now go all throughout Matthew and Luke, since they are the most numerous synoptic gospels. Compare each and every story, from beginning to end, all the similarities, and you'll come up with over 100 differences in these same scenario events, where different things happen in each. In the story of the centurion again, in Matthew the centurion himself comes up to Jesus and tells him about his severly paralyzed servant who needs help. But in Luke, the centurion himself never meets Jesus, sending out his friends instead to give him the message about his ill servant. Now again, which is the true story? Either one is true, or both are false.

Now I have just proven without a shadow of doubt that these contradictions eliminate the possibility of all 3 synoptic Gospels of the NT being God-inspired and uncorrupted. Now either one is true, or all are false. What remains however, is a bunch of church fathers, preachers, and history that has lied to the public majority of the world and Christianity itself throughout these 2,000 years. While those small neglected heresies who suffered in Christ's name had only ONE GOSPEL, yet no one cares enough to wonder who they were or what they stood for. Instead they were slain out of fear that they would reveal to the public the lies of church history.

There is truth out there, but perhaps truth is entered by the narrow gate which stands above the ways of the world, for not all who say "Lord!, Lord!, will understand the ways of the Christ. To the elect, that is, to the pure in heart Christ gives the secrets to the kingdom of heaven, but to many though they may see and hear, Christ speaks only in parables....

Does it say that they happened at the same time? I'm not a Biblical scholar, can you post an actual reference?

 

[Montalban]

I most respectfully disagree with those that believe the Bible is 'innate'. The Bible itself states this...
Acts 8
Philip and the Ethiopian
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[d]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."
34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[f] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

The Bible doesn't interpret itself.

Further it is not open for individual interpretation...
2 Peter 1:20 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation"

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” In other words, the Bible doesn't cover everything that is "Chrisitan".

I Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you

II Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle

One of the most important roles of church tradition is to guide the interpretation of the Bible. St. Paul spoke of the Church itself as the "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Thus there are many examples of the knowledge of God being given by teachers such as Peter, Paul and others. Paul didn't just hand a Bible to a community - because there was no Bible in his time, anyway. The tradition of teaching pre-dates the Bible

 

[Melody]

One of the most important roles of church tradition is to guide the interpretation of the Bible. St. Paul spoke of the Church itself as the "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Thus there are many examples of the knowledge of God being given by teachers such as Peter, Paul and others. Paul didn't just hand a Bible to a community - because there was no Bible in his time, anyway. The tradition of teaching pre-dates the Bible

Montalban,
While I agree with many things you've said, I disagree with this one. Then again it is one of the reasons I left the church...this belief that only a select few (church leaders) are qualified to "interpret" the bible. I believe that God speaks to all of us and He does not need "interpreters".

The church does play a valuable role, however, in that it brings worshippers together and the energy created by that mass worship is phenomenal. As I've said in other posts, Sunday service rejuvenates me and takes me through the week. Sort of a booster shot, if you will, of my daily individual worship.

Respectfully,

 

[Lycan]

When I said innate I didn't mean innate knowledge, but innate ability (obviously when old enough to grasp language...) to understand the bible without it being open to interpretation.... Why would man have "free license" to change/interpret/mistranslate a divinely inspired holy book?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,
While I agree with many things you've said, I disagree with this one. Then again it is one of the reasons I left the church...this belief that only a select few (church leaders) are qualified to "interpret" the bible. I believe that God speaks to all of us and He does not need "interpreters".

The church does play a valuable role, however, in that it brings worshippers together and the energy created by that mass worship is phenomenal. As I've said in other posts, Sunday service rejuvenates me and takes me through the week. Sort of a booster shot, if you will, of my daily individual worship.

Respectfully,

I understand that many hold these views. But I wonder then why St. Paul continually wrote letters of instruction to various churches where he continually calls them back into line. He seems to recognise that freedom of interpretation is not the way; because he writes against it... in the sense that he never says "Okay folks, you've found God, now go worship as God directs you"

Further the example of the Ethiopian is important as it the biblical way of showing that we do need instruction

Jesus did this himself by selecting only 12 of his followers to impart His teachings. And of course, the Bible didn't write itself; a group of churchmen got together and decided which books to put together, and which not to.

Note also, not all the books 'rejected' from the Bible are rejected by the church altogether.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Melody,

Sorry to disagree with you - but that is hog-wash. I believe in God, and I want to understand the bible, but to me it seems so full of 'double ententes' that I, like a lot of people, am confused by it. One example straight out of the top of my head is:-
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Later we have
Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Can you explain, how , within two verses, we have an immediate contradiction?

That's not actually contradictory, sorry to contradict . What he's saying is,'You've been told to take an eye for an eye, but I'm telling you now that if someone wrongs you that you should turn the other cheek.'

See, this is what happens if you post a reply and THEN read the rest of the thread.

 

[michel]

Michel,
I haven't asked you to agree with me, nor do I need your agreement. I merely put out my belief based on my studying and praying. You are quite free to disagree with me.

I disagree with you, but I respect your position even if I can't agree with it...but I do not consider your response as "hogwash". To consider your opinion "hogwash" would imply that I think you're too stupid to see that I'm right and agree with me.

Melody,
I owe you a big apology; I have not quite been myself lately, and what I said was unforgivable - most out of character; i can't remember writing my reply to you, and I am surprised and dismayed by it. Please forgive me.

 

[Original Freak]

My issue with the the bible and understanding it comes from where peoples Religious beliefs are based. If you don't have something concrete to base your belief system on then it becomes simply an opinion. Nothing you can argue, prove or disprove. If the bible becomes your basis for belief then, as far as I'm concerned, you have to take it literally. Everyword of the original must be followed to a tee. Once you start interprating it or finding metaphors then again it becomes your opinion or your feeling. I believe it should be always questioned and studied by those who believe because you should want to get a complete and total understanding of literal original text and completely dedicate your life to it. To do less seems like either trying to take the easy way out, or again becomes opinion and based on nothing more than faith and the way you feel.

Although I have no problem with Theist believing on faith and feelings it becomes a position that has no backbone when it comes to debate or evidence.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey OF...

Most people want "concrete rules". The Old Testament provided them.

As society developed so did our collective conscience. That's why the New Testament did away with all of the "rules" and opted for a good heart instead. It's actually tougher to follow your heart and to change your heart when it goes astray then to follow a collection of rules.

But as a society we want things spelled out so we can live in the grey areas. Like pre-nuptuals in a marriage: we want an "out". God wants your heart... all of it. He doesn't believe in pre-nups.

When the heart is right, "obedience" becomes natural and the understanding comes with the obedience.

 

[Melody]

Melody,
I owe you a big apology; I have not quite been myself lately, and what I said was unforgivable - most out of character; i can't remember writing my reply to you, and I am surprised and dismayed by it. Please forgive me.

Michel,
Thank you....your apology is most definitely accepted. I hope you're starting to feel yourself again. I know I have days where I just wake up mean...don't know why and I'm sure it's some underlying stress...but I just warn people to stay out of my way and ignore me. After 15 years of marriage, my husband now listens to me when I tell him this.

Peace,

 

[Original Freak]

It just seems hard for me to understand Theists who have a certian religion but base their specific beliefs on metaphors and opinions. I've no problem with it, as I've said, my wife is a christain who has a lot of problems with the bible, but I just can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

OF,

Like any venture, sometimes you just can't put it all together until you try it. My son is having me try this new game... sort of a cyber paintball, so we can compete together. I am all thumbs! But the more I practice, the more it becomes clear to me. I have the more devious mind and he has a hard time finding me, while he has quicker reflexes (the bugger!) and gets me if I don't see him first. He thinks it cool that I am getting the lingo down too... his friends have no idea that I am his dad .

Christianity is not based on metaphors and opinions... it's based on a Godly love. Like the game, there is no way to understand it until you flat out try it. But as my son says when recruiting for his "clan"... "Wimps need not apply!" It ain't easy, but it's definitely worth it.

BTW, motivation is everything too! My son plays his game TO WIN! That's how I love God. I don't see him as merely spiritual fire insurance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the bible is a divinely inspired holy book, then wouldn't the ability to understand its message and purpose be innate? Why would a god that wants all to follow him and love him, make the bible "open to interpretation"? or otherwise so hard to understand?

If the Bible is a divinely inspired book, then it does have an effect on our ability to understand it.

Here's the deal:

1) God is the Creator, and everything else that exists exists in nature.
2) We can review nature by natural means of science and philosophy.

Conclusions:
Because God (or the Divine) is incomprehensible by natural means, if the divine desires to be understood by nature (eg, humans), then the divine must reveal itself to nature through natural means. Therefore, if the Bible speaks of or about God, then God must reveal himself to humanity and not the other way around. So if the Bible speaks authoritatively about God, it must be a record of God's revelations of Himself to prophets.

Once the revelation enters into nature, then it is reviewable by natural means: we can review the data and come to an understanding of what it means. However, because the subject remains untestable (the divine attributes and actions of the divine) much of the content of the data remains forever untestable. Because of its unverifiable nature, we will never be able to fully understand some parts of the revelation. Since God remains hidden, the full meaning of His words remain hidden, and we must call out to him by faith for full understanding of his words. Furthermore, because humanity did not discover God, humanity cannot establish for itself how it should best relate to God: God gets to make the rules.

 

[Lycan]

Maybe I am not asking my question right..... I am not asking how to understand the bible, I do not want a you just have to have faith to understand, I am not arguing accuracy of the bible.

ok trying again....
Reality - The bible is open to interpretation. The bible has been (and still is) translated (sometimes poorly), parts have been removed, and is subject to free license for man to change and move anything he likes.

Question - Why would a god let man do any of the above to a holy book that was given to man as a "this is me and this is how I want man to live" guide, if it were indeed a divinely inspired work?

 

[cardero]

If the bible is a divinely inspired holy book, then wouldn't the ability to understand its message and purpose be innate? Why would a god that wants all to follow him and love him, make the bible "open to interpretation"? or otherwise so hard to understand?

If the validity of The Bible’s message is that important for humankind, the word of GOD should not have been entrusted to imperfect humans to write, decipher, translate, produce or misunderstand.

 

[Scuba Pete]

II Corinthians 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.

Maybe this will answer your concerns???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe I am not asking my question right..... I am not asking how to understand the bible, I do not want a you just have to have faith to understand, I am not arguing accuracy of the bible.

ok trying again....
Reality - The bible is open to interpretation. The bible has been (and still is) translated (sometimes poorly), parts have been removed, and is subject to free license for man to change and move anything he likes.

Question - Why would a god let man do any of the above to a holy book that was given to man as a "this is me and this is how I want man to live" guide, if it were indeed a divinely inspired work?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Bible is open to interpretation, along with every other thing that exists in creation. Everything has to be interpreted, and God has made humanity stewards of everything on earth, including his divinely inspired work. We interpret the meaning of everything in nature by means of science and philosophy, and we use science and philosophy to interpret the content and meaning of Scripture.

We can compare the MSS of the Bible and determine what most likely comprised the original text. All of the texts have been copied, they were done so by hand, and revisions and edits can be detected and analyzed - otherwise we would not know that it has been edited. Translation is an ongoing excersize because all language, including the biblical languages are in a constant state of change. Because God revealed himself to humanity, his message is somewhat constrained in langauge, and it is difficult to parse the exact meaning of any language (eg, determine precisely and exactly what is being communicated in the original language) and then to transpose the exact meaning into an unambiguous, perfect translation into another language. Therefore, biblical translation and interpretation is just as much art as it is science.

The reason why God allows this imperfection is because he values freedom. If He truly exists, then he obiously gives humanity the choice of whether or not to follow his ways. He revealed Himself to humanity and his message therefore entered into our clumsy languages and our imperfect hands. However, he does allow us to detect the imperfections and get as close as possible to the original message: most of the edits are grammatical corrections and sloppy copying that are easy to correct, and have no bearing upon the message. There are obvious additions in many places, which appear to be inserts of prophetic traditions which are authoritative and accepted as revelation.

 

[Lycan]

If the validity of The Bible’s message is that important for humankind, the word of GOD should not have been entrusted to imperfect humans to write, decipher, translate, produce or misunderstand.

That is the point why would that god allow those imperfect humans to screw it up?

Maybe this will answer your concerns???

That is just the bible saying it is from god. I want to know if it really is from god why is it all of the above:

...entrusted to imperfect humans write, decipher, translate, produce or misunderstand...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the validity of The Bible’s message is that important for humankind, the word of GOD should not have been entrusted to imperfect humans to write, decipher, translate, produce or misunderstand.

That is the paradox. However, the only alternative would be for GOD to force his words on to humanity. The revelation would be the only thing in the cosmos that is entirely beyond dispute, and no person would be able to resist and live a free life. We are free to misunderstand and abuse everything else...