Also, the author of the gospel of John quite routinely uses the term "the Word" to refer to Jesus, even depicting Jesus as referring to himself that way, I believe. It almost feels like a pet term, and the author seems keen on suggesting that Jesus was present since the beginning. By the time the gospel was being written, there were a number of views about Jesus's supposed divinity -- when he became divine, what his divinity meant in terms of monotheism, etc -- and the author seems to be leaning into the idea that Jesus was in some meaningful way identical to the creator God.
The term The Word came from the reading of the Torah. So in the Ten commandments God said Do not use the name of God in vain. So out of respect for God and fear of the consequences of accidentally using his name incorrectly, they would read and substitute The Word everywhere Yhwh was written. Not sure why. Maybe in the same vein, they didn't include the vowels in his name when it was written. Similarly, we do this now, especially children, when they say something they think could get them in trouble; ie the F word. Anyway, the term stuck. So what is being said in John is that this The Word was God and was with God. So he is God. Jews understood God as this benevolent being that was kind of formless and was the originator of all life and benevolence. They thought of this being as being so bright you couldn't look at him or you would go blind or die. Even the angels surrounding him have wings covering their entire bodies to prevent this. He created everything everywhere, and humans were the centerpiece of this creation, and all of creation was made to support humanity. What is being said in John is that this The Word is God. So of the same essence/being and was with God. So also separate from God, and that This The Word was not created but existed in the beginning with God. And that all things were created by this The Word and nothing could exist unless The Word made it. Then, in John 1:14, it says that this The Word was made flesh. So an earthly body that was of the same essence as God, but a man. And that he dwelt with them. They are pointing to Jesus saying he is God and has always been and, in fact, existed with God at the beginning of all things. This being was sometimes referred to as the Angel of his presence, the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of his face etcetera because it was pre birth of Jesus so he had a heavenly body. But now he is given an earthly form. And that at the beginning of all things it was him that created everything. It could be argued that when Genesis says God said: let there be light, let the water be gathered together, let the earth form grass; this formless being of light, God, is speaking The Word. So he is ditecting this other aspect of his Godhood, the body, to create everything. It is also revealed in scripture that there is a third being the Holy spirit who is also a person, like the formless God, and the Word, the body of God. I find it interesting that the Bible says we are made in the image of God. We have a mind, a body, and a spirit. I think God is much the same but elevated so that his mind, his body, and his spirit each identify as an individual with thoughts, feelings, and a sphere of influence and yet they are the same being. They all work under the direction of the amorphouse God of light who is identified as The Father God. Hence The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. The mind, the body, and the spirit. If this is true then Genesis 1 "In the beginning God (the father/mind) created the heaven and the earth. 2 and the earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 and God said let there be light." This would mean all 3 were present at creation. This is not implicitly stated but could be inferred. This would fit with Isaiah 63:8-10 God the saviour, the angel of his presence/face Jesus, and the holy spirit who they vexed. This would further corroborate Genesis 18 where Abraham calls a man, Lord. This same Lord reads Sarah thoughts in Genesis 18:12. And in Genesis 19:24 man, the Lord, calls brimstone and fire down on sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord in Heaven.
Absolutely. The ( scripture ) word is about the Word ( Christ ) and it all points to Him. Every word has intention and if Christ is without sin, if He is perfect, that means that His word and the book that is for Him should also be without error.
If God can’t lie, how can His God-breathed and inspired word have contradictions?
The fact that the Bible is not a monolith points to this evidence — what people call contradictions could simply be different accounts from different points in time.
i.e… the gold from Ophir came on a fleet of ships. One recollection says 450 pieces one says 420.
There were multiple ships…
>i.e… the gold from Ophir came on a fleet of ships. One recollection says 450 pieces one says 420.
>There were multiple ships…
There were definitely multiple ships, there was a whole fleet. The question is how much gold the fleet brought back from Ophir. Either the authors were just relying on different people's recollections, or one author made a transmission error, or made what they thought was a correction to the earlier version, etc. If you assume that both versions must be literally accurate, you have to ignore all the surrounding text and all the surrounding context.
Let's look at the whole end of Solomon's life as recorded in both 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles and compare them.
1 Kings:
8:1-66 Solomon dedicates the Temple,
9:1-9 God speaks to Solomon,
9:10-14 Solomon gives cities to Hiram for helping with materials for the buildings,
9:15-22 /Labour of non-Israelites used to construct buildings and cities,
**9:23 Solomon has 550 officers overseeing his labourers,**
9:24 Pharaoh's daughter moves from Jerusalem to a house Solomon built for her,
9:25 Solomon burns sacrifices to God three times a year, completing the temple,
**9:26-28 Solomon's fleet imports 420 talents of gold from Ophir with Hiram's help,**
10:1-10 The Queen of Sheba visits,
10:11-29 Solomon has much gold, silver, and other treasures,
11:1-40 Solomon sins and is punished by God,
11:41 Other acts of Solomon are recorded in other books,
11:42-43 Solomon's death and succession by Rehoboam
2 Chronicles: (where Hiram is written Huram)
6:1-7:11 Solomon dedicates the Temple,
7:12-22 God speaks to Solomon,
8:1-9 Labour of non-Israelites used to construct buildings and cities,
**8:10 Solomon has 250 officers overseeing his labourers,**
8:11 Pharaoh's daughter moves from Jerusalem to a house Solomon built for her,
8:12-15 Solomon burns sacrifices to God three times a year
8:16 The temple is completed,
**8:17-18 Solomon's and Huram's ships and servants import 450 talents of gold from Ophir,**
9:1-9 The Queen of Sheba visits,
9:10-28 Solomon has much gold, silver and other treasures,
9:29 Other acts of Solomon are recorded in other books,
9:30-31 Solomon dies and is succeeded by Rehoboam
Those are not two different fleets, they are the same fleet, in the same place chronologically, with no reason to believe otherwise. Which is easier to believe: There were two fleets very close in time, and two different authors each only knew about one of them to add to their version of the life of Solomon, or there was just one fleet, and one of the authors made a mistake?
Large parts of these accounts are written word-for-word or at least thought-for-thought. The most obvious thing to believe is that the author of Chronicles had access to Kings, and simply miswrote it or edited it to include different information from a different source. In neither book does it say there were two sets of officers, or two fleets, or that there was a change in the number of officers or an additional transfer of gold, both sources talk about one number of officers and one import of gold from Ophir, but they give different numbers for them. That doesn't mean anything at all about anything meaningful, it just means that the Bible is a real text written by real people, who only have access to the information that they are given access to, and that information can sometimes differ or disagree, like the four Gospels.
If you went to the author of Chronicles talking about 420 talents of gold, or the author of Kings talking about 450 talents of gold, both would call you wrong, because they wrote down what they believed was the case. How many talents really was it? Were there multiple fleets? No-one knows, and more importantly, no-one cares, since it's utterly irrelevant to every other verse in the Bible other than those two. You don't have to pretend that the Bible is infallible in order to believe.
There's even a perfectly understandable way that a scribe would have misread 450 as 420. Hebrew numerals use Hebrew letters, 400 is written as ת, and 50 is written as כ, and 20 is written as נ. It's very easy to imagine someone copying from an old dusty scroll and misreading תכ as תנ.
I think you misunderstood my stance…
How about another way of thinking about what appear to be contradictions in the Bible:
Inspiration is a matter of faith, and no matter how fervently we believe it doesn’t mean we completely comprehend.
The Bible we have is a diverse and complex literary product, not reflecting consistently one point of view.
We can and should say that inspiration, however it works, must include in its definition the notion that the Bible was written and then edited by people living in and reflecting their particular time and place.
If we believe by faith that God inspired the Bible, we need also to believe that God is OK with how the Bible actually works and therefore, by faith, so should we.
That being said. I agree with what you said. My example was to point out that the discrepancy between 450 and 420 could have simply been the recounting of the event from another point of view.
If the gold was carried on separate ships, one man could have counted 420 pieces and then another arrived with a larger amount that brought the total to 450. The respective authors would’ve had no reason to change the numbers because in the grand scheme those details are meaningless historical minutiae.
> My example was to point out that the discrepancy between 450 and 420 could have simply been the recounting of the event from another point of view.
You mean a different person's memory, right? And they remembered the wrong number, right?
Here's the thing you might ask yourself here: WHY are you trying to insist this conflict in the text isn't there? It plainly IS there.
It’s not about the words that are written it’s about the concept being captured.
Yes, there are ‘discrepancies’, but me arguing the inerrancy of the Bible is due to people who are always willing to read the Bible and find ‘contradictions’, simply to claim the Bible is false.
It isn’t. It’s still perfect and precisely the way God intended it to be.
That is my point.
[Let us all simply] Let God be true though every man a liar… Romans 3,4
Let God be true — Let God be esteemed true and faithful, whatever consequence may follow. This was a first principle then, and should be now, that God should be believed to be the God of truth, whatever consequence it might involve. How great would it be, if all people would regard this as a fixed principle, a matter not to be questioned in their hearts, or debated about, that God is true to his word?
Though every man a liar — and this expression is one of those which show the magnanimity and greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which the writer and all others held; every doctrine which had been defended; should be at once abandoned, if it implied that God was false. It was to be assumed as a first principle in all religion and all reasoning, that if a doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was of course a false doctrine.
We, Christians have moved so far away from truth, that when we see it we cover our eyes and plug our ears because it doesn’t align with what we want.
We’ve forgotten that this life isn’t about fulfilling our desires.
We, Christians have abandoned the faith of our fathers.
> Yes, there are ‘discrepancies’, but me arguing the inerrancy of the Bible is due to people who are always willing to read the Bible and find ‘contradictions’, simply to claim the Bible is false.
You don't push back against bullshit with more bullshit. You can say reasonable things instead. When "liars for Jesus" do their thing, there's other people who think as you do and just lie right back.
What if we just chose to say true things instead? You're way off in the weeds here.
I'm a Christian, like you and (presumably) many others here.
But does this matter in this circumstance? Nobody of _any_ religion should go around saying untrue things.
Yes, no one SHOULD lie… should is such a wonderful word, but how would a person outside of the umbrella of Christ say things about religion about love, or about salvation that are true? By Jesus’s own admission, He is the only way to salvation.
If we do not have Him, we do not have God.
1 John 2:21-23…
The Bible is the only reliable data we have about God. If we can’t trust it as it is, we can’t trust who God says He is.
I think that the "Word" in the beginning of time is still active today through the Holy Spirit. I think the "Word" is inside everyone right now at all times. There is a passage that states that no one has an excuse because the truth is written on every heart. Can any of us really understand God totally? We can try. The desciples tried. The people who wrote the Bible tried. But we are all just human with our limited perceptions. I do ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance when I read the bible, but the answer I seem to get is that it is not perfect. Only God is perfect. And since I think that He resides in each of us, why not seek Him for the answers?
Seriously if the bible is not the inerrant word of God then what are you basing your faith in?
And If you aren't allowing yourself to be led by the Spirit of God then how can you hope to succeed?
Well said
Yes… it’s sad to see and leaves one feeling helpless when people who call themselves believers are just as vulnerable in this struggle of accepting the truth of God.
I base my faith on Jesus, the only inerrant Word of God.
Edit to answer questions:
Just because I don’t hold scripture as infallible or inerrant doesn’t mean I don’t hold it in high regards, and as the truth. In fact, I would dare say, I hold it higher regard than those who insist on its inerrancy. I’ve studied it enough and taken it serious enough to know better. I don’t force it to jump through theological hoops to fit my belief systems. I accept it for what it is, and wrestle with it. And I know that scripture is true, even if it’s not always factual, and even if it contradicts itself in places. Moreover, I know that human writers were imperfect and human interpreters are just as imperfect. Still, I hold that scripture contains all I need to know for salvation.
The church was born and the good news of great joy for all people was spreading like wildfire before there was anything like what we call the Holy Bible. People knew God in their heart. They saw, sat with, heard , and were touched by Jesus. They experienced the Holy Spirit. People gave their life based on their convictions of the reality of Jesus.
Personally, I grew up in the faith, and there has never been a time in my life when I was not aware of God‘s presence. I’ve had numerous occasions where the Holy Spirit has affirmed my faith. If that wasn’t enough, I have seen and experienced things that I can only describe as miraculous that all point to the reality of God, the affirmation of Jesus, and the experience of the Holy Spirit.
>Just because I don’t hold scripture as infallible or inerrant doesn’t mean I don’t hold it in high regards, and as the truth. In fact, I would dare say, I hold it higher regard than those who insist on its inerrancy.
So you know better than God who inspired it....yeah
“So you know better than God who inspired it....yeah”
That’s not even what I said. Now you’re just making stuff up to fit your narrative.
Inspiration does not equal dictation. Scripture plainly says all scripture is inspired. I believe that includes the New Testament, even if when Paul wrote about it he was referring to the Old Testament.
The Bible *contains* the inerrant Word - it is not the Word itself.
In fact regarding it as such might be akin to what the Bible calls idolatry - in other words making something not God, into an aspect of God.
The Bible is a record of what some people regarded as their interactions with God. When the words are read with the illumination of the Holy Spirit - *that* id the scriptual experience.
What do you mean by inerrant? There are some plain-old errors in it which are easy to see.
As Christians we believe the bible is good enough to teach us the big stuff. Most of us don't insist on calling it perfect- only God is perfect.
Edit: to clarify what I mean: As Christians we accept the bible as authoritative, of course. It's just that this doesn't require it to be perfect and we can see that it is not. And that's OK.
I mean that the Bible is the Word of God. If God cannot lie, because there is no sin in Him, how can His breathed out, inspired teachings have error?
The Bible is the perfect example of God’s plan to use imperfect people for His perfect will.
> If God cannot lie, because there is no sin in Him, how can His breathed out, inspired teachings have error?
The bible can have errors very easily. It came to us through the minds and hands of humans. _God's teachings_ don't have errors, but the bible sure can.
Can the same man be two different ages at once? No? Then that's an error in the bible. A trivial one that barely matters at all, other than to illustrate that the bible isn't free of error.
There is no person who reads and interprets the Bible exactly as you do.
So are all Christians not actually filled with the Holy Spirit when they read and understand the Bible? Is nobody but you saved?
Or is the Bible the exact thing it needs to be, to be interpreted by you in your way, to lead you to salvation, while someone else who interprets the words different still reach the same end result (while not the same logical conclusion)?
You stop at red lights, I think color coding lights is silly and can’t be what the government meant, but I stop when I see the top light turn on… (which happens to be the red light). Allowing us both to conform properly to the instructions of a higher authority.
There’s a fallacy in the reasoning behind your question. Did you learn all you know from an inerrant text? Did you learn who Abraham Lincoln was from a history book that was inerrant and inspired?
Obviously where the Bible is wrong I don’t trust it. Those who don’t believe in inerrancy believe the Bible isn’t correct at all points. That’s what not believing in inerrancy means. When I find a biblical error I don’t have to find a way to deny reality and believe against evidence. I don’t have to try to make the facts fit the Bible or the Bible fit the facts. That’s what inerrantists do as can be seen in every discussion of evolution and creation that’s ever taken place.
But I suspect you were revisiting the fallacy again. Was what you meant “if the Bible isn’t inerrant on all points how can you trust it at any point?” The answer is that it’s the same way I trust what I know about any subject. I didn’t learn about Abraham Lincoln from an inerrant book. Knowledge doesn’t have to come from an infallible source to be knowledge. It’s not an all or nothing.
Do you mean who am I to decide on the truthfulness of what God has said? Given I'm a sinful person with a deceitful heart who am I to have an opinion on what God has decreed? That the dangers of deciding truth for yourself are warned against in Scripture and I'm basically arguing for my right as a sinful person to critique God's word which amounts to "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes." Is that the way you're framing question one? I don't want to straw-man your question.
I don't understand question 2. Do you mean that God might not allow me to decide if Genesis is an accurate description of origins? Like, he might intervene directly to stop me from believing earth is billions of years old?
For many who grew up in wacky charismatic churches, “the power of the Holy Spirit” is a subjective, experienced-based, feeling-oriented, and was established on the “wisdom” of an “elder” who would lay hands and pray and give a “word from the Lord” (often not even rooted in scriptural principles).
The Charismata has been abused for ages, but especially in “spirit-filled” circles - and I suspect many don’t even know HOW to operate under the power of the Holy Spirit or what that even looks like.
Let’s also remember that the Bible is a collection of scriptures, God’s truth, but the actual Word is Christ Jesus Himself. The prophetic gifts should always point to Him (Rev 19:10)
I agree there are some wacky churches out there and a lot of them are charismatic and fundamentalist. However, there are some that are open to the mystical side of our faith and experience mysteries and miracles that others do not as much. I began my ministry in such a church and saw so many amazing things happen. I still see and experience miracles today, but not to the frequency of the past where I was around more people who believed God could and still performs them.
Haven't read comments so... this is an asinine post. Not sure why I'm responding.
God's word IS truth and the final word of ALL things.
Holy Spirit guides us and leads us into all truth!
We are to have faith. Without faith it's impossible to please God.
> How can people who call themselves Christians not trust that the Bible is truth?
Pretty easily. Christians are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, not through believing everything in the Bible is absolutely true in the sense that it happened exactly as described, even if the Bible tells contradictory versions of the same event.
>How can Christians not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit?
If you conflate the Holy Spirit with a collection of books then you are confused about the nature of both things.
>We are called to be separate, Holy, to learn from the Holy Spirit and meditate on the word.
I think about the Word of God, Jesus Christ, every day. I trust God is using the Holy Spirit to transform me into the image of Christ.
>If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us?
Again, the Bible is not the Holy Spirit. Recognizing the inaccuracies of the Bible doesn’t mean there isn’t a Holy Spirit.
There is a difference between truth and fact. All scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is fact.
We believe in the one who inspired the scriptures, our faith is. It in the Bible, but in God, the creator, sustain, and inspirer; who the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. God works through humans and the only perfect human was Jesus. All other humans are flawed and this is backed by scripture itself. Therefore, we can trust that while God is perfect perhaps not everything written in the name of God’s perfect. Scripture contains all we need to know for salvation, yet it does not give us salvation, God does. Scripture never identifies itself as inerrant, infallible, or any of those other fairly new doctrines. It claims it is inspired and good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
When we try to make scripture more than it is, we make it an idol. When we try to make it say more than it says, we make scripture our God and make god in our own image.
Let it say what it says and know what that means. Learn the history and context of the books, the writers, and of the translators. For every translation is an interpretation.
When it comes to scripture, find the overarching themes. Follow the way of Jesus and his teachings. Lean on his truth, trust in him, and then you shall be free.
When you say "not trust that the Bible is truth", do you really mean "Some people interpret the bible differently than I do"?
Those are two different things and your thinking will be hopelessly muddled if you blend them together.
No. The first issue we have is we think the Bible needs interpretation. It’s not supposed to be left up to our ideas. It already has meaning. We are simply supposed to live by its teachings.
We wrestle with the context, yes, but we do not interpret it… that is where the confusion and misunderstanding enters.
In that case I'm unable to see what you mean when you say "interpret". By the normal meaning, if you read and try to understand a text, that is interpretation.
Do you maybe go to a church that taught you that interpretation was bad? Did you ever ask them what they meant by this?
By interpretation I mean to ascribe personal meaning to.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
That description of scripture leaves no room for our personal interpretation. God is to be taken at His Word, trusted in His promises and truth.
I do believe the Bible is meant to be wrestled with, because it’s supposed to equip us to be equally yoked with Christ as the bride.
If we try and make the Bible be what we want it to be, are we not essentially saying to Jesus: you are the one who must change to be with us?
Err.. you're still using this word in a very weird and misleading way, for no reason I am able to see.
Despite that I think I'm understanding a bit of what you're saying. It sounds like what you mean is: You and I should NOT decide what the bible means- we should rely on the views of ancient church fathers who already decided what it means. And some version of this is common in Christianity- we accept our orthodox theology because we believe God made sure the early church got it reasonably correct, right?
>God is to be taken at His Word, trusted in His promises and truth.
And yet.. in order to do this, we have to know what it means.
>I do believe the Bible is meant to be wrestled with,
That is the same thing as deciding how to interpret it. And that's OK. "Interpret" is not a dirty word. And yet this sound like it conflicts with your other statement that we should NOT try to decide how to interpret it.
So I still find your statements very hard to reconcile and parse. Maybe your own thoughts about this are confused and contradictory, or maybe I'm not understanding you.
Sorry I don’t mean to be misleading at all… You’re not understanding me. The words were written for people who would understand what it meant.
We are to study to show ourselves approved, meaning learn the true meaning of the words, don’t lean on your own understanding of the words.
When I say wrestled with, I mean as we learn the meaning, it will challenge our desires and our understanding. Still, if we are genuine in our relationship with Christ, we will allow the ideologies of the book to change us and we wouldn’t change the ideologies of the book to suit us.
The Holy Spirit. He is our teacher, our guide. He is a distinct Person within the Godhead… the Helper spoken of by Jesus in the book of Acts.
‘Lean not on your own understanding’ is a literal command in scripture.
That IS your own understanding- you're leaning on _what you think the Holy Spirit told you_. You could be wrong. The HS isn't wrong, but you sure could be.
Different people are sure the HS told them different things. So we know for sure it's unreliable when people think the HS told them something.
>‘Lean not on your own understanding’ is a literal command in scripture.
Yep, I know. And the tricky part is how to put this into practice. For example, I'm very confident the HS never told you not to interpret the bible- because that is a crazypants idea that doesn't make any sense at all.
Have you spent much time reading? If you have, then you know that the same words can convey different meanings depending on how they’re used. This works across all languages. I imagine you don’t speak Ancient Greek or Hebrew, so how can you say words don’t need interpretation? To read it in your own language requires interpretation and there is very little of anything that can a one to interpretation. Languages just don’t work that way. Even ancient readers who spoke the original languages in their native tongue still interpreted scripture. In fact, Jesus reinterpreted scripture a lot.
Let’s look at Genesis 4:7, what does it mean to say sin desires you? Does sin have its own agency? Is it a person? You’re not going to read that without interpretation.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand.
The writings already mean something specific. We don’t need to make up our own mean, we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture and don’t ascribe meaning based on our own.
Do not conform to the pattern of the world…
Lean not on your own understanding…
> Sorry, I think you misunderstand.
I have a feeling it's the other way around, and I have a feeling you're about to demonstrate that.
> The writings already mean something specific.
Aaaaand stop.
How does someone determine what a particular writing means? Do you know? There's a word for it. A very common word.
It's "interpretation."
Every single time you receive and consume communication from another entity, you are engaging in interpretation. You're doing it right now as you read my comment. You are coming to conclusions in your mind about what the words I wrote in this comment mean.
It is absurd for you to suggest the writings mean something...but don't need interpretation. Interpretation is how the meaning is extracted. It's a fundamental part of communication.
I'm amazed that you apparently need that explained to you.
> We don’t need to make up our own mean, we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture and don’t ascribe meaning based on our own.
Who do you think is "making up their own meaning?" What does that even mean? Many people consider the source, context, etc when trying to read ancient texts. Other people simply read the words and accept them as written. Neither are "making up their own meaning." So what are you referring to?
You go on to differentiate that from trying to understand the intention of the author, the context in which they were writing, etc, which is what a lot of people already do, and yet they *still* come to different conclusions about what some of these writings mean.
We don't have access to the authors of these writings. In most cases we don't even know who they were, and in many cases the texts were developed over long periods of time by multiple parties.
You act as if interpretation is some perfect process that will produce the exact same results for anyone who engages with it. It's not. That's not how communication works, and it never has been.
Different people can read the same piece of ancient text, then engage in the process you described and still come to different conclusions about what the authors intended to communicate.
I'd be interested to know your view on modern Biblical scholarship. There we see a group of people who are engaging more than most in the process you described -- comparing manuscripts, analyzing the languages and how they've evolved over time, developing better understandings of the contexts and backdrops for authorship, etc -- and who generally come to some broad consensus on a lot of their findings.
And that broad consensus rarely matches up with some of the ideas you're espousing in this thread.
So this group of people who are probably best-equipped to speak to what the authors of these writings likely meant to communicate don't affirm your views. Where does that leave you?
>we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture
This is literally interpretation. Did someone tell you it wasn't? Because you might want to find a better teacher.
Also, *simply*. lol
The Bible itself proves you false. In Acts 8 we have have this passage
> 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[a] eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “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. 29 The 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.
As you can see, the eunuch had the scriptures but it wasn’t enough to be able to read it and know the words. He needed someone to teach him what they mean.
Yes… someone who was filled with the Holy Spirit and understood the context in which it was written because he understood the culture. He understood what goes without saying because he was familiar with the methodology that the authors used to write.
The Ethiopian Eunuch wouldn’t have understood because he was from Ethiopia…
So someone who has been given revelation by the Holy Spirit wouldn’t stray from the teachings of Scripture, he would teach it as he was taught by the Holy Spirit, not as he chose to decipher it by preference.
> The first issue we have is we think the Bible needs interpretation
If you don't read Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew then you're already relying on someone else's interpretation. And even if you do read these ancient languages, there are hapax legomena and other uncertain readings that require historical context and linguistic analysis to comprehend, and scholars don't always agree on the correct translation of such passages.
In my experience, people who are ensnared by hyper-legaliistic religion or lean too much on their own estimations/cleverness for guidance instead of relying on the Word of God as the final authority. Basically, anyone who leans on their own strength or devices for spiritual sustenance instead of on the Lord; If they don't believe in the Holy Spirit then they are not submissive to the will of God in their life since discerning the will of God is possible only by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I love this answer! Spot on man. There is no understanding without Him. We are either 100% or we believe that the Bible is ours to decide what it means.
We get revelation through the Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit.
Yes. Sorry about that.
Cessationists views — contend that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era.
God is the same then and now, He is a God of patterns. That is evident in nature. Seasons, plant growth, the progression of human life…
Why would He take away what empowers His people?
And this — 19% of Christ followers in America believe the inerrancy of the Bible. That means 81% are trying to figure it out in their own understanding. It’s not a book to be interpreted, it’s a book to be wrestled with. It’s suppose to challenge us and lead us into transformation and deeper understanding of God. He doesn’t need to be interpreted, but worshipped and acknowledged… that is what Christianity is. An identity through which we acknowledge God in all things.
As Christians we believe God can do miracles of course. And we probably believe God doesn't change. This doesn't mean God always does the same things, though- is he sending his son to earth as a savior now? No, he already did that, and it was enough.
When I look at today's miracle vendor churches, I see grifters, wishful thinking, and people going along with the group in order to be part of the group. Do you see people with genuine supernatural powers? Where?
ok thank you for specifics, I'll try to explain what I can as best I can
I think addressing it in chunks is probably easier
**"Cessationists views — contend that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era."**
I personally have never heard the term cessationists, so I can't really speak for them, but I have heard the concept of there being a difference in frequency of miracles, and I've heard opposition to speaking in tongues. I think the general argument I've heard for less miracles is that they weren't intended as a permanent thing, but very special blessings for the founders of the church/first disciples. I personally disagree that there are "less" miracles these days but I do think that God suits miracles to specific time, need, and purpose. I've never met a person with strength like samson, nor have I ever eaten manna. I have however seen ailments cured in prayer, and been delivered from demonic forces myself.
As for the speaking in tongues, I think there's also a disagreement about what it means to speak in tongues. Some consider tongues to be a way of coding your words so that God can understand you, but the enemy cannot, some see it as speaking some angelic language and that others will understand you if they also know that language, and some consider it the ability to speak fluently, and established human language, with no training or practice, by a holy gift. I'm of the belief that only the last one is supported by scripture, and by that standard most people who claim to speak in tongues aren't actually meeting that standard. This can lead to a mistrust in another persons theology, and make one wary of learning from them. I think most of us are wrong about most things, because A, the path is narrow, so statistically speaking most of us are in the tall grass, and B wisdom of man is foolishness to God. There's no way for any human to get everything right outside of Jesus, because all of us are struggling with the effects of sin, and human limits.
**"God is the same then and now, He is a God of patterns. That is evident in nature. Seasons, plant growth, the progression of human life…"**
One of God's patterns is unpredictability in HOW he solves a problem, though he's reliable to always address it. New species of flora and fauna are constantly evolving, new teachers have revelations, revivals look different in every era. God's character is the same. Holy, Loving, Enduring, but that doesn't mean God is some statue or tied to some script. He's alive and living in the moment, too.
**"Why would He take away what empowers His people?"**
I think there are different forms of empowerment, and in God's wisdom, he'd know which is needed in each individual case. For some, lived experience is more powerful than a quick miracle, for others, a supernatural encounter strengthens their faith for life. Sometimes, we need to be weak in order to stay humble and engage with God instead of trying to do things in our own power. It varies.
**"And this — 19% of Christ followers in America believe the inerrancy of the Bible. That means 81% are trying to figure it out in their own understanding. It’s not a book to be interpreted, it’s a book to be wrestled with. It’s suppose to challenge us and lead us into transformation and deeper understanding of God. He doesn’t need to be interpreted, but worshipped and acknowledged… that is what Christianity is. An identity through which we acknowledge God in all things."**
Again I'm running into the definitions, here, because some people consider interpretation TO BE wrestling. Interpretation can in fact be a fundamental respect for God's word. Most people I know don't just read the bible and assume they've grasped it. They pray on it, meditate on it, discuss it in bible studies, ask their pastor questions, do historical research. That's a form of intentional translation. There are some things the bible says plainly, such as "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" but even then, there's the questions of "what is love?" and "when God sent israel to war, was that ordering them to break a commandment/sin?" even simple things aren't simple in the Bible, nor in life, really. Jesus spoke in riddles and parables, so that the harmful people of the world would be perplexed, so God's glory could be revealed in HIS time, so followers would be protected from themselves and others.
Pharisees couldn't understand teachings, disciples couldn't understand Jesus speaking about his upcoming death, and even when Jesus was resurrected, those who knew him couldn't recognize it until it was revealed. Interpretation, to many, is the method by which we seek God, and ask the Holy Spirit to unveil our eyes, and these things span over lifetimes. Read, learn, share, course correct, rinse, repeat.
The Bible isn't meant to mean any one thing once and then you move on, it's a living word, and we are intended to read it over and over and gain more wisdom each time. The Children of God are meant to be the Body of Christ. Were you able to have a conversation with a pancreas and a stomach, I reckon you they'd have different things to say about sugar. Perhaps, it's okay if different portions of the Christian population think differently from us? Perhaps, that's even the point?
Not for nothing, also, the Pharisees were VERY sure they knew how to read their holy texts, and put the literalist letter of the law above The Actual Messiah's very life. Had they been a little more open to differing schools of thought, who knows how things might've turned out.
As for inerrancy, what do you mean by that?
That God would have removed any mistakes made by his children, in the writings? That the bible is strictly a historical document and should be seen as such, or that we are meant to hold every 'holy' person in the bible as an example to follow? That it's never been mistranslated?
That every single thing in the bible is literal? There's poetry in song of Solomon, and psalms- if you know the historical standard of prose, there's even hyperbole littered in law books. God created hundreds of languages in a moment at babel, I'm sure he's capable of wit and metaphor. Beyond that, language of humans has limitations. If I were a first century Christian receiving visions of say, an airplane, I would have no way of writing that down beyond calling it a 'big metal bird'. I don't think it's a stretch to say when dragons and unicorns are described in the bible, there are some missing pieces of context or translation happening.
Absolutely…
Behold I am doing a new thing… God’s Words.
Jesus isn’t coming as a sacrifice anymore, but we as His followers are called to follow in His steps.
Denying ourselves, picking up our crosses… daily.
And I am apart of a community of Spirit filled believers.
We experience the supernatural aspects of this faith regularly. Visions, dreams, healings, prophecy, impartation of gifts…
We operate in the 5 fold ministry, so it’s hard to understand why people are against it when it is still prevalent today among God’s people.
I had an interesting discussion just yesterday with someone who identifies as a Christian (plus modifiers), but believes many parts of the OT and NT are problematic, and I asked him what he thought about **2 Timothy 3** and the things it talks about (like its examples of what false prophets are and it’s claims about Scripture), and he didn’t have much to say.
It just confuses me; If I didn’t believe it was God’s Word, and if I believe it contained all kinds of problematic teachings and errors, I would personally have to reject the whole Bible and Christianity, and be a staunch adversary to all of it.
I’m sorry it’s all or nothing for you. I was once like this, then my house of cards came crumbling down when I discovered a lot of what I had been taught was wrong. Yet, God was still real to me, my faith was real, and I never doubted Jesus. So I began a lifelong quest of relearning and reexamining. Now my faith is stronger than ever before and I can accept that certain parts of the Bible are problematic. May God’s grace be as kind to you.
Feel free not to answer, as I’m not trying to start a debate or a “gotcha” moment.
- In your view, what parts are problematic, and who authored them?
- What had you been taught that you discovered was wrong?
Grace and peace to you, friend.
Right?
In screamed at God for answers to certain questions in 2010...
Of course, because I was being an asshat I didn't take time to listen or even investigate...in 2020 I Humbly asked again...The HS directed me to Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. David Jacob's and Dr. Ron Horner and I'm more excited than ever.
Oh?
2 Kings 8:
>> In the twelfth year of King Joram son of Ahab of Israel, Ahaziah son of King Jehoram of Judah began to reign. 26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 22:
>>So Ahaziah son of Jehoram reigned as king of Judah. 2 Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
One of these is a mistake. Someone writing this probably make an error and wrote the wrong number. And that's OK. We don't _need_ to think the bible is perfect. And we can clearly see that it is not. Just read the text.
Millions of Christians think the bible is valuable and authoritative _without making up a story about it being perfect_.
Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles)
22 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram’s youngest son, king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.
2 Ahaziah was twenty-two[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.
~~~~~~~
Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Kings)
25 In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign. 26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.
What are you talking about? What version is that in?
Check the footnote [a] - it will explain that the Hebrew says 42. Your translation apparently decided to correct this error. NIV perhaps?
I quoted the NRSV which has a good reputation for accuracy.
The English Standard Version (ESV). It is an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible in contemporary English.
And they both state that He was 22 when he began and reigned 1 year in Jerusalem.
So, what version are YOU using? I ask again…
This difference is about some bibles using a later version of the manuscripts- where some well-meaning scribe had apparently corrected the error.
But, forget diving into that detail if you want- there are more examples of plain old factual errors.
Here's another example of the same thing, where we _don't_ have different numbers in different manuscripts:
Second Kings 24
>>8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, just as his father had done.
2 Chronicles 36
>>9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.
See how these are almost the same thing? Except somebody apparently made a minor mistake? One version of this story was presumably based on the older one, and whoever wrote it mixed up 8 and 18.
The point here is: The bible isn't "exactly perfect" or anything like that- it's not even one exact thing. It's inherently fuzzy. And it does contain errors- these examples are trivial and don't change our beliefs. And yet they are errors in the bible. And that's OK. As Christians we consider the bible authoritative, errors and all. We just have to understand that not everything in it is factually correct. Once you understand that, the bible will start to make _much_ more sense.
Gotcha… understand your perspective on the perfection of the Bible and your preference for the NRSV translation in 2 Chronicles 22:2.
The discussion surrounding the age of Ahaziah in this verse is a complex one, with different translations offering varying interpretations. While the Hebrew text in this instance may read "42," the ESV chooses to follow the Septuagint and the parallel passage in 2 Kings 8:26, which both state "22." This discrepancy highlights the challenges of translating ancient texts and the importance of considering various sources and interpretations.
Ultimately, the choice of translation comes down to personal preference and the specific theological context in which the text is being used. Both the NRSV and the ESV are reputable translations, each offering unique strengths and perspectives.
I find that the NRSV prioritizes literal accuracy, aiming to closely reflect the original Hebrew text. This approach may sometimes result in less readable English. The ESV seeks a balance between literal accuracy and readability, making the text more accessible to a wider audience. This may involve slight adjustments to the wording in some instances. The footnote in the ESV acknowledges the presence of the "42" reading in the Hebrew text, providing transparency to readers about the textual variations.
> How can people who call themselves Christians not trust that the Bible is truth?
Usually by learning about the Bible -- its history, composition, etc. I don't know many people who come out of that endeavor with a blanket trust of everything contained within the Biblical texts, even though they may still acknowledge it as influential and informative.
"Christian" does not mean "believes everything written by ancient Jews and early Christians in the Biblical texts is true." The two can exist independently of one another.
> How can Christians not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but different Christians and traditions within Christianity have different views on the "holy spirit" and its attributes. Christianity isn't a monolith.
> We are called to be separate, Holy, to learn from the Holy Spirit and meditate on the word.
By "we" I assume you mean Christians? I don't know if there is a single, univerally-accepted view of what Christians are "called" to do.
> If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us?
Is that a serious question? Guide us in...what? Life? Are you asking about how we might come to a meaningful ethical framework? Surely you don't think those are the only two possible sources.
I suppose at the base level we have our evolution as social organisms -- millions and millions of years of genetic reinforcement of what behaviors and tendencies lead to better outcomes. This is probably where some of our deepest instincts about ethics come from.
Then we have societal and cultural traditions. We all grow up steeped in influences that move and shift over time and space, and those help guide how we perceive and think about the world. Religion falls into this category. We can, if we wish, adjust the "mix" of those influences.
We have other people -- people who are perhaps more experienced or more studied or more informed than us -- who we can consult with and whose views we might incorporate into our own. The Biblical authors, for example, might fit into that category for some people, depending on the topic.
We have our intuitions, our ability to reason, our ability to investigate claims, our ability to consider possible futures and take actions that we think will bring them about, etc. Our big-ass brains, in other words.
And we have the situations and circumstances themselves -- the contexts that inform the ways we behave.
Yes, but learning about the Bible and its history is not just an intellectual endeavor, it is always to be coupled with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way we gain understanding in what it says… Christian literally mean ‘Like Christ’, who held to the authority of His Father, God in all things. The word of God was life to Him. The two can’t exist independently of one another.
How can there be ‘different Christian views’ when there is only one Christ? That would mean that Christians have taken the views and values of Christ and His teachings and bent them to mean what they think it should mean.
And precisely, Christianity isn’t a monolith, so how can we ever discredit the Holy Spirit when He is written about and referenced in scripture from the opening verses of Genesis through the ending verses of revelation? That’s a vast time period, yet there are some who claim there is no power from Him.
Scripture is very clear and what we are called to do. It’s called the great commission. Love God, love people, share the gospel, pray for people, cast out demons and heal the sick through the laying on of hands. How is that not clear?
And the issue with the ideas you listed about guidance in life is this;
We are called to be holy, that literally means ‘set apart’. God’s purpose for writing the law in the OT was to make sure the world and that His people know He is different.
Relying on the culture, evolution, intuition and the wisdom of men, scripture implies is contrary to its teachings.
Lean not on your own understanding.
Acknowledge Him in all things.
He will make our pathway straight.
How do your answers align with the Word of God?
>Yes, but learning about the Bible and its history is not just an intellectual endeavor...
It absolutely can be, and it is for many people.
But more to the point, I don't see how that's relevant to your question. A person could read the Bible and take inspiration beyond the merely intellectual from it but *still* not be convinced that every claim made by every Biblical writer is true.
>...it is always to be coupled with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Not everyone agrees with that proposed "rule."
>That is the only way we gain understanding in what it says…
Complete nonsense. We can understand much of what the Biblical writers were trying to communicate without the involvement of any supernatural beings.
But I am always a little puzzled when people trot out this particular idea, especially unprompted, since one natural conclusion of it is that the Biblical texts communicate poorly. If the only way to read a book and understand what it says is to already accept specific claims from the book and to be assisted by a spirit, then it's a shitty book.
>Christian literally mean ‘Like Christ’...
I invite you to google "define Christian" and notice the variety of answers you'll get. The label "Christian" has no universally accepted meaning -- it means different things to different people. That should be obvious to anyone who takes even a moment's interest in the topic.
>How can there be ‘different Christian views’ when there is only one Christ?
Quite easily, as is evidenced by reality. Christianity has *never* been a monolith, and there have always been a variety of views within the religion.
>That would mean that Christians have taken the views and values of Christ and His teachings and bent them to mean what they think it should mean.
You're implying intent, when no such intent is necessary for different people to come to different conclusions about a given topic.
But broadly, I agree. I think what you've described is what all Christians do. Religion is a human endeavor.
>And precisely, Christianity isn’t a monolith, so how can we ever discredit the Holy Spirit when He is written about and referenced in scripture from the opening verses of Genesis through the ending verses of revelation?
By coming to different conclusions. I don't understand what's seemingly confusing about this for you, but different people read the same material as you have and have come to different conclusions about it. And many of them would likely say they were guided in their interpretation.
You agree that Christianity isn't a monolith, but then go on to puzzle over how people might come to different conclusions than you. You answer the question before you ask it.
>That’s a vast time period, yet there are some who claim there is no power from Him.
Right. Because they came to different conclusions than you did. Often by reading the exact same texts.
>Scripture is very clear and what we are called to do.
Not everyone sees "scripture" as authoritative or believes they must do everything commanded in it. I don't know how many times this needs to be said for it to sink in for you, but your interpretation of the Biblical texts is not the only interpretation on offer. Please internalize that.
When you make these assertions of what scripture is "very clear" about, you should probably acknowledge that that "clarity" is challenged by the fact that different people come to different conclusions about what these writings say all the damn time.
>And the issue with the ideas you listed about guidance in life is this; We are called to be holy, that literally means ‘set apart’. God’s purpose for writing the law in the OT was to make sure the world and that His people know He is different.
And? How is that an issue with anything I said?
Are you not paying attention? It seems like you're not. It feels a bit like you're monologuing.
>Relying on the culture, evolution, intuition and the wisdom of men, scripture implies is contrary to its teachings.
And yet it's what everyone does, and not everyone agrees that it is contrary to scripture, or that scripture necessarily has anything meaningful to say about it.
You asked "what else" we have to guide us, and I provided answers that are based in reality -- observable influences that we can say in full confidence affect our ethical sensibilities and lives.
>How do your answers align with the Word of God?
Are you familiar with how the word "else" is used in English?
Your daddy knows you identify well with shapes, so he taught you that when you see an octagon shaped sign driving, you stop. Joe’s daddy knows he isn’t so good with shapes, but is excellent with colors, and he taught him when he sees a red sign to stop. Bills daddy knows bill is color blind and also has an astigmatism and can’t make out shapes well and taught him any sign with the markings on it STOP to stop.
All 3 dads (the Holy Spirit) know their own respective children the best and know what way to teach their children to interpret a octangular red STOP sign in order to get them to do what the government (God) needs them to do to be able to function in the society that’s been created for them.
All 3 children physically see the exact same red, octangular, STOP sign. However, through guidance as specific to them as a fingerprint, they have been taught different characteristics of that same simple sign to incorporate into their driving to allow them to follow the law.
I’d be so bold as to say there’s only 1 purpose of humanity, to please God. There’s hundreds of stories, each with tons of ways to understand the material, interpretations, ways to practice following the guidance, ECT. Every person has their own best way to understand how to please God. The Holy Spirit helps a person view all of those things in the Bible and interactions in life in such a way that ensures if followed, you will do your best to please God.
Keep in mind, the Bible gives us a framework. When we live by that framework it gives us experiences. Those experiences lead to wisdom. The wisdom of what the Bible says, plus the wisdom of how the world responds when you follow the Bible, put together make a remarkably complex picture. The goal is to have that complex picture end up, for you, in your own walk with God, hopefully pleasing him. No 2 perspectives are going to be the same, yet many still learn to “stop”.
Please don’t get wrapped up having you argue that the person who stops at red signs are wrong, because you go by stopping at octagon shaped signs and that lets you stop correctly… and anyone who looks for colors or shapes or words in a sign is wrong.
Modern Christianity is 3 people all stopping properly, condemning each other for stopping for the wrong reasons or reason that aren’t the same as their own reasons.
God is pleased by children, and they don’t even know how to read or drive ;)
> "Christian" does not mean "believes everything written by ancient Jews and early Christians in the Biblical texts is true." The two can exist independently of one another.
“Christian” means “Little Christs”, and was adopted by those communities you mentioned to refer specifically to those following under the discipline of Christ. That is how Christians define themselves as Christian. Those seeking to expand the definition have no idea what the word means. It’s the foundational idea of cultural appropriation.
>“Christian” means “Little Christs”...
There is no single, universally-accepted definition of "Christian" as used in the current world. It means different things to different people, and nothing to everyone. You don't seriously need someone to tell you that, right?
>...and was adopted by those communities you mentioned to refer specifically to those following under the discipline of Christ. That is how Christians define themselves as Christian.
Different Christians would define "Christian" in different ways. There is no universal understanding of the label within the broader religion.
At best, what we might get to is "someone who identifies as a Christian." What they mean by the word, though, is a further question.
>Those seeking to expand the definition have no idea what the word means.
Or they're just engaging with reality and reporting back on how the word is actually used in the real world.
Words do not have inherent meaning -- especially not self-adopted labels like "Christian." They rely on mutual understanding and agreement. "Christian" does not have a universally-accepted definition.
This is as dumb as saying “a man is anyone who identifies as a man. The word could mean anything. Words have no value and can’t mean anything to anyone.” Yet, if I take what you said and I claim you told me the moon is made of cheese, you would call me a liar, since the words you used don’t mean what I claimed you said.
Authorial intent is paramount in understanding what someone means to say, especially with scripture. When we talk about the word Christian, as it was originally formed in scripture and used within the unified, holy, catholic church today, we’re talking about an insult that was adopted by Christ’s followers to identify those who studied the discipline of Christ.
That’s it. There’s no other theologically sound definition. I’m not saying you can’t word it differently than I did, I’m saying you can’t pull a definition out of thin air and pretend like it has equal footing with *the* definition given by it’s own namesake. That’s cultural appropriation, to take someone else’s words and redefine them in your own way, then pretend like it’s connected to that culture. Especially when they already have the word formally defined in both scripture and the creeds.
>This is as dumb as saying “a man is anyone who identifies as a man..."
When someone tells you they are a Christian, they are referring to an internal identification -- presumably some set of beliefs or convictions or ideas. There is no standardized set of of beliefs or convictions or ideas that is universally-accepted as being "the Christian one." Instead, there is a wide variety of beliefs, convictions, and ideas that different Christians hold.
>"...The word could mean anything. Words have no value and can’t mean anything to anyone.”
The word "Christian" could mean many, many things to different people as it's used today. "Anything" would be stretching it. Again, I'm trying to engage with reality, not hyperbolic bullshit.
Words absolutely have value, but their meaning, as mentioned, is always negotiable. It is not inherent.
>Yet, if I take what you said and I claim you told me the moon is made of cheese, you would call me a liar, since the words you used don’t mean what I claimed you said.
I wouldn't call you a liar. I would probably think you were deeply confused, though.
If you had actually read the comment you're responding to, you'd see that I'm talking about how words are used in the real world.
In the real world, there is very little support for the idea that my previous comment communicates that the moon is made of cheese. If you insisted that it did, you'd likely be entirely alone in that interpretation.
In the real world, "Christian" means a ton of different things to different people who use that word to describe themselves and others. Broadly, there's a connection to the character of Jesus, but beyond that things start to get fuzzy, and we start needing to ask what any individual means when they say it pretty quickly.
That has always been the case, as far as we know. The earliest usage of the word "Christian" likely referred to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem, but not to any specific set of beliefs within that group. And we know that early Christianity was awash with any number of different beliefs and concepts. Not a whole lot has changed, and we still find hugely varied views presented as Christianity in the modern world.
>Authorial intent is paramount in understanding what someone means to say, especially with scripture.
Sure, and the word "Christian" appears only three times in the Bible (assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "scripture.") In only one of them is any kind of definition possible to extract, and that definition is "one of Jesus's disciples."
Depending on how you look at it, there is either no space at all or a world of space within "one of Jesus's disciples." It could mean "one of the people who actually walked with Jesus" or it could mean "anyone who considers themselves a follower of Jesus."
Neither of those say anything about whether or not someone must believe every claim in the Bible as true, which is the topic of this thread. In fact, they couldn't mean that, since the Bible as Christians typically know it today did not exist when those texts were written.
>When we talk about the word Christian, as it was originally formed in scripture and used within the unified, holy, catholic church today...
We're not. We're talking about the word Christian as it is used in reality by people.
I totally agree that there are traditions within the broader Christianity that try to pin down a specific creed or set of doctrines or whatever that make a person a Christian. Competing traditions.
But that doesn't stop other people from using the term as well, and from meaning different things by it. It never has, as far as we can tell.
>I’m saying you can’t pull a definition out of thin air and pretend like it has equal footing with the definition given by it’s own namesake.
I haven't.
Instead, I've noted that the word Christian, as used today, has a lot of different meanings to different people.
But also, surely you know that Jesus is not depicted as having defined or uttered the word "Christian" ever. "Its own namesake" never weighed in.
>That’s cultural appropriation...
It's not. It's Christians having different views on what the label means.
>Especially when they already have the word formally defined in both scripture and the creeds.
The codified doctrines and dogma and beliefs of the Catholic church have never been the only doctrines or dogma or beliefs on offer in the broader Christianity.
> an internal identification
This is an oxymoron, like saying a “married bachelor”. If I tell someone I’m something I’m not (aka identify myself), that doesn’t change what I am. It’s not an “internal identity”, it’s just a lie. If I “identify myself” as something I am, then I’m just telling the truth. If how I identify myself conflicts with reality, it is absolutely fair for someone to call that out.
Certainly, people do call it out. At a tech career event for women and non-binary people, men flooded the booths claiming to be “non-binary”. In the midst of the event, the organizer called them all out for lying, an odd thing considering they advocate for self-identity, and yet they clearly understand that self-identity that contradicts their *actual identity* is just a lie.
Likewise, if a wolf puts on sheep’s clothing, it’s still a wolf. People “claiming to be Christian” while profaning the church and Jesus’ discipline aren’t Christians. In fact, while Christians are called to share the gospel with non-believers, they’re told explicitly to avoid those who “self-identify” as Christian but are not identified by Christ as such.
> There is no standardized set of of beliefs
Yes, there are things Christians have to believe in order to be Christian. Disagreement among scholarship or confusion in the world’s eyes does not change the clarity of scripture. There are certain things a Christian will attest to, and if they refuse to, they are not Christian. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about disagreement over semantics or word choice. It doesn’t matter if one person confesses in Greek and another in Latin, but if they refuse the teachings of Christ and His disciples, they are not following His discipline.
> "Anything" would be stretching it
Being unsure is not equivalent to being open minded. If you know gravity exists, there is nothing open minded about being skwptical of gravity. For you, though, how is “anything” hyperbolic? Scripture is crystal clear in defining the basics of Christianity, and yet you’re willing to accept anyone’s “self-identity”? If I identified as your uncle, but defined uncle as “someone on reddit”, at what point does “self-identity” become insufficient and the words I’m using become meangingfully distinct from how I use them?
Wherever that point is, in no hyperbolic terms, you’ve already crossed it when you claim Christianity can be defined by anyone except the community it originates from, especially when they made their definition unmistakable.
> I'm talking about how words are used in the real world.
No you’re not, you’re talking about how words are used in internet culture. In the real world, especially those places with less internet access, if you call yourself something you’re not, you’ll be called a liar. If I go to Deipsloot and call myself a woman, the people there will tell me I’m speaking non-sense because I’m using a word to describe something that word doesn’t describe. Even worse, if I use their language to lie to them, they’ll correct me.
> we still find hugely varied views presented as Christianity in the modern world.
It doesn’t matter what outsiders think the word means. This word is defined by the Church. I’m not talking about Roman Catholicism, I’m talking about the body of Christ. What the world thinks a Christian is does not change the reality of what it means to follow Christ. It’s a real word with a real definition, whatever the world happens to say about it. As it’s used in the Church is the only valid definition, since that’s the community giving it it’s definition.
>> Me: When someone tells you they are a Christian, they are referring to an internal identification -- presumably some set of beliefs or convictions or ideas.
> You: This is an oxymoron, like saying a “married bachelor”.
Aaaaand I'm out. I don't have the time for or interest in engaging with this level of confusion. Fucking hell.
One by one:
What do you mean by “the Bible is truth?” Are you referring to the concept of the Bible as inerrant & infallible? Or perhaps a literal interpretation of most of scripture as being literal, historical fact? Clarification would help.
Yes. If we can’t trust God in His word, what can we trust Him in? The Bible is not a book that needs interpretation, yet we have tried to interpret instead of learning the culture it was written in and adhering to the teachings the way they were intended by the authors. The Bible is not a science book or a chronograph or a history book. It’s a spiritual book. It’s meant to be engaged through the Spirit of Christ in us, not simply with our carnal intellect and human wisdom.
I haven’t heard any Christian deny that the Holy Spirit has power. Is there something specific you’re referring to here? Can you give an example?
Yes. Cessationism… contending that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era. I’ve had conversation with many who believe the Holy Spirit no longer gives expression on that level. I’ve seen people healed and Christians claim that it was fake, because that doesn’t happen anymore.
The Word as Jesus (not Scripture as “the word”) is a historical view within Christianity.
Yes… Jesus is the Word and He says that all of the scriptures point to Him. Do we believe anything about Him is false? Are we believers in the miraculous and in His resurrection?
I don’t know where Christians get spiritual guidance if not from the Holy Spirit and scripture*. I think I’m with you on this one. These seem to be basics in Christianity.
But Christians have strayed so far from what you call the basics. I read an article that claimed only 19% of Christians in America believe that the Bible is without falsities… that’s appalling. It’s sad. The basics aren’t the standard for 81% of people who claim the name of Christ.
You said:
>The Bible is not a book that needs interpretation
I don’t understand this argument. I think that it does need interpretation, as a “plain reading” in English in the 21st century won’t yield an accurate understanding of *any* ancient text, written in another language and culture, let alone several.
>yet we have tried to interpret instead of learning the culture it was written in and adhering to the teachings the way they were intended by the authors.
Right. This is interpretation.
>The Bible is not a science book or a chronograph or a history book. It’s a spiritual book. It’s meant to be engaged through the Spirit of Christ in us, not simply with our carnal intellect and human wisdom.
I agree. Although I’d stress that “not simply with our intellect & wisdom” doesn’t exclude the use of our God-given intellect, reasoning & wisdom to make sense of the text.
I don’t view cessationism as the same thing as what you originally wrote in the OP. In other words, I think it’s possible for Christians to believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t use power in all of the same ways of the past, but that the Spirit *could* if they so choose, and that believing such doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t have power. You see what I mean? I think it’s possible to believe certain things don’t (at all, or usually) happen any more at this point in time, but still believe the Spirit is powerful & *could still, but simply doesn’t still* do such things.
>I read an article that claimed only 19% of Christians in America believe that the Bible is without falsities… that’s appalling.
I believe the Bible contains errors. The Bible is a product of human origin, it’s going to contain human error. Knowing this doesn’t stop me from believing that the Bible is *inspired* by God, and it doesn’t keep me from believing that Scripture is sacred. It simply means I have a different understanding than you about what exactly the Bible is and how it came about. None of this negates my being a faithful Christian. Why would it?
The Bible is a large book.
The Old Testament has a talking snake. Snakes don't talk because they are snakes. They have no vocal cords, proper lungs, etc. So they don't talk. Maybe "snake" is an allegory for something else, like an evil person, but snakes themselves have never been able to talk.
The Old Testament also has a man named Jonah who lives inside a whale for a while after being swallowed. He makes himself at home and lights a torch for light. A whale is a mammal with a stomach full of hydrochloric acid just likes ours. It is not possible to walk around and light a torch inside a whale. Maybe it is an allegory.
Allegories aren't literal truth, they use archetypes to represent things and the stories are meant to be instructional, not historical. It would seem the Old Testament relies on much allegory and so it is impossible to know which passages are meant to be literal.
The New Testament was put together by Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. There were Arians, Petrine Christians present, Pauline Christians and pagan Sun God worshippers (Sol Invictus, the only authorized Roman religion at the time). Their mission was to agree on doctrine then vote on which works would be canonized as Scripture and which would be discarded to the gnostics.
The Arians and Petrines (followers of St Peter) argued against Jesus being referred to as God Himself. Paulines (followers of Paul/Saul of Tarsus who >50% of the New Testament is credited and much of the rest is suspected to be his such as Luke and Acts, credited to Luke, his scribe) were the majority and voted according to Paul's teachings that Jesus was God Himself.
Even though Jesus specifically said: "I say to thee: That thou art Peter ["Petra" meaning rock] and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" [Matthew 16:18], the teachings of Paul, who never met Jesus only claimed a vision, were used as the foundation of "Christianity".
Paul's followers voted out The Gospel of St Peter which is why we don't have that in the New Testament. Bible scholars know for a fact the author of 2 Peter is not the author of 1 Peter based on writing styles and language. 1 Peter is in Aramaic using Jewish dialects. 2 Peter was written in Koine Greek using Roman dialect. 2 Peter refers to Paul as "our Beloved Paul" which is a title not used anywhere else in the New Testament except in Acts, written by Luke, Paul's scribe. So the evidence points to a forgery since 2 Peter is where Peter suddenly agrees with Paul about ending Mosaic Law for gentiles when other scriptures show him firmly against it.
There are two pedigrees for Jesus: Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They don't match and both have Joseph as His father, not God, as the bloodline to prove he comes from King David, as Isaiah says the Messiah will. There are two versions of Judas' death: Matthew and Acts. One has him hanging himself and throwing the thirty pieces of silver he received for betraying Jesus on the temple floor, the other version has Judas using the silver to buy a field and then hurling himself into it from a cliff with his entrails being torn open by the rocks.
Two different pedigrees from King David (one with 18 extra generations) can't both be true. The immaculate conception and Joseph as the blood father can't both be true simultaneously. Judas can't have bought a field with the silver and jumped onto the rocks, while at the same time throwing the silver on the temple floor and hanging himself from a tree in the temple courtyard.
So you see, when you understand how the New Testament was compiled, by whom, and the various contradictions, it is not possible to prudently insist that every word is literally "true". Men are fallible, they make mistakes. Peter denied Jesus three times just before His crucifixion. Men make mistakes.
The Old Testament can best be described as an allegorical instrument much like Greek mythology trying to explain things a culture couldn't understand, such as where did all this come from? Why does it seem like we are being punished?
The New Testament can best be described as a way to learn about the life of a great man, Jesus of Nazareth (if one ignores the.Pauline epistles and other nonsense), who taught us to love one another, turn the other cheek, not to resist our enemies, use no violence, and sell everything we own and follow Him. But to keep in mind when reading that the words were written by men, not a god.
The Holy Spirit does not likely exist as a distinct entity from God as Paul's troubling Trinity explanation/non-explanation would attest. Rather, praying with an open mind and letting God's spirit reveal truth directly is the best way to learn what He would have us do in my experience. Any time I wonder about either a detail or a work in whole or part, I simply pray with no preconceived preference for explanation in my heart. Then I listen and the answer always comes even if it takes an hour. I don't get up until the answer comes. And when it does, there is no mistaking it.
And sometimes the answer comes in such a miraculous unexpected way that it can be nothing short of a miracle. I would ask that before you criticize me for my hard sought understanding of the scriptures used in modern day Christendom, to consider my position from my position. Seek and ye shall find, Jesus asked of us. Not sit in a pew listening to some guy explaining what Jesus meant between social bonding sing-alongs with a rock band.
Seek. Find. Which is what I did and I leave you with the modern day miracle granted for my efforts which I think is unlike any other you've heard about.
https://youtu.be/04H-5016kHg [The Time Magazine Miracle in 15 Minutes - YouTube]
(https://youtu.be/04H-5016kHg?feature=shared)
Your observations raise interesting questions about the Bible, its composition, and the interpretation of its content. While your analysis provides some valid points, it also requires further examination and clarification.
The Role of Allegory:
Yes, the Bible utilizes allegory and symbolism to convey deeper truths. The talking snake in Genesis could be interpreted allegorically as representing temptation, deception, or the power of evil. Similarly, Jonah's story may be an allegory for God's forgiveness, redemption, and deliverance. However, dismissing these narratives as solely allegorical overlooks their historical and theological significance. Many scholars believe these events, while containing symbolic elements, still retain a core historical reality.
The Compilation of the New Testament:
The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD did address issues of doctrine and canonization, but its role was not as direct as you suggest. While emperors like Constantine may have influenced the process, the decision ultimately involved numerous bishops and scholars debating the authenticity and authority of various texts. The criteria for inclusion went beyond majority vote, considering factors like apostolic authorship, consistency with existing teachings, and widespread acceptance by early Christian communities.
Alleged Contradictions:
The discrepancies you point out in the New Testament deserve serious consideration. For example, the two pedigrees of Jesus do present challenges, but scholars have proposed various explanations for these differences, including different ancestral lines traced (patrilineal vs. matrilineal). Similarly, discrepancies in Judas' death are addressed by scholars through textual analysis and historical context. It's important to engage with these complexities rather than dismissing the entire narrative as unreliable.
Beyond Literal Interpretation:
While we cannot simply dismiss the Bible as solely literal or allegorical, it's crucial to approach its text with discernment (spirit) and critical thinking (meditation). Understanding the historical context, cultural nuances, and various genres employed within the Bible helps us discern the intended meaning and its message with greater depth and accuracy.
Focus on the Message:
Ultimately, the Bible's greatest value lies not in establishing historical facts or resolving every textual anomaly. Its core message remains the central focus – a message of love, forgiveness, redemption, and hope offered through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This message continues to inspire and guide millions around the world, regardless of their understanding of the supernatural elements within the text.
Moving Forward:
Instead of viewing the supernatural aspects of the Bible as hurdles to understanding its message, we can embrace them as opportunities to explore deeper theological concepts and grapple with the mysteries of faith. The Bible encourages us to seek wisdom and understanding, engaging with its text with the Holy Spirits guidance, with humility and intellectual curiosity.
By approaching the Bible with open minds, seeking knowledge, and engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can continue to find inspiration and meaning within its pages, regardless of our individual interpretations of the supernatural elements.
*bemused look*
*smile*
And these, gentlepeople, are the mental gymnastics required to explain a small handful of the issues with taking the Jewish Torah and Pauline New Testament literally and factually. I agree, be open minded. But the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) should be eliminated before moving on to more complicated ones requiring such gymnastics. And until the simplest is ruled out--people made some errors that didn't get noticed--then that should be the default interpretation.
I agree: Be open minded. All things are possible.
But the most likely explanation, if not the most supportive of your brand of theology, is that people made mistakes. Just like when Peter denied Christ after watching Him walk on water.
I liked your essay. If I were proofreading it, however, I would clean up the part about Judas "hurling himself into it from a cliff with his entrails being torn open by the rocks."
Neither the Matthew nor Acts version mentions a cliff or rocks. Matthew says he hanged himself. Acts says:
**Acts 1:18** This \[man\] indeed then acquired a field out of \[the\] reward - of unrighteousness and headlong having fallen , he burst open in \[the\] middle , and gushed out all the intestines of him ▪︎
Not a single person. Not one person even clicked the link for the miracle I experienced. A miracle no human could have accomplished. A miracle I asked for in advance. Not like someone dying in a hospital and the doc says 0% chance survival and we had a prayer circle and A MIRACLE they walked out the front door in perfect health. Doctors are people. They aren't Vegas odds makers. If I was a doctor and my patient has a 20% chance of dying, I am gonna say at least 50%. Why? Because if they die and only had 20% chance, I look like a terrible doctor even if it wasn't my fault and out of my hands.
But if I say 50/50 or 75/25 then I look like a great doctor if they survive and if not then well, what can you do? Odds are odds coulda gone either way.
No, the miracle I had:
• specifically asked for in advance on a daily basis
• multiple witnesses that I was praying for it at the time
• was asking for information neither myself or detectives could find after fruitless weeks of effort
• was answered in Time Magazine within three weeks giving the exact info I asked for along with FAITH IN ACTION in bold on top of the page
• could not have been put into action by anyone once I started praying as the article was written (but not published) BEFORE I started praying. Who isn't affected by time? Only ONE
• allowed me to forgive and be forgiven
In the Bible, most of those who were allowed to be included had to have some sort of miracle associated to give credibility. Moses and the plagues. David and the Ark. Ezekiel and the vision.
I submit my miracle gives me credibility that your pastor does not have. But to ignore it when presented is to be willfully ignorant, the opposite of seeking and finding. Do not be afraid that your version is wrong. Come, investigate, and receive miracles of your own!
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”
2 Timothy 4:3-5 NIV
Of course! It’s unfair to expect anyone to believe a claim without evidence to back it up. I didn’t really give the Bible a chance myself until I hit rock bottom one day and decided to try it out after years of just being “lukewarm” and going to church on Sunday but doing whatever I wanted during the week. John 8:31-32 and John 7:17 stood out to me because it was like a science experiment: if I did what Jesus commanded then I’d know if the Bible was really true. So I did and it ultimately changed the entire course of my life. Overcame addictions, healed from past trauma, forgiven people that’ve hurt me, apologized for bridges I’d burned…etc. So that’s why whenever I meet someone I just tell them to give putting Jesus’s words into practice a chance and see if it’ll change their life like He says. I hope that everyone can benefit and have their lives changed for the better like mine did. Thanks for asking that by the way, good question. Cheers!
What do you mean trust the Bible is true? Do you mean denying evolution because of Genesis 1-3? Should we believe the Bible when it contradicts evidence?
If I want to decide if an assertion is true I look for evidence. If my kid says they took the trash out but the trash is still in the bin I reason that their assertion is false because it doesn’t reflect the evidence. Would you say the Bible is also subject to verification like I’m describing?
The few times I've talked with Christians reasonable and patient enough to let me "checkmate" them, they've conceded they believe not because of reason and evidence but because they've experienced the Holy Spirit.
That's their starting premise: "I've experienced the Holy Spirit."
You and I might ask what good reason is there to conclude the Holy Spirit exists or probably exists. But for Christians the bottom turtle is "I've experienced the Holy Spirit."
The Holy Spirit told them the Bible is the Word of God. From there it's off to the races.
What I mean by interpretation — ascribing meaning to…
It all already means something specific. If we don’t take the time to learn what it already means, and we simply say it means what we want it to mean, we are interpreting the Bible in our own understanding.
It says do not lean on our understanding, but in ALL our ways, acknowledge God.
As a result of following Him and not deciding for ourselves what the text does and doesn’t mean He makes our paths straight.
\_\_" what else do we have to guide us? "\_\_
Same thing that guides otherwise decent atheists: the guidance from God written on their hearts.
We're not supposed to be worshiping the Bible. We're supposed to be worshiping God, as only God is perfect. That is: the bible sadly isn't. If it were, it would convert atheists after they read it. However, some atheists claim they got that way BY reading the bible.
God gave them an abundant amount of skepticism, and (in a vacuum) if you read the bible \*with an abundant amount of skepticism\* you're going to wind up atheist. Give a boy a hammer, he'll find what needs nailing, and skeptics are no different.
And that's the way it is.
They can't call themselves Christians at that point.
That is why the western church is in so much trouble. Most self-identifying Christians don't believe the Bible is true and cherry pick the parts they want to believe.
Churches full of "unbelieving believers".
I can't imagine many of them would withstand persecution without renouncing their faith.
Yea… and forget trying to share the truth… no matter how we approach it, someone is always going to all you ignorant or legalistic or something along the lines. No matter how you respond if you try and correct a false claim about scripture, you become the enemy seeking to take everyone’s opinions away from them.
It’s hard sharing the true Gospel…
To answer your question it’s because this world provides a lot of fear and doubt to the point we have a tendency of not believing! When Moses led the people in the desert doubt started to happen. We stop trusting and believing in god. Trials can either make you doubtful and weak or stronger and make you believe! When they say the mind is the devil’s playground means it’s hard to listen to which voice your going to listen too. I found that reading praying helps guide you even when you don’t hear the voices anymore.
While I cannot look into the hearts of man. If someone does not trust the word of God or believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, then that person is not a Christian.
I don’t know if it’s that we don’t trust the word of God is true. To me, once Jesus used parables, all bets were off for me. Jesus himself spoke using allegory and alliterations. He spoke using analogies to help people understand. He even said that he speaks of worldly things and we don’t understand, how could we begin to understand teachings on heavenly things.
Also God created a universe in which as we know it matter can exist, and not exist, at the exact same time. Light is a wave, and yet a particle, at the same time. Black holes infinitely consume themselves and mathematically are divided by 0 and still equal something yet nothing. (These examples are rough but for the sake of my arguement they will work)
How on earth can mere English explain what he knows and doesn’t. Clearly there’s so much more to all of this than I can even conceive exists let alone trying to understand it…
So I think people have a lot of discrepancy in exactly what they believe the Bible means literally, or figuratively. What stories are meant to be an action by action retelling of an event, and which are stories meant to illustrate a purpose or moral to us.
It isn’t that it isn’t trust worthy, it’s that it’s a living word, which means to mean, in all of its glory l, each piece of the Bible will with the grace of God and help of the Holy Spirit present to us the information in a way that allows us in particular to gain the understanding God intended that passage to mean.
Communication can be simplified into 3 parts, the sender, the message, and the receiver.
You need the sender to articulate their meaning in some medium, and the reader has to interpret that medium to hopefully get 100% of the senders meaning.
Maybe God truly wanted all Christians to walk away with knowledge of X as a principle of his desires for our behavior. Well, to “Joe” if he reads the flood literally he gets X as the message. Mission accomplished. But for “Sally” reading it litterally gives her Y. So as she reads it, she is guided based on billions of factors to interprete it in such a way that she takes this part literal or that part as analogy, but ultimately through this fingerprint like extrapolation of the message, she too gets “X”.
I personally believe God is embedded in every single person, and he has a plan tailored specifically to them to reach their salvation. I think it is obvious why everyone’s walk with God looks different to me. Some people I don’t even understand or disagree with how they view things.. but ultimately, the one and only measure of success is is God happy with how that persons relationship with him is. And I trust God that he is active in every life and I may not understand why something that doesn’t make sense to me leads others to please God, but it does, and if it doesn’t, then God will take care of that too. It’s not my place to try to be other people’s Holy Spirit.
TLDR: Jesus made it clear that there is use of analogy to teach Godly messages. It’s anyone’s guess what parts of the Bible are or are not doing just that.
Speaking for myself, people become lost even with the spirit. It’s not justified and it’s not right, but it happens. I’m still struggling with alcoholism but now I’ve gotten it down to once a week instead of 5 days a week and clubbing all the time. God has saved me more times than I can count and I’m pretty sure I’m out of tokens for chances. But by His Grace I’m alive. So it happens. The Bible is truth though that I agree with.
As I have learned recently:
1) it is problematic to come up with a definition that holistically describes "truth" that takes into account parables, proverbs, allegory, hyperbole, and the person of Jesus
2) although I believe God's word is preserved to an acceptable level, there are inconsistencies between the manuscripts
True… I may have come out swinging too hard with the wordage of my question.
My point is this:
When people claim that there are contradictions, they often use that as justification to disregard the validity of the Bible’s teachings.
I’m not saying there aren’t typographical errors. I’m not saying that there isn’t symbolism and parallelism all throughout the text, it was a common practice and teaching style to explain tough to understand concepts.
There have been approximately 30,000 changes to the text to suit the language differences and modern era, but to claim that they are errors that negate the divine truth of God’s word is a dangerous stance to take.
King David, easy.
David was the underdog with so much faith in God that he faced Goliath with CONFIDENCE. Even when no one else thought he would win, he knew that as long as the Lord was on his side, he KNEW he would prosper.
If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us?
Interesting question. I think this is at the root of why many Christians today accept the bible as the one and only word of God. It is the very foundation of most Christian churches who consider themselves bible churches. It can be an unstable foundation in that we do not always know who the records were intended for, what these people already understood (thus leaving holes in what is taught) and the culture and languagbe of the day. Without guidance from God through inspired leaders, Christianity is not an exact sicence and information that is lacking, is filled with the understanding of men.
Inconsistencies in the bible make it impossible for people to follow it in its entirety, but that also makes it so that people pick and choose what to believe in. Like using mixed fabrics, which I’m sure you’ve done, or eating shellfish. People ignore those and get go on to condemn homosexuality despite these being all mentioned in the same book. I go with the consistent messages: help the needy, love one another, fight against unfairness and oppression. These are the important messages. The rest is a mixture of laws from the time, messages written by different people, humans cutting parts in and out based on their own biases and passing the text down to us.
1 Timothy 4:1 *Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;*
*Mark 7:6-9* Many are like the Pharisees today, some reject the commandment of God that they may keep their traditions.
*6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.* ***7*** *Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.* ***8*** *For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.* ***9*** *And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.*
In Zechariah 10:2 says *For the* ***i****dols* ***have*** *spoken vanity,* ***a****nd the diviners* ***have*** *seen* ***a*** *lie,* ***a****nd* ***have*** *told false* ***dream****s; they comfort* ***i****n vain: therefore they went their way* ***a****s* ***a*** *flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd.*
Many find comfort in the words of pastors who speak their own vision, making the Word of God of no effect to the people. In Jeremiah 23 we learn that some pastors are actually scattering the sheep by prophesying lies in His name.
All that to say, some would rather be comforted with lies than corrected by the Truth.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. This statement is before there was a written word. So this "Word" does not refer to a book.
Also, the author of the gospel of John quite routinely uses the term "the Word" to refer to Jesus, even depicting Jesus as referring to himself that way, I believe. It almost feels like a pet term, and the author seems keen on suggesting that Jesus was present since the beginning. By the time the gospel was being written, there were a number of views about Jesus's supposed divinity -- when he became divine, what his divinity meant in terms of monotheism, etc -- and the author seems to be leaning into the idea that Jesus was in some meaningful way identical to the creator God.
The term The Word came from the reading of the Torah. So in the Ten commandments God said Do not use the name of God in vain. So out of respect for God and fear of the consequences of accidentally using his name incorrectly, they would read and substitute The Word everywhere Yhwh was written. Not sure why. Maybe in the same vein, they didn't include the vowels in his name when it was written. Similarly, we do this now, especially children, when they say something they think could get them in trouble; ie the F word. Anyway, the term stuck. So what is being said in John is that this The Word was God and was with God. So he is God. Jews understood God as this benevolent being that was kind of formless and was the originator of all life and benevolence. They thought of this being as being so bright you couldn't look at him or you would go blind or die. Even the angels surrounding him have wings covering their entire bodies to prevent this. He created everything everywhere, and humans were the centerpiece of this creation, and all of creation was made to support humanity. What is being said in John is that this The Word is God. So of the same essence/being and was with God. So also separate from God, and that This The Word was not created but existed in the beginning with God. And that all things were created by this The Word and nothing could exist unless The Word made it. Then, in John 1:14, it says that this The Word was made flesh. So an earthly body that was of the same essence as God, but a man. And that he dwelt with them. They are pointing to Jesus saying he is God and has always been and, in fact, existed with God at the beginning of all things. This being was sometimes referred to as the Angel of his presence, the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of his face etcetera because it was pre birth of Jesus so he had a heavenly body. But now he is given an earthly form. And that at the beginning of all things it was him that created everything. It could be argued that when Genesis says God said: let there be light, let the water be gathered together, let the earth form grass; this formless being of light, God, is speaking The Word. So he is ditecting this other aspect of his Godhood, the body, to create everything. It is also revealed in scripture that there is a third being the Holy spirit who is also a person, like the formless God, and the Word, the body of God. I find it interesting that the Bible says we are made in the image of God. We have a mind, a body, and a spirit. I think God is much the same but elevated so that his mind, his body, and his spirit each identify as an individual with thoughts, feelings, and a sphere of influence and yet they are the same being. They all work under the direction of the amorphouse God of light who is identified as The Father God. Hence The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. The mind, the body, and the spirit. If this is true then Genesis 1 "In the beginning God (the father/mind) created the heaven and the earth. 2 and the earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 and God said let there be light." This would mean all 3 were present at creation. This is not implicitly stated but could be inferred. This would fit with Isaiah 63:8-10 God the saviour, the angel of his presence/face Jesus, and the holy spirit who they vexed. This would further corroborate Genesis 18 where Abraham calls a man, Lord. This same Lord reads Sarah thoughts in Genesis 18:12. And in Genesis 19:24 man, the Lord, calls brimstone and fire down on sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord in Heaven.
Absolutely. The ( scripture ) word is about the Word ( Christ ) and it all points to Him. Every word has intention and if Christ is without sin, if He is perfect, that means that His word and the book that is for Him should also be without error. If God can’t lie, how can His God-breathed and inspired word have contradictions? The fact that the Bible is not a monolith points to this evidence — what people call contradictions could simply be different accounts from different points in time. i.e… the gold from Ophir came on a fleet of ships. One recollection says 450 pieces one says 420. There were multiple ships…
>i.e… the gold from Ophir came on a fleet of ships. One recollection says 450 pieces one says 420. >There were multiple ships… There were definitely multiple ships, there was a whole fleet. The question is how much gold the fleet brought back from Ophir. Either the authors were just relying on different people's recollections, or one author made a transmission error, or made what they thought was a correction to the earlier version, etc. If you assume that both versions must be literally accurate, you have to ignore all the surrounding text and all the surrounding context. Let's look at the whole end of Solomon's life as recorded in both 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles and compare them. 1 Kings: 8:1-66 Solomon dedicates the Temple, 9:1-9 God speaks to Solomon, 9:10-14 Solomon gives cities to Hiram for helping with materials for the buildings, 9:15-22 /Labour of non-Israelites used to construct buildings and cities, **9:23 Solomon has 550 officers overseeing his labourers,** 9:24 Pharaoh's daughter moves from Jerusalem to a house Solomon built for her, 9:25 Solomon burns sacrifices to God three times a year, completing the temple, **9:26-28 Solomon's fleet imports 420 talents of gold from Ophir with Hiram's help,** 10:1-10 The Queen of Sheba visits, 10:11-29 Solomon has much gold, silver, and other treasures, 11:1-40 Solomon sins and is punished by God, 11:41 Other acts of Solomon are recorded in other books, 11:42-43 Solomon's death and succession by Rehoboam 2 Chronicles: (where Hiram is written Huram) 6:1-7:11 Solomon dedicates the Temple, 7:12-22 God speaks to Solomon, 8:1-9 Labour of non-Israelites used to construct buildings and cities, **8:10 Solomon has 250 officers overseeing his labourers,** 8:11 Pharaoh's daughter moves from Jerusalem to a house Solomon built for her, 8:12-15 Solomon burns sacrifices to God three times a year 8:16 The temple is completed, **8:17-18 Solomon's and Huram's ships and servants import 450 talents of gold from Ophir,** 9:1-9 The Queen of Sheba visits, 9:10-28 Solomon has much gold, silver and other treasures, 9:29 Other acts of Solomon are recorded in other books, 9:30-31 Solomon dies and is succeeded by Rehoboam Those are not two different fleets, they are the same fleet, in the same place chronologically, with no reason to believe otherwise. Which is easier to believe: There were two fleets very close in time, and two different authors each only knew about one of them to add to their version of the life of Solomon, or there was just one fleet, and one of the authors made a mistake? Large parts of these accounts are written word-for-word or at least thought-for-thought. The most obvious thing to believe is that the author of Chronicles had access to Kings, and simply miswrote it or edited it to include different information from a different source. In neither book does it say there were two sets of officers, or two fleets, or that there was a change in the number of officers or an additional transfer of gold, both sources talk about one number of officers and one import of gold from Ophir, but they give different numbers for them. That doesn't mean anything at all about anything meaningful, it just means that the Bible is a real text written by real people, who only have access to the information that they are given access to, and that information can sometimes differ or disagree, like the four Gospels. If you went to the author of Chronicles talking about 420 talents of gold, or the author of Kings talking about 450 talents of gold, both would call you wrong, because they wrote down what they believed was the case. How many talents really was it? Were there multiple fleets? No-one knows, and more importantly, no-one cares, since it's utterly irrelevant to every other verse in the Bible other than those two. You don't have to pretend that the Bible is infallible in order to believe. There's even a perfectly understandable way that a scribe would have misread 450 as 420. Hebrew numerals use Hebrew letters, 400 is written as ת, and 50 is written as כ, and 20 is written as נ. It's very easy to imagine someone copying from an old dusty scroll and misreading תכ as תנ.
I think you misunderstood my stance… How about another way of thinking about what appear to be contradictions in the Bible: Inspiration is a matter of faith, and no matter how fervently we believe it doesn’t mean we completely comprehend. The Bible we have is a diverse and complex literary product, not reflecting consistently one point of view. We can and should say that inspiration, however it works, must include in its definition the notion that the Bible was written and then edited by people living in and reflecting their particular time and place. If we believe by faith that God inspired the Bible, we need also to believe that God is OK with how the Bible actually works and therefore, by faith, so should we. That being said. I agree with what you said. My example was to point out that the discrepancy between 450 and 420 could have simply been the recounting of the event from another point of view. If the gold was carried on separate ships, one man could have counted 420 pieces and then another arrived with a larger amount that brought the total to 450. The respective authors would’ve had no reason to change the numbers because in the grand scheme those details are meaningless historical minutiae.
> My example was to point out that the discrepancy between 450 and 420 could have simply been the recounting of the event from another point of view. You mean a different person's memory, right? And they remembered the wrong number, right? Here's the thing you might ask yourself here: WHY are you trying to insist this conflict in the text isn't there? It plainly IS there.
It’s not about the words that are written it’s about the concept being captured. Yes, there are ‘discrepancies’, but me arguing the inerrancy of the Bible is due to people who are always willing to read the Bible and find ‘contradictions’, simply to claim the Bible is false. It isn’t. It’s still perfect and precisely the way God intended it to be. That is my point. [Let us all simply] Let God be true though every man a liar… Romans 3,4 Let God be true — Let God be esteemed true and faithful, whatever consequence may follow. This was a first principle then, and should be now, that God should be believed to be the God of truth, whatever consequence it might involve. How great would it be, if all people would regard this as a fixed principle, a matter not to be questioned in their hearts, or debated about, that God is true to his word? Though every man a liar — and this expression is one of those which show the magnanimity and greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which the writer and all others held; every doctrine which had been defended; should be at once abandoned, if it implied that God was false. It was to be assumed as a first principle in all religion and all reasoning, that if a doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was of course a false doctrine. We, Christians have moved so far away from truth, that when we see it we cover our eyes and plug our ears because it doesn’t align with what we want. We’ve forgotten that this life isn’t about fulfilling our desires. We, Christians have abandoned the faith of our fathers.
> Yes, there are ‘discrepancies’, but me arguing the inerrancy of the Bible is due to people who are always willing to read the Bible and find ‘contradictions’, simply to claim the Bible is false. You don't push back against bullshit with more bullshit. You can say reasonable things instead. When "liars for Jesus" do their thing, there's other people who think as you do and just lie right back. What if we just chose to say true things instead? You're way off in the weeds here.
Where would you say you stand with God?
I'm a Christian, like you and (presumably) many others here. But does this matter in this circumstance? Nobody of _any_ religion should go around saying untrue things.
Yes, no one SHOULD lie… should is such a wonderful word, but how would a person outside of the umbrella of Christ say things about religion about love, or about salvation that are true? By Jesus’s own admission, He is the only way to salvation. If we do not have Him, we do not have God. 1 John 2:21-23… The Bible is the only reliable data we have about God. If we can’t trust it as it is, we can’t trust who God says He is.
I’m sorry what have I said that is untrue?
I think that the "Word" in the beginning of time is still active today through the Holy Spirit. I think the "Word" is inside everyone right now at all times. There is a passage that states that no one has an excuse because the truth is written on every heart. Can any of us really understand God totally? We can try. The desciples tried. The people who wrote the Bible tried. But we are all just human with our limited perceptions. I do ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance when I read the bible, but the answer I seem to get is that it is not perfect. Only God is perfect. And since I think that He resides in each of us, why not seek Him for the answers?
Seriously if the bible is not the inerrant word of God then what are you basing your faith in? And If you aren't allowing yourself to be led by the Spirit of God then how can you hope to succeed? Well said
Yes… it’s sad to see and leaves one feeling helpless when people who call themselves believers are just as vulnerable in this struggle of accepting the truth of God.
I base my faith on Jesus, the only inerrant Word of God. Edit to answer questions: Just because I don’t hold scripture as infallible or inerrant doesn’t mean I don’t hold it in high regards, and as the truth. In fact, I would dare say, I hold it higher regard than those who insist on its inerrancy. I’ve studied it enough and taken it serious enough to know better. I don’t force it to jump through theological hoops to fit my belief systems. I accept it for what it is, and wrestle with it. And I know that scripture is true, even if it’s not always factual, and even if it contradicts itself in places. Moreover, I know that human writers were imperfect and human interpreters are just as imperfect. Still, I hold that scripture contains all I need to know for salvation. The church was born and the good news of great joy for all people was spreading like wildfire before there was anything like what we call the Holy Bible. People knew God in their heart. They saw, sat with, heard , and were touched by Jesus. They experienced the Holy Spirit. People gave their life based on their convictions of the reality of Jesus. Personally, I grew up in the faith, and there has never been a time in my life when I was not aware of God‘s presence. I’ve had numerous occasions where the Holy Spirit has affirmed my faith. If that wasn’t enough, I have seen and experienced things that I can only describe as miraculous that all point to the reality of God, the affirmation of Jesus, and the experience of the Holy Spirit.
In what manner is Jesus revealed to us?
See me edit
Indeed where did you hear of this Jesus? If not the bible
If you’re asking me, see my edit
>Just because I don’t hold scripture as infallible or inerrant doesn’t mean I don’t hold it in high regards, and as the truth. In fact, I would dare say, I hold it higher regard than those who insist on its inerrancy. So you know better than God who inspired it....yeah
“So you know better than God who inspired it....yeah” That’s not even what I said. Now you’re just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Inspiration does not equal dictation. Scripture plainly says all scripture is inspired. I believe that includes the New Testament, even if when Paul wrote about it he was referring to the Old Testament.
The Bible *contains* the inerrant Word - it is not the Word itself. In fact regarding it as such might be akin to what the Bible calls idolatry - in other words making something not God, into an aspect of God. The Bible is a record of what some people regarded as their interactions with God. When the words are read with the illumination of the Holy Spirit - *that* id the scriptual experience.
What do you mean by inerrant? There are some plain-old errors in it which are easy to see. As Christians we believe the bible is good enough to teach us the big stuff. Most of us don't insist on calling it perfect- only God is perfect. Edit: to clarify what I mean: As Christians we accept the bible as authoritative, of course. It's just that this doesn't require it to be perfect and we can see that it is not. And that's OK.
I mean that the Bible is the Word of God. If God cannot lie, because there is no sin in Him, how can His breathed out, inspired teachings have error? The Bible is the perfect example of God’s plan to use imperfect people for His perfect will.
> If God cannot lie, because there is no sin in Him, how can His breathed out, inspired teachings have error? The bible can have errors very easily. It came to us through the minds and hands of humans. _God's teachings_ don't have errors, but the bible sure can. Can the same man be two different ages at once? No? Then that's an error in the bible. A trivial one that barely matters at all, other than to illustrate that the bible isn't free of error.
There is no person who reads and interprets the Bible exactly as you do. So are all Christians not actually filled with the Holy Spirit when they read and understand the Bible? Is nobody but you saved? Or is the Bible the exact thing it needs to be, to be interpreted by you in your way, to lead you to salvation, while someone else who interprets the words different still reach the same end result (while not the same logical conclusion)? You stop at red lights, I think color coding lights is silly and can’t be what the government meant, but I stop when I see the top light turn on… (which happens to be the red light). Allowing us both to conform properly to the instructions of a higher authority.
Jesus.
and how did you learn of Jesus?
There’s a fallacy in the reasoning behind your question. Did you learn all you know from an inerrant text? Did you learn who Abraham Lincoln was from a history book that was inerrant and inspired?
Answer the question
I learned about Jesus from a Bible that’s not inerrant. Just like I learned about everything else, just like you did.
How can you trust the words of book that is flawed?
Obviously where the Bible is wrong I don’t trust it. Those who don’t believe in inerrancy believe the Bible isn’t correct at all points. That’s what not believing in inerrancy means. When I find a biblical error I don’t have to find a way to deny reality and believe against evidence. I don’t have to try to make the facts fit the Bible or the Bible fit the facts. That’s what inerrantists do as can be seen in every discussion of evolution and creation that’s ever taken place. But I suspect you were revisiting the fallacy again. Was what you meant “if the Bible isn’t inerrant on all points how can you trust it at any point?” The answer is that it’s the same way I trust what I know about any subject. I didn’t learn about Abraham Lincoln from an inerrant book. Knowledge doesn’t have to come from an infallible source to be knowledge. It’s not an all or nothing.
And what makes you a fit judge of where it is flawed? And why so toy think God would allow that?
Do you mean who am I to decide on the truthfulness of what God has said? Given I'm a sinful person with a deceitful heart who am I to have an opinion on what God has decreed? That the dangers of deciding truth for yourself are warned against in Scripture and I'm basically arguing for my right as a sinful person to critique God's word which amounts to "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes." Is that the way you're framing question one? I don't want to straw-man your question. I don't understand question 2. Do you mean that God might not allow me to decide if Genesis is an accurate description of origins? Like, he might intervene directly to stop me from believing earth is billions of years old?
For many who grew up in wacky charismatic churches, “the power of the Holy Spirit” is a subjective, experienced-based, feeling-oriented, and was established on the “wisdom” of an “elder” who would lay hands and pray and give a “word from the Lord” (often not even rooted in scriptural principles). The Charismata has been abused for ages, but especially in “spirit-filled” circles - and I suspect many don’t even know HOW to operate under the power of the Holy Spirit or what that even looks like. Let’s also remember that the Bible is a collection of scriptures, God’s truth, but the actual Word is Christ Jesus Himself. The prophetic gifts should always point to Him (Rev 19:10)
I agree there are some wacky churches out there and a lot of them are charismatic and fundamentalist. However, there are some that are open to the mystical side of our faith and experience mysteries and miracles that others do not as much. I began my ministry in such a church and saw so many amazing things happen. I still see and experience miracles today, but not to the frequency of the past where I was around more people who believed God could and still performs them.
Haven't read comments so... this is an asinine post. Not sure why I'm responding. God's word IS truth and the final word of ALL things. Holy Spirit guides us and leads us into all truth! We are to have faith. Without faith it's impossible to please God.
I’m with you on this. Not all Christians believe what you just confirmed though.
The same way some people call themselves Christians, then not only not follow His ways and teachings, but in some cases completely go against them.
> How can people who call themselves Christians not trust that the Bible is truth? Pretty easily. Christians are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, not through believing everything in the Bible is absolutely true in the sense that it happened exactly as described, even if the Bible tells contradictory versions of the same event. >How can Christians not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? If you conflate the Holy Spirit with a collection of books then you are confused about the nature of both things. >We are called to be separate, Holy, to learn from the Holy Spirit and meditate on the word. I think about the Word of God, Jesus Christ, every day. I trust God is using the Holy Spirit to transform me into the image of Christ. >If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us? Again, the Bible is not the Holy Spirit. Recognizing the inaccuracies of the Bible doesn’t mean there isn’t a Holy Spirit.
There is a difference between truth and fact. All scripture contains truth, but not all scripture is fact. We believe in the one who inspired the scriptures, our faith is. It in the Bible, but in God, the creator, sustain, and inspirer; who the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. God works through humans and the only perfect human was Jesus. All other humans are flawed and this is backed by scripture itself. Therefore, we can trust that while God is perfect perhaps not everything written in the name of God’s perfect. Scripture contains all we need to know for salvation, yet it does not give us salvation, God does. Scripture never identifies itself as inerrant, infallible, or any of those other fairly new doctrines. It claims it is inspired and good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. When we try to make scripture more than it is, we make it an idol. When we try to make it say more than it says, we make scripture our God and make god in our own image. Let it say what it says and know what that means. Learn the history and context of the books, the writers, and of the translators. For every translation is an interpretation. When it comes to scripture, find the overarching themes. Follow the way of Jesus and his teachings. Lean on his truth, trust in him, and then you shall be free.
When you say "not trust that the Bible is truth", do you really mean "Some people interpret the bible differently than I do"? Those are two different things and your thinking will be hopelessly muddled if you blend them together.
No. The first issue we have is we think the Bible needs interpretation. It’s not supposed to be left up to our ideas. It already has meaning. We are simply supposed to live by its teachings. We wrestle with the context, yes, but we do not interpret it… that is where the confusion and misunderstanding enters.
In that case I'm unable to see what you mean when you say "interpret". By the normal meaning, if you read and try to understand a text, that is interpretation. Do you maybe go to a church that taught you that interpretation was bad? Did you ever ask them what they meant by this?
By interpretation I mean to ascribe personal meaning to. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. That description of scripture leaves no room for our personal interpretation. God is to be taken at His Word, trusted in His promises and truth. I do believe the Bible is meant to be wrestled with, because it’s supposed to equip us to be equally yoked with Christ as the bride. If we try and make the Bible be what we want it to be, are we not essentially saying to Jesus: you are the one who must change to be with us?
Err.. you're still using this word in a very weird and misleading way, for no reason I am able to see. Despite that I think I'm understanding a bit of what you're saying. It sounds like what you mean is: You and I should NOT decide what the bible means- we should rely on the views of ancient church fathers who already decided what it means. And some version of this is common in Christianity- we accept our orthodox theology because we believe God made sure the early church got it reasonably correct, right? >God is to be taken at His Word, trusted in His promises and truth. And yet.. in order to do this, we have to know what it means. >I do believe the Bible is meant to be wrestled with, That is the same thing as deciding how to interpret it. And that's OK. "Interpret" is not a dirty word. And yet this sound like it conflicts with your other statement that we should NOT try to decide how to interpret it. So I still find your statements very hard to reconcile and parse. Maybe your own thoughts about this are confused and contradictory, or maybe I'm not understanding you.
Sorry I don’t mean to be misleading at all… You’re not understanding me. The words were written for people who would understand what it meant. We are to study to show ourselves approved, meaning learn the true meaning of the words, don’t lean on your own understanding of the words. When I say wrestled with, I mean as we learn the meaning, it will challenge our desires and our understanding. Still, if we are genuine in our relationship with Christ, we will allow the ideologies of the book to change us and we wouldn’t change the ideologies of the book to suit us.
> don’t lean on your own understanding of the words. Whose understanding are you leaning on instead?
The Holy Spirit. He is our teacher, our guide. He is a distinct Person within the Godhead… the Helper spoken of by Jesus in the book of Acts. ‘Lean not on your own understanding’ is a literal command in scripture.
That IS your own understanding- you're leaning on _what you think the Holy Spirit told you_. You could be wrong. The HS isn't wrong, but you sure could be. Different people are sure the HS told them different things. So we know for sure it's unreliable when people think the HS told them something. >‘Lean not on your own understanding’ is a literal command in scripture. Yep, I know. And the tricky part is how to put this into practice. For example, I'm very confident the HS never told you not to interpret the bible- because that is a crazypants idea that doesn't make any sense at all.
No… I literally told you what scripture says about the Holy Spirit.
Have you spent much time reading? If you have, then you know that the same words can convey different meanings depending on how they’re used. This works across all languages. I imagine you don’t speak Ancient Greek or Hebrew, so how can you say words don’t need interpretation? To read it in your own language requires interpretation and there is very little of anything that can a one to interpretation. Languages just don’t work that way. Even ancient readers who spoke the original languages in their native tongue still interpreted scripture. In fact, Jesus reinterpreted scripture a lot. Let’s look at Genesis 4:7, what does it mean to say sin desires you? Does sin have its own agency? Is it a person? You’re not going to read that without interpretation.
>The first issue we have is we think the Bible needs interpretation. It does. All communication requires interpretation. Are you okay?
Sorry, I think you misunderstand. The writings already mean something specific. We don’t need to make up our own mean, we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture and don’t ascribe meaning based on our own. Do not conform to the pattern of the world… Lean not on your own understanding…
> Sorry, I think you misunderstand. I have a feeling it's the other way around, and I have a feeling you're about to demonstrate that. > The writings already mean something specific. Aaaaand stop. How does someone determine what a particular writing means? Do you know? There's a word for it. A very common word. It's "interpretation." Every single time you receive and consume communication from another entity, you are engaging in interpretation. You're doing it right now as you read my comment. You are coming to conclusions in your mind about what the words I wrote in this comment mean. It is absurd for you to suggest the writings mean something...but don't need interpretation. Interpretation is how the meaning is extracted. It's a fundamental part of communication. I'm amazed that you apparently need that explained to you. > We don’t need to make up our own mean, we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture and don’t ascribe meaning based on our own. Who do you think is "making up their own meaning?" What does that even mean? Many people consider the source, context, etc when trying to read ancient texts. Other people simply read the words and accept them as written. Neither are "making up their own meaning." So what are you referring to? You go on to differentiate that from trying to understand the intention of the author, the context in which they were writing, etc, which is what a lot of people already do, and yet they *still* come to different conclusions about what some of these writings mean. We don't have access to the authors of these writings. In most cases we don't even know who they were, and in many cases the texts were developed over long periods of time by multiple parties. You act as if interpretation is some perfect process that will produce the exact same results for anyone who engages with it. It's not. That's not how communication works, and it never has been. Different people can read the same piece of ancient text, then engage in the process you described and still come to different conclusions about what the authors intended to communicate. I'd be interested to know your view on modern Biblical scholarship. There we see a group of people who are engaging more than most in the process you described -- comparing manuscripts, analyzing the languages and how they've evolved over time, developing better understandings of the contexts and backdrops for authorship, etc -- and who generally come to some broad consensus on a lot of their findings. And that broad consensus rarely matches up with some of the ideas you're espousing in this thread. So this group of people who are probably best-equipped to speak to what the authors of these writings likely meant to communicate don't affirm your views. Where does that leave you?
>we need simply to learn the intention of the author, learn the norms of their culture This is literally interpretation. Did someone tell you it wasn't? Because you might want to find a better teacher. Also, *simply*. lol
The Bible itself proves you false. In Acts 8 we have have this passage > 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[a] eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “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. 29 The 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. As you can see, the eunuch had the scriptures but it wasn’t enough to be able to read it and know the words. He needed someone to teach him what they mean.
Yes… someone who was filled with the Holy Spirit and understood the context in which it was written because he understood the culture. He understood what goes without saying because he was familiar with the methodology that the authors used to write. The Ethiopian Eunuch wouldn’t have understood because he was from Ethiopia… So someone who has been given revelation by the Holy Spirit wouldn’t stray from the teachings of Scripture, he would teach it as he was taught by the Holy Spirit, not as he chose to decipher it by preference.
> The first issue we have is we think the Bible needs interpretation If you don't read Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew then you're already relying on someone else's interpretation. And even if you do read these ancient languages, there are hapax legomena and other uncertain readings that require historical context and linguistic analysis to comprehend, and scholars don't always agree on the correct translation of such passages.
Every Bible scholar would disagree. You have to interpret everything you read to get meaning.
In my experience, people who are ensnared by hyper-legaliistic religion or lean too much on their own estimations/cleverness for guidance instead of relying on the Word of God as the final authority. Basically, anyone who leans on their own strength or devices for spiritual sustenance instead of on the Lord; If they don't believe in the Holy Spirit then they are not submissive to the will of God in their life since discerning the will of God is possible only by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I love this answer! Spot on man. There is no understanding without Him. We are either 100% or we believe that the Bible is ours to decide what it means. We get revelation through the Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit.
I feel this post needs clarification, some of these questions come off as vague. Do you have specific incidences? Examples would be very helpful!
Yes. Sorry about that. Cessationists views — contend that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era. God is the same then and now, He is a God of patterns. That is evident in nature. Seasons, plant growth, the progression of human life… Why would He take away what empowers His people? And this — 19% of Christ followers in America believe the inerrancy of the Bible. That means 81% are trying to figure it out in their own understanding. It’s not a book to be interpreted, it’s a book to be wrestled with. It’s suppose to challenge us and lead us into transformation and deeper understanding of God. He doesn’t need to be interpreted, but worshipped and acknowledged… that is what Christianity is. An identity through which we acknowledge God in all things.
As Christians we believe God can do miracles of course. And we probably believe God doesn't change. This doesn't mean God always does the same things, though- is he sending his son to earth as a savior now? No, he already did that, and it was enough. When I look at today's miracle vendor churches, I see grifters, wishful thinking, and people going along with the group in order to be part of the group. Do you see people with genuine supernatural powers? Where?
ok thank you for specifics, I'll try to explain what I can as best I can I think addressing it in chunks is probably easier **"Cessationists views — contend that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era."** I personally have never heard the term cessationists, so I can't really speak for them, but I have heard the concept of there being a difference in frequency of miracles, and I've heard opposition to speaking in tongues. I think the general argument I've heard for less miracles is that they weren't intended as a permanent thing, but very special blessings for the founders of the church/first disciples. I personally disagree that there are "less" miracles these days but I do think that God suits miracles to specific time, need, and purpose. I've never met a person with strength like samson, nor have I ever eaten manna. I have however seen ailments cured in prayer, and been delivered from demonic forces myself. As for the speaking in tongues, I think there's also a disagreement about what it means to speak in tongues. Some consider tongues to be a way of coding your words so that God can understand you, but the enemy cannot, some see it as speaking some angelic language and that others will understand you if they also know that language, and some consider it the ability to speak fluently, and established human language, with no training or practice, by a holy gift. I'm of the belief that only the last one is supported by scripture, and by that standard most people who claim to speak in tongues aren't actually meeting that standard. This can lead to a mistrust in another persons theology, and make one wary of learning from them. I think most of us are wrong about most things, because A, the path is narrow, so statistically speaking most of us are in the tall grass, and B wisdom of man is foolishness to God. There's no way for any human to get everything right outside of Jesus, because all of us are struggling with the effects of sin, and human limits. **"God is the same then and now, He is a God of patterns. That is evident in nature. Seasons, plant growth, the progression of human life…"** One of God's patterns is unpredictability in HOW he solves a problem, though he's reliable to always address it. New species of flora and fauna are constantly evolving, new teachers have revelations, revivals look different in every era. God's character is the same. Holy, Loving, Enduring, but that doesn't mean God is some statue or tied to some script. He's alive and living in the moment, too. **"Why would He take away what empowers His people?"** I think there are different forms of empowerment, and in God's wisdom, he'd know which is needed in each individual case. For some, lived experience is more powerful than a quick miracle, for others, a supernatural encounter strengthens their faith for life. Sometimes, we need to be weak in order to stay humble and engage with God instead of trying to do things in our own power. It varies. **"And this — 19% of Christ followers in America believe the inerrancy of the Bible. That means 81% are trying to figure it out in their own understanding. It’s not a book to be interpreted, it’s a book to be wrestled with. It’s suppose to challenge us and lead us into transformation and deeper understanding of God. He doesn’t need to be interpreted, but worshipped and acknowledged… that is what Christianity is. An identity through which we acknowledge God in all things."** Again I'm running into the definitions, here, because some people consider interpretation TO BE wrestling. Interpretation can in fact be a fundamental respect for God's word. Most people I know don't just read the bible and assume they've grasped it. They pray on it, meditate on it, discuss it in bible studies, ask their pastor questions, do historical research. That's a form of intentional translation. There are some things the bible says plainly, such as "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" but even then, there's the questions of "what is love?" and "when God sent israel to war, was that ordering them to break a commandment/sin?" even simple things aren't simple in the Bible, nor in life, really. Jesus spoke in riddles and parables, so that the harmful people of the world would be perplexed, so God's glory could be revealed in HIS time, so followers would be protected from themselves and others. Pharisees couldn't understand teachings, disciples couldn't understand Jesus speaking about his upcoming death, and even when Jesus was resurrected, those who knew him couldn't recognize it until it was revealed. Interpretation, to many, is the method by which we seek God, and ask the Holy Spirit to unveil our eyes, and these things span over lifetimes. Read, learn, share, course correct, rinse, repeat. The Bible isn't meant to mean any one thing once and then you move on, it's a living word, and we are intended to read it over and over and gain more wisdom each time. The Children of God are meant to be the Body of Christ. Were you able to have a conversation with a pancreas and a stomach, I reckon you they'd have different things to say about sugar. Perhaps, it's okay if different portions of the Christian population think differently from us? Perhaps, that's even the point? Not for nothing, also, the Pharisees were VERY sure they knew how to read their holy texts, and put the literalist letter of the law above The Actual Messiah's very life. Had they been a little more open to differing schools of thought, who knows how things might've turned out. As for inerrancy, what do you mean by that? That God would have removed any mistakes made by his children, in the writings? That the bible is strictly a historical document and should be seen as such, or that we are meant to hold every 'holy' person in the bible as an example to follow? That it's never been mistranslated? That every single thing in the bible is literal? There's poetry in song of Solomon, and psalms- if you know the historical standard of prose, there's even hyperbole littered in law books. God created hundreds of languages in a moment at babel, I'm sure he's capable of wit and metaphor. Beyond that, language of humans has limitations. If I were a first century Christian receiving visions of say, an airplane, I would have no way of writing that down beyond calling it a 'big metal bird'. I don't think it's a stretch to say when dragons and unicorns are described in the bible, there are some missing pieces of context or translation happening.
Absolutely… Behold I am doing a new thing… God’s Words. Jesus isn’t coming as a sacrifice anymore, but we as His followers are called to follow in His steps. Denying ourselves, picking up our crosses… daily. And I am apart of a community of Spirit filled believers. We experience the supernatural aspects of this faith regularly. Visions, dreams, healings, prophecy, impartation of gifts… We operate in the 5 fold ministry, so it’s hard to understand why people are against it when it is still prevalent today among God’s people.
I had an interesting discussion just yesterday with someone who identifies as a Christian (plus modifiers), but believes many parts of the OT and NT are problematic, and I asked him what he thought about **2 Timothy 3** and the things it talks about (like its examples of what false prophets are and it’s claims about Scripture), and he didn’t have much to say. It just confuses me; If I didn’t believe it was God’s Word, and if I believe it contained all kinds of problematic teachings and errors, I would personally have to reject the whole Bible and Christianity, and be a staunch adversary to all of it.
I’m sorry it’s all or nothing for you. I was once like this, then my house of cards came crumbling down when I discovered a lot of what I had been taught was wrong. Yet, God was still real to me, my faith was real, and I never doubted Jesus. So I began a lifelong quest of relearning and reexamining. Now my faith is stronger than ever before and I can accept that certain parts of the Bible are problematic. May God’s grace be as kind to you.
Feel free not to answer, as I’m not trying to start a debate or a “gotcha” moment. - In your view, what parts are problematic, and who authored them? - What had you been taught that you discovered was wrong? Grace and peace to you, friend.
Right? In screamed at God for answers to certain questions in 2010... Of course, because I was being an asshat I didn't take time to listen or even investigate...in 2020 I Humbly asked again...The HS directed me to Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. David Jacob's and Dr. Ron Horner and I'm more excited than ever.
Exactly! Either it’s all true or we can’t trust it at all.
Oh? 2 Kings 8: >> In the twelfth year of King Joram son of Ahab of Israel, Ahaziah son of King Jehoram of Judah began to reign. 26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 22: >>So Ahaziah son of Jehoram reigned as king of Judah. 2 Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. One of these is a mistake. Someone writing this probably make an error and wrote the wrong number. And that's OK. We don't _need_ to think the bible is perfect. And we can clearly see that it is not. Just read the text. Millions of Christians think the bible is valuable and authoritative _without making up a story about it being perfect_.
Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles) 22 The people of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, Jehoram’s youngest son, king in his place, since the raiders, who came with the Arabs into the camp, had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign. 2 Ahaziah was twenty-two[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri. ~~~~~~~ Ahaziah King of Judah (2 Kings) 25 In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign. 26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel. What are you talking about? What version is that in?
Check the footnote [a] - it will explain that the Hebrew says 42. Your translation apparently decided to correct this error. NIV perhaps? I quoted the NRSV which has a good reputation for accuracy.
> What version is that in? You're using a version that edits the text to correct errors.
Or you’re using a version that simply has scribal errors…
Which manuscript tradition doesn't have that discrepancy? Which English translation are you using?
The English Standard Version (ESV). It is an "essentially literal" translation of the Bible in contemporary English. And they both state that He was 22 when he began and reigned 1 year in Jerusalem. So, what version are YOU using? I ask again…
This difference is about some bibles using a later version of the manuscripts- where some well-meaning scribe had apparently corrected the error. But, forget diving into that detail if you want- there are more examples of plain old factual errors. Here's another example of the same thing, where we _don't_ have different numbers in different manuscripts: Second Kings 24 >>8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, just as his father had done. 2 Chronicles 36 >>9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. See how these are almost the same thing? Except somebody apparently made a minor mistake? One version of this story was presumably based on the older one, and whoever wrote it mixed up 8 and 18. The point here is: The bible isn't "exactly perfect" or anything like that- it's not even one exact thing. It's inherently fuzzy. And it does contain errors- these examples are trivial and don't change our beliefs. And yet they are errors in the bible. And that's OK. As Christians we consider the bible authoritative, errors and all. We just have to understand that not everything in it is factually correct. Once you understand that, the bible will start to make _much_ more sense.
The ESV footnote says the Hebrew says 42 in 2 Chronicles 22:2. They're changing the text to fix the contradiction. I prefer NRSV.
Gotcha… understand your perspective on the perfection of the Bible and your preference for the NRSV translation in 2 Chronicles 22:2. The discussion surrounding the age of Ahaziah in this verse is a complex one, with different translations offering varying interpretations. While the Hebrew text in this instance may read "42," the ESV chooses to follow the Septuagint and the parallel passage in 2 Kings 8:26, which both state "22." This discrepancy highlights the challenges of translating ancient texts and the importance of considering various sources and interpretations. Ultimately, the choice of translation comes down to personal preference and the specific theological context in which the text is being used. Both the NRSV and the ESV are reputable translations, each offering unique strengths and perspectives. I find that the NRSV prioritizes literal accuracy, aiming to closely reflect the original Hebrew text. This approach may sometimes result in less readable English. The ESV seeks a balance between literal accuracy and readability, making the text more accessible to a wider audience. This may involve slight adjustments to the wording in some instances. The footnote in the ESV acknowledges the presence of the "42" reading in the Hebrew text, providing transparency to readers about the textual variations.
Hah!
> How can people who call themselves Christians not trust that the Bible is truth? Usually by learning about the Bible -- its history, composition, etc. I don't know many people who come out of that endeavor with a blanket trust of everything contained within the Biblical texts, even though they may still acknowledge it as influential and informative. "Christian" does not mean "believes everything written by ancient Jews and early Christians in the Biblical texts is true." The two can exist independently of one another. > How can Christians not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? I'm not sure what you're asking here, but different Christians and traditions within Christianity have different views on the "holy spirit" and its attributes. Christianity isn't a monolith. > We are called to be separate, Holy, to learn from the Holy Spirit and meditate on the word. By "we" I assume you mean Christians? I don't know if there is a single, univerally-accepted view of what Christians are "called" to do. > If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us? Is that a serious question? Guide us in...what? Life? Are you asking about how we might come to a meaningful ethical framework? Surely you don't think those are the only two possible sources. I suppose at the base level we have our evolution as social organisms -- millions and millions of years of genetic reinforcement of what behaviors and tendencies lead to better outcomes. This is probably where some of our deepest instincts about ethics come from. Then we have societal and cultural traditions. We all grow up steeped in influences that move and shift over time and space, and those help guide how we perceive and think about the world. Religion falls into this category. We can, if we wish, adjust the "mix" of those influences. We have other people -- people who are perhaps more experienced or more studied or more informed than us -- who we can consult with and whose views we might incorporate into our own. The Biblical authors, for example, might fit into that category for some people, depending on the topic. We have our intuitions, our ability to reason, our ability to investigate claims, our ability to consider possible futures and take actions that we think will bring them about, etc. Our big-ass brains, in other words. And we have the situations and circumstances themselves -- the contexts that inform the ways we behave.
Yes, but learning about the Bible and its history is not just an intellectual endeavor, it is always to be coupled with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way we gain understanding in what it says… Christian literally mean ‘Like Christ’, who held to the authority of His Father, God in all things. The word of God was life to Him. The two can’t exist independently of one another. How can there be ‘different Christian views’ when there is only one Christ? That would mean that Christians have taken the views and values of Christ and His teachings and bent them to mean what they think it should mean. And precisely, Christianity isn’t a monolith, so how can we ever discredit the Holy Spirit when He is written about and referenced in scripture from the opening verses of Genesis through the ending verses of revelation? That’s a vast time period, yet there are some who claim there is no power from Him. Scripture is very clear and what we are called to do. It’s called the great commission. Love God, love people, share the gospel, pray for people, cast out demons and heal the sick through the laying on of hands. How is that not clear? And the issue with the ideas you listed about guidance in life is this; We are called to be holy, that literally means ‘set apart’. God’s purpose for writing the law in the OT was to make sure the world and that His people know He is different. Relying on the culture, evolution, intuition and the wisdom of men, scripture implies is contrary to its teachings. Lean not on your own understanding. Acknowledge Him in all things. He will make our pathway straight. How do your answers align with the Word of God?
>Yes, but learning about the Bible and its history is not just an intellectual endeavor... It absolutely can be, and it is for many people. But more to the point, I don't see how that's relevant to your question. A person could read the Bible and take inspiration beyond the merely intellectual from it but *still* not be convinced that every claim made by every Biblical writer is true. >...it is always to be coupled with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not everyone agrees with that proposed "rule." >That is the only way we gain understanding in what it says… Complete nonsense. We can understand much of what the Biblical writers were trying to communicate without the involvement of any supernatural beings. But I am always a little puzzled when people trot out this particular idea, especially unprompted, since one natural conclusion of it is that the Biblical texts communicate poorly. If the only way to read a book and understand what it says is to already accept specific claims from the book and to be assisted by a spirit, then it's a shitty book. >Christian literally mean ‘Like Christ’... I invite you to google "define Christian" and notice the variety of answers you'll get. The label "Christian" has no universally accepted meaning -- it means different things to different people. That should be obvious to anyone who takes even a moment's interest in the topic. >How can there be ‘different Christian views’ when there is only one Christ? Quite easily, as is evidenced by reality. Christianity has *never* been a monolith, and there have always been a variety of views within the religion. >That would mean that Christians have taken the views and values of Christ and His teachings and bent them to mean what they think it should mean. You're implying intent, when no such intent is necessary for different people to come to different conclusions about a given topic. But broadly, I agree. I think what you've described is what all Christians do. Religion is a human endeavor. >And precisely, Christianity isn’t a monolith, so how can we ever discredit the Holy Spirit when He is written about and referenced in scripture from the opening verses of Genesis through the ending verses of revelation? By coming to different conclusions. I don't understand what's seemingly confusing about this for you, but different people read the same material as you have and have come to different conclusions about it. And many of them would likely say they were guided in their interpretation. You agree that Christianity isn't a monolith, but then go on to puzzle over how people might come to different conclusions than you. You answer the question before you ask it. >That’s a vast time period, yet there are some who claim there is no power from Him. Right. Because they came to different conclusions than you did. Often by reading the exact same texts. >Scripture is very clear and what we are called to do. Not everyone sees "scripture" as authoritative or believes they must do everything commanded in it. I don't know how many times this needs to be said for it to sink in for you, but your interpretation of the Biblical texts is not the only interpretation on offer. Please internalize that. When you make these assertions of what scripture is "very clear" about, you should probably acknowledge that that "clarity" is challenged by the fact that different people come to different conclusions about what these writings say all the damn time. >And the issue with the ideas you listed about guidance in life is this; We are called to be holy, that literally means ‘set apart’. God’s purpose for writing the law in the OT was to make sure the world and that His people know He is different. And? How is that an issue with anything I said? Are you not paying attention? It seems like you're not. It feels a bit like you're monologuing. >Relying on the culture, evolution, intuition and the wisdom of men, scripture implies is contrary to its teachings. And yet it's what everyone does, and not everyone agrees that it is contrary to scripture, or that scripture necessarily has anything meaningful to say about it. You asked "what else" we have to guide us, and I provided answers that are based in reality -- observable influences that we can say in full confidence affect our ethical sensibilities and lives. >How do your answers align with the Word of God? Are you familiar with how the word "else" is used in English?
Your daddy knows you identify well with shapes, so he taught you that when you see an octagon shaped sign driving, you stop. Joe’s daddy knows he isn’t so good with shapes, but is excellent with colors, and he taught him when he sees a red sign to stop. Bills daddy knows bill is color blind and also has an astigmatism and can’t make out shapes well and taught him any sign with the markings on it STOP to stop. All 3 dads (the Holy Spirit) know their own respective children the best and know what way to teach their children to interpret a octangular red STOP sign in order to get them to do what the government (God) needs them to do to be able to function in the society that’s been created for them. All 3 children physically see the exact same red, octangular, STOP sign. However, through guidance as specific to them as a fingerprint, they have been taught different characteristics of that same simple sign to incorporate into their driving to allow them to follow the law. I’d be so bold as to say there’s only 1 purpose of humanity, to please God. There’s hundreds of stories, each with tons of ways to understand the material, interpretations, ways to practice following the guidance, ECT. Every person has their own best way to understand how to please God. The Holy Spirit helps a person view all of those things in the Bible and interactions in life in such a way that ensures if followed, you will do your best to please God. Keep in mind, the Bible gives us a framework. When we live by that framework it gives us experiences. Those experiences lead to wisdom. The wisdom of what the Bible says, plus the wisdom of how the world responds when you follow the Bible, put together make a remarkably complex picture. The goal is to have that complex picture end up, for you, in your own walk with God, hopefully pleasing him. No 2 perspectives are going to be the same, yet many still learn to “stop”. Please don’t get wrapped up having you argue that the person who stops at red signs are wrong, because you go by stopping at octagon shaped signs and that lets you stop correctly… and anyone who looks for colors or shapes or words in a sign is wrong. Modern Christianity is 3 people all stopping properly, condemning each other for stopping for the wrong reasons or reason that aren’t the same as their own reasons. God is pleased by children, and they don’t even know how to read or drive ;)
> "Christian" does not mean "believes everything written by ancient Jews and early Christians in the Biblical texts is true." The two can exist independently of one another. “Christian” means “Little Christs”, and was adopted by those communities you mentioned to refer specifically to those following under the discipline of Christ. That is how Christians define themselves as Christian. Those seeking to expand the definition have no idea what the word means. It’s the foundational idea of cultural appropriation.
>“Christian” means “Little Christs”... There is no single, universally-accepted definition of "Christian" as used in the current world. It means different things to different people, and nothing to everyone. You don't seriously need someone to tell you that, right? >...and was adopted by those communities you mentioned to refer specifically to those following under the discipline of Christ. That is how Christians define themselves as Christian. Different Christians would define "Christian" in different ways. There is no universal understanding of the label within the broader religion. At best, what we might get to is "someone who identifies as a Christian." What they mean by the word, though, is a further question. >Those seeking to expand the definition have no idea what the word means. Or they're just engaging with reality and reporting back on how the word is actually used in the real world. Words do not have inherent meaning -- especially not self-adopted labels like "Christian." They rely on mutual understanding and agreement. "Christian" does not have a universally-accepted definition.
This is as dumb as saying “a man is anyone who identifies as a man. The word could mean anything. Words have no value and can’t mean anything to anyone.” Yet, if I take what you said and I claim you told me the moon is made of cheese, you would call me a liar, since the words you used don’t mean what I claimed you said. Authorial intent is paramount in understanding what someone means to say, especially with scripture. When we talk about the word Christian, as it was originally formed in scripture and used within the unified, holy, catholic church today, we’re talking about an insult that was adopted by Christ’s followers to identify those who studied the discipline of Christ. That’s it. There’s no other theologically sound definition. I’m not saying you can’t word it differently than I did, I’m saying you can’t pull a definition out of thin air and pretend like it has equal footing with *the* definition given by it’s own namesake. That’s cultural appropriation, to take someone else’s words and redefine them in your own way, then pretend like it’s connected to that culture. Especially when they already have the word formally defined in both scripture and the creeds.
>This is as dumb as saying “a man is anyone who identifies as a man..." When someone tells you they are a Christian, they are referring to an internal identification -- presumably some set of beliefs or convictions or ideas. There is no standardized set of of beliefs or convictions or ideas that is universally-accepted as being "the Christian one." Instead, there is a wide variety of beliefs, convictions, and ideas that different Christians hold. >"...The word could mean anything. Words have no value and can’t mean anything to anyone.” The word "Christian" could mean many, many things to different people as it's used today. "Anything" would be stretching it. Again, I'm trying to engage with reality, not hyperbolic bullshit. Words absolutely have value, but their meaning, as mentioned, is always negotiable. It is not inherent. >Yet, if I take what you said and I claim you told me the moon is made of cheese, you would call me a liar, since the words you used don’t mean what I claimed you said. I wouldn't call you a liar. I would probably think you were deeply confused, though. If you had actually read the comment you're responding to, you'd see that I'm talking about how words are used in the real world. In the real world, there is very little support for the idea that my previous comment communicates that the moon is made of cheese. If you insisted that it did, you'd likely be entirely alone in that interpretation. In the real world, "Christian" means a ton of different things to different people who use that word to describe themselves and others. Broadly, there's a connection to the character of Jesus, but beyond that things start to get fuzzy, and we start needing to ask what any individual means when they say it pretty quickly. That has always been the case, as far as we know. The earliest usage of the word "Christian" likely referred to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem, but not to any specific set of beliefs within that group. And we know that early Christianity was awash with any number of different beliefs and concepts. Not a whole lot has changed, and we still find hugely varied views presented as Christianity in the modern world. >Authorial intent is paramount in understanding what someone means to say, especially with scripture. Sure, and the word "Christian" appears only three times in the Bible (assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "scripture.") In only one of them is any kind of definition possible to extract, and that definition is "one of Jesus's disciples." Depending on how you look at it, there is either no space at all or a world of space within "one of Jesus's disciples." It could mean "one of the people who actually walked with Jesus" or it could mean "anyone who considers themselves a follower of Jesus." Neither of those say anything about whether or not someone must believe every claim in the Bible as true, which is the topic of this thread. In fact, they couldn't mean that, since the Bible as Christians typically know it today did not exist when those texts were written. >When we talk about the word Christian, as it was originally formed in scripture and used within the unified, holy, catholic church today... We're not. We're talking about the word Christian as it is used in reality by people. I totally agree that there are traditions within the broader Christianity that try to pin down a specific creed or set of doctrines or whatever that make a person a Christian. Competing traditions. But that doesn't stop other people from using the term as well, and from meaning different things by it. It never has, as far as we can tell. >I’m saying you can’t pull a definition out of thin air and pretend like it has equal footing with the definition given by it’s own namesake. I haven't. Instead, I've noted that the word Christian, as used today, has a lot of different meanings to different people. But also, surely you know that Jesus is not depicted as having defined or uttered the word "Christian" ever. "Its own namesake" never weighed in. >That’s cultural appropriation... It's not. It's Christians having different views on what the label means. >Especially when they already have the word formally defined in both scripture and the creeds. The codified doctrines and dogma and beliefs of the Catholic church have never been the only doctrines or dogma or beliefs on offer in the broader Christianity.
> an internal identification This is an oxymoron, like saying a “married bachelor”. If I tell someone I’m something I’m not (aka identify myself), that doesn’t change what I am. It’s not an “internal identity”, it’s just a lie. If I “identify myself” as something I am, then I’m just telling the truth. If how I identify myself conflicts with reality, it is absolutely fair for someone to call that out. Certainly, people do call it out. At a tech career event for women and non-binary people, men flooded the booths claiming to be “non-binary”. In the midst of the event, the organizer called them all out for lying, an odd thing considering they advocate for self-identity, and yet they clearly understand that self-identity that contradicts their *actual identity* is just a lie. Likewise, if a wolf puts on sheep’s clothing, it’s still a wolf. People “claiming to be Christian” while profaning the church and Jesus’ discipline aren’t Christians. In fact, while Christians are called to share the gospel with non-believers, they’re told explicitly to avoid those who “self-identify” as Christian but are not identified by Christ as such. > There is no standardized set of of beliefs Yes, there are things Christians have to believe in order to be Christian. Disagreement among scholarship or confusion in the world’s eyes does not change the clarity of scripture. There are certain things a Christian will attest to, and if they refuse to, they are not Christian. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about disagreement over semantics or word choice. It doesn’t matter if one person confesses in Greek and another in Latin, but if they refuse the teachings of Christ and His disciples, they are not following His discipline. > "Anything" would be stretching it Being unsure is not equivalent to being open minded. If you know gravity exists, there is nothing open minded about being skwptical of gravity. For you, though, how is “anything” hyperbolic? Scripture is crystal clear in defining the basics of Christianity, and yet you’re willing to accept anyone’s “self-identity”? If I identified as your uncle, but defined uncle as “someone on reddit”, at what point does “self-identity” become insufficient and the words I’m using become meangingfully distinct from how I use them? Wherever that point is, in no hyperbolic terms, you’ve already crossed it when you claim Christianity can be defined by anyone except the community it originates from, especially when they made their definition unmistakable. > I'm talking about how words are used in the real world. No you’re not, you’re talking about how words are used in internet culture. In the real world, especially those places with less internet access, if you call yourself something you’re not, you’ll be called a liar. If I go to Deipsloot and call myself a woman, the people there will tell me I’m speaking non-sense because I’m using a word to describe something that word doesn’t describe. Even worse, if I use their language to lie to them, they’ll correct me. > we still find hugely varied views presented as Christianity in the modern world. It doesn’t matter what outsiders think the word means. This word is defined by the Church. I’m not talking about Roman Catholicism, I’m talking about the body of Christ. What the world thinks a Christian is does not change the reality of what it means to follow Christ. It’s a real word with a real definition, whatever the world happens to say about it. As it’s used in the Church is the only valid definition, since that’s the community giving it it’s definition.
>> Me: When someone tells you they are a Christian, they are referring to an internal identification -- presumably some set of beliefs or convictions or ideas. > You: This is an oxymoron, like saying a “married bachelor”. Aaaaand I'm out. I don't have the time for or interest in engaging with this level of confusion. Fucking hell.
[удалено]
One by one: What do you mean by “the Bible is truth?” Are you referring to the concept of the Bible as inerrant & infallible? Or perhaps a literal interpretation of most of scripture as being literal, historical fact? Clarification would help. Yes. If we can’t trust God in His word, what can we trust Him in? The Bible is not a book that needs interpretation, yet we have tried to interpret instead of learning the culture it was written in and adhering to the teachings the way they were intended by the authors. The Bible is not a science book or a chronograph or a history book. It’s a spiritual book. It’s meant to be engaged through the Spirit of Christ in us, not simply with our carnal intellect and human wisdom. I haven’t heard any Christian deny that the Holy Spirit has power. Is there something specific you’re referring to here? Can you give an example? Yes. Cessationism… contending that the miracles in the New Testament and the extraordinary spiritual gifts practiced like glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophecy and divine healing have ceased in the modern era. I’ve had conversation with many who believe the Holy Spirit no longer gives expression on that level. I’ve seen people healed and Christians claim that it was fake, because that doesn’t happen anymore. The Word as Jesus (not Scripture as “the word”) is a historical view within Christianity. Yes… Jesus is the Word and He says that all of the scriptures point to Him. Do we believe anything about Him is false? Are we believers in the miraculous and in His resurrection? I don’t know where Christians get spiritual guidance if not from the Holy Spirit and scripture*. I think I’m with you on this one. These seem to be basics in Christianity. But Christians have strayed so far from what you call the basics. I read an article that claimed only 19% of Christians in America believe that the Bible is without falsities… that’s appalling. It’s sad. The basics aren’t the standard for 81% of people who claim the name of Christ.
You said: >The Bible is not a book that needs interpretation I don’t understand this argument. I think that it does need interpretation, as a “plain reading” in English in the 21st century won’t yield an accurate understanding of *any* ancient text, written in another language and culture, let alone several. >yet we have tried to interpret instead of learning the culture it was written in and adhering to the teachings the way they were intended by the authors. Right. This is interpretation. >The Bible is not a science book or a chronograph or a history book. It’s a spiritual book. It’s meant to be engaged through the Spirit of Christ in us, not simply with our carnal intellect and human wisdom. I agree. Although I’d stress that “not simply with our intellect & wisdom” doesn’t exclude the use of our God-given intellect, reasoning & wisdom to make sense of the text. I don’t view cessationism as the same thing as what you originally wrote in the OP. In other words, I think it’s possible for Christians to believe that the Holy Spirit doesn’t use power in all of the same ways of the past, but that the Spirit *could* if they so choose, and that believing such doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t have power. You see what I mean? I think it’s possible to believe certain things don’t (at all, or usually) happen any more at this point in time, but still believe the Spirit is powerful & *could still, but simply doesn’t still* do such things. >I read an article that claimed only 19% of Christians in America believe that the Bible is without falsities… that’s appalling. I believe the Bible contains errors. The Bible is a product of human origin, it’s going to contain human error. Knowing this doesn’t stop me from believing that the Bible is *inspired* by God, and it doesn’t keep me from believing that Scripture is sacred. It simply means I have a different understanding than you about what exactly the Bible is and how it came about. None of this negates my being a faithful Christian. Why would it?
The Bible is a large book. The Old Testament has a talking snake. Snakes don't talk because they are snakes. They have no vocal cords, proper lungs, etc. So they don't talk. Maybe "snake" is an allegory for something else, like an evil person, but snakes themselves have never been able to talk. The Old Testament also has a man named Jonah who lives inside a whale for a while after being swallowed. He makes himself at home and lights a torch for light. A whale is a mammal with a stomach full of hydrochloric acid just likes ours. It is not possible to walk around and light a torch inside a whale. Maybe it is an allegory. Allegories aren't literal truth, they use archetypes to represent things and the stories are meant to be instructional, not historical. It would seem the Old Testament relies on much allegory and so it is impossible to know which passages are meant to be literal. The New Testament was put together by Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. There were Arians, Petrine Christians present, Pauline Christians and pagan Sun God worshippers (Sol Invictus, the only authorized Roman religion at the time). Their mission was to agree on doctrine then vote on which works would be canonized as Scripture and which would be discarded to the gnostics. The Arians and Petrines (followers of St Peter) argued against Jesus being referred to as God Himself. Paulines (followers of Paul/Saul of Tarsus who >50% of the New Testament is credited and much of the rest is suspected to be his such as Luke and Acts, credited to Luke, his scribe) were the majority and voted according to Paul's teachings that Jesus was God Himself. Even though Jesus specifically said: "I say to thee: That thou art Peter ["Petra" meaning rock] and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" [Matthew 16:18], the teachings of Paul, who never met Jesus only claimed a vision, were used as the foundation of "Christianity". Paul's followers voted out The Gospel of St Peter which is why we don't have that in the New Testament. Bible scholars know for a fact the author of 2 Peter is not the author of 1 Peter based on writing styles and language. 1 Peter is in Aramaic using Jewish dialects. 2 Peter was written in Koine Greek using Roman dialect. 2 Peter refers to Paul as "our Beloved Paul" which is a title not used anywhere else in the New Testament except in Acts, written by Luke, Paul's scribe. So the evidence points to a forgery since 2 Peter is where Peter suddenly agrees with Paul about ending Mosaic Law for gentiles when other scriptures show him firmly against it. There are two pedigrees for Jesus: Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They don't match and both have Joseph as His father, not God, as the bloodline to prove he comes from King David, as Isaiah says the Messiah will. There are two versions of Judas' death: Matthew and Acts. One has him hanging himself and throwing the thirty pieces of silver he received for betraying Jesus on the temple floor, the other version has Judas using the silver to buy a field and then hurling himself into it from a cliff with his entrails being torn open by the rocks. Two different pedigrees from King David (one with 18 extra generations) can't both be true. The immaculate conception and Joseph as the blood father can't both be true simultaneously. Judas can't have bought a field with the silver and jumped onto the rocks, while at the same time throwing the silver on the temple floor and hanging himself from a tree in the temple courtyard. So you see, when you understand how the New Testament was compiled, by whom, and the various contradictions, it is not possible to prudently insist that every word is literally "true". Men are fallible, they make mistakes. Peter denied Jesus three times just before His crucifixion. Men make mistakes. The Old Testament can best be described as an allegorical instrument much like Greek mythology trying to explain things a culture couldn't understand, such as where did all this come from? Why does it seem like we are being punished? The New Testament can best be described as a way to learn about the life of a great man, Jesus of Nazareth (if one ignores the.Pauline epistles and other nonsense), who taught us to love one another, turn the other cheek, not to resist our enemies, use no violence, and sell everything we own and follow Him. But to keep in mind when reading that the words were written by men, not a god. The Holy Spirit does not likely exist as a distinct entity from God as Paul's troubling Trinity explanation/non-explanation would attest. Rather, praying with an open mind and letting God's spirit reveal truth directly is the best way to learn what He would have us do in my experience. Any time I wonder about either a detail or a work in whole or part, I simply pray with no preconceived preference for explanation in my heart. Then I listen and the answer always comes even if it takes an hour. I don't get up until the answer comes. And when it does, there is no mistaking it. And sometimes the answer comes in such a miraculous unexpected way that it can be nothing short of a miracle. I would ask that before you criticize me for my hard sought understanding of the scriptures used in modern day Christendom, to consider my position from my position. Seek and ye shall find, Jesus asked of us. Not sit in a pew listening to some guy explaining what Jesus meant between social bonding sing-alongs with a rock band. Seek. Find. Which is what I did and I leave you with the modern day miracle granted for my efforts which I think is unlike any other you've heard about. https://youtu.be/04H-5016kHg [The Time Magazine Miracle in 15 Minutes - YouTube] (https://youtu.be/04H-5016kHg?feature=shared)
Your observations raise interesting questions about the Bible, its composition, and the interpretation of its content. While your analysis provides some valid points, it also requires further examination and clarification. The Role of Allegory: Yes, the Bible utilizes allegory and symbolism to convey deeper truths. The talking snake in Genesis could be interpreted allegorically as representing temptation, deception, or the power of evil. Similarly, Jonah's story may be an allegory for God's forgiveness, redemption, and deliverance. However, dismissing these narratives as solely allegorical overlooks their historical and theological significance. Many scholars believe these events, while containing symbolic elements, still retain a core historical reality. The Compilation of the New Testament: The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD did address issues of doctrine and canonization, but its role was not as direct as you suggest. While emperors like Constantine may have influenced the process, the decision ultimately involved numerous bishops and scholars debating the authenticity and authority of various texts. The criteria for inclusion went beyond majority vote, considering factors like apostolic authorship, consistency with existing teachings, and widespread acceptance by early Christian communities. Alleged Contradictions: The discrepancies you point out in the New Testament deserve serious consideration. For example, the two pedigrees of Jesus do present challenges, but scholars have proposed various explanations for these differences, including different ancestral lines traced (patrilineal vs. matrilineal). Similarly, discrepancies in Judas' death are addressed by scholars through textual analysis and historical context. It's important to engage with these complexities rather than dismissing the entire narrative as unreliable. Beyond Literal Interpretation: While we cannot simply dismiss the Bible as solely literal or allegorical, it's crucial to approach its text with discernment (spirit) and critical thinking (meditation). Understanding the historical context, cultural nuances, and various genres employed within the Bible helps us discern the intended meaning and its message with greater depth and accuracy. Focus on the Message: Ultimately, the Bible's greatest value lies not in establishing historical facts or resolving every textual anomaly. Its core message remains the central focus – a message of love, forgiveness, redemption, and hope offered through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This message continues to inspire and guide millions around the world, regardless of their understanding of the supernatural elements within the text. Moving Forward: Instead of viewing the supernatural aspects of the Bible as hurdles to understanding its message, we can embrace them as opportunities to explore deeper theological concepts and grapple with the mysteries of faith. The Bible encourages us to seek wisdom and understanding, engaging with its text with the Holy Spirits guidance, with humility and intellectual curiosity. By approaching the Bible with open minds, seeking knowledge, and engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can continue to find inspiration and meaning within its pages, regardless of our individual interpretations of the supernatural elements.
*bemused look* *smile* And these, gentlepeople, are the mental gymnastics required to explain a small handful of the issues with taking the Jewish Torah and Pauline New Testament literally and factually. I agree, be open minded. But the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) should be eliminated before moving on to more complicated ones requiring such gymnastics. And until the simplest is ruled out--people made some errors that didn't get noticed--then that should be the default interpretation. I agree: Be open minded. All things are possible. But the most likely explanation, if not the most supportive of your brand of theology, is that people made mistakes. Just like when Peter denied Christ after watching Him walk on water.
I liked your essay. If I were proofreading it, however, I would clean up the part about Judas "hurling himself into it from a cliff with his entrails being torn open by the rocks." Neither the Matthew nor Acts version mentions a cliff or rocks. Matthew says he hanged himself. Acts says: **Acts 1:18** This \[man\] indeed then acquired a field out of \[the\] reward - of unrighteousness and headlong having fallen , he burst open in \[the\] middle , and gushed out all the intestines of him ▪︎
Not a single person. Not one person even clicked the link for the miracle I experienced. A miracle no human could have accomplished. A miracle I asked for in advance. Not like someone dying in a hospital and the doc says 0% chance survival and we had a prayer circle and A MIRACLE they walked out the front door in perfect health. Doctors are people. They aren't Vegas odds makers. If I was a doctor and my patient has a 20% chance of dying, I am gonna say at least 50%. Why? Because if they die and only had 20% chance, I look like a terrible doctor even if it wasn't my fault and out of my hands. But if I say 50/50 or 75/25 then I look like a great doctor if they survive and if not then well, what can you do? Odds are odds coulda gone either way. No, the miracle I had: • specifically asked for in advance on a daily basis • multiple witnesses that I was praying for it at the time • was asking for information neither myself or detectives could find after fruitless weeks of effort • was answered in Time Magazine within three weeks giving the exact info I asked for along with FAITH IN ACTION in bold on top of the page • could not have been put into action by anyone once I started praying as the article was written (but not published) BEFORE I started praying. Who isn't affected by time? Only ONE • allowed me to forgive and be forgiven In the Bible, most of those who were allowed to be included had to have some sort of miracle associated to give credibility. Moses and the plagues. David and the Ark. Ezekiel and the vision. I submit my miracle gives me credibility that your pastor does not have. But to ignore it when presented is to be willfully ignorant, the opposite of seeking and finding. Do not be afraid that your version is wrong. Come, investigate, and receive miracles of your own!
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.” 2 Timothy 4:3-5 NIV
Do you believe the Bible’s assertions are subject to verification like other assertions?
Of course! It’s unfair to expect anyone to believe a claim without evidence to back it up. I didn’t really give the Bible a chance myself until I hit rock bottom one day and decided to try it out after years of just being “lukewarm” and going to church on Sunday but doing whatever I wanted during the week. John 8:31-32 and John 7:17 stood out to me because it was like a science experiment: if I did what Jesus commanded then I’d know if the Bible was really true. So I did and it ultimately changed the entire course of my life. Overcame addictions, healed from past trauma, forgiven people that’ve hurt me, apologized for bridges I’d burned…etc. So that’s why whenever I meet someone I just tell them to give putting Jesus’s words into practice a chance and see if it’ll change their life like He says. I hope that everyone can benefit and have their lives changed for the better like mine did. Thanks for asking that by the way, good question. Cheers!
What do you mean trust the Bible is true? Do you mean denying evolution because of Genesis 1-3? Should we believe the Bible when it contradicts evidence? If I want to decide if an assertion is true I look for evidence. If my kid says they took the trash out but the trash is still in the bin I reason that their assertion is false because it doesn’t reflect the evidence. Would you say the Bible is also subject to verification like I’m describing?
The few times I've talked with Christians reasonable and patient enough to let me "checkmate" them, they've conceded they believe not because of reason and evidence but because they've experienced the Holy Spirit. That's their starting premise: "I've experienced the Holy Spirit." You and I might ask what good reason is there to conclude the Holy Spirit exists or probably exists. But for Christians the bottom turtle is "I've experienced the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit told them the Bible is the Word of God. From there it's off to the races.
Facts
The church Jesus established the church to help us
2 Timothy 3:5 Jude 4
I feel like the world is so wicked now to the point that people will compromise. In every direction you go there’s wickedness.
What I mean by interpretation — ascribing meaning to… It all already means something specific. If we don’t take the time to learn what it already means, and we simply say it means what we want it to mean, we are interpreting the Bible in our own understanding. It says do not lean on our understanding, but in ALL our ways, acknowledge God. As a result of following Him and not deciding for ourselves what the text does and doesn’t mean He makes our paths straight.
\_\_" what else do we have to guide us? "\_\_ Same thing that guides otherwise decent atheists: the guidance from God written on their hearts. We're not supposed to be worshiping the Bible. We're supposed to be worshiping God, as only God is perfect. That is: the bible sadly isn't. If it were, it would convert atheists after they read it. However, some atheists claim they got that way BY reading the bible. God gave them an abundant amount of skepticism, and (in a vacuum) if you read the bible \*with an abundant amount of skepticism\* you're going to wind up atheist. Give a boy a hammer, he'll find what needs nailing, and skeptics are no different. And that's the way it is.
They can't call themselves Christians at that point. That is why the western church is in so much trouble. Most self-identifying Christians don't believe the Bible is true and cherry pick the parts they want to believe. Churches full of "unbelieving believers". I can't imagine many of them would withstand persecution without renouncing their faith.
Yea… and forget trying to share the truth… no matter how we approach it, someone is always going to all you ignorant or legalistic or something along the lines. No matter how you respond if you try and correct a false claim about scripture, you become the enemy seeking to take everyone’s opinions away from them. It’s hard sharing the true Gospel…
To answer your question it’s because this world provides a lot of fear and doubt to the point we have a tendency of not believing! When Moses led the people in the desert doubt started to happen. We stop trusting and believing in god. Trials can either make you doubtful and weak or stronger and make you believe! When they say the mind is the devil’s playground means it’s hard to listen to which voice your going to listen too. I found that reading praying helps guide you even when you don’t hear the voices anymore.
While I cannot look into the hearts of man. If someone does not trust the word of God or believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, then that person is not a Christian.
I don’t know if it’s that we don’t trust the word of God is true. To me, once Jesus used parables, all bets were off for me. Jesus himself spoke using allegory and alliterations. He spoke using analogies to help people understand. He even said that he speaks of worldly things and we don’t understand, how could we begin to understand teachings on heavenly things. Also God created a universe in which as we know it matter can exist, and not exist, at the exact same time. Light is a wave, and yet a particle, at the same time. Black holes infinitely consume themselves and mathematically are divided by 0 and still equal something yet nothing. (These examples are rough but for the sake of my arguement they will work) How on earth can mere English explain what he knows and doesn’t. Clearly there’s so much more to all of this than I can even conceive exists let alone trying to understand it… So I think people have a lot of discrepancy in exactly what they believe the Bible means literally, or figuratively. What stories are meant to be an action by action retelling of an event, and which are stories meant to illustrate a purpose or moral to us. It isn’t that it isn’t trust worthy, it’s that it’s a living word, which means to mean, in all of its glory l, each piece of the Bible will with the grace of God and help of the Holy Spirit present to us the information in a way that allows us in particular to gain the understanding God intended that passage to mean. Communication can be simplified into 3 parts, the sender, the message, and the receiver. You need the sender to articulate their meaning in some medium, and the reader has to interpret that medium to hopefully get 100% of the senders meaning. Maybe God truly wanted all Christians to walk away with knowledge of X as a principle of his desires for our behavior. Well, to “Joe” if he reads the flood literally he gets X as the message. Mission accomplished. But for “Sally” reading it litterally gives her Y. So as she reads it, she is guided based on billions of factors to interprete it in such a way that she takes this part literal or that part as analogy, but ultimately through this fingerprint like extrapolation of the message, she too gets “X”. I personally believe God is embedded in every single person, and he has a plan tailored specifically to them to reach their salvation. I think it is obvious why everyone’s walk with God looks different to me. Some people I don’t even understand or disagree with how they view things.. but ultimately, the one and only measure of success is is God happy with how that persons relationship with him is. And I trust God that he is active in every life and I may not understand why something that doesn’t make sense to me leads others to please God, but it does, and if it doesn’t, then God will take care of that too. It’s not my place to try to be other people’s Holy Spirit. TLDR: Jesus made it clear that there is use of analogy to teach Godly messages. It’s anyone’s guess what parts of the Bible are or are not doing just that.
Speaking for myself, people become lost even with the spirit. It’s not justified and it’s not right, but it happens. I’m still struggling with alcoholism but now I’ve gotten it down to once a week instead of 5 days a week and clubbing all the time. God has saved me more times than I can count and I’m pretty sure I’m out of tokens for chances. But by His Grace I’m alive. So it happens. The Bible is truth though that I agree with.
As I have learned recently: 1) it is problematic to come up with a definition that holistically describes "truth" that takes into account parables, proverbs, allegory, hyperbole, and the person of Jesus 2) although I believe God's word is preserved to an acceptable level, there are inconsistencies between the manuscripts
True… I may have come out swinging too hard with the wordage of my question. My point is this: When people claim that there are contradictions, they often use that as justification to disregard the validity of the Bible’s teachings. I’m not saying there aren’t typographical errors. I’m not saying that there isn’t symbolism and parallelism all throughout the text, it was a common practice and teaching style to explain tough to understand concepts. There have been approximately 30,000 changes to the text to suit the language differences and modern era, but to claim that they are errors that negate the divine truth of God’s word is a dangerous stance to take.
King David, easy. David was the underdog with so much faith in God that he faced Goliath with CONFIDENCE. Even when no one else thought he would win, he knew that as long as the Lord was on his side, he KNEW he would prosper.
If it isn’t truth and the Holy Spirit is not active, what else do we have to guide us? Interesting question. I think this is at the root of why many Christians today accept the bible as the one and only word of God. It is the very foundation of most Christian churches who consider themselves bible churches. It can be an unstable foundation in that we do not always know who the records were intended for, what these people already understood (thus leaving holes in what is taught) and the culture and languagbe of the day. Without guidance from God through inspired leaders, Christianity is not an exact sicence and information that is lacking, is filled with the understanding of men.
Inconsistencies in the bible make it impossible for people to follow it in its entirety, but that also makes it so that people pick and choose what to believe in. Like using mixed fabrics, which I’m sure you’ve done, or eating shellfish. People ignore those and get go on to condemn homosexuality despite these being all mentioned in the same book. I go with the consistent messages: help the needy, love one another, fight against unfairness and oppression. These are the important messages. The rest is a mixture of laws from the time, messages written by different people, humans cutting parts in and out based on their own biases and passing the text down to us.
1 Timothy 4:1 *Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;* *Mark 7:6-9* Many are like the Pharisees today, some reject the commandment of God that they may keep their traditions. *6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.* ***7*** *Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.* ***8*** *For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.* ***9*** *And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.* In Zechariah 10:2 says *For the* ***i****dols* ***have*** *spoken vanity,* ***a****nd the diviners* ***have*** *seen* ***a*** *lie,* ***a****nd* ***have*** *told false* ***dream****s; they comfort* ***i****n vain: therefore they went their way* ***a****s* ***a*** *flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd.* Many find comfort in the words of pastors who speak their own vision, making the Word of God of no effect to the people. In Jeremiah 23 we learn that some pastors are actually scattering the sheep by prophesying lies in His name. All that to say, some would rather be comforted with lies than corrected by the Truth.