|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:04 pm
Nebulance Glad to see that we're covering ground on this. I threw this argument together rather quickly, so I hope you don't mind if I continue to refine it a bit, with the help of your criticism. -If the Bible contains divinely inspired truth, and -If God is good, powerful, and knowing, -Then God would not deceive us about that truth by writing it in a deceptive manner (giving us scripture that was not literally true in a manner as if it were to be taken literally and instructing us to uphold it as such). Thus, when scripture which is clearly written as a literal account or literal instructions (most of the Old and New Testaments-- some passages' intents may be unclear), it should be interpreted that way, in the absence of divine guidance or divinely allowed evidence to interpret it otherwise. Guidance would most probably be from other scripture which provided some reason for not taking the passage in the literal sense that it was written. Evidence would most probably be in blatant contradictions or historical distortions in the scripture which make clear that although written literally, it was not intended to be taken literally. Taking this approach, let's go over some of the key passages which are controversial in their interpretations: The Creation Account and the Garden-- inclusion of blatant symbolism demonstrates that this passage may be intended as allegorical/symbolic, and thus it does not have to be in contradiction with current scientific knowledge. The Flood, Jonah and the Whale-- examples of hard-to-believe seemingly literal accounts. Such accounts just need to be examined carefully; the 'world' that was flooded can be translated as 'realm,' 'land,' 'region,' etc; Jonah didn't live in the belly of a fish for three days, God ressurected his body after the fish spat his corpse out (implied heavily by a close reading of his prayers about going down to Sheol and such). Paul's Discussions of Gender Roles (women, men, homosexuals)-- can we honestly dismiss this one set of passages (out of all the Bible, there are no other passages we feel the need to reinterpret this way) as distorted by the culture of the times without any evidence other than the offense these passages cause us? Rather, I think we need to study them and try to understand their full meaning. The problem is God didn't write the Bible himself. Man did. So even if God told them what to write, divinely inspired, that doesn't mean they understood or got it right. Here is another problem. You say the symbolic passages are "obvious" but I see different symbolic passages then you do. Everyone will see different "signs" for passages being symbolic or not. Agreed about the Garden of Eden and Creation story. It's actually rather obvious that Genesis 1 is a poem of some kind. I have never heard that Jonah was resurrected by God. That is very interesting. Here is the problem with saying any part was distorted by the times. When you say that you show that any passage could be distorted by the times. Big controversial passages, like on homosexuality for example, could then just be equated to the time and dismissed.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:36 pm
Mei tsuki7 Nebulance Glad to see that we're covering ground on this. I threw this argument together rather quickly, so I hope you don't mind if I continue to refine it a bit, with the help of your criticism. -If the Bible contains divinely inspired truth, and -If God is good, powerful, and knowing, -Then God would not deceive us about that truth by writing it in a deceptive manner (giving us scripture that was not literally true in a manner as if it were to be taken literally and instructing us to uphold it as such). Thus, when scripture which is clearly written as a literal account or literal instructions (most of the Old and New Testaments-- some passages' intents may be unclear), it should be interpreted that way, in the absence of divine guidance or divinely allowed evidence to interpret it otherwise. Guidance would most probably be from other scripture which provided some reason for not taking the passage in the literal sense that it was written. Evidence would most probably be in blatant contradictions or historical distortions in the scripture which make clear that although written literally, it was not intended to be taken literally. Taking this approach, let's go over some of the key passages which are controversial in their interpretations: The Creation Account and the Garden-- inclusion of blatant symbolism demonstrates that this passage may be intended as allegorical/symbolic, and thus it does not have to be in contradiction with current scientific knowledge. The Flood, Jonah and the Whale-- examples of hard-to-believe seemingly literal accounts. Such accounts just need to be examined carefully; the 'world' that was flooded can be translated as 'realm,' 'land,' 'region,' etc; Jonah didn't live in the belly of a fish for three days, God ressurected his body after the fish spat his corpse out (implied heavily by a close reading of his prayers about going down to Sheol and such). Paul's Discussions of Gender Roles (women, men, homosexuals)-- can we honestly dismiss this one set of passages (out of all the Bible, there are no other passages we feel the need to reinterpret this way) as distorted by the culture of the times without any evidence other than the offense these passages cause us? Rather, I think we need to study them and try to understand their full meaning. The problem is God didn't write the Bible himself. Man did. So even if God told them what to write, divinely inspired, that doesn't mean they understood or got it right. A valid concern to consider. If we view God as powerful and good, however, would He really do a half-way job of bringing His message to all of humanity and just leave us with a deceptive manuscript? What stops Him from possessing a Prophet or an Apostle to speak His words without distortion? That is what they claimed they were doing, and if they were lying, why should we place any weight on what they said at all? Quote: Here is another problem. You say the symbolic passages are "obvious" but I see different symbolic passages then you do. Everyone will see different "signs" for passages being symbolic or not. Agreed, and that's part of what I wanted to discuss. I'd say that prophecy (and 'reverse' prophecy-- such as much of Genesis, written by a writer who was seeing events he wasn't actually part of) clearly must be taken with 'a dose of symbolic awareness'-- we have to realize that they may not literally hold true in every or all aspects. Beyond that, however, the Bible appears to be a collection of historical accounts and spiritual teachings-- and I'd argue that all of this needs to be taken literally, as it seems intended. I see Quote: Agreed about the Garden of Eden and Creation story. It's actually rather obvious that Genesis 1 is a poem of some kind. I have never heard that Jonah was resurrected by God. That is very interesting. Yeah, these are just some conclusions that I have come to personally in seeking to understand the truth of the Bible. Quote: Here is the problem with saying any part was distorted by the times. When you say that you show that any passage could be distorted by the times. Big controversial passages, like on homosexuality for example, could then just be equated to the time and dismissed. I agree. And since it's ONLY New Testament passages on gender roles that we want to dismiss, this method of interpretation seems hokey. For the same reasoning I responded to your first point in this post, I don't think we should dismiss passages by saying they were distorted by the times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:11 pm
Nebulance Mei tsuki7 Nebulance Glad to see that we're covering ground on this. I threw this argument together rather quickly, so I hope you don't mind if I continue to refine it a bit, with the help of your criticism. -If the Bible contains divinely inspired truth, and -If God is good, powerful, and knowing, -Then God would not deceive us about that truth by writing it in a deceptive manner (giving us scripture that was not literally true in a manner as if it were to be taken literally and instructing us to uphold it as such). Thus, when scripture which is clearly written as a literal account or literal instructions (most of the Old and New Testaments-- some passages' intents may be unclear), it should be interpreted that way, in the absence of divine guidance or divinely allowed evidence to interpret it otherwise. Guidance would most probably be from other scripture which provided some reason for not taking the passage in the literal sense that it was written. Evidence would most probably be in blatant contradictions or historical distortions in the scripture which make clear that although written literally, it was not intended to be taken literally. Taking this approach, let's go over some of the key passages which are controversial in their interpretations: The Creation Account and the Garden-- inclusion of blatant symbolism demonstrates that this passage may be intended as allegorical/symbolic, and thus it does not have to be in contradiction with current scientific knowledge. The Flood, Jonah and the Whale-- examples of hard-to-believe seemingly literal accounts. Such accounts just need to be examined carefully; the 'world' that was flooded can be translated as 'realm,' 'land,' 'region,' etc; Jonah didn't live in the belly of a fish for three days, God ressurected his body after the fish spat his corpse out (implied heavily by a close reading of his prayers about going down to Sheol and such). Paul's Discussions of Gender Roles (women, men, homosexuals)-- can we honestly dismiss this one set of passages (out of all the Bible, there are no other passages we feel the need to reinterpret this way) as distorted by the culture of the times without any evidence other than the offense these passages cause us? Rather, I think we need to study them and try to understand their full meaning. The problem is God didn't write the Bible himself. Man did. So even if God told them what to write, divinely inspired, that doesn't mean they understood or got it right. A valid concern to consider. If we view God as powerful and good, however, would He really do a half-way job of bringing His message to all of humanity and just leave us with a deceptive manuscript? What stops Him from possessing a Prophet or an Apostle to speak His words without distortion? That is what they claimed they were doing, and if they were lying, why should we place any weight on what they said at all? Now I have a vision of God going "no you dumb s**t that word is tree not doctor. Now fix it." lol. Well what about the fact that another messiah is coming. Doesn't that mean that we still haven't gotten it so we need more help? Maybe that's how he is trying to make us get it right. Quote: Quote: Here is another problem. You say the symbolic passages are "obvious" but I see different symbolic passages then you do. Everyone will see different "signs" for passages being symbolic or not. Agreed, and that's part of what I wanted to discuss. I'd say that prophecy (and 'reverse' prophecy-- such as much of Genesis, written by a writer who was seeing events he wasn't actually part of) clearly must be taken with 'a dose of symbolic awareness'-- we have to realize that they may not literally hold true in every or all aspects. Beyond that, however, the Bible appears to be a collection of historical accounts and spiritual teachings-- and I'd argue that all of this needs to be taken literally, as it seems intended. I see You do know that most of the writers of the Bible didn't actually see what they wrote about right? Quote: Quote: Agreed about the Garden of Eden and Creation story. It's actually rather obvious that Genesis 1 is a poem of some kind. I have never heard that Jonah was resurrected by God. That is very interesting. Yeah, these are just some conclusions that I have come to personally in seeking to understand the truth of the Bible. Quote: Here is the problem with saying any part was distorted by the times. When you say that you show that any passage could be distorted by the times. Big controversial passages, like on homosexuality for example, could then just be equated to the time and dismissed. I agree. And since it's ONLY New Testament passages on gender roles that we want to dismiss, this method of interpretation seems hokey. For the same reasoning I responded to your first point in this post, I don't think we should dismiss passages by saying they were distorted by the times. I think the time periods they were written in should help us interpret them though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:49 pm
Nebulance rmcdra I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core. The heretic ends his rant. Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? And do commandments still carry weight... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want? If it was his life why didn't he write anything in first person. For example some things were written by Luke and Mathew . So why didn't Jesus write anything in the Bible about his life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 pm
hachi_ ateyou Nebulance rmcdra I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core. The heretic ends his rant. Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? And do commandments still carry weight... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want? If it was his life why didn't he write anything in first person. For example some things were written by Luke and Mathew . So why didn't Jesus write anything in the Bible about his life? Jesus left it to His disciples to record His life, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:01 pm
Nebulance hachi_ ateyou Nebulance rmcdra I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core. The heretic ends his rant. Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? And do commandments still carry weight... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want? If it was his life why didn't he write anything in first person. For example some things were written by Luke and Mathew . So why didn't Jesus write anything in the Bible about his life? Jesus left it to His disciples to record His life, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The disciples didn't write the bible though. Also why haven't you replied to my above post yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:10 pm
actually they did write the Bible, It was just translated into english for the many groups that wished to use it, for instant the Catholic Bible (I think) and the King James Bible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:11 pm
Mei tsuki7 Nebulance hachi_ ateyou Nebulance rmcdra I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core. The heretic ends his rant. Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? And do commandments still carry weight... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want? If it was his life why didn't he write anything in first person. For example some things were written by Luke and Mathew . So why didn't Jesus write anything in the Bible about his life? Jesus left it to His disciples to record His life, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The disciples didn't write the bible though. Also why haven't you replied to my above post yet? The disciples wrote the Gospels-- the story of Jesus' life, which is what we were talking about in this thread. Sorry, I thought we had mostly wrapped up that discussion. Um, most of the Bible is prophecy (usually assumed to be recorded by that same prophet) or teaching (like in the New Testament). It's only certain historical chronicles in the Old Testament that may have been written by writers from another time period. Obviously, if God inspired the Bible, this wouldn't be a problem for them-- God's Spirit was there when all of it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:42 pm
Here's where history comes in. The oldest Canonical Gospel is actual the Gospel according to Mark and is attributed to Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, though the actual author who actually wrote this text, considering it's dating, is unknown The oldest documents recording this gospel give an approximated dating of 50-70 CE. It is believed to be part of the source material for the Gospel according to Luke and the Gospel according to Matthew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:52 am
rmcdra Here's where history comes in. The oldest Canonical Gospel is actual the Gospel according to Mark and is attributed to Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, though the actual author who actually wrote this text, considering it's dating, is unknown The oldest documents recording this gospel give an approximated dating of 50-70 CE. It is believed to be part of the source material for the Gospel according to Luke and the Gospel according to Matthew. Exactly. And Mark and Luke were written slightly after that and John was written between 90 and 120 CE and the Gospel of Thomas was written between 70 and 130 or so CE. etc. All the books have unknown authors though they were thought to be written by the students of the deciples. Another theory is that Matthew, Mark and Luke were all based on one unknown writing that we call Q.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:59 pm
Well, it seems to be common sense to look at the cultural context of Bible verses. For example, the word "sin" in Hebrew doesn't even mean what we think it means. All it means is, closely, "missing the target", which can be implied to mean that a sin is simply not doing something perfectly - in which case, all human action becomes a sin. From then on, many popular interpretations of the Bible based on the word "sin" fall apart. There are many other cultural factors no doubt present throughout the Bible: simply the current environment can have its impact.
However, even if the Bible is very culturally skewed compared to today, it should be possible to interpret it by learning about the culture of the day. Legalists, however, are most likely completely unsupported - even if the culture back when is understood, it cannot be understood completely, which makes it sensible to only interpret the bible loosely and be willing to learn whatever God wishes to teach you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:19 pm
I think as Christians, we need to see beyond, see between the lines and know that as long as we've accepted Christ as savior (the message that has NEVER gotten confused throughout time) we will be alright. We need to have other's know the message of Christ and we need to live as Christ did, the rest doesn't matter compared to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:26 am
GaleNexus I think as Christians, we need to see beyond, see between the lines and know that as long as we've accepted Christ as savior (the message that has NEVER gotten confused throughout time) we will be alright. We need to have other's know the message of Christ and we need to live as Christ did, the rest doesn't matter compared to that. 'Living as Christ did' is what 'the rest' is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
