Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the point people are trying to make is that what the words of the bible actually say today is not what they actually said when they were originally written.
When you see the hands of man throughout the bible, then you have nothing but your own direct connection to God. And, if you learn to trust that relationship, you don't need a rule book to guide you. You'll know what is written in your heart to be that of Christ if you listen closely enough and you will have no desire to commit acts of sin.
What most people do not understand about a literal translations or interpritation of the Bible is that we do not stick with just one version. We seek out several translations and interpritations as well as concordances and word for word translations with concordance numbers to get and even deeper understanding of the words and see what else they could mean and see what actually fits the context. We also interprite verses with other verses on the same topic to gain a deeper understanding of the original intent.
Too often too many people want to adhere to what agrees with them and ae not willing to delve into what may not. They would just prefer to ignore what disagrees with them and elaborate on what agrees with them even if it contradicts other aspects of the scriptures.
If my heart tells me it's OK to steal (as it can, as shown above) God's Word is there as the standard for me to see past what I might think is written on my heart.
So then explain to me why the Bible says God wrote His laws upon our hearts. WHAT laws were written upon our hearts?
Well, the other thing that I don't understand is that each of the first four chapters of the New Testament are titled, "The Gospel according to..."
Interesting point. If anything, it would indicate that the Holy Spirit didn't dictate word for word what was written in the Gospels. If the Spirit had done that, then why wouldn't they all say the same exact thing?
I'm thinking more and more that the books found in the NT weren't necessarily meant to be considered as authoritative scriptures. They are simply collections of letters and stories passed along by the apostles in order to assure a written record of the life and teachings of Jesus was preserved so that future generations could read about Him after they were no longer on earth.
Paul said all Scripture is God-breathed, but I don't believe he meant his very own letters were to be considered part of those writings. I doubt he was so bold as to view himself in that way - that he was writing holy Scripture. I think he was too humble to think of himself in such a way as to presume that is what he was doing. But even if he did, there were a LOT of other gospels and letters circulating that were not included in the NT. If, as Paul said, ALL Scripture was God-breathed, why would the early church have dared to exclude them from the canon? I think the Scripture Paul was referring to was simply the established Jewish Scriptures they had at the time. Period. What we see in the NT is simply a collection of writings by some in the early church.
Why don't you tell me how, if I want rebell against my fundamentalist pastor and 'open my eyes', does removing those verses from my bible change anything the scriptures say?
Don't you get it? The earliest and best manuscripts don't contain those verses. So where did they come from? Who dared to attempt to insert them in the first place? And if they WERE there originally, who dared to remove them? Doesn't it stand to reason that man has somehow tinkered with the Bible and adjusted it to say what he wants it to say? That being the case, how are we supposed to blindly accept that what the Bible says is, in fact, what it originally said? Beyond that, how can we trust what a pastor tells us? When you hear a pastor tell you that the Bible says such and such, isn't it just his own understanding you're leaning on, instead of God Himself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
It's one story.
And after some things I've learned recently, I'm starting to wonder if that story has been tinkered with over the ages. I no longer put my blind trust in what the church says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
So discredit it if you'd like, but my bible and Jesus redemption for us and instructions to us are still intact.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
If you want to make the scriptures say what you want them to say, knock yourself out. Doesn't change a thing about what the words in the bible actually say.
You'd do well to read your own words as if they were directed to YOU, Alpha.
(The quote function doesn't work for me; so, I'm doing it this way.)
aquila said:
"...that the Holy Spirit didn't dictate word for word what was written in the Gospels. If the Spirit had done that, then why wouldn't they all say the same exact thing?"
355 verses in Mark are also in Luke and Matthew. They are shared in common by the synoptic gospels. In part, I think, Mary was a resource for them. But, the idea the gospels should be identical if from God, or if they were true, or genuine misunderstands LIFE and the high respect God gives to each one of our perspectives. They are not in conflict, but are complimentary. The new Spirit-born human Christ is many as one. "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, thus also is the Christ." (1 Cor 12:12, CLV) For God's purpose to make us in His image (or, form) and likeness (or, similatude) means we are each a unique and irreplaceable original. Each of us can come to speak of "my gospel" as did Paul.
aquila said:
"1.) Don't you get it? The earliest and best manuscripts don't contain those verses. So where did they come from? Who dared to attempt to insert them in the first place? And if they WERE there originally, who dared to remove them? Doesn't it stand to reason that man has somehow tinkered with the Bible and adjusted it to say what he wants it to say? That being the case, how are we supposed to blindly accept that what the Bible says is, in fact, what it originally said? 2.) Beyond that, how can we trust what a pastor tells us? When you hear a pastor tell you that the Bible says such and such, isn't it just his own understanding you're leaning on, instead of God Himself?"
Answering the 2 points above:
1.) In a book, I think it was called Are the New Testament Manuscripts Reliable I read so long ago I don't remember the author, in the beginning he said something to the effect of: "Other than word order, there are only about 50 passages in question and none of them are necessary to establish any major doctrine." My experience with almost all of those that have so much to say against the Bible know very little of what the Bible actually says. Often, it is something in particular that nags them and they are trying to kick against. Additionally, apart from any bias, Jesus says, "None comes to me except the Father draws (or, drags) him."
2.) God expressly says there are no other mediators. He is to be known directly. Even when He uses others, it's Him in them. He says His name is JEALOUS! Many, as soon as they've had some awakening to God, have been trapped like animals led to slaughter by various leaders or sectarian groups. The present practice of being an enabling audience for a professional performer is not meeting as a body for Christ. It is like another man in bed between a husband and his wife, telling the wife that to love her husband she has to go through him. If other voices drown out the voice of God for you, it is unlikely you have heard the voice of God. "...for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God. For I betroth you to one Man, to present a chaste virgin to Christ. Yet I fear lest somehow, as the serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ." (2 Cor 11:2-3, CLV) The true servants of God assist our being connected, not to themselves, but to Christ the Head; and, they secure and enlarge that connection. MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!
aquila said:
"And after some things I've learned recently, I'm starting to wonder if that story has been tinkered with over the ages. I no longer put my blind trust in what the church says."
The mouth is in the head, not the body. The Church is not to say anything. You are on good ground if you have a sober evaluation of how unreliable are the words of men. I would be so bold as to add that even God does not expect you to put "blind trust" in Him, at least not in the beginning. Like the Bible does not offer comprehensive knowledge, but it is adequate, so will be your experience. Of course the various so-called Bible codes and gematria or numerics suggest Scripture in the originals may actually be in some ways more comprehensive than we can even dream. Really, it's the people who've continually read the Bible (not just verses here, there and then over somewhere else, but book by book as God gave it to us) that are the best witness to its power, not the debunkers. While His enemies have some interesting things to say about Jesus, it's His faithful friends that are His true witnesses.
Last edited by JamesMRohde; 05-03-2009 at 09:11 PM..
It's as if the Bible is actually a book with blank pages and is written by the mind of the reader.
Do we read and learn or do we learn and read to find what we have learned?
That's a great way of putting it. I learn through direct experience with the Holy Spirit and then am able to read and understand the words in a far deeper context.
It is intriguing to me how people put so much trust in a book that all factual evidence indicates has been significantly tampered with. I don't think Christ ever intended to make us slaves to a book.
It would be interesting to hear what event or insight convinced people that the literal interpretation must be accurate. I guess I'm more scientifically minded in the sense that I seek evidence and analysis from multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions.
What most people do not understand about a literal translations or interpritation of the Bible is that we do not stick with just one version. We seek out several translations and interpritations as well as concordances and word for word translations with concordance numbers to get and even deeper understanding of the words and see what else they could mean and see what actually fits the context. We also interprite verses with other verses on the same topic to gain a deeper understanding of the original intent.
Too often too many people want to adhere to what agrees with them and ae not willing to delve into what may not. They would just prefer to ignore what disagrees with them and elaborate on what agrees with them even if it contradicts other aspects of the scriptures.
Me I orefer no contradictions myself.
Robin, As I have stated in another post, I truly respect your methodology. But I must also say that very few of the people I have met who take a literalist view of scripture do so in such an educated and inquiring manner. Most haven't delved beyond whatever translation they own or what they heard in church last Sunday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
