Is the bible the implied word of God? Or the precise word?

[CatwomanofV]

I am not a Jew or Christian but I do believe there is a kernel of truth in the Bible. However, I also believe that those truths were embellished.

If you take Paul, he was credited with spreading the Gospel. He was a storyteller-a troubadour if you would. I am sure that each time he told a story, that story got more & more fantastic. Who knows how many times the story changed before it was finally written down-and what language was it written in? Of course then you have all the different translations-Arabic to Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English, etc. etc.

The Bible also says that polygamy is fine as well as slavery-including selling your own daughter into slavery. Rape was also ok just as long as the man married her. I'm sure most people do not agree with that.

I don't have an issue with people using the Bible for lessons and such but for people to take it as a fact are not using the brains that God has given them.



Cat

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by CatwomanofV

I am not a Jew or Christian but I do believe there is a kernel of truth in the Bible. However, I also believe that those truths were embellished.

If you take Paul, he was credited with spreading the Gospel. He was a storyteller-a troubadour if you would. I am sure that each time he told a story, that story got more & more fantastic. Who knows how many times the story changed before it was finally written down-and what language was it written in? Of course then you have all the different translations-Arabic to Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to English, etc. etc.

The Bible also says that polygamy is fine as well as slavery-including selling your own daughter into slavery. Rape was also ok just as long as the man married her. I'm sure most people do not agree with that.

I don't have an issue with people using the Bible for lessons and such but for people to take it as a fact are not using the brains that God has given them.



Cat

The fact that the Paul from the bible never actually meet Jesus and was born much later then Jesus when Jesus was teaching doesn't seem to stop some people believing that all of this is the literal word.

Paul was a anti Roman activist who used a underground religious movement as a way of fighting the Romans. Thats really what his letters and writings were about. He paid for that, the Romans executed him.

But the fact remains, most, if not all of the writings and teachings of Jesus were not first hand, they were third or fourth at best.

[Blink101]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

But see, that illustrates a big part of the problem that a lot of us non-Christians have with Christianity, and with the bible. There seem to be as many different "christianities" as there are Christians.

Interestingly, that's an observation a history professor of mine once claimed was the root of Christianity's success! The Bible itself doesn't force a singular, strict interpretation although corrupt humans frequently have tried to subjugate other Christian and Non-Christians alike through coercion usually with disastrous results. People like to think for themselves so it's only natural they want a personalized relationship with God.

But it should be noted that Jesus does warn Christians of "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "false prophets" who have corrupted the message of God to serve themselves rather than the Lord despite believing that they are being true Christians, so not all interpretations are necessarily valid in the Lord's eyes.

Originally Posted by Mathew 7:15-23 (ESV)

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.


21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

False prophets and spiritual fruits are a reoccurring theme throughout the Bible, but I'm not in the mood to dissect or look up every spec of evidence. I just want to alert everyone to the existence of a "litmus test" for a true Christian provided within the Bible. Interestingly, said test has little to nothing to do with how one interprets the "rules" of the Bible or how one specifically worships so much as whether they "bare good fruit." The most commonly cited reference to the meaning of the fruit which differentiates true Christians from false prophets is in the Apostle Paul's letter:

Originally Posted by Galatians 5:22-23 (ESV)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Of course, it is also important to note that Paul frequently makes distinctions between when he is speaking for himself and when he is actually expressing the sentiments of God/Jesus. Take that for what you will, but most people (obviously) respect Paul and the other apostles as being authorities on Christianity. Personally, I think Galatians is helpful, but it is easy for Christians to act like this is a checklist and be content with themselves. Love is probably the most well defined aspect of the fruit so I'll use that as an example of why the mark of a true Christian is more complex than simply having prior mentioned attributes. Luke describes that having love does not necessarily differentiate a true Christian from anyone else:

Originally Posted by Luke 6:27-28, 32-33

27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you..... 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.

In other words, Christians who unrepentantly return hate with hate or only love those who love them are not truly showing any fruit of the spirit nor differentiating themselves from non-Christians. If their love is conditional or they display open hatred, their fruit is likely rotten and they are probably among the false prophets Jesus warned Christians of in Mathew 7.


Therefore, a "true Christian" is not defined by the Bible based on what most Christians consider wedge issues which divide them from one another. The Bible's litmus test on whether you are a true Christian or a false prophet--irregardless of faith, works or rules--is the fruit your spirit bares. ("What Would Jesus Do?" anyone?) This is why many Christians are content to call each other Christian despite having extremely different views on what that means so long as they all share the most basic values. Similarly, many people call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Feminists, Tea Party Activists, Environmentalists, Americans, etc. despite not forming a homogenous circle when you get past the very basic, vague definitions of what they believe.


... More or less. *shrugs*

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Blink101

Interestingly, that's an observation a history professor of mine once claimed was the root of Christianity's success! The Bible itself doesn't force a singular, strict interpretation although corrupt humans frequently have tried to subjugate other Christian and Non-Christians alike through coercion usually with disastrous results. People like to think for themselves so it's only natural they want a personalized relationship with God.

But it should be noted that Jesus does warn Christians of "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "false prophets" who have corrupted the message of God to serve themselves rather than the Lord despite believing that they are being true Christians, so not all interpretations are necessarily valid in the Lord's eyes.




False prophets and spiritual fruits are a reoccurring theme throughout the Bible, but I'm not in the mood to dissect or look up every spec of evidence. I just want to alert everyone to the existence of a "litmus test" for a true Christian provided within the Bible. Interestingly, said test has little to nothing to do with how one interprets the "rules" of the Bible or how one specifically worships so much as whether they "bare good fruit." The most commonly cited reference to the meaning of the fruit which differentiates true Christians from false prophets is in the Apostle Paul's letter:





Of course, it is also important to note that Paul frequently makes distinctions between when he is speaking for himself and when he is actually expressing the sentiments of God/Jesus. Take that for what you will, but most people (obviously) respect Paul and the other apostles as being authorities on Christianity. Personally, I think Galatians is helpful, but it is easy for Christians to act like this is a checklist and be content with themselves. Love is probably the most well defined aspect of the fruit so I'll use that as an example of why the mark of a true Christian is more complex than simply having prior mentioned attributes. Luke describes that having love does not necessarily differentiate a true Christian from anyone else:





In other words, Christians who unrepentantly return hate with hate or only love those who love them are not truly showing any fruit of the spirit nor differentiating themselves from non-Christians. If their love is conditional or they display open hatred, their fruit is likely rotten and they are probably among the false prophets Jesus warned Christians of in Mathew 7.


Therefore, a "true Christian" is not defined by the Bible based on what most Christians consider wedge issues which divide them from one another. The Bible's litmus test on whether you are a true Christian or a false prophet--irregardless of faith, works or rules--is the fruit your spirit bares. ("What Would Jesus Do?" anyone?) This is why many Christians are content to call each other Christian despite having extremely different views on what that means so long as they all share the most basic values. Similarly, many people call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Feminists, Tea Party Activists, Environmentalists, Americans, etc. despite not forming a homogenous circle when you get past the very basic, vague definitions of what they believe.


... More or less. *shrugs*

Those are all bible verses, and your opinion of them. This does nothing to talk about the interpreted, or literal word of God, and whether the not the bible is one or the other.

False prophets? Yes, of course a religion is going to say, "If anyone says anything bad about me, they are just false prophets, you shouldn't believe them".

[P47P47]

My red-letter edition of the King James Bible contains the exact words spoken by Jesus, who did, in fact, speak in 17th-century English.

Of course, wanting to be understood by those around Him, and having the power to do so, He made His speech go into people's ears as Aramaic.

[Peggy Anne]

If it was the word of a benevolent god, it would be pleasant to read, awe inspiring, funny, filled with recipes, helpful hints, kindness to animals, songs, dances, and a full disclosure on the nature of the many realities we have at our disposal here on Earth. Rituals would be optional. However, since it was written by mortals, who are prone to error, I would have to say that I found the book to be a farce, in general. Humans have differing views about "god" and so mote it be.

[ScoopLV]

Here's the practical answer: The parts which a community believes in is the literal word (stoning witches, barring homosexuality, etc.) The parts which a community doesn't believe in is optional (mixing fibers in clothing, diet restrictions, wearing of beards by married men, etc.)

People have always picked and chosen based on their own belief system. And we're doing it today. Once we shrug off the yoke of letting mythology dictate our societal mores, we'll be much better off.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Here's the practical answer: The parts which a community believes in is the literal word (stoning witches, barring homosexuality, etc.) The parts which a community doesn't believe in is optional (mixing fibers in clothing, diet restrictions, wearing of beards by married men, etc.)

People have always picked and chosen based on their own belief system. And we're doing it today. Once we shrug off the yoke of letting mythology dictate our societal mores, we'll be much better off.

To be fair, most Christians, whether Catholic or protestant, believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he created a new covenant.

Before Jesus died, its believed that Jews were Gods only chose people, the rest of us gentiles were screwed. Jesus opened the door for everyone, and effectively ended the old covenant with God, and thus most of the old laws, outside of the 10 commandments.

However, when Jesus was alive, and asked which laws where meant to be followed, and which ones weren't, he said, "You know my fathers laws" Meaning all of the Mosaic laws that Christians don't follow, and many modern Jews, Jesus said you should.

Now the man was confounding and even contradicted himself. Turn the other cheek, but then turn tables over in the temple in rage. Well which is it?

All of the stories we have in the bible were written and handed down by word of mouth for centuries. The fact that these stories were overblown and exaggerated is a given. Kernels of true stories in the bible. Even some accurate historical events recorded in more than one place, but we can't believe that when Paul was writing some 200 years after Jesus died, that he really knew what Jesus meant.

[biggunsmallbrains]

It is impossible for it to be the precise words of god since language is fluid and ever changing. Jesus spoke ancient Aramaic and the first new testaments were written in ancient Greek. Fast forward two thousand years and countless translations and interpretations and here we are now suppose to have a "precise" understanding? Impossible. Look at all the different sects of Christianity, from Methodists to Mormons, Catholics to Coptics and their very different interpretations of god's supposed words and how can anyone come to the conclusion that it is unambiguously precise in any way?

[censusdata]

For me it all boils down to this: would a perfect, omnipotent God produce a book filled with contradictions and nearly impossible to understand by even a scholar? A book that lies about how the earth was formed?