Catholicism Examined

[nebula]

Christianity is a middle-eastern religion, and the Bible "culture" is middle-eastern. We tend to interpret the Bible as if it were written in english, in the United States, in OUR current culture. And boy, we think WE are the FINAL authority on what it means, and we're NEVER wrong. A typical attitude for us Americans lol.

Just want to say I agree with this statement 100%.

It's amazing what you can understand from the Bible when you read it in the context of the culture it was written in.

[Guest shiloh357]

I do not take it literally word for word and I do not believe the Bible is inerrant anymore.

Well then, the problem that you have with Worthy Boards does not lie with us, but with you. I would interested to know what errors you have found in the Bible, and if you actually have the acedemic knowledge (manuscrpt evidence, linguistic expertise, etc.) to actually back that up.

For the most part we believe that the Bible is without error. Those believe as you do, are uncomfortable with us, and that is not to be expected. Truth, by its nature, does not unite, but rather divides. It divides light from darkness, wrong from right, sin from righteousness. There can be no unity around anything else but the truth of Scripture. While we may disagree over periphreals (Pre-Trib, Tounges, etc.) there must unity with regards to core essentials of the Christian faith. One of those core essentials is that the Bible is inerrant, meaning that it is 100% correct with regard to its historical accounts, and moral demands.

You find it hard to enjoy Worth Boards because so many hold to the Bible in a way that you do not. That is not our problem. If you want to believe that the Bible is free of errors, that is your right. But, you can continue to expect problems in discussing the Bible with those who accept it as the pure Word of God.

[Guest charlie]

>>For the most part we believe that the Bible is without error.>>

Which Bible. The KJV, the NKJV, the RSV, the new RSV, The living word Bible, etc. etc. And which revision of each of these is without error? If you have a KJV, read the forword by the translators...(I think you know full well what I'm trying to say here). I don't need a degree in this area of expertise to get these bibles and do a line by line comparision. Anybody can do that and find differences. That's why some people holler about the KJV being the ONE AND ONLY Bible you should read. [edited]

>> Those believe as you do, are uncomfortable with us, and that is not to be expected.>>

I'm not "uncomfortable" with you at all, LOL. Frustrated is more like it because of the hypocracy. Ya'll say you take the Bible literally, but one glance at those divorce threads proves that most of you really pick and choose where you take it literally. When I've tried to point this out to people it is they who become extremely uncomfortable.

Perhaps I should have said I don't take the Bible literally, word for word. You can't when the gospels themselves differ on some points. It doesn't mean it's not true, you're just getting different eye-witness accounts from different people, they'll vary a bit. But still, you can't take each and every one literally without one book negating the others. [edit]

As for errors, this is just my personal opinion Shiloh. In the OT I do think there have been some big time embellishments. I believe the Hebrews fought their wars and killed their enemies the way it's described BUT, I don't think God told them to do some of the things they did. I think they may have 'added' that to the story to justify some of their actions. IF God really did tell them to do some of those things, then it sure doesn't sound like the same kind, loving, God that Jesus describes. I think you get a more accurate account of the OT by reading a Children's Bible....seriously, you get all the "morals" those bible stories have to teach us without all the cruelty that is (falsely imo) attributed to God.

I trust the gospels, though as I explained even those don't match word for word. So, when reading the rest of the Bible whether it's the OT or the writings of Paul I always compare it to what Jesus said and did and try my best to let the "spirit" of what the message is saying to us take precedence over legalism. Does that make sense?

If you do some research you too will find that this is how the Bible was intended to be from the start, not the humanistic legal document it's been turned into in the past couple hundred years.

[Guest charlie]

>>It's amazing what you can understand from the Bible when you read it in the context of the culture it was written in.<<

Nebula, it's facinating isn't it. It was so different than today. I wonder what little everyday things we do and say, that would be totally "lost" on people 2000 yrs from now. We don't even understand a lot of 'everyday things' that people did here in the U.S. one hundred years ago since things have changed so much. [edited]

[nebula]

Hey, Charlie -

I agree with what you said above, but I'm to sure I would go so far as to say they changed things in the writing of the historical accounts to suit their goals. That idea scares me. I mean, where do you stop from reality to fantasy when you start claiming that? How do you prevent yourself from interpreting the Bible to what you want it to say if you can explain some passages by saying they were "changed?

Not trying to be fighting, but I'd be afraid to venture that direction. :glasses:

[Ovedya]

I would agree that many boards are filled with false teachers, and the like BUT since I disagree with many people on a few issues here it is my opinion that many people here at worthy have confusion and false doctrines. I have found that whenever I've said anything outside of their "comfort zone" many will slurr then cut-n-paste a good portion of the Bible. The slur negates the cut-n-paste right off the bat, because it's so negative.

You seem to be contradiction your argument here. First you said that people here argue with you based upon their own interpretations of the Bible (ie.

[Guest shiloh357]

Which Bible. The KJV, the NKJV, the RSV, the new RSV, The living word Bible, etc. etc. And which revision of each of these is without error? If you have a KJV, read the forword by the translators...(I think you know full well what I'm trying to say here). I don't need a degree in this area of expertise to get these bibles and do a line by line comparision. Anybody can do that and find differences. That's why some people holler about the KJV being the ONE AND ONLY Bible you should read. [edited]

the issue of inerrancy deals with the substance of the scriptures. I am sure we will all find obscure words here and there that could have been translated better, but that is not material here. The question is, did the Holy Spirit inspire the Word of God? If so, isn't God capable of preserving His Word? If we deny that they Word of God is 100% from God, then we have no basis of trust in Him. If the Word of God is wrong at any point, then it could be wrong when looking at something we really care about like salvation.

Here is what the Bible says about the Word of God

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

2 Tim. 3:16

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All of scripture is preserved by God and all scripture is inspired by God. That includes the whole of the Word of God, and not just the parts you do not like.

As for errors, this is just my personal opinion Shiloh. In the OT I do think there have been some big time embellishments. I believe the Hebrews fought their wars and killed their enemies the way it's described BUT, I don't think God told them to do some of the things they did. I think they may have 'added' that to the story to justify some of their actions. IF God really did tell them to do some of those things, then it sure doesn't sound like the same kind, loving, God that Jesus describes.

So, when Jesus returns to earth and annhilates the armies that surround Israel, and when he throws the wicked into the lake of fire, do also deny that as the Word of God as well? Jesus is loving but he is not a pushover, he is not syrupy-sweet delicate flower that so many have tried to make him out to be. You have an incorrect perspective concerning the God's love. It does not cancel out His need for justice. Justice must be satisfied, and sometimes it requires God's wrath to be manifested.

[Guest charlie]

Two long posts to respond to, this could take all night. I'll try to condense my answer here.

Main Entry: 1lit

[Guest shiloh357]

The Bottom line is that if God cannot provide a pure Word, if we cannot trust him to keep the incorrect facts out of his Word, then we have no basis for trust in Him. If the Word of God is wrong about what God said in the Old Testament, why would I trust what it claims He said in the New Testament? You are leaving the barn door wide open for the critics to justify their claims of forgery by the human authors of the Old Testament.

According to Jesus we are to behave ethically and in love toward one another. Treat others as you would have them treat you, and love others as I have loved you. The Hebrews were not God any more than you or I. We do have rules but as far as I can tell God would never condone some of the brutal things done by one group of humans to another group of humans.

That has to do with interpersonal relationships. It is not a prescription for foreign policy. The Old Testament also teaches love. It teaches in Exodus that the Children of Israel were to be kind to those who chose to live peacably with them. They were not harm the strangers in their midst, but accept them.

However, dealing with enemies who want to destroy you, is different matter. There are ethical rules for war. So many get the whole "love your neighbor issue confused, and turned around.

With a literal interpretation you CANNOT explain away contradictions in the Bible.

To interpret the Bible literally, means to interpret it as literature. That is where the word "literal" comes from. By interpreting the Bible literally in that fashion, it is quite easy to explain the so-called contradictions. There are no contradictions in Scripture, just insufficient information on the part of the reader. The Bible is set up so that no one verse contains all the information on a given subject. So two verses that may appear to be in contradiction can be reconciled when more information is made available by further study. Most contradiction proponents refuse to do the necessary study.

BY not taking the Bible literally, it fosters the whole contradiction thing. When people see verses that reconcile supposed "contradictions" they can easily say, "well I don't take those verses literally." Thus, they can continue to believe the contradictions. So the literal interpretation is far more able to dispel contradictions. Also the literal interpretation takes linguistics, culture, and history into account as well.

[Guest charlie]

Shilo, our opinions are different and I don't see us coming to an agreement as far as the "literal" thing goes. The word "literal" seems to mean something different to you than it does to me. I do trust the NT which is WHY I do not trust the OT 100%.

I agree that the OT has some good morals to teach but I stand by what I said earlier about the bloodlust. I'm not a pacifist either. I know that people sometimes have to defend themselves. I take issue when someone appears to take joy in the "act of killing", and claiming God endorses this.

We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

[edited]