The Bible...take it or leave it ?

[follower of Christ]

Well ya know...seeing that none of them were THERE I think Ill go with the bible on this one

I'm not sure how that refutes Physicist's point since you weren't there either.

Huh.
Well now ya see, friend, *I* have this little book in my hand called the 'Bible' that INCLUDES the passage in question.
So telling me that some contemporary scholar has concluded that that passage doesnt belong is pretty much on THEM to PROVE that it doesnt.
Its in my bible. Its on you or whomever to prove that its not authentic

To show what I mean, lets look at the Johannine Comma.
Its in a couple bibles I own, not in most of them.
And the texts that the Received Text supposedly comes from, the Greek Majority, DOESNT actually support the Comma in the way that it should *IF* the Comma was present originally.

So if I ASSERT that the Comma doesnt belong, in half a dozen clicks I can present EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS the idea that the Comma ISNT in the original but was probably a copyist insertion/error.

 

[glorydaz]

Well ya know...seeing that none of them were THERE I think Ill go with the bible on this one

I'm not sure how that refutes Physicist's point since you weren't there either.

Huh.
Well now ya see, friend, *I* have this little book in my hand called the 'Bible' that INCLUDES the passage in question.
So telling me that some contemporary scholar has concluded that that passage doesnt belong is pretty much on THEM to PROVE that it doesnt.
Its in my bible. Its on you or whomever to prove that its not authentic

Exactly.

 

[Free]

follower of Christ[/i]]

Well ya know...seeing that none of them were THERE I think Ill go with the bible on this one

I'm not sure how that refutes Physicist's point since you weren't there either.

Huh.
Well now ya see, friend, *I* have this little book in my hand called the 'Bible' that INCLUDES the passage in question.
So telling me that some contemporary scholar has concluded that that passage doesnt belong is pretty much on THEM to PROVE that it doesnt.
Its in my bible. Its on you or whomever to prove that its not authentic

From your quote, Physicist stated: "Most experts think that 2 Timothy was written in the second century, long after Paul was dead."

You replied to that with: "Well ya know...seeing that none of them were THERE I think Ill go with the bible on this one "

That was what my reply was based on. It seems as though you were addressing something else and quoted the wrong portion of Physicist's post.

 

[glorydaz]

To show what I mean, lets look at the Johannine Comma.
Its in a couple bibles I own, not in most of them.
And the texts that the Received Text supposedly comes from, the Greek Majority, DOESNT actually support the Comma in the way that it should *IF* the Comma was present originally.

So if I ASSERT that the Comma doesnt belong, in half a dozen clicks I can present EVIDENCE that SUPPORTS the idea that the Comma ISNT in the original but was probably a copyist insertion/error.

In like manner, there have been times when I would read something that provoked me to search out other translations or go to the Greek on a particular word. That's the Spirit leading us to check it out until we have peace...comparing with other verses does the same.

 

[seekandlisten]

What do you mean other than what I've already stated. I simply don't believe in the ridiculousness of doctrines being made over spelling, contradictions found, breaking down every literal translation of each word syllable etc to get a point across.

Can you clarify this statement? What doctrines are you referring to exactly that have been made over spelling errors and contradictions?

Sorry this was a rash statement made that I shouldn't of. An error on my part with letting generalizations come into play.

What parts of the Bible do you think are inspired and which ones are not? You say that the Bible is more or less partially inspired, so I'm just wondering how you discern which parts are inspired and which ones aren't.

It's not a matter of some parts of the bible being uninspired. It's complicated. More or less I accept the fact that there may be errors as man is fallible. I believe it has been preserved to the best of the translators abilities and that God can reveal His Word through whatever version you read if you ask.

Can you explain your technique for Scripture interpretation.

Sorry, I don't think I can. I simply put my faith in God to reveal Himself through guidance by the Holy Spirit in what I read.

 

[seekandlisten]

Well, I have thought about this thread and what I've posted on this site and realized I have errored in my conduct. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended in any of my posts. I get caught up in debates sometimes follow my own intentions rather than seeing the big picture. Seeing as FOC started this thread in attempts of learning my religious background here it is. Sorry that it is long but this is as condensed as I could get

What I believe is complicated so say the least, so I will try to keep it simple. First of all, let me say I don't expect anyone to believe the same things I do, that has been my intent in all my posts yet due to my humanity and letting my emotions get the better of me sometimes this is not evident. I believe there should be a common foundation or 'reality check' so to speak in order to generally accept anothers beliefs. I also believe that simply because I don't believe what another believes to be be true doesn't make that belief obselete. Must I make my objection known to a person? This is where I think one must use discretion, and I'm as guilty as the next for letting my opinions and generalizations get in the way.

I have realized through conversations on topics on this site where I fall short in many areas. If I can't walk my beliefs how can I present them to someone else? I have seen some things in my 10 year old daughter lately that has made me realize my shortcomings as well. I always will teach toleration and respect for anothers beliefs. I also believe I should accept everyone as equal because in God's eyes there is no religion or race, male or female, gay or straight, etc. We are all His creation and we will all be judged accordingly on how we lived our life.

A little story that helped me maybe has some benefit for someone else. When my daughter was 5, we were in a restaurant and a biker, who based on observation looked to be part of a bike gang, was having coffee and my daughter ran over to him and started asking questions. The man was very polite and I honestly think that my daughter probably made an impression on him. Now when I think about the situation, my daughter had no apprehensions about talking to this guy where as myself looked at him as a biker, gang member, possibly criminal, etc. A lot of generalizations based on absolutely nothing to do with this man in particular but in regards to who I associated this man with. The realization I came to is what it means to be like a child as Jesus taught. My daughter didn't carry any apprehensions or apply any generalizations to this man she simply was interested in something about him and asked questions. Another thing I've noticed that has made me proud is my daughter will make friends with every new kid that has come into her school or has moved onto our street no matter what others think.

 

[seekandlisten]

One of the problems I find is stating my beliefs or what I think on certain things is that a lot of people, including myself, will automatically assume if you don't believe this you must disregard everything that goes along with that as well and that is not the case with a lot of my beliefs. I have also learned that what we don't understand we write off as wrong a lot of times. Anyways, before this becomes a huge post about me I'll simply state what my beliefs are.

I believe in God the Father, the Creator of the world and from Whom all things come. I don't believe we can describe Him or come to an absolute conclusion about Who or What He is other than what He reveals to us each personally. I believe Jesus died on the cross and paid the price for the sin of the world as fulfillement of God's Covenant. Jesus is the Christ. It is only through Jesus that I will be able to stand before God one day and give account of my life in hopes of being granted eternal life. I believe there are many members in the Body of Christ and I don't think I can understand the purpose God has for every member of His True Church. While I do believe there are members of the Body of Christ in every walk of life, I don't believe the True Church is of this world. The Kingdom of God resides within us until the day when He makes Himself known. This is the basis of all my beliefs.

My beliefs on various other issues stem from Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sufism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Zen mainly. I personally don't associate myself with any religion. My beliefs would mainly fall under Christianity but due to my beliefs in regards to Jesus being equal to God and the plan of salvation I am excluded from most branches of Christianity. I am simply a believer in God and will only put my faith in my Creator. I believe through Jesus and the Holy Spirit I am given my example and my guidance. I don't expect anyone to understand how I find pieces of the Truth in other religions as I think that must be an experience for yourself or maybe that isn't God's plan for everyone but I do realize that all religions as a whole have to come to a point of tolerance otherwise we will continue to destroy ourselves and God's earth.

And just because I might say another religion contains some truth don't automatically assume I am subscribing to their entire belief system as that is not the case. Most founders of religions contain truth but the making of what they presented into a religion has corrupted what they taught. This is based on only my personal understanding in regards to religions and nothing else. I will give you a quick example, Buddha taught of a 'Holy One' who would come 500 years before Jesus. This 'Holy One' would be the means to 'carry you over the cycle of rebirths all the way to the highest heaven (nirvana).' I don't think a lot of buddhists have applied Jesus teaching to their religion but I may be wrong. Now I understand there is a lot to go through to come to an understanding of how all these religions come together but that is up to the individual to seek out if they want that understanding. I found this interesting as well, all the 'eastern religions' appeared roughly the same time and coincided with the scattering of Israel. I can't find my reference for this off hand but it does make an interesting point.

Now I realize this is just a small fraction of what I believe but as you can see it is quite complicated and I doubt I could explain it to any degree other than what I am putting forward here. If you have a question I will try and answer, if you have a rebuke I will evaluate it. I was raised in christianity so up until about 3 years ago most of my beliefs would have fell in with those of you on this site so I can understand sometimes where people are coming from.

As for my belief in regards to the trinity which has caused the most discord in my posts, these are my thoughts. I have yet to come to an understanding of Jesus being equal to the Father in Scripture. Plain and simple this is why I can't subscribe to it. For me to accept the trinity would be to blindly believe in an explanation by man to solve the disagreements between the leaders of the churches in the first couple centuries. Unless God reveals to me otherwise I cannot accept the doctrine of the trinity it's as simple as that and I'm sorry if this causes concern for some but that is my belief only and I don't have a problem with those who do believe in the trinity but it does bother me when it is forced on me as the only truth and it being explained perfectly in scripture. Sorry I just don't see it.

I hope this can clear things up a bit and I'm sorry if it's long. This was FOC's point in this thread so I thought I'd share this before I decide if I will continue on posting on this site as it seems I only cause dissension. I apologize if I have offended anyone in my posts.

 

[seekandlisten]

FOC I do want to thank you for bringing me to a realization about myself. I would pm you but I see you have it disengaged. But thanks for what you have shown me.

 

[glorydaz]

Seekandlisten,
I believe I understand what you're saying, because I can relate it to my own walk.
I don't know how long you've been saved, but when I was younger in the Lord, I would sometimes argue my point so hard that I went beyond even what I believed myself. In a debate class, for instance, you have a chance to argue both sides of the issue. It's amazing how you can find legitimate points for both positions, and yet the truth lies somewhere in between. Sometimes just taking a step back can give one the better perspective. Heck, I could argue the grass blue if I set my mind to it. When we love the Lord, He is faithful to bring us back and keep us centered on Him. Your little girls sounds awesome to me. We can learn a lot from the simple faith of a child, can't we? My little granddaughter brings me up short quite often. :yes

I'm sorry I got your name wrong at first.
And please don't leave the site...I can see you have a heart for the Lord and are a seeker after the truth.

I just happen to think you can only find the truth though the Bible.
It's too easy to get led off course if you don't keep the Bible as the ultimate authority.
Anyway....I can see the Lord is speaking to your heart, and you will be in my prayers.

 

[toddm]

Re: Paul didn't say this

Most experts think that 2 Timothy was written in the second century, long after Paul was dead. Moreover, when Paul refers to the 'Scriptures' in his genuine letters, he is referring to OT, and perhaps ancient Hebrew writings that did not make it into the Bible, because the NT gospels had not yet been written.

Yeah? and who are these experts that are the majority?? I get tired of blanket statements like this. People say stuff like this and others just accept it So, let's see some names of all these experts...I expect the list to be quite lengthy.

Bart Ehrmann has written a book for the layman, called 'Misquoting Jesus', that examines how the KJV Bible evolved. I think one has to let faith override reason to take the current Bible as the infallible word of God.

You just lost any credibility by citing Bart Ehrman. Faith doesn't override anything, however, a proper understanding of textual criticism is necessary - something Ehrman lacks. Pick up Timothy Jones book called "Misquoting Truth" for a good, layman response to Ehrman's nonsense.

 

[Physicist]

A lot of gospels

Well ya know...seeing that none of them were THERE I think Ill go with the bible on this one

I'm not sure how that refutes Physicist's point since you weren't there either.

Huh.
Well now ya see, friend, *I* have this little book in my hand called the 'Bible' that INCLUDES the passage in question.
So telling me that some contemporary scholar has concluded that that passage doesnt belong is pretty much on THEM to PROVE that it doesnt.
Its in my bible. Its on you or whomever to prove that its not authentic

Well, if you like pseudographic texts, there was a gospel of Mary, Peter, Phillip... in fact just about any name connected to Jesus. Also, multiple letters by the same. The clerics that assembled the texts that make up your Bible did so for political and dogmatic, not historical, reasons. Other early Christian groups used different canons. Modern biblical scholars try to sort through this multitude of texts to determine the who, where, and when of each manuscript. The pastoral letters in the Bible have long been recognized as inauthentic. Peter Kirby's website summarizes some of the standard arguments for this conclusion:

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

 

[glorydaz]

My goodness. I think man is busy out-smarting himself again.
I can say with all confidence that the Bible I hold in my hand is the very one God wants me to hold.
If the Lord wanted it to come in some circuitous manner, I'll thank Him for that.

I know we live in the last days, but I would have never imagined there would be such an all-out assault on the Word of God. It's served Christians quite well down through the ages, and suddenly we have people coming out of the woodwork to try and spread doubt among the believers. :bigfrown

 

[Panin]

Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?
What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?

Im including a short passage from 2 Timothy that I believe shows us very clearly what the bible should be to the church. That we NEED to be very concerned about doctrine and making certain that we are aligned with His word to the best of our ability.
Dotrine seemed to be pretty important issue to Paul and Timothy. Should it be any less meaningful for the rest of us ?
The following really doesnt leave much guesswork as to how Paul felt about the scriptures in the life of the believer.

You however have carefully followed my doctrine, lifestyle, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, in Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors shall advance worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:10-17 EMTV)

Well, I'm sure this will turn into a wonderful debate, but I'm bored so I'll bite.

"Is the bible our foundation for Gods truth ?" No, Christ is the foundation for God's Truth.

"What role does the bible play in the life of the believer ?"Personal learning, guidance, rebuke, and whatever God chooses to reveal through it.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,[/u] that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This part gets taken to all sorts of levels. God did not literally speak the words written in the bible. God did 'inspire' the men that wrote the bible and His Word is contained in the bible. 'All Scripture' does not refer to the canonized bible as that didn't happen yet. More or less the bible contains the Word of God it is however not literally the Word of God.

The original greek and hebrew text delivered through the selected holy scribes, is the literal word of God recorded in writing. Of course the word of God is the foundation of God's truth, which is why it was written in the first place. IE To stop people making up whatever comes into their mind on the subject. Evry english version of scripture is just that, a translastion fo the word of God, however it is a translation of the literal word of God, and can be taken literally as the word of God in its English format.

In my opinion some translations are more accurate than others, I belive it is our respionsibily to look into that. I dont think God miracuously or supernaturally leads us to a preferred version that is "right for you"

The assault on the word of God, is the final battle field, however it has already been prove irrefutably scientifically, mathematically, physically, and spirtually that the word of God is the very literal word of God. Debates like this are acceptable with unbelievers, but not believers.

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: A lot of gospels

Well, if you like pseudographic texts, there was a gospel of Mary, Peter, Phillip..

Huh.....yeah....see I cant actually find those extras in there.....so.....you know ;)


Thanks for all the rest, friend, but I'll stick to what I have,

 

[follower of Christ]

My goodness. I think man is busy out-smarting himself again.

Agreed.
Man thinks he's smartest when he's talking himself right out of simply believing and having faith in his Creator.
:yes

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Re: Paul didn't say this

Yeah? and who are these experts that are the majority??

From my experience its either one or two guys we've never heard of or someone whos just a bible bashing atheist who we all ignore anyway.
"expert" is subjective.
The "experts" in Jesus' day were largely a bunch of fishermen types that "experts" in our day would have laughed at.

I get tired of blanket statements like this. People say stuff like this and others just accept it So, let's see some names of all these experts...I expect the list to be quite lengthy.

And you just know that if a person really feels this 'expert' is worthy of quoting that its going to be presented from the very start.
I dont wait til 17 pages into a discussion before providing evidence when I know its valid.

 

[Physicist]

I have to ask

My goodness. I think man is busy out-smarting himself again.
I can say with all confidence that the Bible I hold in my hand is the very one God wants me to hold.
If the Lord wanted it to come in some circuitous manner, I'll thank Him for that.

I know we live in the last days, but I would have never imagined there would be such an all-out assault on the Word of God. It's served Christians quite well down through the ages, and suddenly we have people coming out of the woodwork to try and spread doubt among the believers. :bigfrown

Pardon me, but I have to ask, " Are these your true personal views? Occasionally non-believers will characachurize Christian views. If this is the case, I suggest moving it to Landover Baptist. My answer assumes that this IS your actual beliefs.

Have you studied any of the history of how the Biblical canon was assembled? A good first book is "Who wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack, Professor of early Christianity at the School of Theology at Claremont College. Also, Bart Ehrman, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the U. of North Carolina. has written several introductory texts. If neither of these are available to you, read the Christian history section in any good Encyclopedia such as Britannica.

If you do your homework, you will see that the Bible you use has evolved considerably over the years. The genuine Pauline letters were the earliest written texts, sometime around the mid-first century. Next was the Mark gospel, around the year 70. The authors of the Matthew and Luke gospel (all the gospels were anonymous so we don't know the names of the authors) used Mark and another lost source called Q. Much of the rest of the canon involves works were written in the second century; 2 Timothy falls into this category.

The first Christian 'canon' was assembled in the second century by the Gnostic, Marcion. He used an early version of the Luke gospel and the genuine Pauline letters. In the fourth century, some Catholic Bishops took a vote on what eventually became the modern Bible. Rather, several church councils voted for conflicting lists, the contradictions of which took centuries more to resolve. Because of differences over the Apocrypha, there remains no agreement about which books are in the Christian Old Testament.

The actual works themselves have changed over time. Church Patriarch, Origen, complained about the many various versions of each of the gospels. Some of these changes came quite late. For example, the fourth century version of Mark ended at 16:8.

To blindly accept the present Bible as infallible is to put faith over reason.

 

[jasoncran]

then when you read the old book by homer, ie the iliad and the revision is it off as well. faith is to be above reason as we cant explain god with reason alone. for without faith it impossible to please the lord.

 

[westtexas]

Re: I have to ask

To blindly accept the present Bible as infallible is to put faith over reason.

I'll stick with faith
Westtexas

 

[Physicist]

I'm sure the iliad is not original

then when you read the old book by homer, ie the iliad and the revision is it off as well. faith is to be above reason as we cant explain god with reason alone. for without faith it impossible to please the lord.

I'm sure that the Homer's Iliad that we have today is not what the original poet said. It was passed down by generations of storytellers who would modify it to suit their audience. Still, what we have is a true masterpiece. The fact that it is not an inerrant copy of the original does not bother me in the slightest.