|
|
|
|
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 9:30:36 AM | I find that "bibles" or "religious documents" from any and all religions are great resources into history as well as mindsets of individuals during particular eras, but are they factual?
Speaking from a personal perspective, I was raised very religiously and taught that the "Bible" was the word of "God" and we should abide by it's doctrine as well as "rules and regulations" in which we should apply to our daily lives.
It is my understanding at this stage in my life after traveling abroad and being exposed to numerous religions as well as education, that the "Bible" no matter the religion, was interpreted by "scholars". Should we trust the interpretations ? Who's to say that these supposed scholars did not "alter" these religious documents to their liking or possibly to suit their own agenda's?
I can only speak of the "King James Version of the Bible" not other religious documents for I do not have knowledge of other religious documents. I have discovered that there have been numerous "books" of the bible which have been left out from the Bible. Books such as the book documenting the childhood of Jesus Christ from the New Testament as well as a book called "The Dragon of Baal", which if I"m not mistaken was suppose to be located after the book of Revelations.
Why the censorship? Why are these books being hidden away from the publics eye? Is this to show history as the scholars want history portrayed? This is why in my eyes that the Bible is not a trusted document, due to the censorship and interpretations which could have been translated either by incompetence or just good ole censorship.
Does anyone else have these feelings of mistrust in believing the religious community as a whole? How can we who do believe in God and do read the bible feel that we are truly being told the truth within these documents? Or should we blindly just follow what the bible says without question?
I write this as someone who is NOT part of any religion but I do however believe in God. | |
|
| |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:18:40 AM | I would also like to point out that a document that has been translated so many times into so many languages has to have lost a good portion of it's original meaning. There are some words that just don't directly translate, which is where Yiddish came from. Yiddish is not a language unto itself, but a bridge between Hebrew and other languages, most commonly English, because there are too many Hebrew words that lose thier meaning in translation. It makes one wonder, how much was lost in translation? In many languages, a simple misspelling will change the entire meaning of a word or sentence, how accurate were the translaters?
That being said, I believe that to blindly follow anything or anyone is an affront to the Creator. Humans were given independent thought and will, we are all supposed to use that to make up our own minds about what we believe. It is my opinion that the Bible was designed to be a guide for living, not a script. If it were not up for interpretation, people wouldn't still be debating the issue after so many centuries. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:29:18 AM |
Why the censorship? Why are these books being hidden away from the publics eye? Is this to show history as the scholars want history portrayed? This is why in my eyes that the Bible is not a trusted document, due to the censorship and interpretations which could have been translated either by incompetence or just good ole censorship. Because most people don't read a book fully and think about what it says, and only take the bits they want to see, based on what they already believe. I used to work in a few libraries. I was put in a position of responsibility, and part of it was handling the books that were not for public display. Some people did get to see those books. But only the people who didn't jump to conclusions, or who just tried to justify their own POV by any means possible.
If you develop an open mind, and an ability to take your time over making decisions, then you will find that people will realise that you don't judge people or things unfairly. So you will become one of the lucky few who get to see that which most other people don't really want to see.
Or you can remain one of the quick-to-judge, critical of everything that is not what you want to hear, and accepting of everything that is what you want to hear, and then people who really know the truth will not be able to trust you with it, for fear that you will twist and turn the truth into your own weapon of lies and destruction.
There is a reason that these books are hidden. It's because they address many controversial issues. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:43:44 AM | outofthedesert:
I find that whether you are Christian or not, we should determine
if what we are actually reading is factual, as compared to
interpretations of scholars who utilized their interpretations
for their own desired outcome of things.
wccawnm:
It is my opinion that the Bible was designed to be a guide
for living, not a script. If it were not up for interpretation,
people wouldn't still be debating the issue after so many
centuries.
I agree with you. A good example in my eyes, is the book of Revelations,
which is located at the end of the New Testament of the King James
version of the Bible. Are we to truly believe "Beasts" with many
eyes are going to rise from the sea? I believe these examples are
symbolic and definitely up for translation, good points you make.
scorpiomover
Because most people don't read a book fully and think about
what it says, and only take the bits they want to see, based on
what they already believe. I used to work in a few libraries. I
was put in a position of responsibility, and part of it was
handling the books that were not for public display.
Isn't this censorship? Seriously, what good is a book, if one is
not allowed to read them? Could you elaborate on why these books
were not displayed to the public? I understand controversies, but
it's still a publics right to view books, and who decides what is
a "controversy"? | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:48:48 AM | It seems I'm the only one to have actually taken the time to read what other threads there are pertaining to the bible before voting to delete it because of redundancy.
And what cracks me up is that the very people who vote to delete will also complain if the person starting the thread had choosen instead to revive a thread.
While people have made lots of comments regarding the legitimacy of the bible on other threads there is no thread that asks the same questions as have been asked here.
So why delete? | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:51:58 AM | Just:
I actually did a thread search with this title and not one came up, I"m beginning to discover a pattern here on this website, and if someone has followers who do not like other threads which an author has posted, they will literally harass or follow someone around pulling these stupid tactics, it's truly a shame when a topic such as this is deleted, especially when no other thread speaks on this topic, oh well, what can one do right? :) | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:35:07 PM | nona37,
You're new here so you can be forgiven, but this topic has been done a hundred times over, despite the results of your search method. (Your concern was also raised centuries before you were even born, and soundly rebutted by scholars far more capable than anyone here on PoF. Answers to these concerns of yours exist, and have for centuries.) Here is something to consider: maybe a person complains because they are tired of seeing this topic, not because it 'scares' them. It is people standing around beating a dusty patch of dirt where once a dead horse laid. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:01:31 PM | Sure, anyone can believe anything... me personally, no way. I don't trust people in general until I've had deep meaningful conversations with them. How much less could I trust something that was written thousands of years ago? And if people tell me "because it was inspired by God" I would have to say, so were many other writings. This still doesn't mean much to me...
I'm not saying there isn't good common sense in those books - to which some people would say: "oh, but you're only taking the bits you like, or that make you feel good"... that's hogwash! It doesn't take long to find contradictions...
Now, if you wrote a bunch of stories like these that were supposed to be from the living God, the last thing you'd want people to find are inconsistencies... but wait! There's always someone on hand to talk their way out of it... of course they do... it's called indoctrination. But something tells me our OP is intelligent enough to see this. :) | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 1:10:52 PM | When reading the Bible, a lot won't make sense, the book of Solomon is a prime example. Your hair is like a nubbian---that is a goat. To us it might be a slam. But a nubbian goat was raven black and the Solomon she would have appreciated it. To a green-eyed person, telling her her eyes were like two green pools of water, might get her attention unless the only green pools she had ever seen were anti-freeze.
I am not a great Bible scholar but it appears the Bible was written in terms understandable to those who lived during that time. The basis we IMHO are to get is how to live our lives. How to treat people. Either we are a Christian who lives the life we are charged with--living it by faith, understanding we will make mistakes and be forgiven or we don't. Scripture says we are to have the faith of little children.
We can debate 100's of pages of this and we will not agree or agree with parts. Too often it get a little  | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 11 | |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 2:30:38 PM | skypoetone:
I am wondering your background religiously speaking. I personally
was raised in a Southern Baptist household, where I was informed
the Bible was to be taken literally, this is why I can remember
having nightmares as a child after reading "The book of Revelelations" lol
I too believe there are contradictions in the bible, but I must say,
there is also some common sense things in the bible as well, that
does not leave any interpretations open.
There's always someone on hand to talk their way out of
it... of course they do... it's called indoctrination. But
something tells me our OP is intelligent enough to see this. :)
I find the part of "people talking their way our of it" was/is
merely someone saying "believe" and don't question, which I do and
always have found ludicrous.
outofthedesert:
I find it a shame when discussing religious topics people getting
all bent out of shape, so far, this has not happened on this thread,
hopefully it won't, but more times to none, I have found myself
very open to listen to someone from a "factual" standpoint as
compared to a "just read and believe" standpoint, I find the latter
ridiculous, for even Jesus Christ questioned things according to
the bible itself :) | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:09:50 PM |
Isn't this censorship? Seriously, what good is a book, if one is
not allowed to read them? Could you elaborate on why these books
were not displayed to the public? I understand controversies, but
it's still a publics right to view books, and who decides what is
a "controversy"? Some books contain information that could cause great problems if they were publicised, such as the exact details of how to build a nuclear bomb. Other books could cause great problems if they were publicised, because the information contained would be very damaging.
Imagine a book which tells any man exactly how to rape many women and get away with it, even how to get off on a technicality if arrested. Do you really want the public to decide for themselves whether such a book would be good for the public to read?
Just to let you know, many criminals have written books on how to do specific crimes, from terrorism, to murder, to how to fake an insanity plea. So such a book is not beyond the realms of possibility.
It would be nice to think we live in a world of people who would not misuse information. But sadly, we don't. C'est la vie. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 13 | |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:17:13 PM |
Some books contain information that could cause great
problems if they were publicised, such as the exact details of
how to build a nuclear bomb. Other books could cause great
problems if they were publicised, because the information
contained would be very damaging.
Ok, your point is taken there, but in directing this to the "bible",
what could possibly be so damaging that the scholars would feel
could be damaging? I can definitely see your point in reference
to "How to build a Nuclear Bomb", but in cases with the bible,
could one assume that the scholars did not want to release particular
information due to losing the religious foothold on our society? | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:18:31 PM | Hey there!
Should we trust the interpretations ? Who's to say that these supposed scholars did not "alter" these religious documents to their liking or possibly to suit their own agenda's?
The Bible is (in your case the KJV) not an interpretation, just a translation. Several documents were used for this version, including the greek Textus Receptus. A chair is a chair in any language, but when we speak of love then things get complicated. I also know spanish to almost perfection, so I know how hard it`s. The ancient Greek (also known as KOINÉ) is very complicated, because no space inbetween words was used. It would be like writting ANICEMAN (a nice man? or an ice man?) all together. Most Bibles are translated from the Greek documents available to us, some are translated (like the Catholic Bible) from Latin versions. However there are plenty of copies (about 24,000 of them) available to us to make sure we have a close translation.
I have discovered that there have been numerous "books" of the bible which have been left out from the Bible
That`s true, and there is certain criteria for doing this:
- Were they being quoted by the apostols
- Are they earlier writings.
- Did the early church accepted those books, etc
Why are these books being hidden away from the publics eye?
I don`t think that those books are being hidden from the public. You can find them on-line, at public libraries, book stores, etc I have a lot of noncanonical writings, including the whole library of Nag Hammadi.
How can we who do believe in God and do read the bible feel that we are truly being told the truth within these documents?
To answer this question you have to test the biblical writings. You have to look into the evidence (which is plenty).
Eddie | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:20:41 PM |
skypoetone:
I am wondering your background religiously speaking. I personally
was raised in a Southern Baptist household, where I was informed
the Bible was to be taken literally, this is why I can remember
having nightmares as a child after reading "The book of Revelelations" lol
nona
I was bought up with the Mormon faith and that suddenly turned around to the JW's. At the time I wasn't so concerned, but things started to get more than irritating when I saw what it was doing to certain members of my family... it tore them apart. I never doubted God but what others made of God. Later, when I raised my own children, they would attend the Methodist church, by that time my faith in biblical teachers/teachings had all but evaporated. Rather than throw the concept out with the garbage I looked at spiritual considerations and that is where I stand now.
Nightmares, as in, horror stories for children?... I believe the most zealous call this religious instruction, that if your faith is guided by the 'Holy Spirit', which is all part of the indoctrination, you should have no fear. But the whole thing still leaves me bitter for various reasons, the main one being I could never see God or angels venting violence on humanity.
I find the part of "people talking their way our of it" was/is
merely someone saying "believe" and don't question, which I do and
always have found ludicrous.
Yes, it is ludicrous... especially if you consider that we are all part of the same thing, that free will means you have a right to believe what you will, without outside intervention. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 16 | |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:34:34 PM |
The Bible is (in your case the KJV) not an interpretation,
just a translation. Several documents were used for this
version, including the greek Textus Receptus. A chair is a chair
in any language, but when we speak of love then things get
complicated. I also know spanish to almost perfection, so I know
how hard it`s. The ancient Greek (also known as KOINÉ) is very
complicated, because no space inbetween words was used. It would
be like writting ANICEMAN (a nice man? or an ice man?) all
together. Most Bibles are translated from the Greek documents
available to us, some are translated (like the Catholic Bible)
from Latin versions. However there are plenty of copies
(about 24,000 of them) available to us to make sure we have a
close translation.
This is very interesting information and I must say, where I do
constantly question the origin's of religious documents, I greatly
admire anyone who can retain the knowledge of said things, for just
reading your paragraph alone almost gave me a headache, meaning,its
alot of information to retain, is it not?
That`s true, and there is certain criteria for doing this:
- Were they being quoted by the apostols
- Are they earlier writings.
- Did the early church accepted those books, etc
I feel personally that the "church" within itself wanted to
keep secret the childhood of Christ possibly for the "human acts"
in which he performed. I once heard a story about Jesus when he
was a child, a religious scholar from my college informed us that
at one time according to documents, that Jesus was playing on top
of a house with a neighborhood friend, another child, and the child
fell off the roof of the house and was killed in the fall, the
neighbors of course gathered around and was accusing Jesus of
shoving the child off the roof, and according to the story, Jesus
was so adamant in proving that he did not push the child off the
roof, that Jesus brought the child back from the dead so he could
inform the angry mob that he accidentally fell and Jesus did not
push him. I can see how a story such as this humanizes Jesus and
therefore the scholars believing that this could possibly be a reason
for people to not believe in his divinity.
I don`t think that those books are being hidden from the
public. You can find them on-line, at public libraries, book
stores, etc I have a lot of noncanonical writings, including the
whole library of Nag Hammadi.
Interesting, I should try to find these books by these means, thanks
for the info.
Skypoetone:
I have found within the Southern Baptist Faith that fear is a tool
in which they utilize to scare people into submission, and it works!
For growing up myself, I was constantly subjected to sermons of "Burning
in the lake of fire" etc, I agree with you, it's ludicrous, for
even though I am no longer a religious person myself, I do understand
that religion as a whole can be what some people crave for the
serenity they want within their lives, but I feel it should be just
that, peaceful, not fear. By the way, the Southern Baptist Presidential
candidate scares the hell out of me! | |
|
| |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:47:29 PM | About the is to acknowledge that not everyone can discuss religion without getting
I am open to discussion if the other person is willing to listen. Note, I did not say that they have to change how they feel, just be open to other people's points of view. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:50:31 PM | About the is to acknowledge that not everyone can discuss religion without getting
I am open to discussion if the other person is willing to listen. Note, I did not say that they have to change how they feel, just be open to listening to other people's points of view without getting mad. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 20 | |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:59:03 PM | | I hear where you are coming from in reference to discussing religion. I have debated the crusades with religious figures before, and I have learned that keeping an open mind even if I do not agree with their stances or interpretations, allows me to hear another side, while of course not attacking them, and upon performing this myself, I have found religious figures more willing to listen to me as well, but this is of course more times to none, educated religious figures, not someone who actually believes that "beasts" are going to rise up out of the ocean and eat everyone!!!!!! | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:01:47 PM | Hello, nona37. Let me see if I can answer some of your questions. These are pretty long answers, so my apologies. Don't feel obligated to read them, but do know that I tried to give some very thoughtful responses to these important questions.
It is my understanding at this stage in my life after traveling abroad and being exposed to numerous religions as well as education, that the "Bible" no matter the religion, was interpreted by "scholars". Should we trust the interpretations ?
This is true, our understanding of what the Bible means is typically informed by scholars, even in the Protestant churches which claim that every Christian has the authority to interpret Scripture for himself, because they believe that every Christian is his or her own priest.
I'm a Catholic, and we Catholics (as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians) have a very different approach to the Bible than Protestant Christians do. Whereas the Protestant churches teach a doctrine called "sola Scriptura" (the bible alone as the sole source of religious authority), Catholics believe in a threefold source of authority: Scripture, oral Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority).
Scripture and (oral) Tradition are simply written and oral versions of the same thing: the revelations of God given to the Hebrew prophets and the Apostles. The Apostles wrote some of it down in the New Testament, but for a culture where most people couldn't read, most of their teachings were preached and passed down by word of mouth. This is why Catholics may believe or practice some things which aren't explicitly in the Bible (though may be hinted at), yet nevertheless we believe they are true and were really taught in the early Church.
The idea of both written and oral teaching, BTW, is referenced by the Apostle St. Paul in the Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle."
The third leg of the stool, the Magisterium, refers to the Church's authority to interpret the Scripture and Tradition, by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. An easy way to think of this is to compare it to how the U.S. government works. The government is founded on two things: the Constitution, and English common law. The Constitution is like our government's Bible. Common law is like our Tradition (laws and customs not necessarily in the Constitution, but nevertheless true). The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of both sources of law. When the justices of the Court interpret from the bench, their decisions are "infallible". For the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, made up of the Pope and his bishops, is like the supreme court of Scripture and Tradition, and when the Pope makes an interpretive decision, it is infallible.
Now, you're probably asking where the Magisterium got the authority to do that in the first place. This comes from our belief in what's called "apostolic succession". Every deacon, priest and bishop in the Church can trace his line of ordination back to one of the twelve Apostles. So, let's say I'm Father Jacobus. I was ordained by Bishop Johnson, who was ordained by Bishop Smith, who was ordained by Bishop Vazquz, who was ordained by Bishop Bertoni..... and so on, and so forth, until you get to St. ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by St. John the Apostle. The powers that Christ gave the Apostle John to teach, to absolve sin in confession, and to transform ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ are transferred in an unbroken chain through a laying on of hands all the way down to our modern-day clergy. This is what makes priests really Priests, and not just old men in black robes.
In addition, there is the chief of bishops, the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. There's a lot of propaganda out there that "Catholics believe the Pope is Jesus on earth" and other nonsense. What we really do believe is that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to the Apostle St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, thus appointing him the first earthly head of the Church, or Pope (after Jesus, of course, who is the heaven;y head of the Church). When Peter was crucified on Vatican Hill in Rome, he handed his keys to Linus, who handed them to Cletus, who handed them to Clement.... and so on and so forth, until you get 267 popes later to Benedict XVI.
My reference to Matthew 16:18, BTW, is here for your convenience. The speaker is Jesus:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Anyway, this was my answer to your question, "should we trust the interpretations?" I trust the teachings of the Catholic Church; at least, those which are made infallibly from the Chair of Peter. (Most non-Catholics have this idea that everything that comes from the Vatican must be infallible to Catholics, but 99% of it really isn't.)
But as a Baptist (if you still choose to follow that tradition), I suppose your church teaches that you trust your own interpretation, through "sola Scriptura". I personally do not believe the Bible itself promotes this view. The first pope, St. Peter, wrote in 2 Peter 1:20, "Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."
Who's to say that these supposed scholars did not "alter" these religious documents to their liking or possibly to suit their own agenda's?
Regarding the books of the Bible, scholars use what's called "textual criticism". Each book of the Bible is not based on a single scroll passed down through history, but is compared with hundreds or even thousands of copies made by different people in different countries. To some, this can be intimidating, especially since none of these texts match up exactly with one another. However, these books are nevertheless copied with more diligence and in more quantity than any other text in history. We can compare one text to another and see which verses were altered in one text and which ones were not. For example, if 20,000 copies of John chapter 1, verse 1 says:
" In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God."
And 5 copies say:
" In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was like God."
It would be reasonable to conclude that the version found in the vast majority of texts is the original one, and the one found in five copies was written by Arians (and found in today's Jehovah's Witness version of the Bible to deny the Trinity).
Ultimately, though, this still requires some amount of faith. I personally have faith that God works through history and preserves both His word and His Church from teaching error about Himself.
I can only speak of the "King James Version of the Bible" not other religious documents for I do not have knowledge of other religious documents. I have discovered that there have been numerous "books" of the bible which have been left out from the Bible. Books such as the book documenting the childhood of Jesus Christ from the New Testament as well as a book called "The Dragon of Baal", which if I"m not mistaken was suppose to be located after the book of Revelations.
Good questions.
You might be referring to "Bel and the Dragon". This is chapter 14 of the book of Daniel... but chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel are NOT found in the King James Bible or other Protestant Bibles.
Chapter 13 and 14 of Daniel, as well as 7 whole books (Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch) are only in Catholic Bibles. We have 73 books, whereas Protestant Bible have only 66.
These 7 books, as well as the extra chapters in Daniel, were removed by the Protestant "reformer" Martin Luther and placed into an appendix of books he considered questionable, called an "Apocrypha". Other Protestant Bibles followed the custom of having an appendix like this until around the 19th century, I believe, when they disappeared altogether.
Of course, the Protestants will say that we Catholics "added to the word of God", but whether they were inspired by God or not (I believe they are), those books have been in the Christian Bible ever since the Bible was codified in 397 at the Council of Carthage. They were also in the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament which the Apostles themselves used to quote Scripture from. This is historically indisputable.
The book you mentioned about Jesus' childhood is called the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It was not censored from the Bible, since when the Bible was first codified in 397 AD, it had the exact same 73 books that Catholic Bibles have today. The Council of Carthage compiled the New Testament with this rule: that only books written in the 1st century by Apostles or their disciples could be included. The four official gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written in the 1st century by people who were actually taught by Jesus or by disciples of the Apostles. The problem with the Infancy Gospel is that it was composed in the 2nd to 3rd century. It couldn't have possibly been written by St. Thomas or anyone who knew him.
It is not censored, though, in the sense that one might get mental pictures of shady priests tossing copies of the Infancy Gospel into bonfires to hide "the truth about Jesus". This is mostly anti-Catholic garbage created by "The Da Vinci Code" and similar books. The Infancy Gospel was actually very popular and well-read throughout the Middle Ages. It just wasn't considered a part of Scripture.
Does anyone else have these feelings of mistrust in believing the religious community as a whole?
Of course. I was an atheist at one point, and I wasn't raised Catholic (I converted), so I didn't grow up with any of the baggage attached to that tradition. Although I was raised Protestant, that particular church (the Seventh-day Adventist Church) actively promoted a distrust of the trappings of religion (candles and images, hierarchies, etc.) and the Catholic Church in particular. We're talking about guys who believe that the Antichirst-Pope is plotting to take over the U.S. with an influx of dirty Irish and Italian immigrants and a Jesuit priest hiding under every bush and re-establish the Inquisition.
How can we who do believe in God and do read the bible feel that we are truly being told the truth within these documents? Or should we blindly just follow what the bible says without question?
I believe God wants us to ask questions. There's a rich tradition of grappling with theological questions, when you take a look at the medieval monks and scholastics such as Duns Scotus and St. Thomas Aquinas. A look into the writings of the saints, from St. Augustine to St. Teresa of Avila to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, reveals people who grappled and struggled with God on a daily basis.
My screen name, "Jacobus", comes from the patriarch Jacob in the Old Testament, who wrestled with God in Genesis.
Let me know if you have any questions about what I said. I'm sure I left a lot of holes. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:17:17 PM | nona37:
When doing the search I just typed in the word bible so I would be able to view any similar thread to the one you created. There were ones that were similar but different enough to warrant letting yours stand.
Ryft:
I genuinely enjoy reading your posts. I disagree with you though regarding this topic.
For when a subject matter is continually brought up on threads and when the same topic often takes people down rabbit trails I think it only makes sense to start a thread dealing specifically with said topic. So rather then take another thread off topic, as this issue so often does, we can now deal with it head on as it's own subject matter.
Can we really believe the Bible?
I believe the bible is a God inspired work that was written by man.
I personally am not stuck on the whole unerrant rule, whereby every written word must be taken literally and accepted as truth.
There are, however, certain truths that are, imo, undeniable and essential to christian doctrine. And I believe these truths to be accurately portrayed, explained and proven.
There are good books in print that answer the questions put forth in the opening post. I found a good one to be 'The case For The Real Jesus'. In it, Lee Strobel explains why some books are left out. Suspected forgery and inability to prove beyound reasonable doubt authenticity plays a part in a lot of instances. So questionable authorship and questionable doctrine combined will be grounds to keep a book out. And just because a book has been made popular and recieved support within main stream culture and some fringe christian circles does not mean it is legite. In fact, too much support from secular society would give me pause for concern.
There is though one biblical book that I read that is not in the bible but that plays a part in my belief system. That book is the Book of Enoch. And the reason I read it and incorporate it in my belief system is because scripture refers to it. So my thinking is that if it was good enough to be refered to in scripture than it's worthy of reading and including in my faith.
Reading a book like 'The case for the real Jesus' shines some light onto the methods textual critics and biblical scholars use to translate ancient manuscripts. There is a wealth of knowledge available on the subject if you want to take the time - that is - if you have an appreciation and desire to know the truth about the bible.
Edit:
When I started to write this post there were only 8 posts and now there are 22. Guess I shouldn't have taken that phone call. Cause now I'm behind.
Not bad action for a thread that's suppose to be redundant. | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:20:45 PM |
This is very interesting information and I must say, where I do
constantly question the origin's of religious documents, I greatly
admire anyone who can retain the knowledge of said things, for just
reading your paragraph alone almost gave me a headache, meaning,its
alot of information to retain, is it not?
I take that as a compliment. And yes it is a lot.
"I feel personally that the "church" within itself wanted to
keep secret the childhood of Christ possibly for the "human acts"
in which he performed. I once heard a story about Jesus when he
was a child, a religious scholar from my college informed us that
at one time according to documents, that Jesus was playing on top
of a house with a neighborhood friend, another child, and the child
fell off the roof of the house and was killed in the fall, the
neighbors of course gathered around and was accusing Jesus of
shoving the child off the roof, and according to the story, Jesus
was so adamant in proving that he did not push the child off the
roof, that Jesus brought the child back from the dead so he could
inform the angry mob that he accidentally fell and Jesus did not
push him. I can see how a story such as this humanizes Jesus and
therefore the scholars believing that this could possibly be a reason
for people to not believe in his divinity. "
The writing that you are talking about is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 9:1. I invite you to do further reading (Chapters 3 and 4 at this website: http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html ). You can really see that there is nothing human on Jesus behaviour (except that he got upset real easy). Can a simple human do the miracles attributed to Jesus in these late writing? Resurrecting people is not human at all. Just look at chapters 3, 4 and 9, and you will see that Jesus behaves A LOT more than just human. The Gospels have a better human picture of him: He cries, he sweats blood (human condition known as hematohidrosis) in respond to his human fear, etc.
Eddie | |
|
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:21:35 PM | Would it not be better to understand that the Bible is to a lesser extent what Wikipedia is today? It is books written by people over time.
Some are parables, some tales, some true stories. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 12/4/2007
Msg: 25 | |
| Can we really believe the Bible?
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:25:15 PM | Jacobus101:
I'm a Catholic, and we Catholics (as well as Eastern
Orthodox Christians) have a very different approach to the Bible
than Protestant Christians do. Whereas the Protestant churches
teach a doctrine called "sola Scriptura" (the bible alone as the
sole source of religious authority), Catholics believe in a
threefold source of authority: Scripture, oral Tradition, and the
Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority).
From what you have just stated in that paragraph, it makes sense
to me, largely due to the fact that I less than an hour ago had a
conversation with a family member who is indeed a Southern Baptist
and the validity of the bible came up, I was informed by this family
member that the bible is full of facts, and I asked "How do you
know"? My family member's statement was "It just is", and I then
asked my family member "So you believe that the bible within itself
without comparison to anything else is truly factual, and she stated
"yes", therefore, confirming your statement in reference to
protestants and this particular situation.
Anyway, this was my answer to your question, "should we
trust the interpretations?" I trust the teachings of the Catholic
Church;
So in other words, people more times to none find their own validity
in dealing with particular religions and how that particular religion
validates the religious documents? In other words, what we feel
is right and just? Therefore, it's a personal choice in what
we feel to be correct and comfortable with, this makes sense. I
guess we Americans should be grateful that we do indeed have the
right to choices, for in many countries within this world, they
do not have the open right to do so.
Regarding the books of the Bible, scholars use what's
called "textual criticism".
This is obviously alot of work and makes me wonder....are they paid
accordingly? Wow!! This not only in my eyes takes great dedication
to the religion itself but education, makes one view religious
figures in a different light, for all are not "corner dwellers" screaming
we all going to burn in hell!!! This shows great care as well as
dedication and education, it's truly amazing.
You might be referring to "Bel and the Dragon". This is
chapter 14 of the book of Daniel... but chapters 13 and 14 of
Daniel are NOT found in the King James Bible or other Protestant
Bibles.
This makes sense due to never being able to find it and with the
King James version of the bible is the religious document I grew
up reading. I have annotated the book as well as chapters to enjoy
it for future reading, I have always wondered what this book contained
which would cause for omitting it out of the Protestant bible?
It couldn't have possibly been written by St. Thomas or anyone who knew him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Thomas the disciple who was the
youngest? And if he was not the one who wrote it, any guesses on who
did?
"The Da Vinci Code"
This book has created alot of controversy, but I must say, what
interested me in this controversy was the story of Mary Magdalene,
I do find that women were indeed discriminated against during those
times and I do find it believable that she was not giving her due,
but the question is...what is she due? Many, many contradicting stories
of this woman. We did study this in Sunday School not long ago, this
is when I discovered, she was indeed NOT a prostitute, which I have
heard before.
I was an atheist at one point, and I wasn't raised
Catholic (I converted), so I didn't grow up with any of the
baggage attached to that tradition. Although I was raised
Protestant, that particular church (the Seventh-day Adventist
Church) actively promoted a distrust of the trappings of religion
(candles and images, hierarchies, etc.) and the Catholic Church
in particular.
In reading about your atheist and religious history, I can only imagine
how confused you must have been at one time or many times in your
life in reference to religion as a whole, and I do not mean that insulting
by any means, I just know it takes alot during ones life more times
to none to find what we within ourselves believe to be the "truth" and
what we feel peaceful enough to accept.
I have never been an atheist, but I must say, I do believe with some
of their views, but general views, and I use to feel guilty about this,
especially the Atheist Philosopher Robinson from England, I so
related to alot of his views on how we within society as a whole
leave our daily doings up for an "entity" to guide us, when in
all actuality, we should be taking on this responsibility ourselves,
he also stated that sometimes people in general utilize religion
as an excuse to not achieve things in which need to be performed, I
use to feel guilty upon nodding my head in agreement with this philosopher,
for regardless, I believe in God, I got over that eventually and
just accepted it as wise views, but also accepting the fact that I
do believe in God, therefore, kinda inputing both beliefs as far
as Robinson's general views and my belief in God together and making
the best of it.
I believe God wants us to ask questions.
I believe this as well, for I do not believe that God wants all of
us ignorant to his word, I feel God wants us to educate ourselves
about his works as well as his son Jesus, this makes for a "happy and
content flock" as compared to a "blind and ignorant" flock. :)
Thank you so much for the information, very educational, I learned
alot from your words.
Justacheckin:
Thank you for checking with the "thread search". What I typed in
specifically for the "thread search" was the title of this thread,
and yes, I"m actually grateful so far this thread has not been deleted,
I'm finding it to be very interactive as well as educational :)
'The case for the real Jesus'
Sounds like a book worth reading and yes, I'm truly interested in
knowing about this topic.
The writing that you are talking about is the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas 9:1. I invite you to do further reading
(Chapters 3 and 4 at this website:
http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancythomastranslation.html )
The website is duly noted. Speaking for myself, I have always wanted
to view more of a human side to Jesus Christ, where I do understand
that he was indeed the son of God, but I have always wanted to see
this side of Jesus in the writings, it would almost aid me in relating
to him as a human who was capable of all these great things, in my
eyes, reading proof of this would truly be inspirational, therefore,
thank you for sharing the website :)
JackMack: Good point!! But which are parables and which are true? I feel that is a good question and something we should all question, don't you think? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
