|
Post by johrune on Apr 16, 2006 1:13:29 GMT -5
A quick question for all of you out there, both Christian and not. How do you beleive in interpreting the Bible? Completley uncensored? Literal? Metaphorical? Combination? etc...
Thanks for your time, -Johrune
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 16, 2006 1:45:48 GMT -5
I heard a great saying once, "if the literal sense makes perfect sense, seek no other sense lest you run into non-sense."
Another great advice is, context context context.
And you must judge scripture by scripture.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 16, 2006 2:37:03 GMT -5
This isn't a saying, buuuuut... if something's too good to be true it's either God or it's not true =)
I interpret the Bible as the literature of the history of a faith. That, and openly, with room for all viewpoints, repeatedly contested and hashed out. Wheee!
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Apr 16, 2006 6:56:22 GMT -5
Verses need to be studied in context like Jesse said. If you take a verse out of context you can make up any kind of wacko doctrine. Scripture also interprets scripture. This is the best way to get around difficult verses.
Seek the help of God. He is the One who is able to give you the wisodm to understand the bible.
It is however difficult for non-christians to understand the whole bible as Paul tells us:
'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' (1 Corinthians 2:14).
|
|
|
Post by johrune on Apr 16, 2006 16:06:59 GMT -5
Jesse wrote:
The Apochrypha were removed in 1885 from King James Versions. Correct me if I am wrong, but you guys use the King James version of the Bible, correct? If this is true, then yall are using an incomplete Bible. How can you stress context so much, if you use a version that has removed so much context already?
-Johrune
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 16, 2006 16:25:07 GMT -5
What authority do you have to say what literature is credible enough to be canonized? I trust the protestant scholars enough to read the 66 books that are in my Bible with no worry and I never run out of things to preach. Also, I heartily believe that God would not let his word be adulterated to the point where the message is lost totally. But I still try and stay away from anythig but the KJV and the RV.
Why do you read the Bible then? How can you allow other views when Jesus plainly says he is the only way. Or when God the Father says that He is God and there is none else. I am bold to say that you need to seek God and find the truth.
Or you dont understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 16, 2006 16:38:42 GMT -5
If you would like to know how we have come to have the Bible as it is today, then you can read this article on my website that was written by Norman Geisler: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdfIn 1546, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. These books were not included in the Canon of Scripture before this time. The Roman Catholic church did this in response to the Protestant Reformation. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. These books do not pass the tests given to writings in order for them to qualify as Scripture. Read the article that I posted a link to to understand this further.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 21:57:01 GMT -5
What authority do you have to say what literature is credible enough to be canonized? I trust the protestant scholars enough to read the 66 books that are in my Bible with no worry and I never run out of things to preach. Also, I heartily believe that God would not let his word be adulterated to the point where the message is lost totally. But I still try and stay away from anythig but the KJV and the RV. And I quote... Revelation 22:18-19~ "(18)I warn anyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Now, you could argue that it's just talking about the book of Revelation there... but... you can take that as you will. You read it how you want, the words are there.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 16, 2006 22:27:00 GMT -5
What authority do you have to say what literature is credible enough to be canonized? I trust the protestant scholars enough to read the 66 books that are in my Bible with no worry and I never run out of things to preach. Also, I heartily believe that God would not let his word be adulterated to the point where the message is lost totally. But I still try and stay away from anythig but the KJV and the RV. And I quote... Revelation 22:18-19~ "(18)I warn anyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Now, you could argue that it's just talking about the book of Revelation there... but... you can take that as you will. You read it how you want, the words are there. Morluna, with what you said here are knowing the facts, it is the Catholic Church that would be in trouble...
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 16, 2006 22:43:26 GMT -5
And I quote... Revelation 22:18-19~ "(18)I warn anyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Now, you could argue that it's just talking about the book of Revelation there... but... you can take that as you will. You read it how you want, the words are there. Morluna, with what you said here are knowing the facts, it is the Catholic Church that would be in trouble... Did you miss the whole conversation about the Apochrypha?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 16, 2006 22:50:37 GMT -5
No I didn't, but you must have missed my last post, so here it is again: If you would like to know how we have come to have the Bible as it is today, then you can read this article on my website that was written by Norman Geisler: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdfIn 1546, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. These books were not included in the Canon of Scripture before this time. The Roman Catholic church did this in response to the Protestant Reformation. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. These books do not pass the tests given to writings in order for them to qualify as Scripture. Read the article that I posted a link to to understand this further.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 22:54:07 GMT -5
No I didn't, but you must have missed my last post, so here it is again:
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 17, 2006 0:29:08 GMT -5
Evan:
Why do you read the Bible then? How can you allow other views when Jesus plainly says he is the only way. Or when God the Father says that He is God and there is none else. I am bold to say that you need to seek God and find the truth.
Again... I interpret it as the literature of the history of a faith, not as an infallible book. I mean, goodness, if we actually intended to justify ourselves against everything which that claim has been made towards...
That, and God is everywhere - if he made all of existence and set the limits of life then of course he's the only way, silly =)
Or you dont understand it.
No, I understand it alright. I hear a lot of people making the claim that human beings are capable of perfection. True the claim is that God works Through them, but then that's like saying an imperfect form is capable of creating perfection.
Hmmm.... that's kind of funny if you look to the original writing of Mark. It was written poorly when compared to Luke, who corrected the mistakes in Mark cuz he used it as a source. Mark was full of grammatical errors ... which... are a mistake o.o; Imperfection! *gasp!* And th-those could change the meaning of things... *dies!*
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 10:07:42 GMT -5
No I didn't, but you must have missed my last post, so here it is again: If you would like to know how we have come to have the Bible as it is today, then you can read this article on my website that was written by Norman Geisler: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdfIn 1546, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. These books were not included in the Canon of Scripture before this time. The Roman Catholic church did this in response to the Protestant Reformation. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. These books do not pass the tests given to writings in order for them to qualify as Scripture. Read the article that I posted a link to to understand this further. Lolz at Dr S. Okay so what about the gospels that were left out of the final version of the New Testament? Thomas and Mary Magdelene and the other Gnostics?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 17, 2006 11:28:47 GMT -5
That's just it...they weren't Gospels. They didn't meet the high standard for considering something Scripture. Remember we are talking about God's Word, something being inspired by God or not. The saying went something like this, "When in doubt throw it out." Read the article I posted to understand how they came to what we have today: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 13:15:50 GMT -5
That's just it...they weren't Gospels. They didn't meet the high standard for considering something Scripture. Remember we are talking about God's Word, something being inspired by God or not. The saying went something like this, "When in doubt throw it out." Read the article I posted to understand how they came to what we have today: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdfWhat high standard did they not meet? Oh, excuse me... Magdelene's didn't meet the high standard of being written by someone with a p-e-n-i-s. But what did Thomas do wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 17, 2006 13:18:57 GMT -5
That's just it...they weren't Gospels. They didn't meet the high standard for considering something Scripture. Remember we are talking about God's Word, something being inspired by God or not. The saying went something like this, "When in doubt throw it out." Read the article I posted to understand how they came to what we have today: www.pinpointevangelism.com/The-Canonicity-of-the-Bible.pdfWhat high standard did they not meet? Oh, excuse me... Magdelene's didn't meet the high standard of being written by someone with a p-e-n-i-s. But what did Thomas do wrong? Well, I guess you will just have to find out for yourself Morluna...
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 13:25:08 GMT -5
What high standard did they not meet? Oh, excuse me... Magdelene's didn't meet the high standard of being written by someone with a p-e-n-i-s. But what did Thomas do wrong? Well, I guess you will just have to find out for yourself Morluna... Um... Okay that was officially the most evasive, unhelpful, and pointless answer ever. Would someone else like to answer my question since Rev K seems to be "running scared?"
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 17, 2006 13:39:31 GMT -5
Well, I guess you will just have to find out for yourself Morluna... Um... Okay that was officially the most evasive, unhelpful, and pointless answer ever. Would someone else like to answer my question since Rev K seems to be "running scared?" Morluna...must you always resort to insulting people? I am simply saying, as I have 3 times now I think, that if you will read the article I posted, you will have your answer....
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 13:48:28 GMT -5
UGH! Why do you always have to link an article or quote Wikipedia?!?! Would it kill you to actually ANSWER a question for once? No. I don't have time to read your stupid article. I really don't know why I continue to make attempts at civil conversation with you. You confound me.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 17, 2006 13:57:14 GMT -5
Morluna, if you don't have time to read my "stupid article" then you obviously don't care about the subject too much and have already decided that you will not change your mind. I am not going to sit here and type out five pages to explain something to you when it is already written out very plainly for you to read. I did not go on Google or Wikipedia, not have I ever posted anything on this message board as the result of a search on either. This is a resource that I got from The John Ankerberg Research Institute and wanted to share with you in case you wanted to know the truth. You have may it quite obvious that you don't want to know the truth. You are happy with your version of the "truth."
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 17, 2006 18:05:28 GMT -5
Whatever Rev. I just don't appreciate being directed to this or that link rather than just getting a straight answer from you. I don't think you've answered a question directly yet.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 17, 2006 22:48:53 GMT -5
I don't want to get into the middle of this arguement, but Jesse has threatened to and has deleted posts because they include copying and pasting or giving links. He has asked us to kindly summarize our arguments in our own words excepting short quotes. I understand Morluna's pain. I'm sure you have unlimited time to do things like peruse links I might send you, www.hrc.org, for instance, but Morluna and I (along with the other students on this board) are all preparing for finals. This week at Tech is called Hell week because almost all papers and final tests are this week. I hope you'll understand.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on Apr 18, 2006 14:27:12 GMT -5
Jonathon said, "Verses need to be studied in context like Jesse said. If you take a verse out of context you can make up any kind of wacko doctrine."
funny, that is what i see the christians on this site doing...this is when things get relative. jesse thinks he is interpreting the bible correctly, and to make sure no one argues him he suggests that god revealed the truth to him. how can he be wrong! oh, satire...
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 19, 2006 16:54:30 GMT -5
Morluna, after the letters of the New Testament were written, the indiv books were not immediately gathered together into the canon, or collection of 27 that are now the NT. Pauls letters and others (including the 4 gospels) were preserved by the churches or people to whom they were originally sent and gradually they were collected and formally acknowledged by the church as a whole.
This process took about 350 years. In the 2nd century the circulation of books that promoted heresy accenuated the need for distinguishing valid scripture (inspired by God) from other Christian literature. Certain tests were developed to determine which books should be included:
1) was the book written or approved by a recognized prophet or apostle? 2) was the writer confirmed by acts of God? (signs, miracles and wonders) 3) did it give evidence of being inspired by God and true to His nature? did it contradict other scripture, etc.? 4) was it widely received and accepted by the churches or people of God?
Some that are included now were initially debated, esp letters sent to individuals such as Philemon. The book of James was doubted by Luther for a while. The canon was certified at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.
The Catholic church recognizes the Apocrypha, which include such books as Esdras, Tobit, and Baruch. It is within these books that many of the doctrines find their origin (such as praying for the dead's entrance into heaven - purgatory, and PAYING for the dead to get into heaven by giving money to the church)
That is certainly not exhaustive, but I know why you ask. It is one of the questions I asked myself some time ago. You know what I did? I started reading the Bible myself and not just believing what others said about it. I wanted to see if it did harmonize and have no contradictions, was historically accurate, etc. I would suggest you do the same. Put the Word of God to work for yourself and see what happens. If you run across some questions or apparent contradictions, bring your questions here. We all need to know how to answer and defend. But as of yet, I have found nothing in scripture that contradicts itself when I take the time to study it closely and consistently. But give it a try yourself, and ask away! I'll be praying for you...
|
|