How can you believe in one part of the bible but not in another?

Shabby · #11 2nd November 2009, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by alfrodull

You shouldn't. You shouldn't base your convictions solely on an ancient, potentially mistranslated book.

I don't, but seeing you are a Christian, you do. Why would you?

CCinoklahoma87 · #12 3rd November 2009, 08:52 PM

You can't believe one part of the Bible and reject another or trust one scripture yet mistrust another as well. The Bible in its entirety is God's unchanging word. Different translations must be scrutinized, due to human error mistranslation of the Lord's word can happen..but overall the message remains the same and God instructs us to trust in it.

explodingboy · #13 4th November 2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by CCinoklahoma87

You can't believe one part of the Bible and reject another or trust one scripture yet mistrust another as well. The Bible in its entirety is God's unchanging word. Different translations must be scrutinized, due to human error mistranslation of the Lord's word can happen..but overall the message remains the same and God instructs us to trust in it.

Out of interest what makes it Gods word?

Clearly the OT has direct claims, of God passing the law down to Moses, but that is only the OT.

The NT, is men writing to men. It's letters from Paul, not letters from God. There was no directions from God on what to include, the Bible was put together by men yet again. Take for instance the Ethiopians, who's version of the Bible is longer than the Western version, and it's not Mormon style, it's authentic gospels, and teachings that got voted out of the western versions.

alfrodull · #14 4th November 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Shabby

I don't, but seeing you are a Christian, you do. Why would you?

I don't. In the cases of logic versus the Bible, or scientific or historic fact versus the bible, or even my own ethical code versus the bible, the former always wins.

Why even bother with it, then? Why identify with Christianity at all, if I find their main holy texts unreliable? Because I find the basic tenets of Christianity, at least as it is preached today, to be more in line with my own convictions than any other religion. I find Christian church services (of the non-fundamentalist variety, anyway) productive for me in my spiritual walk. And because I find truths in the bible.

Over the past two thousand years, people have spent their lives copying or translating or preaching it. They have migrated or been exiled because of their interpretation of it. They have died over it. While other social and political factors obviously contribute, I'd wager that very few people would do this unless they saw great insight in it.

But people do this for almost every holy text, you say? I never said the scriptures of other religions were entirely untrue either. I, personally, just don't find them to resonate as much with my own faith.

CCinoklahoma87 · #15 4th November 2009, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by explodingboy

Out of interest what makes it Gods word?

Clearly the OT has direct claims, of God passing the law down to Moses, but that is only the OT.

The NT, is men writing to men. It's letters from Paul, not letters from God. There was no directions from God on what to include, the Bible was put together by men yet again. Take for instance the Ethiopians, who's version of the Bible is longer than the Western version, and it's not Mormon style, it's authentic gospels, and teachings that got voted out of the western versions.

The NT (the gospels at least) are all direct words and teachings of Jesus Christ, each heard from different people and they maintain their uniformity (although you csn tell each came from a different person's perspective) they still remain soundly consistent.

alfrodull · #16 4th November 2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by CCinoklahoma87

The NT (the gospels at least) are all direct words and teachings of Jesus Christ, each heard from different people and they maintain their uniformity (although you csn tell each came from a different person's perspective) they still remain soundly consistent.

But they were chosen for inclusion precisely because of their adherence to the views the council who compiled the Bible held. It's not like it's all the source materials there were. Don't get me wrong; these were intelligent men who used logical reasoning in their decisions. It's just that the consistency in the Bible is due more to this editorial process than the pool of texts they pulled from.

Furthermore, it's possible the gospels we have weren't even eye-witness accounts. For example, many scholars hold that the books of Matthew and Mark were both derived in part from an earlier, unknown source.

Shabby · #17 5th November 2009, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by alfrodull

I don't. In the cases of logic versus the Bible, or scientific or historic fact versus the bible, or even my own ethical code versus the bible, the former always wins.

Why even bother with it, then? Why identify with Christianity at all, if I find their main holy texts unreliable? Because I find the basic tenets of Christianity, at least as it is preached today, to be more in line with my own convictions than any other religion. I find Christian church services (of the non-fundamentalist variety, anyway) productive for me in my spiritual walk. And because I find truths in the bible.

Over the past two thousand years, people have spent their lives copying or translating or preaching it. They have migrated or been exiled because of their interpretation of it. They have died over it. While other social and political factors obviously contribute, I'd wager that very few people would do this unless they saw great insight in it.

But people do this for almost every holy text, you say? I never said the scriptures of other religions were entirely untrue either. I, personally, just don't find them to resonate as much with my own faith.

That's all fine and dandy with me, but I don't think you fit in with what this in particular site says is a "Christian". I like your kind of religion, I don't like this all-or-nothing brand.

explodingboy · #18 5th November 2009, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by CCinoklahoma87

The NT (the gospels at least) are all direct words and teachings of Jesus Christ, each heard from different people and they maintain their uniformity (although you csn tell each came from a different person's perspective) they still remain soundly consistent.

Sermon on the mount. You can't be both up the mountain and down the mountain at the same time.

Not to mention blessed are the poor, and blessed are the poor in spirit are pretty separate entities. your correct in that the 4 gospels both tell the same story, but you have to admit the facts they contradict on are pretty darn noticeable.

Originally Posted by alfrodull

Furthermore, it's possible the gospels we have weren't even eye-witness accounts. For example, many scholars hold that the books of Matthew and Mark were both derived in part from an earlier, unknown source.

I hear talk that Mark (maybe Mathew, I could be muddling my M's) was the oldest document. and the other 2, show lots of plagiarism. The difference being that although Mark contained the miracles, it doesn't hold any teachings, which I believe would be your unknown source, Q, that has been partially proved. In that they have found a document containing teachings with no story, but not the teachings that were present in the gospels, ie: such text exists, they just haven't found the exact one. Hence document Q.

SqueekSSqueekS · #19 17th December 2009, 12:46 PM

I struggle with the same question.

explodingboy · #20 17th December 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by SqueekSSqueekS

I struggle with the same question.

If you want my two cents on the matter, I'd consider it a good thing.

There's allot of grey in life, the idea that the bible should be taken literally is very dishonest and misleading, and it tends to stifle any discussion that actually helps people grow in their faith.