Doubts Growing about Holy Bible Here's Why

Jedi · Aug 9, 2013

GenetoJean said:
Genesis 1
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Animals made then men.

Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

First man made then animals.

Not necessarily. Again, as I wrote in my first post in this topic, chapter 2 presupposes chapter 1, so it would be really silly for the author to change up the order of creation unintentionally. The Hebrew word "formed" can be used to mean "had already formed" or "formed at this point in the story," and given the context, the former seems to be more likely.

Knee V · Aug 9, 2013

Jedi said:
Although this method of "Christologizing" the Old Testament is popular among contemporary evangelicals, I don't think it's very scholarly. The audiences of the Old Testament books would have absolutely no concept of Christ thousands of years before His coming and would thus understand the texts without filtering it through that figure. I do agree, though, that the authors of the texts wrote based on themes and often not in regard to chronology as we would have liked.

That is not some kind of new theological trend invented by Evangelicals. What I wrote has been the historical Christian/apostolic understanding of the scriptures ever since Christ opened the Scriptures to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Whether or not it is "scholarly" has nothing to do with it. It is the understanding given by Christ to the Apostles.

Jedi · Aug 9, 2013

knee-v said:
That is not some kind of new theological trend invented by Evangelicals. What I wrote has been the historical Christian/apostolic understanding of the scriptures ever since Christ opened the Scriptures to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Whether or not it is "scholarly" has nothing to do with it. It is the understanding given by Christ to the Apostles.

Oh, really? Where did Christ command we Christologize the entire Old Testament? I'm sorry, but this approach to biblical interpretation smacks of naivety, supposing that a people understood the text through the filter of Christ before Christ was ever made known to them. When you read a book of antiquity, it's very important you don't add your own culture into it. Read it as the contemporaries would have understood it, given their context and knowledge. Do anything else and you put things into the text that don't belong. It really is just that simple.

Knee V · Aug 9, 2013

Jedi said:
Haha, really? Where did Christ command we Christologize the entire Old Testament? I'm sorry, but this approach to biblical interpretation smacks of naivety, supposing that a people understood the text through the filter of Christ before Christ was ever made known to them. When you read a book of antiquity, it's very important you don't add your own culture into it. Read it as the contemporaries would have understood it, given their context and knowledge. Do anything else and you put things into the text that don't belong. It really is just that simple.

Haha, yes...

Of course the original Israelites didn't see Christ there. He had to open their eyes to it when He came in the flesh. No one is saying that they saw Christ in those pages when they were first penned.

We read the Scriptures according to how it is given to us from the Apostles to read them. Do anything else and you are just making things up to suit your own theological agenda. It really is just that simple.

Jedi · Aug 9, 2013

knee-v said:
Haha, yes...

Of course the original Israelites didn't see Christ there. He had to open their eyes to it when He came in the flesh. No one is saying that they saw Christ in those pages when they were first penned.

We read the Scriptures according to how it is given to us from the Apostles to read them. Do anything else and you are just making things up to suit your own theological agenda. It really is just that simple.

The apostles didn't write all of scripture, so no, we can't refer to them with authority on material they didn't write. Further still, you're left with a glaring void of passages where the apostles instructed everyone to interpret the Old Testament in such a way that everything refers to Christ. Again, you can't rip a text out of context and shove your own worldview into it. How did the contemporaries understand what was written? What did the author intend based on his audience? That's what we're concerned with when performing a proper exegesis. In this case, neither the author nor the audience would have had any knowledge of Christ thousands of years before His coming.

Knee V · Aug 9, 2013

Jedi said:
The apostles didn't write all of scripture, so no, we can't refer to them with authority on material they didn't write. Further still, you're left with a glaring void of passages where the apostles instructed everyone to interpret the Old Testament in such a way that everything refers to Christ. Again, you can't rip a text out of context and shove your own worldview into it. How did the contemporaries understand what was written? What did the author intend based on his audience? That's what we're concerned with when performing a proper exegesis. In this case, neither the author nor the audience would have had any knowledge of Christ thousands of years before His coming.

Christ was there when the Scriptures were written, and He taught the Apostles their proper intetpretation. I don't understand how their word doesn't win out.

Reading the Scriptures in that light doesn't mean that the things recorded in them didn't happen. Rather it means that those events meant something beyond themselves.

christianmomof3 · Aug 9, 2013

The last book of the New Testament is titled Revelation - not Revelations. :sorry:

Just saying.
As far as contradictions in the Bible - they abound.
That does not make it a worthless book though.
If you have not read the entire Bible all the way through, then I highly recommend that you do so.
Yes it was written by men.
Yes, there are contradictions and errors which some Christians will bend over backwards and stick their heads in the sand to try to deny or make sense of.
Don't worry about that.
Just read it all to see what it says for yourself.
It is an amazing book and has influenced the world more than any other written work.
If you are interested in how it was written, there are all kinds of books about that - but, I suggest you read the entire Bible yourself first.

Jedi · Aug 9, 2013

knee-v said:
Christ was there when the Scriptures were written, and He taught the Apostles their proper intetpretation. I don't understand how their word doesn't win out.

How are they more authoritative on texts they didn't write than the authors who did write them? You're begging the question on this point with no biblical or intellectual basis, applying a method of interpretation that would never be applied in any other book of antiquity.

Reading the Scriptures in that light doesn't mean that the things recorded in them didn't happen. Rather it means that those events meant something beyond themselves.

Only when those events are clearly stated by the author or understood by its contemporaries as such. Otherwise, you're putting meaning into the text the author never intended. If it's the authors' words and meaning you wish to read in the text, you can't push other people's understanding into the text to alter its meaning. If you're going to read the text, then read the text - not someone else's words thousands of years later about the text.

Knee V · Aug 9, 2013

Jedi said:
How are they more authoritative on texts they didn't write than the authors who did write them? You're begging the question on this point with no biblical or intellectual basis, applying a method of interpretation that would never be applied in any other book of antiquity.

Only when those events are clearly stated by the author or understood by its contemporaries as such. Otherwise, you're putting meaning into the text the author never intended. If it's the authors' words and meaning you wish to read in the text, you can't push other people's understanding into the text to alter its meaning. If you're going to read the text, then read the text - not someone else's words thousands of years later about the text.

What you are doing is rejecting Christ's own interpretation of Scripture and saying that He had nothing to do with the Scriptures being written.

Jedi · Aug 10, 2013

knee-v said:
What you are doing is rejecting Christ's own interpretation of Scripture and saying that He had nothing to do with the Scriptures being written.

False. Christ gave no such interpretation, as evidenced by your complete lack of evidence to support this claim. Never, ever did Jesus command people to read all of the Old Testament so that everything referenced Him, even though the context, author, and contemporary audiences would have never understood it that way. Such an approach to biblical interpretation is unwarranted, unbiblical, unscholarly, and inconsistent to how we'd approach any other text.

christianmomof3 · Aug 10, 2013

knee-v said:
What you are doing is rejecting Christ's own interpretation of Scripture and saying that He had nothing to do with the Scriptures being written.

As far as I know, Jesus did not "write" any of the scriptures.

One thing that most people do not keep in mind is that during the time of the Bible's inception, society was mostly illiterate.
The Bible stories for the most part were originally told orally and then later written down and compiled into the book form that we know them as now.

Current scholars have identified which parts of the books of the Bible were written at various times by various authors according to the style of the language used, the words used, and the things that were referred to in the writing among other things.

For example - the story about Rebecca riding on a camel to see Isaac was written during a time when there were camels in the holy land. It was set - the time period in which it was supposed to have taken place in - was a time during which there were not yet camels in the holy land. The writing of the story was influenced by the culture in which it was written. Rebecca did not ride a camel because there were not camels in that area then.

It is important to understand the culture and time period in which the Bible was written in order to understand it.

Knee V · Aug 10, 2013

christianmomof3 said:
As far as I know, Jesus did not "write" any of the scriptures.

One thing that most people do not keep in mind is that during the time of the Bible's inception, society was mostly illiterate.
The Bible stories for the most part were originally told orally and then later written down and compiled into the book form that we know them as now.

Current scholars have identified which parts of the books of the Bible were written at various times by various authors according to the style of the language used, the words used, and the things that were referred to in the writing among other things.

For example - the story about Rebecca riding on a camel to see Isaac was written during a time when there were camels in the holy land. It was set - the time period in which it was supposed to have taken place in - was a time during which there were not yet camels in the holy land. The writing of the story was influenced by the culture in which it was written. Rebecca did not ride a camel because there were not camels in that area then.

It is important to understand the culture and time period in which the Bible was written in order to understand it.

It is correct that He didn't write any of it. My point is that He was there while the Old Testament was being written. "Before Abraham was, I AM."

BelievingIsObeying · Aug 10, 2013

These reasons are why I stick strictly with the four gospels, everyone else in the bible said they were hearing from God, like a game of telephone, something is usually changed or lost in translation. The gospels include the words directly from God and not interpreted through a man and then given to humanity. There is no contradiction to be found in the words of Jesus either.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2013

BelievingIsObeying said:
These reasons are why I stick strictly with the four gospels, everyone else in the bible said they were hearing from God, like a game of telephone, something is usually changed or lost in translation. The gospels include the words directly from God and not interpreted through a man and then given to humanity. There is no contradiction to be found in the words of Jesus either.

As has been said, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

The gospels were written by the disciples--or more likely by disciples of the disciples. That means all of it has gone through that same "game of telephone" that you're worried about.

The scripture we have is the specific work of the Holy Spirit--all of it. If you accept as valid any part of the work of the Holy Spirit, you should accept all of the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Fatherthe Spirit of truth who goes out from the Fatherhe will testify about me.-- John 15

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. -- John 16

BelievingIsObeying · Aug 10, 2013

RDKirk said:
As has been said, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

The gospels were written by the disciples--or more likely by disciples of the disciples. That means all of it has gone through that same "game of telephone" that you're worried about.

The scripture we have is the specific work of the Holy Spirit--all of it. If you accept as valid any part of the work of the Holy Spirit, you should accept all of the work of the Holy Spirit.

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Fatherthe Spirit of truth who goes out from the Fatherhe will testify about me.-- John 15

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. -- John 16

No, not the same, the words from God came directly from Jesus to mankind, but All other prophets heard from God, interpreted the message, and then passed it on, leaving them free to put personal opinion into it.

willlowbee · Aug 10, 2013

I find I agree with what you've said here in response to the OP.

With regard to Revelation and the word and God's warning thousands of years after the OT was written and compiled into what is today's scripture and to not alter or change the word of God, given that that admonition has been breached numerous times, perhaps what that passage is speaking to is how we see or relate to God.
Being in, I think it's the book of John, where the passage reads; in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

So that the Revelation passage isn't warning about textual editing but rather conscious and emotional separation or alteration with regard to the innate link we have to God.
Just my thoughts. :holy:

Joykins said:
If you look into Old Testament scholarship, there are really two different creation stories in the first few chapters of Genesis. The first was probably liturgical and was from a slightly different tradition than the 2nd story. Whoever compiled Genesis must have felt both stories were important to be included, that whatever inconsistencies they had were not worth an attempt at forcibly merging the stories. God has something to say to us through both stories.

Many people feel this refers to the Trinity. The first chapter of John--which deliberately echoes Genesis--says that Jesus was with God at creation and all things were created through him. If you want to limit yourself to OT characterizations, there is God and there is the Spirit of God. Some people associate that with a feminine figure of wisdom called Sophia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

I haven't read the da Vinci Code.

God may not directly tempt his children, but allows others to do it for him. This also happens in Job.

The implication seems to be that the serpent had 4 legs like the other reptiles before the fall of man, but because of the role he played in the fiasco, he lost his legs. I've heard people describe it as the Just-So Story of How The Serpent Lost His Legs.

I don't think we can automatically associate disobedience with evil before the knowledge of evil existed. What happened is that God created thinking creatures but before the fall we were like other animals and had no moral sense. In order to develop a moral sense, we had to push at the boundaries of what was allowed. Having a moral sense makes us more like God and less like the animals, but also has a significant downside. Maybe God wanted to protect us from that downside, but ultimately left the decision up to us. There are thousands of ways to read the story of the fall.

The warning in Revelation was made thousands of years after Genesis was composed. It's hard to heed a warning that doesn't yet exist.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2013

BelievingIsObeying said:
No, not the same, the words from God came directly from Jesus to mankind, but All other prophets heard from God, interpreted the message, and then passed it on, leaving them free to put personal opinion into it.

How do you know what any of those words were? Do you think even the "Jesus said" phrases are necessarily precise quotations? Of course not--they aren't even identical in the synoptic gospel.

There is no video of Jesus. All of scripture is a matter of being inspired in what to remember of Jesus and what they understand of what God has said to them. It's all from the same source, and it all came through the filters of human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit.

BelievingIsObeying · Aug 10, 2013

RDKirk said:
How do you know what any of those words were? Do you think even the "Jesus said" phrases are necessarily precise quotations? Of course not--they aren't even identical in the synoptic gospel.

There is no video of Jesus. All of scripture is a matter of being inspired in what to remember of Jesus and what they understand of what God has said to them. It's all from the same source, and it all came through the filters of human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I know that the lessons that are associated to Jesus in the gospels are the same lessons he taught originally. Since there are parts that contradict some of his teachings, I always side with what Jesus said. Everything that needs to be known to be a Christian can be learned from the lessons of Jesus in the gospels.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2013

knee-v said:
That is not some kind of new theological trend invented by Evangelicals. What I wrote has been the historical Christian/apostolic understanding of the scriptures ever since Christ opened the Scriptures to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Whether or not it is "scholarly" has nothing to do with it. It is the understanding given by Christ to the Apostles.

Yes, it is the specific understanding given by Christ. The "Road to Emmaus" passage has a double meaning. Important to recognize is that the disciples did not only fail to recognize Jesus in the scriptures they were so familar with--they also did not recognize Jesus Himself before them, who they were also physically familiar with. But when shown Jesus in scripture, they recognized Him in His person.

RDKirk · Aug 10, 2013

knee-v said:
The ancient Christian view of the Scriptures was a little different than what you may be used to hearing. History isn't recorded for history's sake; prophecy doesn't come for prophecy's sake; statements that seem scientific are given for science's sake. Rather, the unifying principle throughout all of Scripture is that in it we see Christ. Genesis isn't there so that we can know how the world was created; it's there so that we can know Christ, the one who created it. Kings isn't there so that we can know the history of Israel; it's there so that can know Christ, the one who works throughout history with His people.

Let me change the viewpoint of what you've said there a bit:

Western European concepts of "truth" are based on ancient Greek epistemology, which is different from those of any other region of the world. It's very good in terms of physical reality--great for science--but often misleading in terms of non-physical "truths."

That's why with all the "description" in Song of Songs of the Lover and his Beloved, there is very little clear idea of what they actually looked like. But we know very well how they felt about one another.

Christians of early days understood this difference--Augustine and Aquinas understood it. That's why they didn't stress over "how many people died in the plague of Peor" or "how did Judas die."

That's not just a matter of the ancients--the difference persists to this day. A couple of years ago in photojournalist forums, there was a brou-ha-ha over a photograph of missiles being fired by Hamas into Israel.

Four missiles had been fired, three in a near-simultaneous volley, the fourth a split-second later. People watching the event saw four missiles coursing through the sky at the same time.

However, the Arab who photographed it captured the first three missiles in one frame and the fourth missile in the next frame, shot a split-second later. No one frame captured all four missiles.

So the photographer Photoshopped the image to put all four missiles in one picture, and that is what was published in the Arab newspapers.

Western photographers decried the image as untruthful because of the manipulation. But from an Arab point of view, an image of only three missiles would have been untruthful because that is not what actually happened, and it was not what anyone actually saw. The people watching actually saw four missiles in the air at one time.

Doubts Growing about Holy Bible Here's Why

Knight

It's phonetic.

Knight

It's phonetic.

Knight

It's phonetic.

pursuing Christ

Knight

It's phonetic.

Knight

pursuing Christ

It's phonetic.

BelievingIsObeying

Guest

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

BelievingIsObeying

Guest

Life Is Hard! Hug me!

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

BelievingIsObeying

Guest

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads