Give people on a remote island a bible and what would they believe?
- Thread starter SAAN
- Start date
- Jan 31, 2006
- 44,350
- 14,508
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Paul was the perfect example of someone left alone with a bible and a blank interpretation. 
Upvote
0
Paul was the perfect example of someone left alone with a bible and a blank interpretation.
Paul wrote with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit like the other writers of the bible.
2 Corinthians 13:3 since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.
2 Corinthians 13:10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.
May God bless you
Upvote
0
I understand your point, and I agree with your "would knows..." But, are we talking about a pure revamp: as in, they dont know much of anything about the "perfection" of "democracy, capitalism, republics, and wars on abstraction," or are we talking about dropping someone from that world on a remote Island?
Ideally, I would agree with you, but I think realistically the only thing that would be learned would be:
1) How to control a population
2) How a population learns to love to be controlled
3) How to think for one's self and learn (and accept) the Word
4) How to think for one's self and learn (and reject) the Word.
I would predict the former two will experience an symbiotic comfort, while the latter two would experience a dystopia and constant psychological, mental and intellectual strife. This will be heightened because 1) and 2) are symbiotic, 3) and 4) most likely will not be, and while 3) and 4) skirmish with each other, they will also have to fight the unity of 1) and 2).
Upvote
0
SaphireOwl
Who are you?Whoo whoo whoo whoo! Yeah, I know
Perhaps you are not aware but attacking someone's denominational faith is quite against the rules here.
That being said, Mary was a girl when she conceived Jesus. Whether one defines "virgin" as unwed, or pure, not having known a man sexually, the fact remains Mary was a very young girl when the angel chose her to deliver Christ to the world.
Upvote
0
The English word "virgin" translates to "damsel," which connotes virginity and purity (because of her youth and/or "inexperience".) The "virginity" part was/is culturally implies, which is why the English translations have Mary as never having sex. Also, it was understood in Hebrew culture that (besides courtship, ceremonies, etc.) marriage implied one had sex (hence, the woman at the well having multiple husbands she didn't know about.) This culture of "marriage = sex" was preserved at least by the royalty, some lower class - until recently. In some extremely conservative areas, it is still the case: if you have sex, you are married and have to have a ceremony, or you are not married until you consummate the marriage with sex. Shotgun weddings are an example of this preservation of conservative culture biblically speaking.
Upvote
0
seeingeyes
Newbie
I don't know what they'd come to believe, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they would think they're right! 
Upvote
0
Yep and it lasted for a short while until a certain church came along and changed history, and not in a good way either.
Jesus taught from the scriptures like all the apostles did, so they clearly had something to go by back then.
Upvote
0
Im not saying to believe like me. Im saying when you read the bible in context with out all the denominational influences thing ties together better without the need for 40,000 different beliefs.
Upvote
0
Because it is in Matthew and Luke.
And you clearly have never read any of by posts before if you think me of all people are catholic. Please research before you form such ridiculous opinions.
Yes, in context the virgin birth makes no sense at times as to why God would preserve a line of men for 3000 yrs and at the last minute go with a virgin birth, but the bible says we are to have faith, so if its in 2 different books of the bible, I will go by faith and believe it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Its called context. Read what it says in order and not what you want it to me and it makes perfect sense.
Upvote
0
squint
Well-Known Member
You ever look at a wheat field and recognize that no two grains are exactly alike. We all have unique individual reflections, even though we may have many similarities.
That's what theology is really like.
There isn't 40,000 different reflections. Each person is individually subjective, so there are in fact countless billions of reflections.
That's what God is really like with His creation.
I've learned to appreciate that.
People may say they reflect the same but in reality it's impossible.
Upvote
0
MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,850
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
They'd discover that paper burns well and is good for starting fires
You are presuming that they'd know how to read, that they'd have a written language, and that somebody translated the bible into their language. All those assumptions imply a fairly stable and advanced culture which would very likely have developed its own religions. The idea is, in short, kind of silly.
You are presuming that they'd know how to read, that they'd have a written language, and that somebody translated the bible into their language. All those assumptions imply a fairly stable and advanced culture which would very likely have developed its own religions. The idea is, in short, kind of silly.
Upvote
0
South Bound
I stand with Israel.
yogosans14 said:
Not only does it not say she was born sinless, if he had only kept reading down to v 47, he would have seen that she acknowledged her need for a Savior.
The Catholic argument is that Mary must have been sinless, because Jesus couldn't have been born to a sinful host, but following that line of logic, why wasn't Mary's mother sinless? After all, if Jesus' host had to be sinless, why not Jesus' host's host? And what about Mary's mother's mother?
And why would it matter if she was a sinner, anyway, since Romans tells us that sin is passed down through the father, not through the mother.
But, like I said, I think he's confusing the Immaculate conception with the virgin birth.
What verse in Matthew and Luke?
Sorry. I must have gotten that idea when you started promoting Catholic doctrines and arguing with Catholic strawmen.
Fine. Nobody's arguing against the Virgin Birth. You said the Immaculate Conception, not the Virgin Birth.
catholichomeschooler said:
2 Tim 3:16 says that Jesus gave us the scriptures that became the book.
So, if Jesus wants us to be one, what are Catholics doing to be one with us? What doctrines are you willing to compromise on in order to be one with us?
((Note to Hammster: I AM IN NO WAY STATING THAT CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, ONLY THAT THERE IS A SCHISM BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS AND THAT CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS HOLD COMPETING DOCTRINES. ))
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
It also assumes that if you could give the bible to a community that had no context and that if they did arrive at a consensus understanding that that would be the correct understanding.MoreCoffee said:They'd discover that paper burns well and is good for starting fires
The reality is that no part of the bible was never written for such a situation. It part assumes that it's talking to a people who have been involved in the story so far.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 19, 2013
- 3,304
- 1,099
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
They'd discover that paper burns well and is good for starting fires
You are presuming that they'd know how to read, that they'd have a written language, and that somebody translated the bible into their language. All those assumptions imply a fairly stable and advanced culture which would very likely have developed its own religions. The idea is, in short, kind of silly.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
The short answer is the world used to think that the baby got its blood from the mother. So, Mary had to have pure blood from her conception, by a divine act, but her mother didn't have to have it.
Today we know that assumption is not true. The baby does not get its blood from the mother, but makes its own blood.
So, Mary's immaculate conception is based on bad science; it makes the theology bad (it's an RC de fide dogma of Tradition per the teaching Magisterium, the unbelief, nay even this post, condemns the one to hell in Magisterium theology). A bible-based alone theology says the belief has zip to do with salvation.
PS. Maybe if one of the islanders was a doctor who could convince, they'd all agree on this point.
Upvote
0
seeingeyes
Newbie
This is so true. God's order is very different than man's order. Man rips everything down to the dirt and then rebuilds with plumb lines and ninety degree angles. God sends dandelions up though the cracks.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
