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

[Anglachel]

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states [/FONT][FONT=Arial, helvetica]
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?
[/FONT]

 

[JusticeForAll]

The passage directly before that also states, "You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard."

So does this mean you can't cut your hair or shave, either? Of course not.

In the times that passage was written, Pagans would shave the sides of their hair off into a bowl cut and do various things, like tattooing, in order to mourn the dead.

"A man shall not become impurified by his people to defile him. They shall not make bald a baldness in their head nor shall they shave the edge of their beard and in their flesh they shall not cut a cut."
(Lev 21:4-5)

Self-Masochism.

Check out this website - it gives a pretty decent explanation.

Shaving and Sidelocks? The Real Meaning of Leviticus 19:27-28

 

[aandb]

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states [/FONT][FONT=Arial, helvetica]
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?
[/FONT]

Someone actually got a tattoo about how homosexuality was a sin?

Someone's compensating...

 

[flightofsevens]

Haha, wow. As many arguements that I get in with "christians" who are homosexual and swear up and down that it is not a sin (way too many scriptures, old and new testaments saying it is, lol), if I got that as a tat, I'd be a walking deathbed.

 

[alfrodull]

The bible doesn't have to be free of error in order to contain general spiritual truths. Sure, this approach leaves a lot up in the air as far as doctrine goes, but most will agree this is better than stoning rape victims and condoning genocide.

 

[dinonum]

Someone actually got a tattoo about how homosexuality was a sin?

Someone's compensating...

Baha, I was thinking the same thing.

To the OP, I don't think that makes any sense at all! Personally, if they wanted to make a point about it being a sin, you'd think that you would use some other verses, not ones that most Christian's today don't think are applicable to them anyways. Personally, I don't think that particular tattoo/cutting verse is the same kind of tattoo this guy has, but I think you get my point.

 

[Shabby]

The bible doesn't have to be free of error in order to contain general spiritual truths. Sure, this approach leaves a lot up in the air as far as doctrine goes, but most will agree this is better than stoning rape victims and condoning genocide.

It would have to be free of error in order to be the Divine Word of God which it claims to be, however.

If the Bible isn't error-free, why should I trust the Gospels?

 

[Sketcher]

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states [/FONT][FONT=Arial, helvetica]
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?
[/FONT]

Well, that's not a move I would have made. But to answer your question, Christians do not get to choose which parts of the Bible are not for our time. Scripture defines the limits. You don't set aside an Old Testament command unless the New Testament tells you that you can do so. It's not a matter of what you think or feel is right or what you desire to be right.

 

[alfrodull]

It would have to be free of error in order to be the Divine Word of God which it claims to be, however.

Not necessarily. Just because not all of it is of God doesn't mean some of it wasn't of God. And just because people "edited" the text with their own agendas later on doesn't necessarily mean the original text wasn't free of error.

A cursory glance at the gospels will reveal contradictions, though, so it's likely that at least some of them were there to begin with.

If the Bible isn't error-free, why should I trust the Gospels?

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

 

[explodingboy]

Not necessarily. Just because not all of it is of God doesn't mean some of it wasn't of God. And just because people "edited" the text with their own agendas later on doesn't necessarily mean the original text wasn't free of error.

A cursory glance at the gospels will reveal contradictions, though, so it's likely that at least some of them were there to begin with.

It's not likely that there were contradictions at the beginning. It's a very well known fact.

4 gospels, were by different authors, for different readers. You have the synoptic gospels, matthew/mark/luke which you can compare side by side, while the only comparable miracle in Jhon is the feeding of the 500.

Mark contains no teachings of Jesus, but does continually compare Jesus to Moses. While Luke does nothing of the sort, as it was written for non Jewish converts.

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

Or you just accept that it's an anthology of books, and far better discussed than argued as ultimate proof. Take for instance, Paul. Who references I believe Deuteronomy ( I tend to confuse two of his letters, and I didn't note down the exact passage) That there is no Jew or Greek, Free or Slave, Man or woman, in Christianity..

and yet it is also from Paul's letters that all the women can't do's come from as well.

 

[Shabby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I struggle with the same question.

 

[explodingboy]

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.