If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[artybloke]

But if everything is not really OK if so much of the Bible is unreliable.

a) Why, precisely, does the Bible have to be 100% accurate?

b) Is this what is meant by "reliability" anyway? Or is it something to do with the wisdom & teaching seen in the stories, poems, prophecies etc?

c) Does the Bible exist to teach precepts, or is it there to be an example, or a series of pictures, an illustration of what trying to follow Christ might be like (in all its flawed glory)?

 

[artybloke]

Just read the Bible without the commentaries.

Not bad advice to start off with. How many people actually sit down and just read a book of the Bible? (Say, a Gospel, or a prophet.) I mean, just read it through, without using Bible study notes or commentaries, or for any other purpose than to see what it says.

Nobody would read any other book in the fragmentary way most Christians seem to read the Bible.

So: put aside the commentaries and Bible study notes for awhile, and just read what it says. Then after you've done that, go back to the commentaries. But until you've got a basic idea of the plot or argument of a book, it's pretty difficult to say that you understand it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not bad advice to start off with. How many people actually sit down and just read a book of the Bible? (Say, a Gospel, or a prophet.) I mean, just read it through, without using Bible study notes or commentaries, or for any other purpose than to see what it says.

Nobody would read any other book in the fragmentary way most Christians seem to read the Bible.

So: put aside the commentaries and Bible study notes for awhile, and just read what it says. Then after you've done that, go back to the commentaries. But until you've got a basic idea of the plot or argument of a book, it's pretty difficult to say that you understand it.

I not only read the Bible daily but I also do deep hebrew/greek studies on verses that may just "pop up at me". I read a lot from a greek/hebrew interlinear online also for true word-for-word reading without the added words of translators. AMEN!!!


http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the mountain, this, ye may saying, 'Be being lifted up! and be being cast into the Sea', it shall be becoming/genhsetai <1096> (5695)"; [Revelation 8:8]

 

[drich0150]

I think what Drich is trying to say is that "faith" should not be based on rational thought and enquiry, but "emotional" (or "spiritual") grounds instead.

To anyone approaching religion with a rational enquiring mind, the above quote is a complete and utter COP OUT. Moreover it is an unsurprising one, because why would believers want someone to intelligently look into a belief system which has NO convincing foundation in testable evidence or reason?

I think that's really putting the cart before the horse. How can I ask God to convince me that the Bible is His word? I'd be irresponsible to do that. I need to know that it is first.

I want to address both of these seperate quotes together.

I said earlier:

You will not find God, or the answers you claim to seek in a academic study. If you truly seek answers, then you will have to seek them spiritually. If you allow yourself to read past the conjecture and satire of these "commentaries" you so enjoy debating, you would plainly see the point of scripture.. the essences of it, is written to the meek, humble, "the last."
God inspired academics are always found after basic faith and understanding have been established..
Most of the men you quote and the Ideas you mimic, are all based in well established relationships.. This is reflected in their works. they are trying to put to paper their "Faith" so it may be defined..

I didn't say this because, "I don't want you to think for yourself" or "to read and be quite." If you reread my quote I made the Observation that the essences of scripture were written to the meek, humble, and "the last"
Most good academics forgo these attributes. To have a grasp of the basic fundamentals, you need to embrace these Ideas.

Example:

Let's say the two of you are General Repair Automotive mechanics. "Engine, Brakes, tires, ect.. ect.. Someone brings a car into your shop with simple drivability issue, and asks if you can help.
The only problem is that he's seen too many hidden camera/set up's by the local news affiliate exposing crooked shop owners. Before you can even touch the car he wants an indepth explanation of what you plan to do and how it is your going to do it.

As you talk with him you realize he doesn't care to show, even the most basic practical knowledge or fundamental understanding of what your trying to tell him.
but still the stubborn customer explains he been to several shops and no one seems smart enough to explain to him what they plan to do and how they plan to do it.

You two note, He thinks of himself a very intelligent man. kinda above everyone at your shop. He has mentioned his status as a very well paid mechanical engineer at a well respected aerospace firm. But as you try to explain what you want to do, he interrupts and questions your plan because he has consulted a "friend" over the phone..

Now you see that it's not that no one could explain what they were doing. It's that the customer wants you to convince him what your are doing is the correct course of action, by dispelling the phone in advise.
In this case the phone in advise was given by another engineer and it sounded more to your customers liking than your unrefined reply.

Unfortunately for the man in this story there won't be a solution to his liking. Just because you two as mechanics aren't able to explain the technical aspect of the diagnostic procedures, or the mechanical/mathematical reason for part failure. the potential customer looses faith and leaves.
It's not that you two don't know what you are doing, it just the man in this story was coming to you, in a manor that is well suited his needs, at his job.

But the trouble here that the engineer was having here, was the answers he sought after were packaged in a very simple form..
it's not to say that the engineer couldn't redefine the technical aspect of the diagnostic procedures, or come up with an equation to show the reason for the part failure. The real problem the engineer had was he wasn't adept enough to consolidate the information given him. Because of his dedication to his religious like expression for numbers and procedure. the simple truth of the matter concerning his car illuded him.
And as the person telling this story i can say, it will continue to allude him until he finds that one in a Billion person who has a shop, Who knows how to fix the problem, and who knows how to answer all of the tangled questions he has incased himself in.


So i say again. I don't want you to read and shut up or to not think for yourself.. The problem here is The wisdom and knowledge of God, is foolishness to those without him. How do you expect to comprehend the eternal when all your looking at is the meager interpertations of what a handful of men have to say? This is all second hand knowledge. Are you content with fueling you endeavor for "absolute" truth with "hand me downs?" Why not tap the source for yourself?

Why not learn to Think For Yourself? Why submit to the teachings of others? Why not blaze your own trail? Who says you have to be confined by what "others" will allowed to be published? Why should you just "read" what they wrote, and be content/remain silent? You may quickly say, "that's what I'm doing! But look at it again. Who made these men authorities? What make there words greater?

In this post i re-identified the problem as I see it. i intend to write a follow up explaining line buy line how to address it but for now i have to go. maybe I'll have time tonight.

 

[VictimofChanges]

Hi VictimofChanges,

Nice to hear from you again. You've evidently not posted much in CF since I chatted with you when I newly joined CF last January. How have you been?

I'm doing fine, just building up to my finals exams of my History degree!

I'm trying to make sense of the Bible and to decide on a stand to take with respect to it.

Glad to see you're still questioning things - I think an important question to ask yourself is: am I looking into it because I WANT it to be true, or am l looking into it to SEE if it IS true.

I would say most people who are vaguely Christian or inclined to believe in Jesus are already starting from a far from neutral position when they ask the big questions of the Bible.

If a scientist set out on an experiment and he or she really WANTED one particular result to emerge, that would simply be bad Science, and grounds for treating his or her findings with scepticism.

This is the approach I have encountered loads of times while browsing the CF - believers who are so desperate for the Bible to be divine, infallible, or whatever else that they will pretty much fall for anything.

I couldn't help laughing recently when some clown made the claim that God had embedded hints as to the theory of Gravity in phrases like "rain FALLS from the sky", for example!

I've been told by my Aunt (who became a fundamentalist after living for years in America and who now thinks my altar boy's surplice is the devil's garb and she thinks CoE is satanic) tells me to just read the Bible as God's word. I should blank my mind of all doubts, ask the Holy Spirit to help me to accept the Bible as God's inerrant word and read it as such.

What can I say except that thank goodness you haven't submitted to a word of it.

Back to my first post though: I think the crucial thing is whether you are approaching your questioning on emotional/spiritual grounds like Dirth seems to want you to do (ie. you feel some vague connection to Jesus, the Bible's message has an impact on your life, etc. etc. - things that could have a perfectly human explanation by the way), or are you simply sitting on the fence and curious about the Bible just as a Christian might be 'curious' about the Qu'ran or 'curious' about Shakespeare?

This second option seems to be the healthier approach in my view, because it removes the emotional attachment to the text which could easily warp one's judgement.

Just because the message of Jesus touches you at a deep personal level, and Bible "makes sense" and appears impossibly "complete/uncontradictory" and all the rest of it, this does not remove the point that all these things could - and most probably do - have totally mundane, human explanations.

 

[drich0150]

..

 

[beamishboy]

I want to address both of these seperate quotes together.

I said earlier:


I didn't say this because, "I don't want you to think for yourself" or "to read and be quite." If you reread my quote I made the Observation that the essences of scripture were written to the meek, humble, and "the last"
Most good academics forgo these attributes. To have a grasp of the basic fundamentals, you need to embrace these Ideas.

Example:

Let's say the two of you are General Repair Automotive mechanics. "Engine, Brakes, tires, ect.. ect.. Someone brings a car into your shop with simple drivability issue, and asks if you can help.
The only problem is that he's seen too many hidden camera/set up's by the local news affiliate exposing crooked shop owners. Before you can even touch the car he wants an indepth explanation of what you plan to do and how it is your going to do it.

As you talk with him you realize he doesn't care to show, even the most basic practical knowledge or fundamental understanding of what your trying to tell him.
but still the stubborn customer explains he been to several shops and no one seems smart enough to explain to him what they plan to do and how they plan to do it.

You two note, He thinks of himself a very intelligent man. kinda above everyone at your shop. He has mentioned his status as a very well paid mechanical engineer at a well respected aerospace firm. But as you try to explain what you want to do, he interrupts and questions your plan because he has consulted a "friend" over the phone..

Now you see that it's not that no one could explain what they were doing. It's that the customer wants you to convince him what your are doing is the correct course of action, by dispelling the phone in advise.
In this case the phone in advise was given by another engineer and it sounded more to your customers liking than your unrefined reply.

Unfortunately for the man in this story there won't be a solution to his liking. Just because you two as mechanics aren't able to explain the technical aspect of the diagnostic procedures, or the mechanical/mathematical reason for part failure. the potential customer looses faith and leaves.
It's not that you two don't know what you are doing, it just the man in this story was coming to you, in a manor that is well suited his needs, at his job.

But the trouble here that the engineer was having here, was the answers he sought after were packaged in a very simple form..
it's not to say that the engineer couldn't redefine the technical aspect of the diagnostic procedures, or come up with an equation to show the reason for the part failure. The real problem the engineer had was he wasn't adept enough to consolidate the information given him. Because of his dedication to his religious like expression for numbers and procedure. the simple truth of the matter concerning his car illuded him.
And as the person telling this story i can say, it will continue to allude him until he finds that one in a Billion person who has a shop, Who knows how to fix the problem, and who knows how to answer all of the tangled questions he has incased himself in.


So i say again. I don't want you to read and shut up or to not think for yourself.. The problem here is The wisdom and knowledge of God, is foolishness to those without him. How do you expect to comprehend the eternal when all your looking at is the meager interpertations of what a handful of men have to say? This is all second hand knowledge. Are you content with fueling you endeavor for "absolute" truth with "hand me downs?" Why not tap the source for yourself?

Why not learn to Think For Yourself? Why submit to the teachings of others? Why not blaze your own trail? Who says you have to be confined by what "others" will allowed to be published? Why should you just "read" what they wrote, and be content/remain silent? You may quickly say, "that's what I'm doing! But look at it again. Who made these men authorities? What make there words greater?

In this post i re-identified the problem as I see it. i intend to write a follow up explaining line buy line how to address it but for now i have to go. maybe I'll have time tonight.

Hi,

Thanks for your post. But I think your analogy is not very good for our purpose. It's more like all the car mechanics I go to are following a Car Manual that's 2000 years old and none of them seems to know who compiled this Manual and the history behind the choosing of the books in the Manual.

I've pointed out to you that the Epistle of Car Mechanic to the Hebrews entered the Supreme Car Manual only because they thought it was written by Car Mechanic Paul. But now, everyone agrees it's anonymous.

Don't you see? Your post suggests that I am the unreasonable one, asking suspicious questions. But that's not how it happens. I was brought up on the Bible. I've been an altar boy since I was 6. But now, I want to know why the Bible? What's so special about it? Most Christians know nothing about the Bible's origin except for a very sketchy outline taught to them by the likes of Josh McDowell, which is highly dubious.

I'm not being unreasonable. I'm asking a pertinent question. Why trust everything in a collection of books when I know from THE BEST BIBLE SCHOLARS that many of them were disputed by the early church and some got in by mistake.

Even literary scholars are more honest. If let's say "The Jew of Malta" has always been thought of as Shakespearian and one day, someone discovers it's by Christopher Marlowe, Arden Press will exclude "The Jew of Malta" from its next publication of the Complete works of Shakespeare. But the Bible continues to accept books that are dubious and that have been shown to have entered its canon because of a mistake.

I hope you can see that I'm not an unreasonable or tough customer. I just have to be honest and responsible. What if I did something because of Hebrews and Jesus asks me in His Second Coming why I did that. He would say to me that I already knew Hebrews got into the Bible because of a mistake. Why still follow it? Can I say in defence that Oxford published it or Thomas Nelson published it?

It's very easy in this sort of thing to try to blame me for raising these questions. But please be fair. Am I wrong to raise these questions? Am I unreasonable in any way?

 

[Chickapee]

Dear Beamishboy ,
but what
specifically
is your problem with Hebrews ?
its describes the New Covnent [ in faith in Jesus Christ ]
is your problem with Hebrews because some men disagree with its origin ?

thanks C

 

[beamishboy]

I'm doing fine, just building up to my finals exams of my History degree!

Glad to see you're still questioning things - I think an important question to ask yourself is: am I looking into it because I WANT it to be true, or am l looking into it to SEE if it IS true.

I would say most people who are vaguely Christian or inclined to believe in Jesus are already starting from a far from neutral position when they ask the big questions of the Bible.

If a scientist set out on an experiment and he or she really WANTED one particular result to emerge, that would simply be bad Science, and grounds for treating his or her findings with scepticism.

This is the approach I have encountered loads of times while browsing the CF - believers who are so desperate for the Bible to be divine, infallible, or whatever else that they will pretty much fall for anything.

I couldn't help laughing recently when some clown made the claim that God had embedded hints as to the theory of Gravity in phrases like "rain FALLS from the sky", for example!

What can I say except that thank goodness you haven't submitted to a word of it.

Back to my first post though: I think the crucial thing is whether you are approaching your questioning on emotional/spiritual grounds like Dirth seems to want you to do (ie. you feel some vague connection to Jesus, the Bible's message has an impact on your life, etc. etc. - things that could have a perfectly human explanation by the way), or are you simply sitting on the fence and curious about the Bible just as a Christian might be 'curious' about the Qu'ran or 'curious' about Shakespeare?

This second option seems to be the healthier approach in my view, because it removes the emotional attachment to the text which could easily warp one's judgement.

Just because the message of Jesus touches you at a deep personal level, and Bible "makes sense" and appears impossibly "complete/uncontradictory" and all the rest of it, this does not remove the point that all these things could - and most probably do - have totally mundane, human explanations.

Hi again,

In reply to your question, although Drich0150 thinks I'm being unduly suspicious and am unreasonable, the truth is I do want to accept the Bible. I do want God to be real. I know logically that atheism is more appealing (who can deny that honestly?) but I don't want atheism. I want to exercise faith and believe in God, in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but alas, the book that tells me about God is not reliable. The canon is fraught with problems. And worse, when I bring this to the attention of older and wiser Christians, they all attack me for being unreasonable and for being a trouble-maker.

What I hope to do is to cling to my faith and try to see from the Bible which parts are safe and undisputed by the early church and apply them as the clear teachings of Jesus.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy ,
but what
specifically
is your problem with Hebrews ?
its describes the New Covnent [ in faith in Jesus Christ ]
is your problem with Hebrews because some men disagree with its origin ?

thanks C

Hi,

My problem with Hebrews is more fundamental than what the contents are. Hebrews was originally not accepted by the Western church. It was accepted in the Eastern church because it was thought to be Pauline. The Pauline Corpus in the East had 14 epistles. In a letter which Jerome wrote, he urged the Western Church to accept Hebrews. He said we should do that in the same way the Greeks had decided to accept Revelations which they traditionally rejected. He acknowledged that Hebrews was not written by Paul. It could be Barnabas but it doesn't matter. It's written by a churchman anyway!!! You can read the letter in Metzger's book, page 236.

The truth is this - when you read any good book on the canon (Metzger and FF Bruce's books were almost identical!!), you can't help but ask the question "Is this how they treated the books of the Bible?" You can't help thinking - is this how the Bible came into being? And it gives me not a good feeling at all.

It's not just Hebrews. Even the Gospels which are the least disputed have loads of problems. The early church, to defend the use of only four gospels actually appealed to the fact that there were only four corners of the earth and only four winds and so there must be only four gospels. Something ridiculous like that.

And that's not all the problems with the Bible. The choice of books to enter the canon was flawed beyond words. But that's not all. We have the problem of transmission. Christians always tell me there are so many thousand manuscripts etc etc. But the truth is NO TWO MANUSCRIPTS ARE IDENTICAL. Why? They have all been changed. There were errors in transmission. Some manuscripts contained additions (meant to be explanations) by scribes. Some were wilfully changed to suit new church doctrines. Some were changed by heretics. McDowell makes the scribes out to be a group of special honest professionals but that's farthest from the truth and we have manuscript evidence to prove it beyond doubt.

 

[Chickapee]

oH MY poor Beamish ,
Im so sorry that all these voices has confused you
and make you doubt Gods Word ......

I certainly dont want to add my voice to your dismay .......
I for one will be praying for you Bro , that the GOOD LORD will remain faithful and help you with His Spirit and understanding in searching for the Wisdom of God
I dont have this problem dear , my faith in Jesus keeps me from all the divisions ,
honestly I hope the Lord will also show you there is no divisons in His Word and Spririt ,
be patient dear One the Lord is in Power

...... Gods will be done
with Jesus peace ,, c

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Beamishboy ,
but what
specifically
is your problem with Hebrews ?
its describes the New Covnent [ in faith in Jesus Christ ]
is your problem with Hebrews because some men disagree with its origin ?

thanks C

That is also the only NC book to mention Melchizedek.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chickapee again.

Genesis 14:18 Now Malkiy-Tsedeq, king of Shalem, had brought forth bread and wine,--he being Priest of 'El-Most-High/'Elyown. 19 And he blessed him, and said, "blessed be Abram of 'El-most-high/'Elyown, possessor of heaven and land 20 And blessed be 'El-most-high/'elyown, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand". And he gave him a tenth of all.

Hebrews 7:1 For this the Malkiy-Tsedeq/melcisedek <3198>, King of Salem/salhm <4532>, Priest/iereuV <2409 of the GOD of the most-high/uyistou <5310>, the together-joining Abraham turning-back from the smiting of the kings, and did bless him.
12 For being changed the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a change is becoming.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/priest/RP24.htm

One of the most intriguing descriptions of the unique character of the High Priesthood of Jesus is found in Heb. 7:17 wherein it is stated, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This one grand statement shows that Jesus is not like any of the other priests who the people of Israel knew so much about. The entire seventh chapter of Hebrews is about THE MELCHIZEDEK CONNECTION,

 

[Chickapee]

That is also the only NC book to mention Melchizedek.

Genesis 14:18 Now Malkiy-Tsedeq, king of Shalem, had brought forth bread and wine,--he being Priest of 'El-Most-High/'Elyown. 19 And he blessed him, and said, "blessed be Abram of 'El-most-high/'Elyown, possessor of heaven and land 20 And blessed be 'El-most-high/'elyown, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand". And he gave him a tenth of all.

Hebrews 7:1 For this the Malkiy-Tsedeq/melcisedek <3198>, King of Salem/salhm <4532>, Priest/iereuV <2409 of the GOD of the most-high/uyistou <5310>, the together-joining Abraham turning-back from the smiting of the kings, and did bless him.
12 For being changed the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a change is becoming.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/priest/RP24.htm

One of the most intriguing descriptions of the unique character of the High Priesthood of Jesus is found in Heb. 7:17 wherein it is stated, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." This one grand statement shows that Jesus is not like any of the other priests who the people of Israel knew so much about. The entire seventh chapter of Hebrews is about THE MELCHIZEDEK CONNECTION,

Thanks Little Lamb ,
for reminding me i needed to hear your voice of reasoning , Just in time I sure do love Hebrews , its such an awesomely written WORD .. I remember the first time it took on a excitement and life of its own within me ! i was thrilled Jesus was dealing with me
God bless you bro!
His peace ..C

 

[drich0150]

Are you saying that I don't read academic works?

No, Read to your heart's content. I see though, that most of your questions spur from a defenciantcy in a spiritual/faith matter, not an acedemic one. To continue to seek those answers in the method you're approaching this with, is folly.

I cannot stop reading because I'm genuinely interested in the Bible and what it really is.

The bible is a means to an end. It was designed as a tool. A guide for all who seek a relationship with God.

But, It being only a tool can be used to do the opposite.
When it, and it's principles are used to justify "religion" or other agendas.

I want the truth. The Bible tells me that the truth shall set us free.

The truth does set us free, but sometimes the Quest for truth can imprision and enslave us. especially if we are looking for truth we can subjugate into what ever category fits our needs.

If your advice to me is to pray,

My advice to you was to pray for the "Storm' if you remember. to "knock" I even made subtle reference to luke 11:5-13 about knocking till you get "the good gift" that you want.

I wanted you to ask for this to the exclusion of everything else (health, well being, safety, comfort).. If you ask this way you will receive it. Not that this is what it will take, but mearly be ready to offer anything that is asked of you before the spirit comes.

But that's like putting the cart before the horse. I need to know the Bible (all 66 books without apocrypha) is entirely God's word. I need to know about the lost books, eg Colossians tells us to read the epistle to the Laodiceans but we know today that that epistle was never discovered. In the 4th century AD, many gnostics "doctored" such an epistle and called it by that name but scholars know these are heretical works.

Your general philosophy, on needing to know everything about scripture.
is what I consider putting the cart before the horse.

Did every member of the "church" created on the day of pentacost get to read the writings to the Laodiceans?
Was their Relationship dependant of the fact that there was to be a writings, to Laodica, and that they were to seek them out?
Or what about the "church" as a whole, after the last of the "super apstoles" died till the bible was compiled? do we have a few hundred years worth of "Christians" wasting away in hell because they never saw the "Completed" works that is the Holy Bible?

They all had everything needed to start their relationship with God. Generally speaking, All the subsequent writings of scripture after Acts are there to define, and hone your existing relationship.

You on the other hand seem to want to know everything written so as to make a decision on whether or not to start a relationship.
Is this what is required? complete knowledge? If so how can knowledge be complete without the one thing Everything written, was written for? Relationship.

What if we've all been wrong? I know some of us think the Israelites were following God's command when they stoned the man who gathered firewood on the sabbath just because it's recorded in the OT as God's command. What if Jesus when he comes again asks us how we could think of God so blasphemously when he had already said that the Sabbath was made for men and not men for the Sabbath? What if he tells us that with sadness and disappointment? Can we say, that's because the church taught us that or our pastors told us that or it's in the Bible and we accept all 66 books to be God's word because, that's what everyone says!!!

Will he hold us accountable? Or can we hide behind the masses.

Romans 3:11-18 Maybe alluding to a previous writtings, but the truth remains.
No one is righteous not one. no one understands. no one seeks god. all have turned away. we are all worthless. no one does good. not one. etc, etc..

This should speak loudly to you and all others. that even at our best, we are not worthy.. even if we could understand all that was written. we in our hearts, are still blasphemous and rebellious. that no amount of spiritual knowledge will ever change that fact. Jew and gentile alike.

Jesus is our saving grace. it is thru his efforts not our knowledge that will bring justification, sanctification, salvation or what ever "religious" term you wish to place on it.
Have you ever considered how a loving God could forgive a murdering rapest, but not forgive someone who is trying to worship and praise him, through every fiber of there being, even if they are getting things wrong?

You asked,Will he hold us accountable for this?
God grades on an individual basis. He will take into account all of the "gifts" you were blessed with and what you were exposed to..

you for instance will have much to answer for. look at all the "talents" the master has intrusted to your care. plus look at the faith/spiritual knowledge you are exposed to thru your Aunt and here..
Are you doubling your portion? or are you burying it in your "quest for truth?"

But Jesus came to teach us NOT to conform to the world and NOT to just listen to the majority.

The truth shall set us free. I believe this.

Jesus did come to teach, and his message spoke against conforming to the world, But this wasn't the whole message. The message was one of love, Love for God and each other. He taught us to stand up for these things even if it meant facing the world to do it, as a means to an end. Not as a personal quest.

 

[VictimofChanges]

I dont have this problem dear , my faith in Jesus keeps me from all the divisions

In other words, you DON'T BOTHER asking the questions beamishboy is investigating in the first place. Problem solved, huh?

No, Read to your heart's content. I see though, that most of your questions spur from a defenciantcy in a spiritual/faith matter, not an acedemic one.

To continue to seek those answers in the method you're approaching this with, is folly.

For clarity, perhaps you would define this "spiritual/faith" approach that is supposedly a viable alternative to an "academic" method?

To me, the difference is clear: the one is based on unmoveable conviction regardless of evidence (in fact, Jesus regards this as far MORE virtuous, going by the Doubting Thomas episode), while the other is an open-minded assessment of the available evidence.

It seems absurd to me that someone would approach such big issues in any way OTHER than the academic one... but please, explain what is virtuous, preferable or even relevant about faith and the spiritual path, by all means.

Beamishboy, have you ever been struck by this thought:

WHY did God honestly think that the best way to deliver his vastly important message to mankind was by gradually building up a debatable canon of endlessly re-interpretable scripture over the span of several centuries, by "revealing" himself to superstitious tribespeople (with no small amount of murderous rage and hate along the way), only to then become Man himself to fulfill the vague prophecies he attempted to embed, punish himself for all the future sins of the imperfect species he himself created, and then leave it up to a scattering of disputable "eye-witnesses" to document the events several decades later and relay it to the whole world.

The obvious conclusion to the whole absurd issue, in my mind, is this: He didn't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

 

[Chickapee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickapee
I dont have this problem dear , my faith in Jesus keeps me from all the divisions

In other words, you DON'T BOTHER asking the questions beamishboy is investigating in the first place. Problem solved, huh?

OH DEAR , well I used to Victim of changes , but the GOOD LORD in His faithfulness , settled it within me long ago
Im no longer carried about by every spirit of teaching , Learning to trust and wait upon the Lord for confirmation , I believe HIS WORD
thanks for your concern though
GOD BLESS YOU! His peace ,, c

 

[drich0150]

For clarity, perhaps you would define this "spiritual/faith" approach that is supposedly a viable alternative to an "academic" method?
To me, the difference is clear: the one is based on unmoveable conviction regardless of evidence (in fact, Jesus regards this as far MORE virtuous, going by the Doubting Thomas episode), while the other is an open-minded assessment of the available evidence.
It seems absurd to me that someone would approach such big issues in any way OTHER than the academic one... but please, explain what is virtuous, preferable or even relevant about faith and the spiritual path, by all means.

I have explained "it" several times but like the Mechanical engineer in my story. your "Acedemic achevements has failed you, and left you unable to interpret the most basic fundamental Reason for this compilation of scripture..
Relationship with God. The Bible is a tool. and like any tool it has a designed purpose. It's not to say you can't use it for other purposes, but to get the fullest use out of any tool, you have to use it for what it is designed to do.

God intended for those who wanted a relationship with him, to use the bible as a means to an end. Not a point of worship, or a place to get lost in. But a tool to find and hone your relationship with him.

So why the faith? because that is how the book is written!
Would you take your Human biology text book as the only source to use in raising your child? There is relevant information in there..
but isn't using the book better served as a means to an end like say.
You use the book to graduate, get a job and provide for you family.. rather than disecting the book and trying to prepare for every physical need your child may have, by only what you, and others like you can extrapilate from the text.

Now tell me this apporach isn't the foolish one.

I know you and others like you would like to "pin hole" me as a holy roller faith type, so you can either dismiss my comments or unleash your polished arsenal of quick witted commentaries and expose the foolishness of faith..
So let me say this as plainly as possible for you. You should use a spiritual approach or faith, if you truly want to understand the bible. because that is how and who this book(s) is/are written to. You won't, or currently are not able to understand it's most simple principles other wise.. (Because he hides his ways from the proud)
Let me also so say, that once you have established a solid relationship then you CAN go back and make things as complicated as you like, for you and your family..
Again I'm not denouncing an acedemic approach, to scripture generally speaking, even though you may wish this for me. I'm saying to "Beamish" that the answers HE seeks will not be found this way. If they could have someone far more knowledgable than anyone that reads this post would have found it by now. Or do you two really think you have the market cornered in abstract thought?? Really, what about for the last two thousand or so years?

To me, the difference is clear: the one is based on unmoveable conviction regardless of evidence (in fact, Jesus regards this as far MORE virtuous, going by the Doubting Thomas episode), while the other is an open-minded assessment of the available evidence.

If you know of Thomas then I assume you know of Peter and Jesus on the water. Wasn't it Peter's faith that allowed for his aquatic trek?
Now wasn't it again a matter of faith (or lack of) when he started to drown? or as you put it "An open-minded assessment of the available evidence" (or loss of faith and trust in available evidence) that nearly cost him his life?

whether you wish this or not "faith" is a very large part of scripture, and will be with your relationship as well. Again this is the reason you will have to use it to understand scripture.

WHY did God honestly think that the best way to deliver his vastly important message to mankind was by gradually building up a debatable canon of endlessly re-interpretable scripture over the span of several centuries, by "revealing" himself to superstitious tribespeople (with no small amount of murderous rage and hate along the way), only to then become Man himself to fulfill the vague prophecies he attempted to embed, punish himself for all the future sins of the imperfect species he himself created, and then leave it up to a scattering of disputable "eye-witnesses" to document the events several decades later and relay it to the whole world.

The obvious conclusion to the whole absurd issue, in my mind, is this: He didn't.

So, what did he do?

 

[VictimofChanges]

So let me say this as plainly as possible for you. You should use a spiritual approach or faith, if you truly want to understand the bible. because that is how and who this book(s) is/are written to. You won't, or currently are not able to understand it's most simple principles other wise.. (Because he hides his ways from the proud)

Thanks for the explanation, but unfortunately I still don't see how the above approach is commendable, because you haven't really DEFINED what you mean by faith...

You're saying that the "most simple principles" cannot be understood in any way except this "faith" method, but to me that just sounds like you're saying "you will understand it if you just accept it as true, and THEN try to explain it to your 'academic' mind". That seems to be a reversal of priorities, and one that Beamishboy is rightly struggling to employ.

I'm saying to "Beamish" that the answers HE seeks will not be found this way.

But the answers HE seeks are important ACADEMIC ones! How historically reliable is scripture? How did the canon develop? Who authored the different books?

So if you say the answers to these issues "will not be found" in the academic way, then there is no chance this "faith" method is going to shed a shred of light on the issue.

I say again, surely the academic approach should come FIRST, and then, AFTER you have satisfied yourself that it is reliable and true, THEN you can begin to base your whole life on it! Not before.

Imagine if a doctor came up with a combination of chemicals that he faithfully thought might cure a terrible disease. He didn't have much reason for thinking it could work, except that he had a good feeling about it. Should he do research and TEST his new medicine first, or simply give it to a patient and hope they don't get even more sick, or even die?!

I hope this illustrates that you have the whole issue the wrong way round, given the important questions Beamishboy is asking.

So, what did he do?

I was implying that he didn't do any of that because there is no reason why 'he' would even exist in the first place.

 

[artybloke]

Beamish - I'm going to ask this again, because you obviously missed it the first time.

Why does the Bible have to be 100% reliable? I don't expect that kind of reliability from any other collection of books from the 1st century, why should I expect if from the Bible? It's still the closest we can get to direct knowledge of the historical Jesus; the Gospels are at least 1st century in origin, unlike a lot of the Apocryphal Gospels.

Maybe you should relax a little; of course there's lots of manuscript problems with the Bible. But I think we're as close as we can get to the original works. After all, your faith is in Christ, isn't it, not the Bible?

Personally, I think the Bible is reliable enough for it to be the foundation document of Christianity. I don't subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration and other Protestant notions. To me, it turns the Bible into a paper Pope. And I'm not terribly in favour of popes. Actually, as a Quaker, I'm not a great believer in priests, deacons, pastors, ministers and the rest of the hireling shepherd lot. But if you like going to a steeple house, that's your affair.

Some religious language (eg having "a relationship with Christ") does seem silly to me too, frankly.