Questioning the bible

[livingthetruth]

This post is very much inspired by my personal struggle and will express many ideas from my own perspective, which I understand might have distortions and knowledge which needs some correction. It will touch on a sensitive topic for some (including me), but I do believe I am guided to this topic by the Holy Spirit and pray that the question is received in the Light that is Good and True.

I have all my life pondered where the bible came from and why it is the unadulterated, absolute and ONLY word of God. This is what I was told and so I believed, because believing otherwise threatened my faith and risked eternal damnation. Believing otherwise made Jesus and God less real.

Having grown in faith and understanding, I have gracefully returned to this question with the courage I need to face it. I somehow feel the bible is just a collection of books from prophets, saints and spirit inspired human beings. That the grouping of them together under the name Holy Bible is man made. The grouping could possibly have been spirit inspired or done with good intent, but the belief that it is complete and absolute feels man made.

I do believe in Truth and probably pray for the knowledge and revelation of truth more often than for anything else. I do believe that Yashuah was the Messiah/Christ, and hold onto his words "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life". In my mind, life itself, Truth, Yashuah, Messiah and Word of God are the same thing under different names. When one speaks of the Word of God I see the living Christ, not a book with mistranslations which seems to drive so many people away from God.

I know and believe I am saved by grace, that nothing I do on earth can frustrate or change that grace. So I am comfortable with trying out the idea of living without this strong need to have the bible be a holy authority over everything including science and creation. On the contrary, I believe Christ is this authority above all and any similar belief is a deception. I believe I died and Messiah lives through me. No earthly knowledge or book can contribute to or change this. The Word of God is alive and living through me, and everyday I choose to partake of this death and make myself available to His Will. Daily bible reading, theology or scripture study has little influence on me making myself available to Him who loved me and then gave Himself for me!

I still believe in the writings of the prophets and saints, especially drawn to those of Paul. But receiving guidance from God can happen just as easily from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy page 42 as it can from Psalm 91 NIV. The revelation comes through Spirit and doesn't depend on any specific text or understanding. The Spirit of Truth, which lives in me and through me shall be the guiding judge. So in the same spirit, wouldn't the illiterate believer have a great advantage?

Could it be that the belief that the bible is complete and absolute is actually limiting the faith and vision of devout followers? That one doesn't wield the sword of the Lord by quoting verses from a book, but instead by the willingness to make yourself available to the true Word of God, which is Messiah living through you, the most divine manifestation of His Will.

Was there ever a prophecy where God said he would send us the bible? And is there something wrong with me for feeling frustrated by the belief that the bible holds absolute, unquestionable truth, or suspecting that some parts of it might be in error or coloured with the writers perception?

Please comment, question and highlight as you feel moved. I hope to be neutral and available to any such movement of spirit.

 

[Colter]

This post is very much inspired by my personal struggle and will express many ideas from my own perspective, which I understand might have distortions and knowledge which needs some correction. It will touch on a sensitive topic for some (including me), but I do believe I am guided to this topic by the Holy Spirit and pray that the question is received in the Light that is Good and True.

I have all my life pondered where the bible came from and why it is the unadulterated, absolute and ONLY word of God. This is what I was told and so I believed, because believing otherwise threatened my faith and risked eternal damnation. Believing otherwise made Jesus and God less real.

Having grown in faith and understanding, I have gracefully returned to this question with the courage I need to face it. I somehow feel the bible is just a collection of books from prophets, saints and spirit inspired human beings. That the grouping of them together under the name Holy Bible is man made. The grouping could possibly have been spirit inspired or done with good intent, but the belief that it is complete and absolute feels man made.

I do believe in Truth and probably pray for the knowledge and revelation of truth more often than for anything else. I do believe that Yashuah was the Messiah/Christ, and hold onto his words "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life". In my mind, life itself, Truth, Yashuah, Messiah and Word of God are the same thing under different names. When one speaks of the Word of God I see the living Christ, not a book with mistranslations which seems to drive so many people away from God.

I know and believe I am saved by grace, that nothing I do on earth can frustrate or change that grace. So I am comfortable with trying out the idea of living without this strong need to have the bible be a holy authority over everything including science and creation. On the contrary, I believe Christ is this authority above all and any similar belief is a deception. I believe I died and Messiah lives through me. No earthly knowledge or book can contribute to or change this. The Word of God is alive and living through me, and everyday I choose to partake of this death and make myself available to His Will. Daily bible reading, theology or scripture study has little influence on me making myself available to Him who loved me and then gave Himself for me!

I still believe in the writings of the prophets and saints, especially drawn to those of Paul. But receiving guidance from God can happen just as easily from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy page 42 as it can from Psalm 91 NIV. The revelation comes through Spirit and doesn't depend on any specific text or understanding. The Spirit of Truth, which lives in me and through me shall be the guiding judge. So in the same spirit, wouldn't the illiterate believer have a great advantage?

Could it be that the belief that the bible is complete and absolute is actually limiting the faith and vision of devout followers? That one doesn't wield the sword of the Lord by quoting verses from a book, but instead by the willingness to make yourself available to the true Word of God, which is Messiah living through you, the most divine manifestation of His Will.

Was there ever a prophecy where God said he would send us the bible? And is there something wrong with me for feeling frustrated by the belief that the bible holds absolute, unquestionable truth, or suspecting that some parts of it might be in error or coloured with the writers perception?

Please comment, question and highlight as you feel moved. I hope to be neutral and available to any such movement of spirit.

Yes, that-----> "Could it be that the belief that the bible is complete and absolute is actually limiting the faith and vision of devout followers? That one doesn't wield the sword of the Lord by quoting verses from a book, but instead by the willingness to make yourself available to the true Word of God, which is Messiah living through you, the most divine manifestation of His Will."

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is there a difference among saying the Bible is complete and saying the Bible is inerrant and saying the Bible is absolute? I would say there is.

Does one need the Bible? Is it possible to be a believer without it? It seems to me that what the OP has said the OP believes is completely based upon biblical texts. Where did the OP get the idea that he died and Christ lives with him if not from the Bible? Without Paul having written the same I do not see anyone coming to that conclusion on their own.

To what degree does one trust the Bible as compared to one's own thoughts? I think rather than limiting faith( which I would say is a thing that cannot be limited by anything outside the believer other than by God himself which would include the Bible as a thing incapable of so doing) the Bible limits autonomy. It provides a framework of accepted Christian belief that allows for disagreement on interpretation but not complete contradiction of the text. This serves the purpose of delineating the differences between absolutely heretical ideas like those of say David Koresh or Joseph Smith and doctrinal disagreements like those between the Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To what degree does one trust the Bible as compared to one's own thoughts? I think rather than limiting faith.... the Bible limits autonomy.

So very true...I agree with this completely.

 

[jayem]

To be a bit more specific, what is limiting is believing that the Bible is authoritative. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then anything contrary is spurious and unacceptable. Such beliefs put Christianity in a box and promote conformity over diversity.

 

[Tree of Life]

To be a bit more specific, what is limiting is believing that the Bible is authoritative. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then anything contrary is spurious and unacceptable. Such beliefs put Christianity in a box and promote conformity over diversity.

Couldn't the same thing be said about anything that claims to be authoritative?

Rationalists claim that reason is authoritative. Isn't that limiting? Or is it actually liberating?

Empiricists claim that sense experience is authoritative. Is that limiting? Or is it liberating?

You see the word of God as a limit. We see it as a liberation.

 

[jayem]

Rationalists claim that reason is authoritative. Isn't that limiting? Or is it actually liberating?

Empiricists claim that sense experience is authoritative. Is that limiting? Or is it liberating?

I can only speak for myself. I will claim that using reason and empricial methods are the best ways we have to obtain knowledge. But like any human endeavor, they're not perfect or infallible. And what knowledge is gained is tentative and subject to change.

You see the word of God as a limit. We see it as a liberation.

I see it as the words of men. Who, as I noted, are fallible and imperfect.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Couldn't the same thing be said about anything that claims to be authoritative?

Rationalists claim that reason is authoritative. Isn't that limiting? Or is it actually liberating?

Empiricists claim that sense experience is authoritative. Is that limiting? Or is it liberating?

You see the word of God as a limit. We see it as a liberation.

Rationalism and empiricism stands on its own merits. It doesn't need the characterization of any authority figure.

The reason they are lauded and applied in science or any other discipline which tries to be rigorous is because those same people are very aware of the severe limitations other epistemologies make. Taking something on faith isn't even an epistemology! It's also not mere empiricism either. Technically speaking, anecdotal experiences, of which religious folks appear to be enamored with, is technically empirical; however, it doesn't account for any of the various biases, potential for spuriousness, etc.

 

[bhsmte]

Couldn't the same thing be said about anything that claims to be authoritative?

Rationalists claim that reason is authoritative. Isn't that limiting? Or is it actually liberating?

Empiricists claim that sense experience is authoritative. Is that limiting? Or is it liberating?

You see the word of God as a limit. We see it as a liberation.

I guess it would depend on which leads to the verifiable truth. That is, if truth is what one is seeking.

 

[Tree of Life]

Rationalism and empiricism stands on its own merits. It doesn't need the characterization of any authority figure.

I think you've misunderstood my post.

Rationalism claims that reason is authoritative.
Empiricism claims that sense experience is authoritative.

Each system has a source of authority.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I think you've misunderstood my post.

Rationalism claims that reason is authoritative.
Empiricism claims that sense experience is authoritative.

Each system has a source of authority.

Right, and what I'm saying is, regardless of any claims, one can demonstrate why these work the best over any other epistemology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rationalism and empiricism stands on its own merits. It doesn't need the characterization of any authority figure.

The reason they are lauded and applied in science or any other discipline which tries to be rigorous is because those same people are very aware of the severe limitations other epistemologies make. Taking something on faith isn't even an epistemology! It's also not mere empiricism either. Technically speaking, anecdotal experiences, of which religious folks appear to be enamored with, is technically empirical; however, it doesn't account for any of the various biases, potential for spuriousness, etc.

Faith is a rational response to God and His work in the world, so while faith isn't an epistemology, it is a response to something (i.e. revelation) that plays a role in epistemological evaluation. Additionally, second-hand information, whether anecdotal or historical, is typically considered within a 'rational' framework.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1g8wjsEQyw

 

[lesliedellow]

Could it be that the belief that the bible is complete and absolute is actually limiting the faith and vision of devout followers?

If it does, that is no bad thing. In science physical reality places a brake upon what a physicist's febrile imagination is able to come up with. In theology the Bible performs the same function.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Right, and what I'm saying is, regardless of any claims, one can demonstrate why these work the best over any other epistemology.

One cannot demonstrate anything of the kind. It is simply a function of one's worldview that convinces one that one can demonstrate that one's chosen method of discovering truth works better. One starts with one's conclusions and "proves" by one's assumptions that one is correct. To do this all objections to the contrary will be viewed as irrelevant because the objections do not conform with one's dearly held assumptions. It seems ridiculous to me to insist that those with a different worldview must first conform to the assumptions inherent in one's own worldview as a means of proving to them that one's worldview is superior to their worldview. This is what most people attempt to do to each other in theist vs atheist arguments and I find it curious that one always seem baffled by the fact that this tactic doesn't work to convince the other of the obvious superiority of one's worldview.

To put it more succinctly if a person has no belief in any god you cannot convince that person there is a god by using "proof" based on a worldview that assumes the existence of a god and if a person believes in a god you cannot convince a person that there is no god by using "proof" based upon a worldview that assumes there is no god. All reasoning begins with some kind of assumption if two people do not agree upon their basic assumptions they will not come to the same conclusions.