Starting off on the wrong foot

[Stilllistening]

I has occurred to me, that having the right premise, when you come to the Bible, is very important.

The right premise is, that God is perfect and is all knowing, and has earth’s history all planed out in advance and is perfectly Holy, and never makes mistakes. etc. etc.

Our attitude about the Bible, must reflect it’s author.
--------------------------------------------------
I have said all of this, because my conviction is, that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES, and this forces me down a particular path.
When I come to a verse or passage, that seems to be a contradiction or a mistake, I automatically know, that I am the one making the mistake, in my interpretation.

But those who start off on the wrong foot, who don’t have this presupposition about the Bible’s perfection, will be led astray.

When they come to an apparent contradiction or a mistake in the Bible, there instinct is to look into the original language etc, not to find “there mistake”, but to find the “Bible’s mistake”.
--------------------------------------------------
I joking say, that these people think that they are smarter than God. But this is no joke.

If during your educational process, you start to find mistakes in the Bible, and go about to correct “it”, instead of yourself, than you need to go back, and start off on the other foot.

 

[Geoff m]

you are very right. I have only recently owned a Bible and I find it very hard to understand sometimes. Only today I was given a script explaning the story of Noah and the flood and it became alot more clear. After I had read the script I watched a natonal geographic about the same subject, and it totally dismissed the biblical story and turned the 'historical and scientific facts' into something totally different. I consider myself lucky to have a friend who can direct me and help me understand what is written. In the past I was a big fan of the theory of evolution but recently I have learned to accept what is written in the Bible as fact and not to argue with it . by taking it as read it all becomes more amazing. If you start off on the wrong foot you will eventually know it, and its OK, because you can change that. I did.

 

[Geoff m]

ACTS 8:30,31
Just about sums it up

 

[Jayangel81]

Mod Hat On:
Moving this to
Theology:
Christian Scriptures
Mod Hat Off​

 

[St_Worm2]

... those who start off on the wrong foot, who don’t have this presupposition about the Bible’s perfection, will be led astray.

When they come to an apparent contradiction or a mistake in the Bible, there instinct is to look into the original language etc, not to find “there mistake”, but to find the “Bible’s mistake”.

Hey Still, I agree with what you've said in certain cases (esp. of non-believers), however, sometimes those of us who do believe the Bible is w/o error still need original languages, history, (dare I say) tradition, and (especially) an understanding of the Bible as a whole to come to a proper/correct exegesis, yes? Sometimes even that doesn't seem to be enough to find us all in agreement For instance:

A man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24

A man is justified by faith apart from works. Romans 3:24​

​

 

[St_Worm2]

In the past I was a big fan of the theory of evolution but recently I have learned to accept what is written in the Bible as fact and not to argue with it. If you start off on the wrong foot you will eventually know it, and its OK, because you can change that. I did.

Hey Geoff, perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't your former Pope declare the Bible's account of Creation as compatible with Darwin's theory of evolution? "Truth cannot contradict truth" was the title of the Pope's message, I believe. And while I, as both a Protestant and a Young Earth Creationist, applaud your thought on this matter, and the manner in which you arrived at an understanding of the truth, I don't believe that you are afforded such liberty of thought as a Roman Catholic, are you, especially where the Pontiff and/or the Magisterium have spoken?

Yours and His,
David

 

[wildboar]

Another important thing to remember is that Jesus says that the Bible is all about Him. So we should always be looking for Jesus no matter what Scripture passages we are reading and not trying to find the 7 rules for such and such or God's financial plan. All the prophecies are fulfilled in Him.

We should also distinguish between the disputed and undisputed books. Eusebius wrote:

Among the disputed writings, [τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων] which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων]"

The disputed books should not be thrown away but should not be read in such a way that they contradict the undisputed books. James should be understood through the lens of Romans and not the other way around. Revelation should be understood through the lens of the Gospels and the Epistles and not used in one of the many strange ways that people use it.

 

[MrPolo]

But those who start off on the wrong foot, who don’t have this presupposition about the Bible’s perfection, will be led astray.

When they come to an apparent contradiction or a mistake in the Bible, there instinct is to look into the original language etc, not to find “there mistake”, but to find the “Bible’s mistake”.

You are exactly right. For example, one of the most prominent atheists of our day, Daniel Dennett was a former Fundamentalist minister and ended up an atheist because he imposed a literal sense onto the ancient text as if he were reading a data-ridden coroner's report from the 21st century.

 

[MrPolo]

I don't believe that you are afforded such liberty of thought as a Roman Catholic, are you, especially where the Pontiff and/or the Magisterium have spoken?

We are simply not to interpret against the analogy of the faith on any issue the Church has defined. For example, the Church defined the Trinity. If we want to read into a passage that Jesus and the Father are not One, then we would be wrong. On undefined matters, there is obviously wiggle room because there's nothing against which you can contradict.

 

[St_Worm2]

We are simply not to interpret against the analogy of the faith on any issue the Church has defined. For example, the Church defined the Trinity. If we want to read into a passage that Jesus and the Father are not One, then we would be wrong. On undefined matters, there is obviously wiggle room because there's nothing against which you can contradict.

Hi MP, John Paul II has spoken, so as a RC, where does that leave Geoff in this case? He stated:

"In the past I was a big fan of the theory of evolution, but recently I have learned to accept what is written in the Bible as fact and not to argue with it."

​

Thanks!

--David

 

[MrPolo]

Hi MP, John Paul II has spoken, so as a RC, where does that leave Geoff in this case? He stated:

"In the past I was a big fan of the theory of evolution, but recently I have learned to accept what is written in the Bible as fact and not to argue with it."

​

Thanks!

--David

Where does what leave Geoff? And I am not sure which comment of JP2 you are referring to.

 

[St_Worm2]

Where does what leave Geoff? And I am not sure which comment of JP2 you are referring to.

JP2 has said that "evolution" is in ("Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"), but a former fan of evolutionary theory and RC, Geoff, read his Bible and decided it was out. He is at odds with the present teaching of the RCC, yes? Where does that leave him?

Thanks!

--David

 

[MrPolo]

JP2 has said that "evolution" is in ("Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"), but a former fan of evolutionary theory and RC, Geoff, read his Bible and decided it was out. He is at odds with the present teaching of the RCC, yes? Where does that leave him?

Thanks!

--David

From what I've remember of that document, JP2 merely said evolution could be compatible with Christianity. He didn't impose a doctrine one way or the other for the faithful to hold. Nor would a pope mandate a doctrine regarding strictly the scientific side of the issue. If I remember right, he was careful to qualify evolution as acceptable if it excluded the soul as part of it.

 

[Geoff m]

Hi MP, John Paul II has spoken, so as a RC, where does that leave Geoff in this case? He stated:

"In the past I was a big fan of the theory of evolution, but recently I have learned to accept what is written in the Bible as fact and not to argue with it."

​

Thanks!

--David

Geoff says:
David,
I do not regard myself as being ruled by the church. I was born a free man and I am free to believe in what I believe to be right. So David, where does that leave me?