The Four Assumptions

[StormyOne]

If I may jump in, having just seen this thread...

Today, I would not hold the first assumption, as I don't think the bible overall is that cryptic, considering how, when and where it was written. I would consider Shakespeare to be more cryptic, in general.

I somewhat agree with the second assumption, although there are so many varied writings in the Bible and some are not "lessons". But the intent of much of it is to teach, admonish, or encourage.

I cannot agree with the third, as there are way too many contradictions and outright errors in our current versions of the texts. We know from examination of discovered scrolls and manuscripts that there are thousands of variations between them. Most are not critical to our understanding, but they still exist.

I am also not certain about the divine origins of every book and word in the Bible. Much of it is inspired by God, but a lot of it reflects impressions and ideas about God and faith from the time the particular book was written.

thanks for jumping in Martinius and sharing where you are with this issue....

 

[k4c]

wrong.... everything that God has created belongs to him.... last I checked the devil has created nothing.... thus even the devil belongs to God... I know its hard for some to wrap their brain around that simple truth, but EVERYTHING God created belongs to him... we are ALL his children.... It is unfortunate that too many share your view k4c and promote the idea that some of us do not belong to God.... what makes it worse is the texts you sling to justify your view.... let's take your view to its logical conclusion.... since not everyone is a child of God that means those who are not I can treat them any way I wish because they aren't God's child...hmmm and that is exactly what you see christians "in the name of the lord' doing... scary....

As for God hating.... maybe the God you perceive does.... the God I believe in does not...

Ownership does not equate to sonship.

I would point you to the Scriptures but has you clearly made known all throughout these forums, you don't receive the Bible as something God breathed.

Bye now...

 

[StormyOne]

Ownership does not equate to sonship.

I would point you to the Scriptures but has you clearly made known all throughout these forums, you don't receive the Bible as something God breathed.

Bye now...

Ahhh but it does my friend, however you are allowing your dogma to cloud the obvious.... anything God created belongs to him, we are all his children... The dogma that suggests that God only some belong to God really is not of God but some other source.... I hear what you are saying, I understand where you are coming from, I have rejected the premise.... thanks for sharing though, this will be an area where we don't see eye to eye...

 

[AzA]

In those times, where did the disciples and authors of the NT get their OT scripture from? They didn't carry complete scriptures around with them, but heard it proclaimed in the synagogues. It was read to them, quoted orally, and remembered. So in quoting from scripture, it would not be surprising that the wording was not quite the same as the original or that it was perhaps paraphrased. They were not copying, they were recalling a recitation from memory.

Consider a few more things:

1. Orally transmitted texts are not necessarily less "reliable" than written ones. Our contemporary education systems do not privilege memory as some others still do and as ancient Hebrew, Greek, Eastern, and African cultures did. So when someone says "They kept the stories by telling them over and over" we think "They played the telephone game so by the time it got to the 3rd generation it was pretty jacked up."
Not so.

Memory is a sense and skill which responds to use and atrophies in the absence of use. If you think of literature contemporary to the early Bible eras, like the Illiad and Odyssey, these were works that were recited whole, not read in pieces.

Try getting people today to memorize the first round of begats in Genesis and see how well they do.

And then compare their memorization skills to those of your local Muslim imam.

2. The rendition of the Torah and Writings that our Old Testament is based on is a much later rendition than those that Jesus and Paul would have had access to. So just as modern translations dependent on earlier manuscripts produce different language in many cases, so the manuscripts that Jesus read and the manuscripts that your and my Bibles are based on produce different language. You got the Masoretic, the Septuagint, the Qumran fragments, the oldest Hebrew translations, the Aramaic ones, and the other Greek ones too...

I also agree with the paraphrasing point -- Paul's paraphrasing for cause was what I commented on earlier as entirely in line with the way rabbis taught. Remember though, that there is a difference between what they did to maintain the scriptures (oral transmission with plenty of taboos re. transcription) and what they did to teach on the scriptures (recitation, paraphrasing, reapplication, symbolic reinterpretation, and so forth).

 

[Martinius]

Consider a few more things:

1. Orally transmitted texts are not necessarily less "reliable" than written ones. Our contemporary education systems do not privilege memory as some others still do and as ancient Hebrew, Greek, Eastern, and African cultures did. So when someone says "They kept the stories by telling them over and over" we think "They played the telephone game so by the time it got to the 3rd generation it was pretty jacked up."
Not so.

Memory is a sense and skill which responds to use and atrophies in the absence of use. If you think of literature contemporary to the early Bible eras, like the Illiad and Odyssey, these were works that were recited whole, not read in pieces.

Try getting people today to memorize the first round of begats in Genesis and see how well they do.

And then compare their memorization skills to those of your local Muslim imam.

2. The rendition of the Torah and Writings that our Old Testament is based on is a much later rendition than those that Jesus and Paul would have had access to. So just as modern translations dependent on earlier manuscripts produce different language in many cases, so the manuscripts that Jesus read and the manuscripts that your and my Bibles are based on produce different language. You got the Masoretic, the Septuagint, the Qumran fragments, the oldest Hebrew translations, the Aramaic ones, and the other Greek ones too...

I also agree with the paraphrasing point -- Paul's paraphrasing for cause was what I commented on earlier as entirely in line with the way rabbis taught. Remember though, that there is a difference between what they did to maintain the scriptures (oral transmission with plenty of taboos re. transcription) and what they did to teach on the scriptures (recitation, paraphrasing, reapplication, symbolic reinterpretation, and so forth).

All excellent points. Your second is well taken since we know that the versions we have today are often translations of translations, where the original languages were not all the same, and changes in language certainly would have occurred over the decades and centuries.

Side Note: I am very new on these forums and am impressed with the level of intelligent discussion that I have found so far. And with the civil discourse in the threads I have seen. Very refreshing.

 

[StormyOne]

All excellent points. Your second is well taken since we know that the versions we have today are often translations of translations, where the original languages were not all the same, and changes in language certainly would have occurred over the decades and centuries.

Side Note: I am very new on these forums and am impressed with the level of intelligent discussion that I have found so far. And with the civil discourse in the threads I have seen. Very refreshing.

welcome Martinius, glad you've found our little corner of CF.... we attempt to discuss rather than debate and when we don't see eye to eye, we try to simply acknowledge it and move to a new topic.... oh and have fun in the process... looking forward to your participation...

 

[k4c]

Ahhh but it does my friend, however you are allowing your dogma to cloud the obvious.... anything God created belongs to him, we are all his children... The dogma that suggests that God only some belong to God really is not of God but some other source.... I hear what you are saying, I understand where you are coming from, I have rejected the premise.... thanks for sharing though, this will be an area where we don't see eye to eye...

I like your belief system, it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. To bad it's not Biblical.

Ownership does not qualify for sonship nor does it make you part of God's family. Not all people are God's children. Only people who have God's Spirit living in them and are living in accordance with God's Spirit are His children.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mattew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

 

[StormyOne]

I like your belief system, it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. To bad it's not Biblical.

Ownership does not qualify for sonship nor does it make you part of God's family. Not all people are God's children. Only people who have God's Spirit living in them and are living in accordance with God's Spirit are His children.

1 John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mattew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

as I said before.... thank you for sharing, we will not see eye to eye on this issue, so your slinging texts (out of context) does not impress me... as for being biblical, driving a car is not biblical, living in a house is not biblical, typing on a computer is not biblical, and on and on.... Polygamy is is biblical, owning slaves is biblical, stoning disobedient children is biblical, are you advocating for any of those things?

 

[k4c]

as I said before.... thank you for sharing, we will not see eye to eye on this issue, so your slinging texts (out of context) does not impress me... as for being biblical, driving a car is not biblical, living in a house is not biblical, typing on a computer is not biblical, and on and on.... Polygamy is is biblical, owning slaves is biblical, stoning disobedient children is biblical, are you advocating for any of those things?

This reply speaks for itself. There is no fellowship when people reject the inspired word of God.

 

[StormyOne]

This reply speaks for itself. There is no fellowship when people reject the inspired word of God.

Well you are more than welcomed to stay as this is the progressive section... there are more traditional areas on CF that you might find more fitting to your needs... btw, just because you said it is "the word of God" doesn't make it so....

 

[k4c]

Well you are more than welcomed to stay as this is the progressive section... there are more traditional areas on CF that you might find more fitting to your needs... btw, just because you said it is "the word of God" doesn't make it so....

Thanks for the info...I'll keep it in mind

Remember, inspired word of God is not the same as the word of God.

 

[StormyOne]

Thanks for the info...I'll keep it in mind

Remember, inspired word of God is not the same as the word of God.

ahhhh cool.... so share with me what you mean when you say that the inspired word of God is not the same as the word of God....

 

[k4c]

ahhhh cool.... so share with me what you mean when you say that the inspired word of God is not the same as the word of God....

The inspired word is a word that is spoken by man but inspired by God.

The word of God is a word directly spoken by God.

 

[StormyOne]

The inspired word is a word that is spoken by man but inspired by God.

The word of God is a word directly spoke by God.

thanks for the clarification....

 

[Avonia]

The inspired word is a word that is spoken by man but inspired by God.

If it's not inspired by Source, what is it inspired by? Sub-Source?

How interesting that we believe the story of Earth "got away" from the Author.