If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

If the Bible is straight forward in stating something such as “You must not murder" and someone says the Bible does not say anything about not murdering, is it really a matter of interpretation? Is it really just my opinion? If you show him Exodus 20:13 and the person says well I don't interpret it that way, does that mean his interpretation is correct? Face it, the Bible is filled with things that are just not open to interpretation, so why do you act like the whole Bible is open to interpretation? It's just not.

But there are other scriptures that you seem to think are open for interpretation in the Bible, are we really suppose to just guess at it's meaning, as you seem to suggest and anyone's guess is as good as another? Why does looking to see if the Bible comments further on the subject seem like such a laughable idea to you? Seems simple enough to me but it seems you and your "scholar" buddies are too smart to let the Bible explain itself, perhaps because you like what you make up better than what the Bible actually says. (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:19)

 

I mostly go by faith and try to get the gist of what the writers are saying. I try to trust that what I am being told about God and Jesus and his disciples are true. Some verses in scripture can be spurious but there is still the overarching idea that's being spoken. Aside from that, I don't question the truth of scriptures, I mainly question the people who handle the scriptures. From what I have seen, there is no mistranslation that is so earthshaking that would change the truth to any significant degree. It's just that these errors are problematic when the deeper things of God want to be explored and in many ways these agendas stiffen that. Although, through time they have lessen I think. Even without all that, I think the truth can still be known mainly because I believe in the real nature of the holy spirit to reveal things.

Thing is though, scholars have often been wrong about their theories so it really becomes a matter of what should be trusted in the end. I trust that the original manuscripts were perfect but then later accumulated some errors, but again, none earthshaking.

As for Bart Ehrman, I have never read anything he wrote so I can't really judge.

 

They could have been forgeries but you probably already know that I would most likely go with the "I trust that what it says is what it is". No offense to you or your studies.

 

There are some things in the Bible that are clear and straightforward, but others (like Genesis, for example), are more plausibly taken as allegories. I doubt that those also must be taken as clear and science rejected. So did Origen and St. Augustine. "Thou shalt not murder" is a moral maxim universally accepted and supported by reason, as well as words.

I'm not the only one who questions passages of Scripture. You've questioned parts of John on grounds that it was added to justify the Trinity. (By the way, I'm on your side on that one). Why don't you accept the possibility that the words are right and you are wrong?
And I'd never suggest that we "guess". As Origen pointed out centuries ago, interpreting Scripture is hard work, and an on-going process. I think it needs to involve active use of reason, available evidence, historical context, and faith, guided of course by the Holy Spirit. I think that biblidolatry, in its literalist form, leads us astray. By concentrating on talking snakes and the begats, we can lose sight of the big picture and miss the forest because of our attention to the trees.

 

I have never known that 1 John 5:7 was added for a good while and never thought that the words could be wrong. For a while I saw it as maybe supporting the trinity but then I looked at more scripture and read what others thought on the subject and it occurred to me that it never described exactly what sort of oneness it is; all I saw it saying is that there are three somethings that agreed with each other, could be meant also as literal sharing of substance but I couldn't be sure. The more I read what was there the more it made sense that Jesus wasn't being made equal to God but that he was more of a messenger, a high priest, chosen by God. In other words, even with the questionable verse, the other verses were adequate enough to paint the picture, so it was really a matter of pitting verses against verses and using the idea that scripture does not err.

It's not so much a matter of scholarship as it is with trust.

 

If the bible was real it wouldn't have had to been rewritten. In 50 years we'll have a 3rd testament changing the rules to coinside with our rapidly changing social agenda.
A preacher will decipher the good book once again and admitt "I think we've got this all wrong, I've just done a new translation using new words only discovered this century and I now reads that homosexuality is fine and we can masturbate 24/7!"

 

But has the Bible really been rewritten?

Wouldn't it make sense that God that wants us to live by his rules want to be clear what those rules are so we can follow them?

 

The thing with the talking snake and what not is where we put our trust. If Jesus believed that Jonah was in a belly of a fish (some think it was a whale shark) for three days, and Jesus was given authority by God to speak the truth, then wouldn't it be for the best that we trust what he said happened even if it can be hard to take in at first? (Mat 12:38-40)

Again, I don't mean any offense to you. But with the talking snake (shape-shifting is common in the Bible, even Jesus does it), I personally found the account very interesting and telling of God's character and felt it has been very valuable to me.

I don't mean to say we shouldn't make use of our brains either

 

Yes, it would make sense if there was only one testament. Irminsul is right.

 

I personally don't see more than one testament.

Writings before Jesus were a shadow of the law. Even with the Jews, the Messiah is to have two visits on earth; the first visit is a priestly one and the other is in the military sense or a conquerer. There is no possibility of a third testament.

 

I think of my relationship with God as an on-going process of discovery, using reason (including best available evicence), faith (defined as Luther's Joyful bet, Scripture,and church traditions. This is essentially Wesley's quadrilateral. But the important thing is to find the underlying themes and principles that tie the whole together.

 

Bible -> book
book -> words
words -> ideas
ideas -> thoughts
thoughts -> imagination
imagination -> bible

I have read, did not like, have read better.

 

^^What he said. ITA

 

The Messiah isn't a god. The Old testament was out of date, so a new one was made. If you are doing what someone else tells you to, you are not really acting. And if you need belief, you are confused about the truth.

 

The entire New Testament IS an "interpretation" of the Old.

The law, which so many seem to hold so dear, is "interpreted" by Paul as being secondary to God's purpose, and only came in to reveal man's wrongdoings, as well as to reveal a kind of "picture of God", His character, and what a man would look like in His image. It wasn't meant as the "solution", or that it should be used to perform righteousness.

Paul likened the law to "Hagar", the maid used to Abraham at Sarah's suggestion to have a child, which child was rejected by God, as it was not God's doing.

But so many don't really read the bible. They are satisfied with traditional teachings that are contrary to what the scriptures reveal.

Without adequate interpretation, you just end up with a lot of goofy beliefs, traditionally derived.

Paul even said that he was raised up to "complete" the word of God. Without Paul, we'd not have any word that the church, for example, is the Body of Christ.

Interpretation is crucial.

 

God wasn't incarnated in the man Jesus so that we could merely receive some teachings and live by certain rules.

God's original intention was that man live by Him, by His life, represented by the tree of life, in the garden.

Christ today is that tree. By the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus, we can live by Him. This is why we are encouraged to do so in the entire New Testament. Passages such as John chapter 15 would have no meaning if we were to supposed to live by rules, independent of the life of God. God's focus in the entire bible is on life, not on rules. Rules are for the rule-keeping pharisees, not for the Christ-filled believers.

That tree is at the beginning, and at the end, in Revelation 22.

http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/509



1 A flowing river and a tree,
Eden’s outstanding features are,
Man to supply with food and drink
That he may live fore’er.

Chorus
God is in Christ to be my supply,
God as the Spirit nourisheth me;
If upon Christ in spirit I feed,
Filled with His life I’ll be.

2 The tree the glorious Christ does show
As living food to man supplied,
That he God’s riches may enjoy,
Thus to be satisfied.

3 The river does the Spirit show,
Coming man’s spirit to supply,
That with God’s riches he be filled,
Holy to be thereby.

4 The Christ of glory is my life,
He as the Spirit lives in mine,
That I with God be fully blent
And in His image shine.

5 I would exalt this glorious Christ,
Ever the Spirit I’d obey,
Making His glory fully known,
Filled with His grace for aye.

 

First, the NWT is exactly that a translation and at no time is it a “paraphrase”, as you stated.

Next, at no time does the NWT intimate that Jesus is the Archangel Gabriel, if there is such creature.

Then as for there being no Trinity, the word trinity does not appear in any translation of the Bible and I believe that you yourself said you don’t believe in the Trinity, did that come from reading the “changed” NWT or did you just ignore “all the proof” that all the other translations provide.

As for hell, or lake of fire and eternal suffering after death, they are all there and have not been removed, although The NWT uses the transliterated words “sheol” and “hades” instead of the word “hell” and I don’t know of any translation that uses the phrase “eternal suffering after death”.

As for the Scriptures that you cited, which translation(s) would you like to compare to the NWT? To compare them to every translation would make for a rather large and cumbersome post.

 

Don't be disingenuous, the "scholars" that you like so much seem to be pretty much unanimous that the way 1 John 5:7 is written in the KJV is not supported by any Greek manuscripts earlier than the 15 century and most modern translations seem to agree.

 

Gabriel does exist (cf. Luke 1), but I think Okie confused Gabriel and Michael on this one:

"The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael." -The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, p. 8

 

Well that's a start.

Whether something in the Bible is an allegory is more about context, rather than whether it's hard for you to believe.

Science is not always right and neither are Origen and St. Augustine.

So unless something in the Bible is universally accepted and supported by what you call "reason" then it's not to be considered to be inspired of God and thus true?

I guess depends on what you mean by questioning passages of Scripture, if by that you mean questioning whether "All Scripture is inspired of God" then I think you have a problem but if you mean trying to understand the scripture and what are saying, then that is not a problem.

Although you seem to think that I believe the NWT is the be all and end all of what the scriptures say, I really believe that "All Scripture" should be determined by a comparison of the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

I truly wish you would read what I've said rather than assuming you know what I think. First the words are right. Second, how many times do I have to say; while I believe I am correct, I have always asked others not to accept what I say without studying the Scriptures to find out what they say on the matter and I have also admitted to being wrong on occasion and have apologized and made corrections. I do not believe myself to be perfect or unable to make mistakes as some who post here seem to think of themselves.

Although it seems that with some people that is what it comes down to.

What is necessary for understanding what God wants of us does not take a lot of hard work but the depth of God's wisdom is indeed hard work and is an on-going process.

I agree, except for you seemingly wanting to invalidate the Bible by your "reasoning".

One can not understand what God wants us to know by dismissing the "talking snakes and the begats", they are in the Bible for a reason, they are not put there by God just for "fill", to be ignored on a whim.