Barcode

Quite often, I hear any one of the following from Christians and have some questions as a result.

i) To understand the Bible you must understand the context and time it was written.
ii) It is necessary to pray in order to seek the deeper meaning.
iii) The Holy Ghost guides me in understanding what is said.

The problems for me are as follows:

i) If I concede that The Bible is contextually dependent -- then does that not imply the word of God changes over time? Why would an infallible, omni-whatever being give us something that is open to a myriad of interpretations?

Also, many Christians claim God's word is eternal and unchanging. So which is it? It can't be both since that would be a contradiction.

ii) Why is prayer necessary? Imagine if you will, growing up somewhere where The Bible has no significance. One day, along comes a preacher and encourages you to read.

If The Bible is really the word of God -- should it not be able to convince millions of people upon its own merits without requiring presupposed ideas of what it is in advance?

And if it is the word of God, but doesn't convince people (as we see quite often) -- then does this not imply that God isn't really as powerful as people like to think? An omnipotent being could have done a better job than leaving a few stories that contradict one another.

This is assuming the writers were being " inspired " by a divine force.

iii) Why does the Holy Ghost lead millions of people to believe vastly different things? This would imply the Holy Ghost changes his mind on a regular basis or that people are merely ascribing meaning where none exists.

iv) Why is it that believers are only able to truly understand The Bible according to many? Again, I don't see why it requires a belief *beforehand.*

Basically, I want to know why we are required to believe in advance. If God desires us to come to him, and he is the Bible God, then surely The Bible should be able to convince us as opposed to the other way around?

Thoughts?

Peter Kirby

The Bible should be approached as any other anthology--not inerrant, but certainly not to be detracted for that fact--with a recognition of the importance of understanding the text that the various individuals produced in terms of how they would have been likely to have intended it, based on knowledge of cognate literature and social background. The recommended reading in the sticky thread can get you started in the wonderful pastime of reading the stories rationally. Start with something fun like Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs if you are not convinced of the worth of the stuff as literature. I also have a nice site for studying the Gospel of Thomas with comments from researchers lay and scholarly. Read other material if it's not your thing. I like Lucian of Samosata, Douglas Adams, and Isaac Asimov.

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD

Greeting, Barcode. A few thoughts:

* The first Christian claim, from my perspective as an Xian, is important—especially in forums such as these. One major problem within the Church is that many laypeople (especially those lurking around these parts) have done little work to this end, and subsequently open themselves up to ridicule. One must always keep in mind, however, that debunking a textual interpretation is different than debunking a religion. From someone like myself who recognizes human errancy in the text, yet fancies that there is an underlying infallibility on those points which are necessary for the bestowal of grace, I of course think that the whole of Scriptures is a bit more than "any other anthology" (just sharing my opinion here, not calling for debate, mind you).

The other two points are largely irrelevant to the non-believer. During an interpretive debate, how could I ever claim in media res that I am right because "I have prayed about it, and besides, I am filled with the Holy Spirit. Trump that!" No, praying and acknowledging the Spirit's guidance are not trump cards, they simply make up the everday liturgy of the Xian's life. The Xian could easily be asked at that point: "Well what about these other Christians over here, their interpretation is different than yours. Are they guided by some other spirit?"

Truth be known, it's not a believer/non-believer thing when it comes to correct biblical interpretation. It's just being honest when dealing with the text. And that, as Peter Kirby implied in pointing to the Recommended Reading List, requires a whole lot of work. Let me push it even further. Just because someone is a self-avowed whatever should not lead us to write-off their exposition of the text. The merit of the exegesis lies in its honesty and authoritative use of sound textual criticism. Both parties should defer to each other when appropriate—and even that requires a lot of work (knowing enough to know when to defer).

Regards,

CJD

Barcode

Peter Kirby: Have been reading your links and will offer a few thoughts in due course.

CJD:

I concur in that many people have not bothered to study their own text in any depth -- which does of course, cast some doubt when such individuals tend to make truth based claims when the extent of their knowledge comes from listening to a Priest once a week and reading bits they like every now and then.

The problem is, rather a lot of Christians *do* they are correct because they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not assumed such a perfect entity would lead them astray. Whereas us non believers are prone to fall into all kinds of traps.

Now, I know that's not *your* understanding from what you've said; but this is the thinking I'm commonly confronted with and it drives one up the wall.

And I don't see how seeking out the guidance of a " Holy Spirit " is being honest since it's all subjective.

I suppose all I'd like to see is more people *thinking* a little about what The Bible really says -- and collecting information from all sides. It's a rare thing to encounter a believer who has taken the time to read non Christian material and non Christian guides to The Bible.

I agree with most of what you said -- pity I don't encounter more with the same level headed approach

Doctor X

CJD:

Just a note to say I agree with you.

--J.D.

Magus55

How does contextually dependent make it change over time? By contextually dependent, we mean don't take a verse out of the Bible, and claim its an error or contradiction without reading the verses surrounding the verse in question. Or maybe several chapters of verses to get the grand scope of what the verse in question is talking about. Example: Many atheists like to use this verse as proof that the Bible implies or believed in a flat Earth.


Dan 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Yet Atheists fail to read prior verses which would show them this:


Dan 4:10 Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great.


Its a dream. The tree that shows all the kingdoms of the Earth is not real, its figuratively describing the success and power of the King. Yet many atheists have showed me Dan 4:11 as a contradiction, stating the Earth has to be flat for the top of the tree to see the whole Earth.

This is what is meant by reading in context.



It has convinced millions of people on its own merit. We aren't all born saved you know. Every Christian on Earth right now, at one point wasn't saved, and didn't have the Holy Spirit to guide them. They studied the Bible and realized the truth behind it. Only after being saved do more things become clear, and we see the Bible in its incredible and amazing complexity, and understand parts that we couldn't before. The parts that discuss Salvation aren't difficult to understand. A bunch of Christians on RR say that their young children read the Bible, and then ask Jesus to save them. If a 4 year old can do it, an adult can too. You won't have the Holy Spirit to guide you before you are saved, and since every Christian was like that at one point ( many I know were formerly atheist), its an invalid excuse as to why you can't trust God and the Bible.

No, it implies human have their own mind and free will, and can choose to reject God on a daily basis. All this shows is that God truly did give us free will, and doesn't force us to believe in Him or the Bible.



Who said the Holy Spirit does? The reason so many people have different interpretations, has nothing to do with God's guidance. For example. The largest Christian denomination is Catholicism. For most of Catholicism's history, Catholics weren't allowed to read a Bible for themselves. They were told only the Magisterium can interpret the Bible correctly. The Pope was declared infallible, and since Catholics didn't know any better ( since they couldn't read the Bible) they trusted what the Pope said. That is where you get false doctrine and beliefs like Mary's immaculate conception or assumption, the rosary, prayer to saints etc. Many Catholics even today don't read the Bible because tradition has taken over throughout the generations and they put their faith in the Magisterium instead of in God and the Bible.

Other denominations have different views, because there are parts of the Bible they don't want to accept as true, or don't like (" cherry-picking"). Often times these denominations also stem from tradition in Catholicism ( Lutheran for example). Another reason is the world we live in, persecution and science. Many people believe that most claims science comes up with are completely true, and they feel they have to accept them. Add on the pressure of the rest of the none theistic world that your stupid for not accepting science in its entirety, and you get people blindly following the "crowd". This leads people to throw out parts of the Bible that don't match that "crowd" for fear of being persecuted or ostracized (sp). Add to that, children being brainwashed that human evolution is fact, and the Bible is wrong, and you get people trying to create denominations that can fit in with all science, and the important parts of religion. Fundamentalist Christians from my experience are in the most agreement with how to read and interpret the Bible, because we trust it wholly as God's inspired word. We don't let outside influence, or man made tradition influence our views. This is also why fundamentalists are the most rooted and determined in their faith. We don't belong to this world, we belong to God - and we see the fall and degrading of society, yet we trust the unchanging nature of God to keep us grounded. Fundamentalists don't fall for the organized religion agenda or whats in the "now". We follow God's word and trust Him above all else.


Humans will always have their own agenda, or reason for not trusting the Bible. As I said before, no one is born saved.

demoninho

Duh, and why do you think he dreamt it like this......because he thought the earth was flat, so the dream made perfect sense to him

......but this is another thread really

Skyfurnace

You can't say that people "choose to reject God on a daily basis" when God's existence has yet to be proven. People have nothing to reject.

Magus55

What makes you think you would believe even if it was proven?

John 20:29 Blessed are those who haven't seen, but believed.

Skyfurnace

That question makes no sense. If something was proven, you wouldn't need to believe.

For instance, I wouldn't need to have faith to turn on the television. It has been proven to me that if I press "Power," the television will turn on. However, in your case, there is no proof of God's existence, thus it requires faith to believe in him. But like I said, if his existence was in fact proven, you wouldn't need faith to believe that he exists.