Paradisedreams2

I had to write something here (after reading the posts). How many of you ever read the scriptures and looked into the meanings of the words God uses before judging them? How many know that God speaks in a simulitude? Heres just a couple of examples of hard words people take literally but are interpreted by Gods own word:
Fire= Gods word
Brimstone=Gods breath
stones= unbelievers
coals of fire= believers
Horse= flesh
wood= people
waters=people too
etc. etc. you get the point right?
So when we talk about the old testament what does the new testament say about it(if you care not saying you do) For one the Law was only a SHADOW NOT the REALITY. Why then read it as "the reality"?? Because other christians do? Maybe Christians read it wrong. I'm certainly no scholar but I DO think Christians stand corrected much of the time (or need to). I think some christians don't understand alot of what they believe because most of them have been told what to believe by OTHERS but don't "take the plunge" (so to speak)to look into things for themselves. I myself am a christian but I believe in Evolution. I'm not a creationist, I don't even think the genesis story is speaking of physical creation (though it seems too)If you do look in the scriptures to prove any point other then the cross (to which it testifies)what IS the point of studying it at all? What on earth would we do with this thing? I have no use for the book at all if it DID NOT testify of Christ because He is suppose to be in the "summing up of all things". Either Christian or unbelieving athiest can only come up empty if we CANNOT see HIM in it.The best we could do is dribble all over each other as we all spew our opposing veiws at each other. I hear atheists say, "there is no God, where IS He, PROVE IT", Christians answers aren't that convincing either, "oh but I FEEL Him and you will too if only" (quirky I know). I'll tell you one thing I DO NOT know everything (I thought I did at one time) but one thing I know that you can Find Christ in the old testament hidden in the words God uses and in the meanings attributed to them. You can find "the story of the cross" if you LOOK for it. The hardest part about finding it is getting past the hard images God uses in the scripture to point to something. First question is what do you seek? You have to seek something (if anything)what is it that God says you'll find (if you care at all)? If you don't know how to answer these two questions whether "believer or Athiest" I suppose both could argue forever to no good end. But would an athiest WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS TRUE (that there IS a God)??? So theres the question... I'm NOT out to convert anybody trust me, I have no "religion" I don't go to church and trust this great God who I have come to understand as one who hides Himself on purpose. But if "you" the athiest could know would you want to?? I think you would under it all, but then again its whats been "presented" to you. I found once this site where a guy denounced his faith because of some really easy things to explain if seen as a "similitude" even some christians don't realize God speaks in a similitude. Anyhow.. either way God accepts.

copernicus

First of all, most people in this forum are former Christians, and many have a very deep knowledge of the scriptures. However, I would criticize the presuppositions in both of your questions. You are prejudging the Bible as being "God's word" without any proof whatsoever, and you are also prejudging the English translations as being accurate. In reality, there were many historical versions of the scriptures, and the English translation is largely based on a translation of the Greek translation of them. What do you know of the accuracy of the translations?

Finally, you have no reason at all to believe that the language is so nonliteral. The fact is that the Bible was written by generations of primitive people who had a very different perception of reality from us. They didn't understand natural phenomena like weather, floods, plagues, the sun, the planets, the stars, eclipses, comets, and so on. All primitive societies have made up rather fantastic explanations for natural phenomena, and the jewish tribes were no different. Are you really so gullible as to believe that the Christian Bible is more accurate than the myriads of other "holy" scriptures made up by pre-literate, pre-scientific cultures?

It is because the literal interpretation of the Bible is so nonsensical to modern perceptions that Christians make up nonliteral interpretations in order to rationalize scripture. Fundamentalists sound so ridiculous precisely because they try not to give phony interpretations to "God's words". They are honest enough to take the Bible at face value, no matter how ridiculous it appears. Stupidly honest, not intelligently dishonest.

GunnerJ

Off to RRP, huh? QoS will be having a feast tonite!

sighhswolf

Hi Paradiseddreams,

Some of what you posted does have validity in my mind, but for some different reasons.
This topic is one that always finds it's way into
any modern debate of religion and specifically
Christianity.

You suggest that most modern christians do not take the scriptures literally.
On this we agree........to a point.
What usually happens (and I am not saying that all
of christendom does this but a majority do)
Is that modern christians take the verses that they feel have some application to their daily existence, and then disregard the rest.
It is difficult to defend organized faith for that simple reason.

I faced this very same monster in my drift from
christianity into non-belief.
I was continously trying to explain the actions
and situations in the texts, to myself, defending
the Bible to my own intellect. I knew as a rational human being that the premises, motivations, actions, inactions in Biblical text hardly could be classified as being truth in the sense that I understood the concept of truth.

There are many contradictions between the literal and figurative language of the Bible.
Even speaking of Jesus and his life and ministry, the NT makes him seem like a jeckyl and hyde personality, who at times quotes Hebrew law and scriptures incorrectly.
This was pointed out to me in great detail by a Rabbi friend.
Yet, when christians read the text concerning his ministry they fail to read "all" of what is said by or attributed to him as having been said.
The Jesus Seminars stated that fully 85% of the words attributed to Jesus in the NT, were not his words. This after the best minds of christianity, the finest theologians today spent many hours disecting every word of the NT.
If that is the case (and there is always a question of interpretation) then how would you determine the truthfulness of scriptures?

I find it interesting though that through the Jewish laws, Jesus himself referenced that not one word of the law would change before he returned to rule over the kingdom of god on earth.
This is Jewish doctrine, no one is allowed to change one single word of the Torah and the oral Rabbinic teachings.

So here we have the new kid on the block, christianity, writing their own interpretation of gods word and adding on to the scriptures the New Testament.
Not only do we have the new guys reinterpreting
scripture we have an entire belief system that is totally different in concept from it's predecessor, and the traditions from which they were spawned.

My problem with Biblical text is and always will be, that we will never know if what you are reading in the KJV of today, is even remotely
comparable to the original works of the authors.
If 20 people read the same verse, normally you will get a least half of those who dont agree with the other halfs interpretation.
The semantics wars are endless, and the interpretations endless and the translations are
disputed.

There are many whose writings specifically in the early church, have been identified as "being very
liberal with truth".
Probably the greastest missionary of all time (ok, well maybe barring the JW's) Paul states
in the text, "For if the truth of god hath more abounded by my LIE unto his glory, then why yet am I adjudged a sinner?"
Romans 3-7

Augustine said," It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes and preaches of things eternal or to him that narrates of these things temporal
pertaining to religion or piety to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed."

How would you know for sure that the analogies you made are in fact valid if you cannot verify
the autheticity of the texts with the original manuscriptures?
It would seem to me that before you can interpret the scriptures properly, and explain the context, you would have to validate that they are in fact a record of god's word to humankind.
In our theological discussions with the teachers at Belmont Abby (catholic college) I was faced with several problems that I could not justify
with regard to the biblical texts.
We all know that early church fathers were very liberal in their handling of truth, and were prone to expouse their personal agendas in their writing.
I came to a conclusion that the KJV of the Holy Bible was hopelessly mired in exaggeration and embellishment.
In the continuation of that thought, I asked myself "Just where did this book come from and how did it get into my hot little hands?"

In 1607 James the first decided he wanted a rewrite of scriptures and those rewrites were to be used in the churches as the ONLY authoritative
text and sanctioned by the king himself.
The king then assembled a group of aprox. 50 individuals to study and rewrite the scriptures.
James instructed the scholars to "rewrite" the texts and restructure the books with the charge to
"defend the position of the King in all matters".
This was an attempt to distance the protestant version from the catholic version.
It took aprox. 2 years and 9 months for the revisers to complete their work for the Kings approval.
When the work was delievered to King James, he knew he did not have the background to adquately proof the texts.
He therefore handed the entire document to Frances Bacon to proof. Bacon was the intellectual genius of the time period and he apparently kept this document in his hands for over a year while he proofed the texts and added his own commentary.
So it would seem that the version of the Bible that most christians use is the work of Frances Bacon and his work was the aftermath of King James's revisers.
Most christians accept the KJV as "authentic" and presenting the original words of the authors as translated into english from the original greek text.

However, the original greek text was not written until around the 4th century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew.
So the actual authenticity of the Bible with respect to being the words of the original authors
can never be proven.

So now we are again faced with a questionable
document, written by "MEN", who were known to embellish the truth.
I think it is also wise of any Bible student to remember the history of the Ancient Hebrews and that it was filled with war, killing and with one faction trying their best to exterminate another from the face of the earth.
I refer you to a quote from Winston Churchill:
"In war, the truth is so precious that it is always surrounded by a body guard of Lies."

In the book " Ecclesiastical History" vol.8
chapter 21, Eusebius said he unscrupulously suppressed all that would have been a disgrace to Christ.

So yes you have a valid point about translation and interpretation of Biblical text.
But the point should be "Why should any reasonable person believe a word of a book that is 5 linguistics removed from the original documents, and whose promoters are known to be lax with their regard for the truth, and that was rewritten to to establish a relation between church and state, and be the vehicle for the development of a "state religion".

So, you think that people should not take the book literally, good for you!
But you are in a class with few members that openly feel the same.
Fundamentalists exist in every form of organized faith, but the fundamentalists at least do not try to infuse the texts with their own ideas and convictions, they do not try to revise scriptures to reflect their own brand of christianity.

If you interpret the text in any way differently from the printed pages, you in effect create your own Bible and brand of Christianity.
And this is why there are so many flavors in the christian mix.

Just my opinion on the texts, but it was enough for me to question the validity of ANY translations, or interpretations and to eventually cause me to label the entire document
as a "fraudulent" man made tool for oppression.
So I am afraid that the points in your post didnt convince me personally of any errors of interpretation-----primarily because I cant verify
that the text is truthworthy,that it is the actual word of god, and that it is not tainted
and discredited by the very ones who are touted as being the perveyors of Gods "truth".

Wolf

Wizardry

Ah yes, similitude.

God = fictitious being
Jesus = 1st century cult leader with little to no historicity

Lack of proper use of the ENTER key = Fodder for QoS

To the lion's den...