SaguaroJen

The question was, "Does the Bible have to be true for Christianity to be true?"

The response I'd like clarification on is,
"If you go back to the Greek translation of the Bible you will find that there are two completely different terms for "Word" as it pertains to coming from God. "Rama" is the spoken Word of God and "Logos" is the written Word of God. When taken in literal context the implications are fascinating for Biblical scholars. The passage of John you refer to indicates only "Logos" - the Written Word of God, yet Genesis refers "Rama" - God SAID. If you go to John 1:14, you'll see that it does say that the Word (Logos) was made flesh (through Jesus). (The Hebrew translation of the Bible is the same as the Greek in this case.)

I still think the wisest choice is to meditate upon the word of God and rely upon the Holy Spirit to provide the translation and understanding of the true meaning as it pertains to each of us as individuals."

~~~~~~~~

I'd like to question this person about her response but I have never even heard of this great rama-logos explanation.

What can you offer, oh, Wise and Learned Friends? (And am I in the right forum for asking for help on this?)

Jen

cloudyphiz

i came to the conclusion a long time ago that xianity is based upon & legitimized by bad translations.

this would be my response to her:
then, watch her squirm.

-gary

Amos

Hi Jen, yes you've come to the right place!

Rama is the creation of the essense.
Logos is where this essence takes form in existence.

Rama is God and Logos is Lord God, the Word become flesh to dwell among us in Lord God.

Is this your idea of Christianity?

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

The quick answer is no.

If the Bible is false but Christianity interpreted it wrongly, and happen to correct the falsehoods in the process, then Christianity would be right.

Of course, there is more to this than this simple bit of logic, in which we could also show the probablity of it being correct as minute at best, but it answers your question.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Amos

Let me propose that just the opposite is true. The bible is correct but Christianity interprets it wrong and therefore is wrong.

critical thinking made ez

I would agree with that only if you placed this qualifier on the front of that Statement.

"IF the Bible is correct"

IvanK

And Amos is right. Here endeth the First Book of Amos. Bow down before the Truth and its Prophet you unbelievers!

Amos

Fair enough but let it be known that you cannot be the judge here!

If interpretation is the key to understanding the bible, the law of the undistributed middle at once proves the bible correct or this discussion is redundant because the entire bible is wrong and Christianity itself cannot even lean on it to correct it.

critical thinking made ez

Well, yes I can be the judge here as well as you and anyone else that can examine evidence. The Bible in fact tells you to judge it via "testing everything that is said" 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22

I'm not sure what you are basing this conclusion on, you must explain it in more detail.

IvanK

Amos old monkey, I hope I'm not the first to tell you you're no logician.

What you seem to be getting at is this:

~(a ^ ~a)

which is to say, "a proposition and its negation cannot both be true." Note that this is not the same as what you're saying, which is "either all of the Bible is true or all of the Bible is false." In particular it may be the case that some things contained the Bible are true while others are not true, or that the truth value of any particular part of the Bible, or of the whole Bible, cannot be determined.

As usual you have provided no evidence to support or contradict any of these conclusions. But then you're the Prophet of Universal Truth so you don't have to, right?

"Law of the undistributed middle," my freckly white ass. (again)