Do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God?

[Gotham_Spartan]

I believe the Bible is a lot of different things. All of it reflects some measure of God's inspiration. I do not believe that every word is literally and inerrantly true, far from it, or slavery would still be moral.

The English versions all contain some translation errors, especially the King James version, which is notoriously riddled with mistakes, however literary its language. Our understanding of the ancient Hebrew and Greek in which the books were originally written is imperfect to begin with and some of it is little more than educated guesswork.

Some of the books of the Old Testament and much of the gospels are, I believe, close to being historical accounts of actual events. The inconsistencies between the gospels preclude their all being literally true. They record what were oral traditions that had been handed down for decades before being written, and there were undoubtedly errors in the oral transmission and in the written copies made over time (the oldest versions known are from hundreds of years after Christ). They were first written down at different times, and in their emphases and content reflect the author's/authors' concerns about the specific challenges for Christianity at the time -- they were written to encourage the continued existence and growth of Christianity in a largely hostile world.

As for the supposed gospels that have been excuded from the canonical New Testament, the vast majority of bible scholars agree that they are significantly less authentic than the four canonical gospels and show much stronger evidence of having been written with an agenda, often an agenda that was an effort to change the direction of Christianity, so their credibility is highly suspect.

Much of the rest of the New Testament, the Letters and Acts, support varying degrees of confidence in their being what they say they are. Simply because some unknown author wrote that they were the letters of James doesn't necessarily make them so. There is even doubt that some of what are labeled the letters of Paul were in fact his words -- they may have been written by one of his followers or by someone who simply wanted to use Paul's credibility and image for his own purposes.

Some of the books of the Bible, like Genesis and Revelation, are largely or entirely allegory.

As for the rest of the Old Testament, some of it is inspirational fable (despite centuries of intense searching and digging almost everywhere in the Holy Land, there is zero archaelogical evidence for many of the stories of the Old Testament), some of it, like the Psalms, is almost pure prayer, and some of it, like chunks of Leviticus, is clearly neither the word of God nor the slightest bit sensible for modern Christians but reflects a far less civilized time and the rigors of existence faced by a primitive tribe in a semi-desert environment.

The Bible is a treasure but it is the product of human hands, hence imperfect. Before any one part can be understood, it must be studied and its context learned. One must be careful not to make the mistake of giving its mistakes power they shouldn't have.

Biblically yours,

[Green Cheesiest™]

Originally Posted by SpartyMcTom

I believe you know somebody that can pin this for you

It'll take at least a tenner...and that's being nice

['86]

Originally Posted by danb

No, but I believe God is the search function.

I was just going by this.

I get so angry about the way we've been made afraid to question anything having to do with the Jews. I can question the mafia, that's no problem. I can question jihadists, that's no problem. I can question gang-bangers, okedoke. But, if I question anything having to do with the Jews, oh God, help us! Yes, yes, if I hate the Israeli spying, selling our secrets to the Chinese, hypocrisy over their nukes, on and on, that means I can't wait to get home every night to toss off to the big poster of Adolf Hitler in my house.

I hate people limiting the legitimate questions I can ask, I hate the fear that is so widespread if we question anything related to Israelis or Jews. The very thing I'm told I can't question, that's the thing I'm most determined to question. You know, if there is any legitimate area that we are not allowed to question and explore, then that means we are bound and we are not free. If there really is nothing to the Art Student Spies, the Jewish money that Seymour Hersh says bought Hillary's vote on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, even the hiring and promotions practices of the MSM- if there really is nothing unscrupulous there, why can't we explore these things and talk about them and verify everything is really on the up and up? I HATE having my thought life and freedom of expression bound and I hate that so much of the country and the world is under that bondage. Mearscheimer and Walt's allegations seem plain as day to me and yet, being the 'free thinker' that I am, I'm willing to walk with Webster Tarpley when he leads us away from examining the Mossad to examining the history of English and European terrorism and tyranny. You see, I'm not out to hang any group based on race or ethnicity, I just want the freedom to explore whatever leads exist to wherever they take me.

BTW, if anyone finds anything of Webster Tarpley commenting on the High Fivers or the Art Student Spies, please let me know. I actually heard Tarpley accusing Chomsky of being a left wing gatekeeper and, I'm not kidding, possibly linked to the CIA. But, I digress...

Was the migration of the neocons from the far left a reflection of their enlightenment or was it a clandestine attempt to choke out the opposition? Oh sorry, I dared to notice their godfather, Leo Strauss, mea culpa. Seriously, how is it that conservatism is no longer an option in America anymore and these imperialistic nutjobs like Hannity can go spouting off about their conservative values?

Anyway, back to the Bible, I hope your understanding includes the imperative to be 'born again'. As far as I can tell, no one has the Holy Spirit within who didn't get it through a deliberate choice he made, even if that choice was made in a simple way at a very early age.

[danb]

My attempt at a joke.

your question about the neocons is interesting, because my research tells me the original break was over domestic social policy, followed by an embrace of free market capitalism. Foreign affairs came later. I think it was a legitimate move, not nefarious as you propose.

Myself, I am very comfortable with questions about Israel's role in foreign policy. The old shining light on an infestation thing. BTW, I was once banned here by some wet behind the ears "intellect" for being anit-semetic, and I defend Israel all the time!

I don't like to use the term "born again." It's been commandeered by the left to mean an event. I came back to Christ intellectually ar first, and then faith became inescapable. I think that's why I related so much to PBXVI. My reason informed my faith. The left tries to imply that everyone claiming to be born again are overcome in a moment of realization. I know that happens to some, but the vast majority of people I know went through what I did. What was it like for you '86?

['86]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

I believe the Bible is a lot of different things. All of it reflects some measure of God's inspiration. I do not believe that every word is literally and inerrantly true, far from it, or slavery would still be moral.

The English versions all contain some translation errors, especially the King James version, which is notoriously riddled with mistakes, however literary its language. Our understanding of the ancient Hebrew and Greek in which the books were originally written is imperfect to begin with and some of it is little more than educated guesswork.

Some of the books of the Old Testament and much of the gospels are, I believe, close to being historical accounts of actual events. The inconsistencies between the gospels preclude their all being literally true. They record what were oral traditions that had been handed down for decades before being written, and there were undoubtedly errors in the oral transmission and in the written copies made over time (the oldest versions known are from hundreds of years after Christ). They were first written down at different times, and in their emphases and content reflect the author's/authors' concerns about the specific challenges for Christianity at the time -- they were written to encourage the continued existence and growth of Christianity in a largely hostile world.

As for the supposed gospels that have been excuded from the canonical New Testament, the vast majority of bible scholars agree that they are significantly less authentic than the four canonical gospels and show much stronger evidence of having been written with an agenda, often an agenda that was an effort to change the direction of Christianity, so their credibility is highly suspect.

Much of the rest of the New Testament, the Letters and Acts, support varying degrees of confidence in their being what they say they are. Simply because some unknown author wrote that they were the letters of James doesn't necessarily make them so. There is even doubt that some of what are labeled the letters of Paul were in fact his words -- they may have been written by one of his followers or by someone who simply wanted to use Paul's credibility and image for his own purposes.

Some of the books of the Bible, like Genesis and Revelation, are largely or entirely allegory.

As for the rest of the Old Testament, some of it is inspirational fable (despite centuries of intense searching and digging almost everywhere in the Holy Land, there is zero archaelogical evidence for many of the stories of the Old Testament), some of it, like the Psalms, is almost pure prayer, and some of it, like chunks of Leviticus, is clearly neither the word of God nor the slightest bit sensible for modern Christians but reflects a far less civilized time and the rigors of existence faced by a primitive tribe in a semi-desert environment.

The Bible is a treasure but it is the product of human hands, hence imperfect. Before any one part can be understood, it must be studied and its context learned. One must be careful not to make the mistake of giving its mistakes power they shouldn't have.

Biblically yours,

I'm going to borrow someone else's allegory. I hold a sundial in my hand. It's a beautiful sundial. It's a little heavy, and it makes me think it's of quality construction. I think it's pewter. It's got engraving in it, little faces, leaves, scrolling...and it has jade embedded in it. It's five inches across and two inches high. It was made in the 18th century and it's worth thousands of dollars.

That's fantastic, isn't it? I've just described this sundial intricately, we know just about everything there is to know about this sundial. One more question...what time is it?

Again, I borrowed that allegory. Your post was very good and I appreciate the knowledge you shared. But again, one question, what can the Bible do? This question is really where the Bible gets all of it's validity. If the Bible doesn't introduce you or me to the living Lord Jesus Christ it hasn't worked, it hasn't served it's purpose. The real value of the Bible isn't the history, it isn't even the moral teaching, the real value of the Bible is to introduce me to a person and a world that transcends the mortality and corruption of our current condition.

I personally know of a number of people to whom Jesus Christ has appeared with a physical body...Yes, I said that, and yes, I wholeheartedly believe that. I know lots and lots of people who have seen and do see into the spiritual realm in exactly the same manner that Gehazi saw when Elisha prayed and God opened his eyes. Myself, I haven't had those experiences yet, I haven't "been taken up into the third heaven" as at least one Biblical person did, but I have had my own, great, glorious, wonderful experiences with the Holy Spirit such that it's easy for me to believe others are having them too, even if it's of a different variety. Many people can at least testify of an awesome buzz they got when they were born again. Many people 'hear' from God very clearly and in remarkable detail. Most who are born again can testify of the wonderful warmth in the fellowship they often have with fellow believers.

It's good to talk about all that we can know about the Bible, and all that we can gain from the Bible mentally and intellectually. It's important and it's necessary. But like the sundial, we can't forget what's most important. Does the Bible do for us what it is primarily designed to do, does the Bible awaken us to God and do we live out of it's life and it's promises?

I'm not saying you don't know these things, Gotham, only that the point needs mention. I can go around proclaiming Christian doctrines about the 100% truth of the Bible but how significant is that when I can't do as you stated, I can't reconcile the accounts of one gospel to the next? My salvation and my relationship to Jesus doesn't hinge on my exegesis of Levitical law and the significance of each animal sacrifice and the signifcance of handling all the various body parts as the law required. The Bible is my sundial. I know how to tell time with it, even if I can't explain or define all of it's properties.

[Gotham_Spartan]

'86, I was trying to answer the question posed to start the thread, not preach on a question not posed.

The Bible is about the one true living God, not just Jesus the Christ (although most assuredly partly about Him), but all three persons of the Trinity. The Bible is about our relationship with God, and what that relationship means for our relationship with others. That is why it is a treasure. But we need to go beyond the words and to use our God-given reason to understand the book, just as is true that we need to use that same reason to understand other people, created in God's image and likeness, and what they teach us about God, and just as we need to use that reason to understand the rest of creation and what it teaches us about God.

I say these things out of my own faith journey, which has included some very religious experiences, to use one term to descibe them, but that's for another thread.

['86]

Originally Posted by danb

My attempt at a joke.

your question about the neocons is interesting, because my research tells me the original break was over domestic social policy, followed by an embrace of free market capitalism. Foreign affairs came later. I think it was a legitimate move, not nefarious as you propose.

Myself, I am very comfortable with questions about Israel's role in foreign policy. The old shining light on an infestation thing. BTW, I was once banned here by some wet behind the ears "intellect" for being anit-semetic, and I defend Israel all the time!

I don't like to use the term "born again." It's been commandeered by the left to mean an event. I came back to Christ intellectually ar first, and then faith became inescapable. I think that's why I related so much to PBXVI. My reason informed my faith. The left tries to imply that everyone claiming to be born again are overcome in a moment of realization. I know that happens to some, but the vast majority of people I know went through what I did. What was it like for you '86?

Sorry.

Yeah, I haven't traced out the history of the neocons to really see their evolution and motives. I'm mostly working backwards looking at all the dirty, underhanded garbage they've been pulling off like the use of the uranium forgery in the 2003 State of the Union address. President Bush campaigned the first time on not being a nation builder and ended up nearly doubling the national debt. On and on... As far as the neocons go, the Dems can have them back. They've destroyed conservatism in this country.

It cracks me up you got banned for being anti-Jewish...oooo...even saying that instead of the sanctified misnomer makes us squirm, doesn't it? I sometimes wonder when I have written too much. So far, the mods on this board have been great about enduring the strains of legitimate free speech.

Just for anyone playing along, you're talking about the theological left, not the political left, right? Actually, us righties, us fundamentalists, we definitely believe in an initial, instantaneous experience of being born again, of the Holy Spirit first being planted in our being. Billy Graham's ministry is a great illustration of this, it's what his whole life and ministry was really about. He would hold a crusade and preach essentially the same sermon over and over night after night, 'come forward and receive Christ'. There's obviously a whole lot more to say and do after that experience, but the way we fundamentalists think of it, it's when the lights are really turned on for the first time.

Man, I had to look up PB...Papal bull...!?!?! I'm not knocking them, I never looked at one, it's just that I've never at anytime thought of looking there. For me to get out there and start reading anointed, inspired extra-Biblical writings, I might find myself reading Mere Christianity again after many years...who knows, maybe sometime I'll read a Papal bull.

['86]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

'86, I was trying to answer the question posed to start the thread, not preach on a question not posed.

The Bible is about the one true living God, not just Jesus the Christ (although most assuredly partly about Him), but all three persons of the Trinity. The Bible is about our relationship with God, and what that relationship means for our relationship with others. That is why it is a treasure. But we need to go beyond the words and to use our God-given reason to understand the book, just as is true that we need to use that same reason to understand other people, created in God's image and likeness, and what they teach us about God, and just as we need to use that reason to understand the rest of creation and what it teaches us about God.

I say these things out of my own faith journey, which has included some very religious experiences, to use one term to descibe them, but that's for another thread.

Again, your first post was very good, but I think the information from your second post was also necessary to answer the question about the Bible being the 'literal word of God'. The use of literal hear doesn't mean everything in the book is literal, I think it means a book from God entirely on a plane like no other. Obviously, there's a lot in the Bible that isn't literal, we can start with the "lamb" of God. I think we both believe that God has his fingerprints all over the Bible and we seriously doubt or are certain that there isn't any writing or collection of writings to which it can be compared.

You've had a journey and religious experiences, and that's exactly what I was writing about. Our belief in the the Bible is derived from much more than intellect.

[IndoSpartan]

Originally Posted by '86

Again, your first post was very good, but I think the information from your second post was also necessary to answer the question about the Bible being the 'literal word of God'. The use of literal hear doesn't mean everything in the book is literal, I think it means a book from God entirely on a plane like no other. Obviously, there's a lot in the Bible that isn't literal, we can start with the "lamb" of God. I think we both believe that God has his fingerprints all over the Bible and we seriously doubt or are certain that there isn't any writing or collection of writings to which it can be compared.

You've had a journey and religious experiences, and that's exactly what I was writing about. Our belief in the the Bible is derived from much more than intellect.

I like reading your posts guys as you are very respectful and have good stuff to say. I believe Jesus Christ is the literal Word of God. Goodnight.

[Toledo Spartan]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

I believe the Bible is a lot of different things. All of it reflects some measure of God's inspiration. I do not believe that every word is literally and inerrantly true...

The Bible is a treasure but it is the product of human hands, hence imperfect. Before any one part can be understood, it must be studied and its context learned. One must be careful not to make the mistake of giving its mistakes power they shouldn't have.

Biblically yours,

I agree with Gotham Spartan.

I have always been taught that when studying the Bible, it is important to consider both the content and the context of the words.

Do I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true? If you take every single word of the Bible literally, there are some contradictions. So, of course, I don't think every single word could be literally true.

That being said, I do believe in the overall message of the Bible, and that the overall message was inspired by God.

[danb]

Originally Posted by '86

Sorry.

Yeah, I haven't traced out the history of the neocons to really see their evolution and motives. I'm mostly working backwards looking at all the dirty, underhanded garbage they've been pulling off like the use of the uranium forgery in the 2003 State of the Union address. President Bush campaigned the first time on not being a nation builder and ended up nearly doubling the national debt. On and on... As far as the neocons go, the Dems can have them back. They've destroyed conservatism in this country.

It cracks me up you got banned for being anti-Jewish...oooo...even saying that instead of the sanctified misnomer makes us squirm, doesn't it? I sometimes wonder when I have written too much. So far, the mods on this board have been great about enduring the strains of legitimate free speech.

Just for anyone playing along, you're talking about the theological left, not the political left, right? Actually, us righties, us fundamentalists, we definitely believe in an initial, instantaneous experience of being born again, of the Holy Spirit first being planted in our being. Billy Graham's ministry is a great illustration of this, it's what his whole life and ministry was really about. He would hold a crusade and preach essentially the same sermon over and over night after night, 'come forward and receive Christ'. There's obviously a whole lot more to say and do after that experience, but the way we fundamentalists think of it, it's when the lights are really turned on for the first time.

Man, I had to look up PB...Papal bull...!?!?! I'm not knocking them, I never looked at one, it's just that I've never at anytime thought of looking there. For me to get out there and start reading anointed, inspired extra-Biblical writings, I might find myself reading Mere Christianity again after many years...who knows, maybe sometime I'll read a Papal bull.

I reread Mere Christianity every winter. It helps me make it through. i know several people who cite that book as bringing them to Jesus.

I hope you read the Pope '86. You can go to the vatican website and explore. All his stuff is there. I read his book on Jesus. The Regenberg lecture that caused all the controversy is quite interesting.

['86]

Originally Posted by Toledo Spartan

I agree with Gotham Spartan.

I have always been taught that when studying the Bible, it is important to consider both the content and the context of the words.

Do I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true? If you take every single word of the Bible literally, there are some contradictions. So, of course, I don't think every single word could be literally true.

That being said, I do believe in the overall message of the Bible, and that the overall message was inspired by God.

In the spirit of Indo's post, just having some good, edifying talk, what would you say is the overall message of the Bible? Is this something you regard as moral and philosophical or is it more experiential than that? Don't be offended, I'm just asking, ok? Genesis to Daniel to Acts and on, what's the overall message?

[ConQueso™]

Originally Posted by '86

In the spirit of Indo's post, just having some good, edifying talk, what would you say is the overall message of the Bible? Is this something you regard as moral and philosophical or is it more experiential than that? Don't be offended, I'm just asking, ok? Genesis to Daniel to Acts and on, what's the overall message?

Jesus is Magic?

['86]

Originally Posted by danb

I reread Mere Christianity every winter. It helps me make it through. i know several people who cite that book as bringing them to Jesus.

I hope you read the Pope '86. You can go to the vatican website and explore. All his stuff is there. I read his book on Jesus. The Regenberg lecture that caused all the controversy is quite interesting.

You the man!

You know, with all the messing around I do on the internet, I rarely read books anymore. I'm intensely interested in all these counter-culture new world order political sleuths, and quite honestly, I've been out of the Bible for quite awhile. That said, just because you recommended it, I may take a look at what some of these Popes have had to say, sometime.

['86]

Originally Posted by ConQueso™

Jesus is Magic?

Let me put it like this, if he's a dead hippy, keep reading.

[Gotham_Spartan]

Originally Posted by '86

That said, just because you recommended it, I may take a look at what some of these Popes have had to say, sometime.

If you've read any of Peter, you've already begun.

['86]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

If you've read any of Peter, you've already begun.

That's a joke, right? I don't mean that snarky in anyway, I just didn't peg you for a papist.

Edit- oops, I'm sorry! I checked out 'papist', I didn't realize it is offensive. So, I checked out 'Romanist', still a no go. I just meant, I didn't peg you for Catholic, ok?

[Gotham_Spartan]

Originally Posted by '86

That's a joke, right? I don't mean that snarky in anyway, I just didn't peg you for a papist.

No.

['86]

Originally Posted by Gotham_Spartan

No.

Whew, that was a close one! It's a good thing I didn't use the eucharist as an example of something not literal in the Bible.

Seriously, it's all good. I'm relating to authentic faith, I don't care about any divisions in the...catholic...church.