Question about the bible
Collin
Posts: 4,931
Yet again I'm surprised about how some people take the word of the bible so literally. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth so perhaps their view is indeed the right one, I simply don't believe it and cannot believe it. However with that being said, what surprises me, or what is still unclear to me is how they do it.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
Anyway, my point is the bible seems to be full with conundrums, which seem hard to solve. I mean, sure you can read a verse in its entire context but how do we translate something that was written a long long time ago in a desert area somewhere into something which has the same meaning today without losing its original meaning or adding to it.
So it would seem necessary to study the geographical and historic context as well, yet, I believe there aren't many people how actually do this... And then there's the question of the validity of the theories brought forth by those who have.
I guess my question is how do people who believe in the bible (even if only certain parts) reconcile themselves to this "bible problem"? If the answer is 'faith', then isn't that blind faith?
Another question is, how accurate are modern translations of the bible, in your opinion? And if they're fairly accurate can a person living today understand the bible like it was meant to be understood? Because I'm relatively sure that a person who is born 2000 years from now, would have a hard time understanding today's society. I mean we already have a hard time understanding the people living in other countries. I think some core principles won't change... but everything else does. In that case, can a person substract, so to speak, certain messages from the bible (love thy neighbour...) and live by them and never open the bible again and still be considered a 'christian'?
Well, long post and there are still so many things I'd like to ask but let's leave it at that for now.
Last week I found an old catechism in which there was a citation from the gospel of Luke, I think, which said in order to follow Jesus you must hate yourself and your family too. I don't remember the exact verses (I wrote it down somewhere but I can't remember where) so I searched the web because I was interested in the context of those words or views on those words and of course how this fits in with that commandment that says you should honour your father and mother, alas, I found nothing. Well, not what I was looking for anyway.
I did find that Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and he would divide families. But the bible also states Jesus did come to bring peace on earth.
Anyway, my point is the bible seems to be full with conundrums, which seem hard to solve. I mean, sure you can read a verse in its entire context but how do we translate something that was written a long long time ago in a desert area somewhere into something which has the same meaning today without losing its original meaning or adding to it.
So it would seem necessary to study the geographical and historic context as well, yet, I believe there aren't many people how actually do this... And then there's the question of the validity of the theories brought forth by those who have.
I guess my question is how do people who believe in the bible (even if only certain parts) reconcile themselves to this "bible problem"? If the answer is 'faith', then isn't that blind faith?
Another question is, how accurate are modern translations of the bible, in your opinion? And if they're fairly accurate can a person living today understand the bible like it was meant to be understood? Because I'm relatively sure that a person who is born 2000 years from now, would have a hard time understanding today's society. I mean we already have a hard time understanding the people living in other countries. I think some core principles won't change... but everything else does. In that case, can a person substract, so to speak, certain messages from the bible (love thy neighbour...) and live by them and never open the bible again and still be considered a 'christian'?
Well, long post and there are still so many things I'd like to ask but let's leave it at that for now.
THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That particular reading from Luke has come up in Church before and I will try to find the Catholic interpretation of it, I must have not been paying too much attention because i can't remember the explanation.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
i think though that the worlds heading for something very big....
that was prophesied*??!* about apparently
"The law of Christ does not allow us to hate even our enemies, much less our parents: but the meaning of the text is, that we must be in that disposition of soul, as to be willing to renounce, and part with every thing, how near or dear soever it may be to us, that would keep us from following Christ."
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
the problem is though that they say that (catholics and churches of various kinds) and then go an 'back' the soldiers etc going to war...ie backing hatred/ divisions etc
....they are the only religions i really cant understand....
buddhists make sense, jehovahs witnesses make sense, hinduism kinda adds up, but the rest seem hypocritical??
i could be very wrong!
these two points have always been the thing that make it hard for me to comprehend Christians who have such strong beliefs etc.
the thing i have noticed is that you can find a quote in the Bible to support almost any argument of any sort in the world, and it comes from this "conundrum" problem you have pointed out. there are several quotes and passages at different points of the Bible regarding the same issues....and it gets very hard to follow when its not in context.
i get the impression from religious friends of mine that they find it important that the passages arent in context so that the moral lesson can be remembered and applied in their own personal lives without needing to fit the "criteria/circumstances" (in which the passage arose).....
but in my head i find it hard to reconcile the 2. teaching good morals and lessons is great but then applying them in total separation to their origins is kinda fucking with the moral is it not?
no idea if that is what you mean or not, but you raised some thought-provoking issues nonetheless!
yes. one must read in context, otherwise one is ill informed.
tis like if one comes across a man standing over the body of a dead man. unless you are privy to ALL the relevant information, one does not know what transpired. and therefore one is likely to jump to conclusions. and quite often those conclusions will be incorrect.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, the first English translation was made in 1611 and was translated from Greek. How accurate this was is anyone's guess, considering the political and religious influences and prejudices of the time.
As far as what the early Christians believed - as opposed to the first church fathers some 100 years or so later - you should look into the study of such sects as the Essenes. You may also want to read those gospels that the Church fathers deemed blasphemous - a euphemism for threatening, or dangerous - as these works state clearly that we should seek direct communion with God. The Church was obviously upset by these books as it sought a monopoly on religious experience via it's priests, and coffers.
These early 'Christian' sects are known as Gnostic Christians, or simply just as Gnostics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
hi collin. thank you for the PM. i'm having a moment of clarity so i'll try to answer.
first; the bible was written by man. my freemason bible has the actual words of Jesus in red but it's packed to move. but it's the king soloman version which is different from the current bible which was based mostly on politics. there were many sects and the bishops wanted to "bring everything under one house". i am Gnostic which is forbidden in the new bible. but the bible was written so everyone gets something different out of it. that keeps it current. when i read revelations; i see it describing current times. i can match passages with current events and events i know are to come. for example; if/when the ice melts and our coasts are evacuating; goods will be hard to get. will our social security number be used to decide who gets food and who doesn't? is this the mark of the beast? if you look at the story of noah; a man wrote that the world flooded. an intelligent person knows the times and thus no man knew the size of the world. so logically; it must be noahs world that flooded. and it so happens that the straits at istambul broke allowing water from the mediteranian to flood into the red sea. this was due to torrential rains. so the story is both false and true; depending on the reader.
the reason the bible has been the best seller for so long is because of this controversy. nothing keeps a subject alive more than controversy.
if you want to get down to the basics; Jesus only asked 3 things of us. honour my (his) father; take care of my (his) children; and love your neighbour as you love yourself. these three things make you a christian.
as for translations; it's all buggered up. just to give you one example; we know one commandment as thou shalt not kill. the proper translation is "thou shalt not murder" and reasons for killing being acceptable are given. it's burried in the koran and i'm not digging for it. maybe one of our hebrew friends here can help me out.
so; the bible is what you get out of it. it's not historically accurate by our standards; but archiologists are finding ancient biblical cities and showing us that people then were similar to us in that if we want to keep a story going; we must embellish it. and if you realize the stories are embellished for longevity; you'll see the real story behind the story.
I don't think you are wrong at all but there are a couple of ways to look at it. I know the official stance of the Catholic Church is against war, the Pope is regurlarly calling for an end to all war. However, there are a lot of Catholics, at least American Catholics, who support war.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
ah yes the bible is open to interpretation.
thank you for using the example of noah's flood. it has always been my opinion that such a 'flood' did occur. or that it was at least possible within the context of the time. one's world is defined only by one's knowledge. for example, a child's world may be bounded by the creek, the highway and the woods. this is the world they know. this is more than likely the whole world as they are aware of. biblical man's, though somewhat larger, can be defined in commensurate terms. i have heard of the version of the flood involving the dardenelles and some sort of evacuation of water from the mediteranean or conversely the black sea. it made sense to me in this context, much in the same way a primitive person could interpret a tsunami as such a flood and perhaps a vengeance of a God.
and as for thou shalt not kill/ murder, i have addressed this in another thread.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
were living in a time now that was prophesied about 'th last days' 2 tim 3, and this was to occur just before armaggeddon was to be brought about, it also says that religion will be turned on by the worlds governments and society will get alot worse 'the great tribulation', i can totally see that coming!!
(ive looked into it alot recently)
im not a nutter, honest
one can read something into anything if one tries hard enough.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i'm with you sexy. if you're a nutter than i'm a nutter too. i even think i know how it's going to happen. :eek:
the bibles very detailed about it....as it was before previous prophecies were proved true....cant be coincidence i dont think
the worlds just as it said it would be like.....
at one time, no body would have imagined attitudes in society wr gonna be as they are today, everyone at one time was religiously inclined...the world now either hates god/religion or goes over the top and kills other people in the name of god........
the bible prophesied that and were livin in it...at one time no one wouldve imagind that to be the case..
my mistake love. it was the black sea.
the united nations will turn on religion??
there will be a global ban on it soon, can see it coming....
(i sound a real nutcase i know)a year ago my attitudes were very anti-religion, but it all seems just too much of a coincidence that the bibles right about certain things????
thanks for supporting the evr-un-popular side of the bible
you dont think? but youre not sure, right? what is coincidence exactly?
have you read george orwell? if i wanted to, i could interpret 1984 in parts, in relation to present times. the control and flow of information and the dissemination of such.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nah im not sure??
im looking into it at the moment
thats very true.....
you don't sound like a nutter at all love. if you filter out the religion from revelations; you have a description of global warming. and if the 4 horseman are an analogy then we're only waiting for the pale horse now.
you don't sound like a nutcase and i'd fancy you not saying it anymore. your opinions are as valid as anyone elses and i view you as one of the enlightened.
awww thanks!
By the way, thanks for the replies people.
naděje umírá poslední
Good Recommendation..
Also, as for the "UN..No Religion" prediction, watch the South Park where Science becomes the new Religion, the one with the Nintendo Wii i believe.
ive seen it,tis interesting!
but the world hasnt 'ticked all of the boxes' sos to speak before, today, all the boxes have been ticked...all the things in 2 tim are happenin now exactly as it said.
all that is left (prophesy wise) is for the governments to turn on religion, and a world wide ban...then the bible says god steps in and brings about armaggeddon...
eeek!
(well eeek if you believe it anyways...)
yes thats a good en!!!
even if you do not like Jesus.....you should read his book.
is that the one where cartman(?) gets butters to freeze him?
whoever it was, that was the last sthprk ep i saw. even i found it highly amusing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
thats the one alright
BRILLIANT! this helps me make my point about how the bible was written to seem relevant during all times. i did see the documentary and it's good. but i do think revelations applies to now because of the mention of computers and many other things people didn't have earlier. their worlds were as far as they could see. we now know the entire world and our actions have poisoned the entire world. we're no longer talking about sections of the earth that some people believe to be the entire world.
revelations doesn't mention the rapture. that's in a different book. fyi
yep!