Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[eMTee]

I think the bible is quoted by anyone who wants to use it as confirmation of whatever they want, just like with any other large body of text. It is as open to intepretation as any other text.

 

If not, what is your rationale for suggesting that it is not open for interpretation?

 

When the auther/s of Genesis wrote the Book, the auther/s had one perspective and one meaning when writeing it. Though written in diffrent viewpoints, the one who wrote it had one thing he was trying to get across, not several diffrent views.

 

Sence the writer is not alive now, he cannot stand up and defend, telling everyone what he ment, but threw study of the Bible we can learn the meaning.

[Boerseun]

Another example is the first two chapters of Ezekiel.

 

Upon reading this, one can make a case for it being a description of a UFO landing, with fair descriptions of landing gear, boosters, space helmets etc.

 

Or you can argue it being a supernatural being landing in his fiery chariot.

 

There is several possible explanations of what is described in Ezekiel, and it just goes to show that the Bible can be interpreted in whatever way needed at the time.

 

The Apartheid Government in South Africa based its racist policy for years on the Bible, justifying everything they did as being the "Will of God". Today, those same people are defending multi-racial and democratic institutions as being the "Will of God". The times have changed, and so did the interpretations. The Bible, in my opinion, is probably the most abused book in the history of Mankind to justify excesses and political ends.

 

The Catholics and the Protestants have been bombing Northern Ireland to shreds for years based on different interpretations of the same Book.

 

Will the Dead Sea Scrolls be included in the next edition? Should it be? Should it not be? And whatever happens in this regard, why, or why not? The final instructions in Revelations tell the reader that whoever changes any word in the Bible will burn in Hell. Does this allow for translations? Who's watching over the translators?

 

I have heard the argument too often to keep count of that the Bible shouldn't be seen as a definitive historical document at all - more an allegory, and a handbook on morality. Except for Paul and Peter, for instance, which do give a reasonably fair insight into the Roman world of old. I do, however, have my doubts about religious factions trying to take copyright on morality based on a deeply flawed document. Sure - it tells you how to live, and to love God above all else and to love your neighbour and to leave his wife alone and to respect the State; all very good and practical rulings. But - the most important ruling in my view is to do unto others as you would have done to you. This implies common decency, outlaws crime etc., (you wouldn't want to steal from somebody, seeing as you wouldn't want someone to steal from you).

 

This doesn't require religion, and belief in the supernatural. It should be obvious, and I believe that, for instance, atheists have an equally valid claim to morality - they might even have the moral high ground in this regard, seeing as their acts aren't a case of quid pro quo. They don't expect to be rewarded after death for acts in life. They have to act morally while they are alive, 'cause this live is the only chance they'll get.

[bumab]

There are some benefits to being open to new interpritations. It allows a book to be relevant to every age- otherwise you'd get all sorts of old rules and reg's, but nothing beyond historical value.

 

The main tenents of the Bible, however, are rarely misinterpreted- God, seperation from God, reconciliation to God. There's a lot of extranious stuff- good poetry, proverbs, parables... but all point to the redeption story that carries the whole book.

[eMTee]

The main story and point in the Bible, that is pointed out threwout the Bible..just as bomab "the redemption"/Gospel is pointed out to a clear understanding, one that you shouldn't be left hanging on any end.

 

I have read the "controdictions" of the Bible, but I have found very little of having that apearence.

[Linda Stolte]

:hihi: :sad:

I think the bible is quoted by anyone who wants to use it as confirmation of whatever they want, just like with any other large body of text. It is as open to intepretation as any other text.

 

If not, what is your rationale for suggesting that it is not open for interpretation?

[Linda Stolte]

:hihi:

2 Peter 1:20-21

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

It's "God's" rationale that it is not open for "our" personal interpretation but, rather an ongoing and continuous study of His word to understand those things which have already been interpreted for us by the writings of the Holy Spirit.

[Linda Stolte]

Please forgive me for my response, and the post I was responding to, being in two separate frames. This was my first time and I'm still trying to figure out how it all works.

[Tormod]

Please use our test forum to become comfortable with posting.

[Linda Stolte]

Please use our test forum to become comfortable with posting.

Where might I find the test forum you're speaking of?

[Tormod]

Where might I find the test forum you're speaking of?

 

It is very hard to find: Look at the forum index and in the Science Forums section there is a forum called "Test category". :hihi:

 

Or you can click here:

http://hypography.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

[Linda Stolte]

It is very hard to find: Look at the forum index and in the Science Forums section there is a forum called "Test category". :hihi:

 

Or you can click here:

http://hypography.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

I had been there but the threads looked silly and uninteresting so I left. I didn't know it was a testing ground. Thanks Tormod.......

[emessay]

I prefer believe in STATISTIC DATA whatever statistic data you observe it...... :xx:

[niviene]

I have read the whole book of Genesis, and I have not run into any controdictions in the creation story. in fact, there is nowhere in the Bible that controdicts itself in this claim.

 

Note: I do not believe the Bible controdicts itself, only gives further details.

 

Read it again... it does in the very first few pages... several times. ANd to BioChemist - I am not talking about between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Regular, normal contradictions, stated one after the other. More than once.

 

In response to the fundamentalist comments, this I do agree with - nobody but extreme fundamentalists take the entire bible literally. This, at least, I have discovered that I am not able to agree with. I do not agree with the literal translation of Matthew where it talks about divorcing your wife causes her to become an adulteress... and marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery. Sorry - but if a man is cheating, I'll be divorcing him; and my fiance was previously married, and I do not believe that marrying him is committing adultery. This is just one example to show that there are some things I can't see myself ever agreeing to... so I think it is open to interpretation on some level. Obviously, I don't think you can read "Thou shalt not steal" And choose to interpret that as "...unless you are a poor person who really wants that CD..." or something to that effect. I know these were written in a time when society was a certain way, and I try to keep that in mind when reading these things.

[Biochemist]

...ANd to BioChemist - I am not talking about between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Regular, normal contradictions, stated one after the other. More than once....

This might be interesting as a new thread topic. I think there are (indeed) some passages in the Bible that are pretty hard to figure out. Most of the items that folks bring up don't bother me at all. Do you support we ought to start a new thread on apparent contradictions or complexities of the Bible?

[eMTee]

Read it again... it does in the very first few pages... several times. ANd to BioChemist - I am not talking about between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Regular, normal contradictions, stated one after the other. More than once.

 

I have read it..and I have found no controdictions.

[IrishEyes]

In response to the fundamentalist comments, this I do agree with - nobody but extreme fundamentalists take the entire bible literally. This, at least, I have discovered that I am not able to agree with. I do not agree with the literal translation of Matthew where it talks about divorcing your wife causes her to become an adulteress... and marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery. Sorry - but if a man is cheating, I'll be divorcing him; and my fiance was previously married, and I do not believe that marrying him is committing adultery. This is just one example to show that there are some things I can't see myself ever agreeing to... so I think it is open to interpretation on some level. Obviously, I don't think you can read "Thou shalt not steal" And choose to interpret that as "...unless you are a poor person who really wants that CD..." or something to that effect. I know these were written in a time when society was a certain way, and I try to keep that in mind when reading these things.

niviene,

I think there is a difference in what you mention here. Taking the Bible literally deals with taking the words to mean what they say. For instance, a literalist would take the Creation account to mean that God created the entire earth in six literal days, not in thousands of years, not through evolution, etc.

Whether or not you choose to accept/live by other parts of the Bible has little to do with taking it literally. Agreeing with what it says, or even disagreeing with it, does not mean a literal or non-literal view. It just means that you choose to follow, or not follow, what it says. That lends itself more to a 'pick-and-choose' religion than a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Saying that you do not want to believe that marrying your already married fiancee is adultery is just that - you don't want to believe it. However, not wanting to believe it doesn't make it so.

Please don't think I'm being a prig about this - I'm divorced, and re-married. And my current husband and I lived together, even had children toghether, before we got amrried. I'm not saying that we're perfect - far from it. But the Bible is pretty specific about those things for a reason. When you get married, you are supposed to remain that way. That's why you say your vows to God. When you get divorced, the world absolves you of those vows. God doesn't. He doesn't approve of divorce. I hear people say "Well, if God knew my husband/wife, he'd approve of divorce". But I think what God really wants is biblical marriages - that is - marriages that start with Him at the center, and stay that way. If you put Him before yourself, before your spouse, before your kids, AND your spouse does the same, problems have a way of working themselves out.

I also am kinda confused how you can take an OT law (thou shalt not steal) literally, and not find any room for leeway, but you are very against a NT teaching (divorce+remarriage=adultery), justifying that it was written in other times and things are different now. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

[bumab]

Dallas Willard in The Divine Conspiracy has some interesting thoughts specifically about the marriage/adultary issue and more generally about the law as a whole, and very well articulated. If anybody has the book right now- it would really contribute something quality. I'd attempt to rehash it, but most likely mangle the message- and my copy of the book is currently lent out...

 

I'll try and get it back soon to repost, but if anybody else has it....