Does the Bible Have to be "True"?

[First Baseman]

We can see you are very confused.
1. Nobody has ever said that the bible is all false because it isn't all right.
2. You seem to be hearing us say that God is not able to tell a person the truth about what might have been translated wrongly.
3. It seems you are not understanding that there is a difference between The Bible (a published book of pages and a binding) and scriptures of which there are many. There is one Bible but many translations of it and there are many thousands of words in it. I am not saying that every word in it cannot be trusted. But there are words written as a part of it that cannot be trusted. The whole thing can be trusted. Why not? But not every part of it.

I was addressing his post. I am not concerned with your opinion about it. But thanks for expressing it, anyway.

 

[savagewind]

I was addressing his post. I am not concerned with your opinion about it. But thanks for expressing it, anyway.

OK. I was answering this accusation.

So? You are trying to say it has been translated into oblivion?

 

[First Baseman]

OK. I was answering this accusation.

That was addressed in another context and to a different post. It doesn't apply to my reply to his post.

 

[savagewind]

That was addressed in another context and to a different post. It doesn't apply to my reply to his post.

Did you think we post in order? That is not possible. I do not know if someone is posting while I am. OK I see what you mean. I quoted you but it was to someone else you posted. I apologize. @First Baseman
Some people like the forum neater than others do. I am of the latter, not the former.

 

[First Baseman]

Did you think we post in order? That is not possible. I do not know if someone is posting while I am. OK I see what you mean. I quoted you but it was to someone else you posted. I apologize.
Some people like the forum neater than others do. I am of the latter, not the former.

I doubt if you and I are even on the same plane of existence at the same time. There must be a dimensional slip somewhere between us.

 

[savagewind]

I doubt if you and I are even on the same plane of existence at the same time. There must be a dimensional slip somewhere between us.

Yes. I agree. My first post here suggested that I was not from Earth. Haha

 

[First Baseman]

Yes. I agree. My first post here suggested that I was not from Earth. Haha

Okay. Wait a minute! You are agreeing with me? Now I know we are either existing in different times or universes.

 

[savagewind]

Okay. Wait a minute! You are agreeing with me? Now I know we are either existing in different times or universes.

Times. There is only one universe imo. But I might change my mind.

 

[Acim]

To understand God is to believe in Him. If you don't believe in Him you can't possibly understand anything about Him and end up comparing Him with everything else you don't believe. It's redundant.

I do think there is a degree of truth in the first assertion, but intellectually, it would be rather easy to point out things which we may claim understanding of, but don't believe in, by choice. Unicorns is one of around umpteen thousand examples I could put forth.

If making idols of God (via a book, a person, so on and so forth), it would be putting an idol (or symbol) before the Spirit/Word, and then claiming the idol is 'truth.' It could, quite easily, get in the way of understanding. It could, quite plausibly, get in the way of acceptance of (literal) truth.

To me, you conveyed a perfect example of this, when you said:

What I think does not matter. The written word of God is what matters.

You see that external thought has nothing whatever to do with truth. Truth is. Jesus is truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

If you don't believe that or entertain it as probable truth you can't possibly understand the Christian faith. It isn't like a game of monopoly.

Apparently, for many (Christians) the external thought of the passage: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" is their truth. But this is not what the passage literally states. Wouldn't an infallible God, looking to convey inerrant understanding of "the way" be clear that this only pertains to Jesus (or messenger) if that were actually the case? IOW, the passage is not written as, "Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus." Because this is not what is written, then it is plausible this is not what is intended for understanding. Furthermore, projecting Jesus onto that passage as if only about him is: a) adding to the scripture and b) perhaps idolatry, especially if that is deemed the only way to understand it. It would literally be projecting an external truth onto the message. Not to mention a fundamental message about Christianity, aka The Way.

Me, I read the passage, as it is literally written: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

As the message applies to all, then the "me" within it is conveying an understanding of truth that is highly internal, arguably, strictly internal. Intended to be internalized.

But as I fully get there is a whole lot of Christian folk who may (strongly) disagree with such an understanding, it then goes to show that the understanding of God/Divinity has at least 2 ongoing interpretations. One that is intended to be internalized by all, on a path toward the Truth of Self, or Know thy Self. And another interpretation intended to make idols out of the message provided by messengers, as if the external understanding is the righteous, and only possible understanding. Of God.

 

[First Baseman]

Times. There is only one universe imo. But I might change my mind.

I am undecided on that as well. Stop agreeing with me!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When I studied English literature in school, the first thing we were told was that we had to suspend disbelief when reading novels, before we could interpret them, we had to assume it was true. So yes, the Bible has to be true, or at least we assume it is true. Only then is it possible to figure out what it is trying to say. Then you will be free to go back to believing it is a fairy tale, but at least you learned the point is trying to make.

Interesting and well expressed observation. Thanks.

 

[First Baseman]

Interesting and well expressed observation. Thanks.

Flawed logic, however. Just pretending something is true in hope of understanding it better is a false hope. The only reason one would want to do this is to figure out how best to best attack something with your already predetermined bias you aren't going to believe in anyway.

I can pretend to enjoy soccer but I don't enjoy it and really don't care about it. Because I really don't care about it I don't want to learn it so I can understand it and maybe like it. Sorry, the brain just doesn't work that way.

Flawed logic.

 

[savagewind]

I think it is correct to first view something as though it is true. It is called, "giving it the benefit of the doubt".

 

[First Baseman]

I think it is correct to first view something as though it is true. It is called, "giving it the benefit of the doubt".

Yes, but when you, in your mind know it isn't true, you are merely attempting to deceive yourself. Are you sure that's healthy?

 

[savagewind]

Yes, but when you, in your mind know it isn't true, you are merely attempting to deceive yourself. Are you sure that's healthy?

Deceiving one's self is unhealthy. True. When a person first picks up the Bible to read it is the time the person might believe it is all true. But when consistencies are found in it then the person should consider which is true and which is false.
Funny you! You are the one who says all the words written in the Bible are right words. Are you not deceiving yourself? You have obviously read it through or why would you be defending it?

 

[First Baseman]

Deceiving one's self is unhealthy. True. When a person first picks up the Bible to read it is the time the person might believe it is all true. But when consistencies are found in it then the person should consider which is true and which is false.
Funny you! You are the one who says all the words written in the Bible are right words. Are you not deceiving yourself? You have obviously read it through or why would you be defending it?

When I read it the first time I wasn't pretending to believe it. I don't approach anything that way so I cannot relate to what it is like to do it. I know I'm not deceiving myself because I don't roll that way.

 

[savagewind]

When I read it the first time I wasn't pretending to believe it. I don't approach anything that way so I cannot relate to what it is like to do it. I know I'm not deceiving myself because I don't roll that way.

Yes. I think I do not roll that way either. I think it is better to consider something is true first. If you consider it false first then why would you look at it?
I think it would not make sense to search something out that you believe to be false.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Elsewhere in the Bible it claims to be the word of God.

Please cite your source. A prophet might claim from time to time to speak for God, but the scriptures never, ever make such a claim.

I say it is "something MEN have bequeathed us", but you say it is God who bequeathed it

Why not both? Why does it have to be either/or? Can you have a painting of a sunset without the sunset's participation? Sure, it's a passive role, but you can still see the sunset in the picture since it inspired it in the first place. Take any holy writing, the OT, NT, the Koran, hey, even the Book of Mormon. Many of the images they give us are strange, because we don't share their cultural or historical perspective. We can still see 'God' written there. Sure, it might be a God that's like a Picasso to us, but it's still God.

Think about it... is this any less a watch?

 

[First Baseman]

Yes. I think I do not roll that way either. I think it is better to consider something is true first. If you consider it false first then why would you look at it?
I think it would not make sense to search something out that you believe to be false.

Honesty does require me to admit and declare that I believe it is just not possible to approach anything totally without bias. None of us are 100% neutral. We go in to everything we encounter with our imperfections as well as anything that one might consider "good."

 

[savagewind]

Please cite your source. A prophet might claim from time to time to speak for God, but the scriptures never, ever make such a claim.

Why not both? Why does it have to be either/or? Can you have a painting of a sunset without the sunset's participation? Sure, it's a passive role, but you can still see the sunset in the picture since it inspired it in the first place. Take any holy writing, the OT, NT, the Koran, hey, even the Book of Mormon. Many of the images they give us are strange, because we don't share their cultural or historical perspective. We can still see 'God' written there. Sure, it might be a God that's like a Picasso to us, but it's still God.

Think about it... is this any less a watch?

I agree that what people have seen and written of can direct another person to God.
The picture is not a watch. It is art. A watch is for knowing the time.