The problem with the bible.

[sojourner]

An interesting question ...

The entire question was:

In what way, then, can the scriptures be said to be revelatory, if all we're doing is looking at ourselves?

Since, when we study the Bible, we're not looking at ourselves, but toward God, your implication with regard to the question is not cogent. Maybe you could provide an answer to the question, as it was posited.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I do not subscribe to biblical inerrancy, the belief that the Bible is a completely accurate account of history (parts of it I don't believe are accounts of history at all), or that only the Bible is the source of religious truth.

Therefore, these problems are not problems for me. They are problems for literalists and fundamentalists.

James

 

[Starfish]

Or at least my problem with it.


The bible is some 2,000 years old so then is not telling just how long those who found it had it in their possession. It is believed that the bible is the inspired writings of God written by man. So how do you know that those who had the original text in their possessions did not alter it in some way?
After all, are you not putting your trust in man & not the Christian God?
What about the translations in the bible? One word can have multitude meanings depending on how it is used. Besides why would God relay on a book to get his message out?

Actually most of it is much older than 2000 years. And you make a good point.:yes:

 

[d3vaLL]

Yay! Around, around the merry-go-round we go. I'll just continue to rephrase my questions and you continue to rephrase your answers till you realize you're the one continuing this paradox.

The Bible is holy, because, even though it was written by human beings (there can be no real debate about that), we believe it was written by God's inspiration, which renders it separate from any other literature.

Hold on, ok what? Let's break that down "logically." "The Bible" will equal "B," and "w" will equal "written by," God's inspiration will equal "G," "humans" will equal "H," "other literature" will equal "L" and holy will equal "X." Given that B = X, B w G = X, B w H = X, we MUST assume that G = H. Therefore, if L w H, then L w G. Therefore, L = X. Neat! Everything ever written is holy! watch this...

d3vaLL is God. <--- holy statement, Batman!

Then why did you bring up miracles, if that wasn't what he was talking about?

Who says he has? The existence of the bible doesn't mean that God is "relying" on it overmuch. There's also the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world.

Ok so, the presence of life = "the church's living witness to Christ's redeeming presence in the world." So, life existed before Christ, because of Christ. You're right, I messed up.

In reference to a need of a definition for "spirituality" I get this:

The state of humanity, it is in relationship with God.

You mean the state of humanity's relationship with God. So it teaches you about your relationship with God. Correct me please, but I feel that since G = H, that its all made up by H. I wish I didn't know that, but I'm trying to "confront my skepticism."

One does not have to believe in the divine origin of scripture to be a Christian. One does have to doubt or disbelieve in God to be an agnostic/atheist.

Disbelief = Atheist
suspended judgment or a "skeptic" = Agnostic

Since I don't doubt/disbelieve, your jab, disguised as an assessment, is woefully mistaken. (Perhaps you're a closet Christian, and just don't know it yet?)

Sorry, I don't doubt/disbelieve the existence God. I am an agnostic due to my suspended judgment of "God's" nature or the world or anything because there is no "proof." You prefer "proof" written by humans, doesn't help me. (whatever your definition is, that's why I believe that he/she/it probably exists, because existence exists...not because the Bible says because humans wrote it.)

I don't think you're capable of "inventing something specially revelatory, since you doubt the existence of God.

I do, and I am human! which is the only requirement according to you.

At any rate, the canon is closed, so there can be no more scripture. You make a moot point. All concepts are "man-made" in a sense, because the human brain has to understand. But concepts can also have a Divine origin. It is this divine origin that we believe renders the Bible "holy."

It's closed? Really? How do you know that? Did a Muslim tell you? Didn't you know Muslims are human too? They wrote down the Quran, is it not then, especially revelatory and holy?

God didn't "come from" anywhere. God has always been. We come from God. Human product of Divine origin, yes. Since Jesus was God in human form, it makes sense that human beings who are reconciled to God can, indeed, reveal God in special ways.

I misspoke, sorry. Where does "God" get involved when the Bible is a man-made product?

Because as humanity grows and our understanding changes or increases, the Bible does not become obsolete. Rather, it speaks in new ways that help to inform us as we grow and change.

Life is a mystery. ~d3vaLL. Only one way to look at that.

there's a whole lot more to love than compatibility factors that can be computer-generated and matched.

Like what?

I don't have to guess. It's because you spend more time looking in the mirror than you do looking toward God.

I'm reading the Bible and your posts, I look in the mirror to do my hair. You don't make it any easier. How'd you do it again? I keep getting jammed up in this paradox. I know it's just me being stupid, help me out here.

 

[spiritually inclined]

All Christian concepts of God, theology, and Bible interpretation came from human beings who reasoned within the limits of their beliefs and experiences. None of them are final or ultimate. None of them represent ultimate truth, Truth with a capital T.

Because the Bible does not exist outside of the realm of human ideas, it, too, is not infallible, final, or inspired by an objective god. (The last premise, that the Bible was not inspired by an objective god, is of course, not provable, but I see no reason to believe in the premise, either.)

All of Christianity in its diverse forms is a product of human thought, which is tied to human experience.

Knowing this, I DO think that I am looking into a mirror, in a sense, when I ponder Christian concepts, theology, or even when I meditate on the Bible. When I am reading the Bible, I cannot help but look into a mirror because my reading of it is intimately connected to my understanding of it.

It is a human book in which I see some of my own ideas. It is a human book in which I see ideas that I do NOT agree with, yet that gives me more ideas still. It contains wisdom. It also tells me about an uglier side of humanity. The Bible, to us, is ultimately the embodiment of what we understand it to be. If a person understands it to be a message of love, that person may feel compelled to love. If she, on the other hand, sees it as a message of hate, she may hate. I see it as a rich human product that can inspire a multitude of thoughts and insights. I am therefore compelled to expand my beliefs, challenge my mind, and practice contemplation and meditation. I am compelled to live morally and honestly, with integrity, or at least give it a shot.

I think of the Bible as a work of inspiration in a general sense, in the same sense that a poem or other work of literature or art can be inspired. I think that Harry Potter is as inspired as the Bible.

The Bible is important culturally and as a source of mythology and wisdom. I don't think Christianity should try to make out any more than that. While I think Christians are free to believe that the Bible is truth with a capital T (divine truth originating from an objective god), I don't think this belief should be imposed on others in the church.

James

 

[d3vaLL]

All Christian concepts of God, theology, and Bible interpretation came from human beings who reasoned within the limits of their beliefs and experiences. None of them are final or ultimate. None of them represent ultimate truth, Truth with a capital T.

Because the Bible does not exist outside of the realm of human ideas, it, too, is not infallible, final, or inspired by an objective god. (The last premise, that the Bible was not inspired by an objective god, is of course, not provable, but I see no reason to believe in the premise, either.)

All of Christianity in its diverse forms is a product of human thought, which is tied to human experience.

Knowing this, I DO think that I am looking into a mirror, in a sense, when I ponder Christian concepts, theology, or even when I meditate on the Bible. When I am reading the Bible, I cannot help but look into a mirror because my reading of it is intimately connected to my understanding of it.

It is a human book in which I see some of my own ideas. It is a human book in which I see ideas that I do NOT agree with, yet that gives me more ideas still. It contains wisdom. It also tells me about an uglier side of humanity. The Bible, to us, is ultimately the embodiment of what we understand it to be. If a person understands it to be a message of love, that person may feel compelled to love. If she, on the other hand, sees it as a message of hate, she may hate. I see it as a rich human product that can inspire a multitude of thoughts and insights. I am therefore compelled to expand my beliefs, challenge my mind, and practice contemplation and meditation. I am compelled to live morally and honestly, with integrity, or at least give it a shot.

I think of the Bible as a work of inspiration in a general sense, in the same sense that a poem or other work of literature or art can be inspired. I think that Harry Potter is as inspired as the Bible.

The Bible is important culturally and as a source of mythology and wisdom. I don't think Christianity should try to make out any more than that. While I think Christians are free to believe that the Bible is truth with a capital T (divine truth originating from an objective god), I don't think this belief should be imposed on others in the church.

James

I 100% agree.

 

[Charity]

All Christian concepts of God, theology, and Bible interpretation came from human beings who reasoned within the limits of their beliefs and experiences. None of them are final or ultimate. None of them represent ultimate truth, Truth with a capital T.

Because the Bible does not exist outside of the realm of human ideas, it, too, is not infallible, final, or inspired by an objective god. (The last premise, that the Bible was not inspired by an objective god, is of course, not provable, but I see no reason to believe in the premise, either.)

All of Christianity in its diverse forms is a product of human thought, which is tied to human experience.

Knowing this, I DO think that I am looking into a mirror, in a sense, when I ponder Christian concepts, theology, or even when I meditate on the Bible. When I am reading the Bible, I cannot help but look into a mirror because my reading of it is intimately connected to my understanding of it.

It is a human book in which I see some of my own ideas. It is a human book in which I see ideas that I do NOT agree with, yet that gives me more ideas still. It contains wisdom. It also tells me about an uglier side of humanity. The Bible, to us, is ultimately the embodiment of what we understand it to be. If a person understands it to be a message of love, that person may feel compelled to love. If she, on the other hand, sees it as a message of hate, she may hate. I see it as a rich human product that can inspire a multitude of thoughts and insights. I am therefore compelled to expand my beliefs, challenge my mind, and practice contemplation and meditation. I am compelled to live morally and honestly, with integrity, or at least give it a shot.

I think of the Bible as a work of inspiration in a general sense, in the same sense that a poem or other work of literature or art can be inspired. I think that Harry Potter is as inspired as the Bible.

The Bible is important culturally and as a source of mythology and wisdom. I don't think Christianity should try to make out any more than that. While I think Christians are free to believe that the Bible is truth with a capital T (divine truth originating from an objective god), I don't think this belief should be imposed on others in the church.

James

How can anyone be a Christian in any Christian denomination and not believe that God is Divine Truth, and that the Bible is the inspired works and teaching of God? How could you be imposing your belief on others? You say the Bible is a source of mythology and wisdom, doesn't that seem a little contradictive? A myth is something not real, so if it's not real how does it contain wisdom? I'm sorry I just am not understanding your rationalization on this.....If you read this post please explain to me your thoughts, maybe I have missed something you said.

Charity

 

[lunamoth]

A myth is something not real, so if it's not real how does it contain wisdom?

A myth is not something that is 'not real,' but a story that describes the way a people sees it's relationship to God/the Divine. Thus a myth is quite 'true.'

"Now I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true."

 

[McBell]

I read the article. The Bible seems to work backwards from the Forer Effect. the Forer Effect takes sweeping, general statements that can be applied to anyone. The Bible makes very specific statements that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Biblical wisdom is not the same thing as astrological "reading."
Sorry. Try again.

VERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS that can be INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS
​

And I need to try again?

 

[Charity]

A myth is not something that is 'not real,' but a story that describes the way a people sees it's relationship to God/the Divine. Thus a myth is quite 'true.'

"Now I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true."

Luna I do value your opinion and hold it in the highest regard. I did check some dictionary meanings and found the following..
Websters Revised Unabridged Dict. Myth-fable, tale, talk, speech

Another dictionary said: Myth-fiction or half truth; story dealing with super natural beings Imaginary or fictitious person an invented story

Another one said myth-an unproved or false collective belief used to justify a social institution.....A traditional or legendary story concerning some being without natural explanation

One other said Religious legend, not myth but ancient fictional story....

Some people may say the Bible is full of legendary stories but that doesn't mean they believe they are real, same as for history.......So my interpretation is that the post I answered was when the term myth was used, I feel that the poster meant that the bible was only half truth or fiction......myth, fable, or legend..........
I believe the entire Bible to be true, I am sure that there are errors with as many translations, but truth in the fact that It gives good insight on Christ and His teaching.......

Respectfully and Prayerfully
Charity

 

[McBell]

How can anyone be a Christian in any Christian denomination and not believe that God is Divine Truth, and that the Bible is the inspired works and teaching of God? How could you be imposing your belief on others? You say the Bible is a source of mythology and wisdom, doesn't that seem a little contradictive? A myth is something not real, so if it's not real how does it contain wisdom? I'm sorry I just am not understanding your rationalization on this.....If you read this post please explain to me your thoughts, maybe I have missed something you said.

Charity

Fables are not real, yet can contain wisdom.
Parables also come to mind.
Analogies might even fall under this as well.
At least some analogies.

Guess it depends upon your definition of "wisdom."

"WordNet (r) 2.0"

wisdom

noun
1: accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
2: the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common
sense and insight [syn: wiseness] [ant: folly]
3: ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or
common sense and insight [syn: sapience]
4: the quality of being prudent and sensible [syn: wiseness, soundness]
5: an Apocryphal book consisting mainly of a meditation on
wisdom; although ascribed to Solomon it was probably
written in the first century BC [syn: Wisdom of Solomon]​

 

[sojourner]

Hold on, ok what? Let's break that down "logically." "The Bible" will equal "B," and "w" will equal "written by," God's inspiration will equal "G," "humans" will equal "H," "other literature" will equal "L" and holy will equal "X." Given that B = X, B w G = X, B w H = X, we MUST assume that G = H. Therefore, if L w H, then L w G. Therefore, L = X. Neat! Everything ever written is holy! watch this...

In a certain sense, you "get it." Since we have been reconciled to God, we are "in God" as we are "in Christ." We -- the Church -- are the Body of Christ on earth. Therefore, from a certain POV, those who wrote the Bible and canonized it -- those who are "in God," wrote it from "inside God." that's called "Divine inspiration," which comes from the Holy Spirit.

Your "logic" doesn't work because not all literature, written by humans is Divinely inspired. Most of it was written without the Spirit's influence.

You mean the state of humanity's relationship with God. So it teaches you about your relationship with God. Correct me please, but I feel that since G = H, that its all made up by H. I wish I didn't know that, but I'm trying to "confront my skepticism."

The state of humanity as it is in relationship with God. G does not = H. To blur the distinction is sin. G=G, H=H. G intersects H, But G is not H. The intersection is "spirituality." It's "made up" by H, in the sense that we have to deal with divine matters from the perspective and limitations of our own understanding and language. That's why much of this is "Divine mystery." We acknowledge that it exists, but that we don't fully comprehend it.

(whatever your definition is, that's why I believe that he/she/it probably exists, because existence exists...not because the Bible says because humans wrote it.)

I agree. I don't believe "because of the Bible." But the Bible is a tool that helps me further understand the story of how believers have understood their relationship with God.

I do, and I am human! which is the only requirement according to you.

You misunderstand. The "requirement" is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, interacting with the human mind. You may be inspired, but, as an agnostic, there exists doubt that you could be Divinely inspired.

It's closed? Really? How do you know that? Did a Muslim tell you? Didn't you know Muslims are human too? They wrote down the Quran, is it not then, especially revelatory and holy?

The Bible is a document of the Church. The Church has officially closed the Canon. it makes no difference what a Muslim might think, because Muslims are not the Church. The state of the Koran is not cogent to your argument, since we are discussing the Bible, and not the Koran.

I misspoke, sorry. Where does "God" get involved when the Bible is a man-made product?

Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Like what?

the emotional impact, for one. The impact that makes us get monney-eyed and write bad poetry and not sleep well.

I'm reading the Bible and your posts, I look in the mirror to do my hair. You don't make it any easier. How'd you do it again? I keep getting jammed up in this paradox. I know it's just me being stupid, help me out here.

I can't make you look with eyes of faith. That's your journey to take. But I'll walk with you on that journey...

 

[sojourner]

VERY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS that can be INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS​

And I need to try again?

Yes. Astrological "readings" tell us generalized statements confirming what we already "know" about ourselves. The Bible tells us specific things about God that cause us to look at ourselves in ways that reverse what we thought we knew.

 

[McBell]

Yes. Astrological "readings" tell us generalized statements confirming what we already "know" about ourselves. The Bible tells us specific things about God that cause us to look at ourselves in ways that reverse what we thought we knew.

Like I said:

Forer Effect
​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "problem" with the bible is the reader ...

 

[sojourner]

The "problem" with the bible is the reader ...

You said it!

 

[sojourner]

Like I said:

Forer Effect​

That's not the Forer Effect, as the article explained it.

 

[Starfish]

The "problem" with the bible is the reader ...

Which reader? The one who interprets it as you do, or the one who interprets it differently?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which reader? The one who interprets it as you do, or the one who interprets it differently?

Was that intended as a serious question?

 

[Starfish]

Was that intended as a serious question?

It was sincere. Were you referring to all readers, or some? If some, who are they?
You see, I would agree with you that some readers are the problem. But I also think the Bible is part of the problem, as it lends itself to so many interpretations and confusion.
Thanks.