Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper
The dictionary also supports me, as in "reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM".

My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused? No, the reason why the Gospels differ on the account of the Resurrection is because there are THEOLOGICAL issues behind the words. Each synoptic writer is appealing to different people and bringing out a different message. Religious teaching is their primary concern, not historical conventions.

Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole! They are from the "lips" of God! Really, I can't believe that you think the Bible is LITERALLY God's Word for Word dictated to the writers!

Assume that we have a conversation that I tape record, and you use an allegory to illustrate a point. I then go to another friend to explain this teaching. I stumble through the story that you told, so my friend asks me "what were his (your) literal words"? I play the tape and say "those were Joe's literal words". No one would then claim that the story must be taken literally.

The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it. There is no room for trying to justify our own idea of what He "really" means...And secondly, the Gospels do not record the EXACT words in Synoptic parallels. There are subtle changes that the author makes to emphasize a religious point. The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!

You must assume that God's word includes the interpretations of men (whom I call "the scribes"), which may be why you appear to have a much lower regard for scripture than Protestants.

Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God. But written words are subject to interpretation. Again, our verse regarding 'cutting your hand off if it causes you to sin'. Isn't this subject to human interpretation of God's Words? Christianity has been flexible over its reading of some of the Scriptures over time because people change. Our understanding of God's Word GROWS! We take into account other's views, commentaries, and development of thought. Certainly, Scripture is viewed through the lense of our past Traditions, our views of what Scripture means. God's Actual Word, on the other hand, is unchanging. Romans 12:1 has a meaning to GOD. Perhaps many meanings finely intertwined. And man has yet to unravel its fullest meanings that HE has intended for that verse.

Within that framework, we can certainly make interpretations based on other scripture

Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations. IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??

I agree that not everything is explicitly laid out, but on some things, good Christians may disagree

I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here. Either God's Word is literal and there is no disagreement over it, no re-interpretation or spin, or God wrote the Bible through men as a supplement to an already-held interpretation of Christ's teachings.

I suppose this means that Protestants must believe to a higher degree that Christianity is a revealed faith.

Unfortunatly, many do not act like it is. A revealed faith means it is given to you. You accept the interpretation given - you don't make up your own in contradiction to what was given. However, one of the major tenants of the Reformation (that Luther himself regretted later) was that men can come to the Bible THEMSELVES and figure it out. This is NOT a revealed faith, but a faith through one's own reason and emotions. Given our fallen state, it is hopeless to come to agreement on what even core verses mean. All I have to say on this is "Eucharist". That should be clear that some Christians do not consider Christianity a revealed religion.

Instead, God did it all. Men were used for physical labor, but contributed nothing of substance. All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.

I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities... The point is that God works THROUGH men. Isn't this clear throughout Scriptures?

Wasn't Mohammed's style to say "believe this teaching, or I'll kill you"?

If you had a book that was "from God DIRECTLY" that said "kill infidels" - what the heck would you do?

Since we don't do that

Which should clearly tell us that we don't think the book is written LITERALLY by God - otherwise, there'd be a lot of people without hands or eyes.

I see it as being perfectly natural for fallible men, in different stages of sanctification, to greatly disagree on what is to be the perfect truth made into the Bible

I will close by saying - what's the point of having a book if no one can agree on what it MEANS? God didn't give us a Book to confuse man, to leave us in the dark about the TRUTH - and there can only be ONE truth. God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means. The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.

Regards

2,231 posted on 02/02/2006 5:02:31 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2226 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus
My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused?

Since I am the big Bible defender, I cannot believe that God was confused. :) Do you equate "differ" with "contradict"? If so, can you give me an example in the resurrection accounts you cite above?

Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole!

I already answered this in the post you are responding to. Much of God's literal word requires interpretation. Jesus says so openly and with examples. These ideas do not conflict. I explained that I was using the word "literal" in a correct, but different sense than you are using it. I don't know what else to say.

The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it.

I disagree with the first sentence, and the second doesn't speak to the point we are discussing. God has decided to teach in a certain way, so He does. God knows us inside and out and knows that we respond to familiar stories well. Therefore, He uses them to instruct. It is fully by design and highly efficient. It has also proven to be highly effective. When they tried to trap Jesus about working on the Sabbath, He taught a common sense approach using an allegory, of course you rescue the animal. This is part of how God teaches us.

The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!

I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.

Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God.

I know that. :) When I said "lower regard" I did not mean "no regard", so I apologize if I gave offense. You just illustrated the point I was trying to make above, when you referred to the Bible as a supplement. To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.

Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations.

Well, I have to give you that you came up with a good example, but I wonder how much we really disagree. I'd like to take a look at these verses:

Rom. 3:28 : "28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

Jas. 2:24 : "24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

As a fair test of interpretation, I won't look to whatever website to find out what I'm supposed to say. I'll just wing it. The Romans verse says to me that we are justified by faith, and not justified by following the law alone. Faith does beget salvation, but only following the law does not. This seems in perfect harmony with the whole message of Jesus and the new Covenant, as taught elsewhere in scripture.

The James verse clearly acknowledges that faith is required for salvation. James adds that works are also a part of the salvation picture. This seems in perfect harmony with your references to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says "This is what a saved person does". In scripture, He teaches righteous living.

So, putting the two together, they both require faith. The point of the first is to say that faith must be there, and if one only follows the law, he is lost. The second says that the fruit of true faith, works, must also be present. James does not say that works save, he says that faith saves, but not without further works.

All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?

IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??

Yes, there would be because human error is involved in receiving the clear signal. I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine. I can reasonably speak about the SB faith, but don't claim authority on others. If I was on the road and wanted to attend a service, and no SB church was available, I wouldn't have any worry about walking through the doors of most other Protestant churches. It has happened before and I have never been offended by the message.

I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here.

I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right! :) I believe that sanctification is very real. At every stage of my Christian walk I have learned new and better things, including on this thread. I wasn't a bad Christian before, I just didn't know yet. I learn, just as God intended. Hopefully, then I teach others, also as God intended.

Two good Christians disagree because both are still in the middle of their respective sanctification processes. I'm sure there are many times when both are wrong. That doesn't make them false Christians, that makes them children who are growing.

FK: All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.

I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities...

I know you have. This is just another point on the "cooperation" issue.

God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means.

I don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)

Of course there is only one truth, but I don't expect everyone to get all of it from the beginning. If they did, then who would need sanctification? I don't believe I am picking and choosing on my own authority, I believe I am being led by the Spirit. Sometimes, I get it wrong, but that's my fault. The Spirit will continue to work on me for the rest of my life to help me get it right more and more.

The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.

I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes. God knows this and we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. God knows how we learn, He is not surprised or disappointed in that there is disagreement on some things. We're humans, He gets it. Of course the goal is unity, and the seeking of the one real truth on any given matter. The elect will always be seeking for these truths, and be open to superior teaching when supported by scripture.

My stand on the Bible is that it is the perfect incarnation of God's literal words. He used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time. The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself. In many cases the word does need to be interpreted because, in part, God chose to use the technique of allegory to teach. The word also needs to be interpreted in many cases because in the specific contexts different points of the same general teaching are being highlighted. There can be confusion as to the whole teaching. The Bible as a whole helps us understand when this happens with other verses, in other contexts.

The Bible is totally self-contained and all Christians going through sanctification (with access to it) will continue to appropriate more and more of its single truth teachings throughout their lives. I see this as part of God's plan. He gave us an innate thirst for knowledge that the believer uses to know his Lord better and better.

2,279 posted on 02/04/2006 3:02:01 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2231 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson