The Bible

Htownhero,

Just like any other kind of reading, you have to use the who? what? when? where? how? questions to understand the Bible.

My personal conviction is that when God told Adam he would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, his primary meaning was spiritual. There are at least two kinds of death mentioned in the Bible: physical and spiritual. What both have in common is the concept of separation. Physcial death takes place when a person's spirit is separated from their body: "the body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). Spiritual death takes place when a person is separated from God. That's the sense in which Paul said, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) It's also the sense in which he said, "you were dead in your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Isaiah said, "your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God" (Isaiah 59:2). I believe that was primarily the sense of the words, "in the day you eat from it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17). I believe Adam and Eve were separated from God that very day. That's at least one thing signified by their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Secondarily, their expulsion also caused them to die physically, eventually. Some people believe that Adam and Eve were made immortal, and that they only became mortals after eating of the forbidden tree. I don't buy that. I believe they were mortal from the beginning, but they would continue to live physically as long as they had access to the tree of life. So when they were kicked out of the garden, the death process began.

As far as the differences between Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 24:16, there's a simple explanation. Who is doing the punishing in Exodus 20:5? God is. Deuteronomy 24:16, on the other hand, is in the context of commands given to the children of Israel. They weren't to "take the law into their own hands" and decide that they would go ahead and put to death the whole family rather than just the person who committed the sin.

You said, "how can the Bible be absolute truth when it disagrees with itself?" There's a difference between the Bible contradicting itself and there being passages you or I personally can't reconcile. Is the problem really with the Bible or is it with our understanding of the Bible?

Here's the key to good Bible study: keep it in context. Have you ever heard only half a telephone conversation? Have you ever drawn the wrong conclusion because of it? You didn't get the whole picture, and it caused you to misunderstand what you heard. You didn't hear the context in which those words were said. I'm convinced many of the problems people have with the Bible come from the same kind of thing. They isolate a verse or two and then base their conclusions on them. They're not getting the whole picture because they're missing the context in which those verses were stated. Have you ever heard someone say that you can make the Bible prove anything? Well, that's not exactly correct. I do believe you can make many things look plausible if you pull enough passages out of context.

Let me give you and example. The Bible tells us that Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). The Bible also says, "Go and do the same" (Luke 10:37). That's what the Bible says, man. Is it what the Bible means? No! What people sometimes do may not be that obvious, but it's no more accurate either.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is not a cafeteria style book, where you pick and choose what you want from it. As David said to God, "The sum of Your word is truth" (Psalm 119:160). I'm not the greatest math student ever, but I have figured out how to get the sum of something. You have to add everything up. Only when you take the Bible in it's totality do you come up with truth.

There's nothing wrong with asking honest questions, period. What does bother me is that when people who have a very shallow understanding of the Bible bring up a discrepancy that they got from someone else and pretend as if that's the last nail in the coffin of the Bible's realiability, and also as if no one who believes in the Bible has ever given it one moments notice. In many cases, the perceived problem was recognized hundreds of years ago and a plausible answer give for it.

 

mr gootan: Actually, that is a massive generalization. There are scholars, theologians and even entire denominations of the Christian church that believe the Bible is more metaphor than literal fact.

I've known plenty of Christians who feel like believing every word of the Bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian.

 

Seeing as how this thread is now at least a little bit about questioning Christianity, one of my biggest problems with the Bible is the story of Abraham.

This is a case of a father being told by God to sacrifice his son, and he agreed! That to me is so incredibly crazy that I can't even imagine. First of all, what the hell (if you'll pardon the expression) kind of god asks people to kill their children as a sign of obediance? And then what kind of father agrees to do this task?

Yeah I know that God stops Abraham from doing so but for the test to be succesful God has to know that Abraham actually would do so. So here we seem to being told that killing an innocent child to show obediance (or at least being willing to kill said child) is the hight of virtue.

Yeah it's a test, alright. And both God and Abraham failed it in my mind. Would any of you be willing to kill a child if you thought God was telling you to?

 

I just disagree with the Christians that told you not to question. Jesus questioned, other biblical heroes questioned. Questioning is a part of faith.

As far as the inconsistencies the way I read them they do exist, but they don't really make a difference, and people who look at them as disproof are looking at the wrong thing.

What difference does it make? Do any of the contradictions change Jesus over all message of loving your enemies, treating people as you would have them treat you etc? IMO the answer is no.

I enjoy finding out about the contradictions and trying to understand them, some of them I think I can understand others I don't know. But none of them make the message of people loving one another and searching and striving for that love any less important, or relevant.

The bible also says that God is love, those that know love know God etc. If I feel there is a contradiction in the bible and I need to make a choice on how I interpret the bible, I ask myself 'which interpretation is more loving.'

That's the way I look at it, and many people, including many Christians disagree with the way I look at it.

 

I think that's the reason Andrea Yates is in jail right now.

 

I know next to nothing about the bible so forgive me but I always wondered what John 3:16 meant...anyone?

 

Is there a reason why it is on every telecast? (or at least used to be)...I appreciate the definition....I thought it had something more to do with sports

 

John 3:16 is considered by many to be the definition of Christianity and the mandate by God through Jesus, His son. They hold that up to try and put it into the conciousness of people watching. Personally, I always liked John 3:17 better:

"Because God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it but to save it."

 

dylan: That's an interesting point. I often wondered that, if Jesus did come back, would we even recognize him? I mean, in his time, he was hanging out with lepers, sailors and prostitutes. The Pharisees were like the Pat Robertson's of the time.

If Jesus came back and told people he was Jesus, would anyone believe him?

 

thanks Jeff/Max...i was always curious

 

1 The word
'WE' does not mean that there is more then one God. Rather it is a plural
of respect which gives Allah grandeur over his creation.

 

<b>MadMax</b>; be careful when using the word "flippant."

<b>subtomic</b>: I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent my words for your own purposes.

 

dylan,

You just have to consider context, as Traj said (although I mean it in a different way).

Keep in mind that the OT & NT were products of a time of great sacrificial themes in religious worship. Sacrifice was not neccessarily as bad then as it would be considered now - if done in a religious context. You must love your God above all material things- including yourself and offsprings. Besides, God closes out the lesson in the NT by sacrificing his own son, right?

The God of the OT, therefore, was just keeping in line with that thinking - the kind which was dominant in pagan worship. This is also the reason why the OT God is much more vengeful than the NT - shifting philosophies and theologies.

 

Wow, great discussion all around.

Jeff, I agree that there are many christians who only believe parts of the Bible. But who says which parts are truth and which parts are exaggeration? Would you trust an imperfect person with such a big choice? IMO this is how cults are started.
But I digress, this leads right back to the argument that full assurance of the validity of the whole Bible cannot be attained without faith.

(also neither verse is greater than the other, when used together, John 3:16 and John 3:17 gives a more complete view of the necessity of Jesus. The next time Jesus appears to the world, He won't come back as a Jewish carpenter's son, but as a conquering hero. Everyone will at least know He is God)

Dylan,
The story behind Abraham and Isaac really adds to the meaning to us today. Abraham and Sarah did not have a child together until they were very old. This showed that God kept His promises in His own perfect timing. Thus, Isaac was most precious to them.
But did Abraham love Isaac more than He loved God? Abraham knew that God had always taken care of them, wanted the best for them, and kept His promises to them. He also knew God was all-powerful and if it was His will, He could bring Isaac back to him if God wanted. Because He trusted God with his beloved son, God trusted Abraham's lineage to bring forth Jesus Christ, His beloved Son, as a sacrifice for all of humanity. What an honor.

Trusting in God is a sacrifice. It takes our lives out of our control and puts it in God's control.

 

Brainwashing and fairy tales

 

chill out.