How literally do you actually take the bible?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mappam
 


I read from the King James Version.I also have a copy of the Torah and
a jewish new testament.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
get a clue...
paper , bindings , printing press , editors .

what do you think , angels run the paper cutters and binding press's .

where did the printer get the "copy " ... a type setter ?

where did the type setter get the copy they set in type ?

if there is a proof setting mistake , who tells them ?


who edits the bible , who proof reads it ? angels ?

I would love to meet the guy who is looking at a typo...
pulls a bible out of a box and reolises... the book of mark ... is mack !

tell me how holy , or how god wrote it ...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
It's also interesting to note when and why people decide that the Bible is not true (assuming they have been brought up with the notion that it is the be all and end all and must be followed.)

Is it not usually when one finds something in the Bible they do not like or feel challenges the things they enjoy doing? For instance, somebody who fornicates on a regular basis might have followed the Bible until he participated in it once, decided it felt good and chose to stop following the Bible.

I do not say this in defence of the Bible, but it is an interesting thought to consider. A gay atheist might have thought differently about the existence of an ultimate reality/deity before coming to the realisation that they were gay.

But this also works the other way. Somebody can go through their whole life an atheist, and then have a near-death experience which convinces them that the Bible is true and God is real.

P.S. I think this problem has to do with the fact that what they feel is a part of their identity is not accepted or tolerated by God as they were taught. It then very much becomes a Black or White issue. God created gay people, so why does he condemn homosexuality in the Bible? God either has a part or parts of him that are evil, or he allowed evil to enter or he was unable to stop evil from occurring in this world. How else can one explain the existence of evil? There are so many contradictions in this sense and this is why people stray from the Bible me thinks...


[edit on 11/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Do you think that it is not possible that the Bible or Jesus teachings were altered, manipulated, removed, added in any way?

Of course it was possible, but, I don't believe it so for a couple of reasons.

1.The culture and mindset of the people wouldn't allow for this to happen very easily. The cultural that Jesus lived in was an oral cultural. Due to this, the people would've been very adept at memorization. Since Jesus was a beloved figure to many, they would've taken the time to hear, and memorize, his teachings. Since Jesus was cherished by many, after he died, they would've retold his teachings and talked about him a lot. This would solidify who Jesus was and what he taught. So, if someone were to have come around during that time and said something that contradicted what the followers of Jesus knew was true, it would be easy to spot.

The followers of Jesus also would've preserved what they knew by passing it on to others. Since the culture was much better at playing "telephone" than we are, there wouldn't have been any distortion.

2. I don't think there are distortions of Jesus in the New Testament based on the manuscripts that we have and their dates. The four Gospels contain the teachings of Jesus. All of these Gospels were written before AD 100, or within 70 years of Jesus' death. Therefore, they're close to when Jesus actually walked the Earth. Granted, we don't have the originals only copies. But, of the copies that we have of the Gospels, the oldest complete date to the early second century (after AD 100). [There is one fragment of Matthew that some believe actually dates to AD 60, when Matthew is believed to have been written!] That is amazingly good for works of antiquity.

Of the Gospels, we have manuscripts and fragments numbering into the thousands. Bart Ehrman once said, in regards to this fact, "The Gospels suffer from an embarrassingly large pool of texts." There is very little variation between these texts, from the oldest, to the newest. The vast majority of the variations stem from minor spelling errors/differences. There are only a handful of variations that need to be thought through. Of these though, nothing really changes the message of Jesus. The two most famous are found in John and Mark. With John, the variation is the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11). In some manuscripts it's there, in others it's not, in others it's in a different place, and sometimes it's found as a part of Luke (this is the rarest). With Mark, the ending (Mark 16:9-20) isn't in some of the oldest manuscripts. This doesn't really change much though as what is in those verses is contained in the other three Gospels.

3. I don't believe the Gnostic Gospels were rejected due to an agenda mostly because they, except Thomas, hadn't been written yet.

because the teachings (especially Old and New Testament) contradict each other, dont seem to fit together.
When one takes the time to study the Bible as a whole, the Old and New Testaments mesh together rather well. There aren't any contradictions between the two. One sees that when they understand that the Old and New Testaments are two different stages in God's unveiling of his plan for redemption of mankind.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessFollows
Let me begin with explaining where this question comes from. I was raised in a fundamental christian family, where the bible was the absolute word of god. Even at a young age, I had a lot of questions that couldn't really be answered. I started questioning a lot of things I took for granted as a small child. I tried to live as a devoted christian, but there was always the nagging in the back of my head that something was not quite right. In my early adulthood, I gave up christianity and became involved in the occult, where I still am today, happy and healthy.
I have been reading several topics here and some of the christian views on worldly things that are all but too familiar to me. One question I had for a long time came back to me and I felt myself wondering about how christians here think about this.

My question is this: how literally do you take the bible?

As I said, I was brought up with the idea that the bible is the actual, literal will of god, and that every word in it is the truth. As a child I already wondered why my gay uncle that shared an apartment with his boyfriend, wasn't stoned to death, then. Apparently I was being a little bit too literal on that one!
So, how literally do you take the bible?


The New Testament does not provide any physical punishment for homosexual acts. Jesus introduced a spiritual kingdom which all believers are part of. Since it is a spiritual kingdom, there is no physical punishment of it's members.

Jesus saved the adulterous woman at the well by writing something in the sand and telling her accusers,"He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Since all had sinned, they let her go.

The bible is full of "ideals". In an ideal world these ideals would work nicely. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where we defend ourselves, protect ourselves, feed our families, live behind locked doors, have alarms in our vehicles, guns in our closets, we live with anxieties, depression, illness disease, murderers, thieves....we face all sorts of threats each day. It's not an ideal world and therefore no one can ever live up to the ideals given in scripture.

But we can all do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and we can all accept the gift of eternal life by believing in and following after the Christ of God.

There are many misconceptions about the Bible. For example: did you know that John Calvin was shocked to discover that the Bible does not condemn sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults? The Song of Songs contains a love affair between two unmarried persons, which taken literally flies in the face of what most churches teach(forbidding sex outside of marriage). Heterosexual sex between unmarried consenting adults is not evil, yet we are lead to believe sex outside of marriage is sinful(an unbiblical view).



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Do you think that it is not possible that the Bible or Jesus teachings were altered, manipulated, removed, added in any way?

Of course it was possible, but, I don't believe it so for a couple of reasons.

1.The culture and mindset of the people wouldn't allow for this to happen very easily. The cultural that Jesus lived in was an oral cultural. Due to this, the people would've been very adept at memorization. Since Jesus was a beloved figure to many, they would've taken the time to hear, and memorize, his teachings. Since Jesus was cherished by many, after he died, they would've retold his teachings and talked about him a lot. This would solidify who Jesus was and what he taught. So, if someone were to have come around during that time and said something that contradicted what the followers of Jesus knew was true, it would be easy to spot.

The Bible is not oral. Why are you talking about an oral culture, when the alleged distortion by our friends the Catholic Church took place centuries later?

[edit on 11/9/2009 by Inkrinhuminge]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Inkrinhuminge
 


The culture that the Bible was written in was most certainly an oral culture. That is how the Near East was and is today to a lesser extent.

Jesus spoke, his followers memorized his teachings, which were later put onto papyri.

Yes, the Catholic Church does have some distorted teachings, but to say that they distorted the Bible simply isn't correct, considering the uniformity of the texts.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



For example: did you know that John Calvin was shocked to discover that the Bible does not condemn sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults?

Proverbs 5 disagrees with this idea. Solomon in that chapter is definitely saying that it is better to have sex only with your wife. Read through the Law and see if God okays premarital sex.

If premarital sex is okay, why would Paul say this in 1 Corinthians 7:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


What could this self-control be, other than sex? That is the only thing that a non-married person shouldn't do that a married person can.

Then Paul condemns sex outside of marriage in 1 Corithians 6:

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.


In that passage, in verse 18, Paul says to flee sexual immorality. In Greek, "sexual immortality" is the word "porneia" which means adultery and incest. Adultery is sex with anyone but your wife, which includes sexual encounters before your married.

When you have sex with someone, you become "one flesh" with them. Paul reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:31, that you should be one flesh only with your wife.

On top of all that, it wasn't good when David had sex with Bathsheba, though they both consented. God didn't care for that situation at all.


The Song of Songs contains a love affair between two unmarried persons, which taken literally flies in the face of what most churches teach(forbidding sex outside of marriage).

They definitely are married part way through the book. Song 4:9:


You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride...


Before they get married in the poem, all they say are lovey-dovey things. Also, do you think that the priests and later the rabbis would've considered this a book from God if it contained people doing something that was frowned upon in the Law in a positive light?

[edit on 9/11/2009 by octotom]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I feel like the book was written fore the people at the time but may have clues and hints for people of the future.
At the moment we understand DNA, postulates and for the most part faith.

Most have some amount of faith in systems we do not understand. For instance I have faith that the scientists comparing finger prints from a crime scene will not match it with my own. I vaguely understand that my prints are not in the system, that there is at least 15 or some ridiculous number of characteristics that must meet the requirements and that no finger print shares even one.
Or like they say, just because you can't see the wind does not mean it's not there.

The holy trinity I think was lost in translation, perhaps they're not trying to convince me that 1=3 but instead that the mother the father and the child are all one in spirit.

At the time when they were first explaining that woman was created to be exceptionally compatible with man they used the metaphor of a rib instead of trying to boggle our minds with the concept of genetics.
I do know that I have not read nearly enough of the book to be contemplating these fantastical things.
I have a question to you Darkness, do I take the bible literally?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
octotom:

Solomon and Paul only gave an opinion...that's all it was.

Adultery involves betrayal...that is why it is sin. Sex itself is not sinful, it's the evil motive behind the sex act that is sinful. There is no betrayal involved in consensual sex amoung consenting adults.


[edit on 11/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



Solomon and Paul only gave an opinion...that's all it was.

If you consider to the God's word, what they said was more than just an opinion! It's God communicating how he wants us to live! Paul and Solomon aside, that doesn't change God's attitude toward premarital sex, which is clear in the Old Testament. Sex with someone other than your spouse was a big deal to God. And that God is still our God today.

Remember Paul said too that all Scriputure is profitable. If you believe that that is the case, you can't just throw a part out because you feel that it is someone's opinion.


Adultery involves betrayal...that is why it is sin. Sex itself is not sinful, it's the evil motive behind the sex act that is sinful. There is no betrayal involved in consensual sex amoung consenting adults.

I never said that sex was sinful. Sex is a beautiful thing. Only that sex with anyone, at any time, other than one's spouse is a sin. There is a betrayal involved when you have premarital sex with someone other than your spouse. You're uniting yourself with someone other than your spouse and you should only be united with your spouse.

When you have sex with someone, you carry a little piece of that person with you for the rest of your life. Which, could end up in betrayal, though not physically, because you can think back on that experience either when you're having sex with your spouse or at another moment. [This is considered a sin by Jesus—adultery of the heart.] How would you feel if your wife told you what while you were doing your thing, she told you that she was thinking about that guy from freshman year of college? I'd wager pretty betrayed.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
How could it possible be the word of God When it is a historical fact the bible was edited my man? The council of Nicia is but one example. What of the other books which were left out because they were not biblically correct, e.g., The book of Jubilees and the book of Adam, do these count as "the word of God" also?

IMHO, the bible and it's monotheistic "god" was a control mechanism used by the tribe of Levi (priest) to deceive and control populations. It was not something man took willing, it (monothisesism ) was forced on the people and resulted in many wars being fought on this idea of "thou shall have no other god before me.

IMO, there was no God of the old testament. There was however an electronic contraption used to deceive people into believing they were in the presents of "god". This was that thing which was between the two cherubs on top of the Ark of the covenant. Sometimes called the "Mercy seat", sometimes called, "the speaker stone" But, more correctly, it was the Egyptian Aton or Aten, commonly known and depicted as the winged disk. What it was is a globe that was made to look as if it was levitating. This is why it was shown with wings. The whole apparatus was engineered, through the use of smoke, mirrors, curtains and electronics, to deceive one into believing he or she was in the presents of "god" and "god" was actually talking to the person.

This is not a popular opinion of the bible or god but it is mine and I live in a country which allows me the freedom to believe as I choose. I do believe in God. But what is being passed off as "god" on this planet, in this particular time is an out right lie and control mechanism IMO.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Zealott wrote:



I have a question to you Darkness, do I take the bible literally?

It seems to me you are trying to explain the possibly metaphorical descriptions in the bible with the knowledge of things we have today. You are basically saying that the way they described certain events in the bible, is because the actual knowledge wasn't there yet.
Please, correct me if I misunderstood you. But is that taking the bible literally? I don't know.
Werent you supposed to answer that?

It is an interesting point of view, nevertheless. But even god himself could perhaps be explained that way. For example, in early days they thought that thunder was about angry gods, but now we know it is a beautiful phenomenon of nature. Perhaps knowledge or science can explain god as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknessFollows
 


I don't think that it is the true words of god, but i do think that the teachings/lessons if followed correctly are valuable, If i were one i would try to live just like Christ, he is a true hero/Bodhisattva.

EDIT: well i say the bible isnt the true words of god, as Christians believe in him. In my belief everyone and everything is god so yes it technically is his words . =)

EDIT2: I don't know too much about Jesus or the bible, all that i plan on reading a lot later about Jesus, I'm saying i think that the lessons and teachings are valuable based on what little i know about Jesus and what I've heard monks talk about him.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessFollows
Let me begin with explaining where this question comes from. I was raised in a fundamental christian family, where the bible was the absolute word of god. Even at a young age, I had a lot of questions that couldn't really be answered. I started questioning a lot of things I took for granted as a small child. I tried to live as a devoted christian, but there was always the nagging in the back of my head that something was not quite right. In my early adulthood, I gave up christianity and became involved in the occult, where I still am today, happy and healthy.
I have been reading several topics here and some of the christian views on worldly things that are all but too familiar to me. One question I had for a long time came back to me and I felt myself wondering about how christians here think about this.

My question is this: how literally do you take the bible?

As I said, I was brought up with the idea that the bible is the actual, literal will of god, and that every word in it is the truth. As a child I already wondered why my gay uncle that shared an apartment with his boyfriend, wasn't stoned to death, then. Apparently I was being a little bit too literal on that one!
So, how literally do you take the bible?




The stories told should be held as truth......for that though, we must open our mind to what there possibly is besides what we think we know.......

I do NOT like religion at all.......they hide truth and make you believe what they want........


When we are given a true history of our people we will see that the fantastical myth stories are more real than we could eve know.........



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknessFollows
Let me begin with explaining where this question comes from. I was raised in a fundamental christian family, where the bible was the absolute word of god. Even at a young age, I had a lot of questions that couldn't really be answered. I started questioning a lot of things I took for granted as a small child.


That was me right up to that part, same story where I deleted the rest, w I never tried to be a devoted Christian. I refused from age of 16 to attend church anymore. Later I did go to alternative churches but.....

To answer your question. So, how literally do you take the bible?

Two years ago I literally put them in the trash bin.
It was more symbolic than anything. There is some good stuff in there.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
That's quite a literal approach too!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknessFollows
 


It is a guide of sorts. There are some things in it that are 100% true. There are a bunch of fables with a moral message. There are some predictions. Unfortunately most of the true history that should have been in there has been left out in order to keep the sheeple in line, and keep the guilt money flowing in.

I am a Christian, but probably about as open minded a Christer as you will ever meet. I think church is a total scam, and might well be the "Harlot" described in the book of Revelation, especially the Catholic Church.

The truth has been kept from most people. The Alexander's library contained in my opinion the history and technology from the cycle previous to the one we are on now. I believe that knowledge is locked in the Vatican's secret library today. Computers, airplanes, satellites ect.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknessFollows
 


Interesting. When I was 15, I was saved out of the occult by Jesus Christ. You may know him, he's rather famous. He said things like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." I take it literally. I also know that the bible has answers to all of your questions. The one real question you should ask is, what are you going to do with Jesus? You can't say he was wise, or a great man, or anything like that. You either have to say he was a lunatic or he was telling the truth, because he also said things like "I and the father are one", and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Check out his quotes for yourself. Don't let traditions of your family or former church keep you from the truth. Let Jesus talk to you personally through what he said.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I believe there is Truth in all ancient writings - including well known mythologies.

I do not believe they are "TRUTH".

Organized religion itself is politically designed by man to control the masses.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join