- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
03 Jun 16
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemFirst - the Bible is many books; a collection of writings spanning centuries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I purposely said "writing" in the thread title rather than book.
So, by ranking the entire collection #1, you've allowed an easy way out of the chore. Just pick all the writings one likes, form a collection of them, and rank the whole thing #1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Most Important Writing to Understand
I rank that "writing" the highest. But if asked to think of only one book of the 66 ?
Maybe the Gospel of Luke or of John.
But the rest of the books of the "writing" would be needed to place Luke and John in surrounding context.
One candidate was the Indian Vedas. I believe that that is also along the nature of a library or collection.
Did you ever think how to answer the question about ranking these two sentences ?
So then which sentence would you rank as more important ?
1.) We can rank the writings of the world in some order of importance.
2.) We cannot rank the writings of the world in any order of importance.
Second - which version of the Bible, of the manifold changing versions as the Bible was rewritten over and over again by hand, before the invention of the printing press?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor differences in the .
Don't bank on this issue as a disqualifier in my mind.
The Bible has been translated into over 450 languages—and the New Testament into over 1,600 languages. These numbers are increasing every year as organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators and the United Bible Societies produce new language versions. Obviously, translating the Bible into different languages is a good thing. It is estimated that about 98% of the world’s population speak a language in which at least part of the Bible has been translated. This is true of no other book in history.
http://irr.org/faq-why-are-there-so-many-different-translations-of-bible
Or which of the manifold versions that came after the printing press, where man showed he still likes his holy books to be fluid despite a newfound ability to duplicate them word-for-word?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are attempting to come up with some rationale which would influence me to change my decision, I haven't.
I have many English translations. I rank good translations higher than decent paraphrases.
That means I would prefer 1901 American Standard over Good New for Modern Man. Or it means I would rank J.N. Darby's New Translation over Living Bible or J.B. Phillips.
I would consult a paraphrase secondarily. They do have some usage. But accuracy of translation, has more importance to me.
This is the book, the Bible, which I think is the most important to mankind in terms of needing good reading comprehension.
Many versions doesn't change my mind on this.
The Jehovah's Witness "New World Translation" I have no use for though.
As for music - can you pick just one piece? I know I can't. Some faves:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The equivalant issue would then be music listening comprehension.
Sometime I may meet you on the Culture Forum and discuss some great music which I think is important to the artistic world. This thread is about writing important to man's reading comprehension.
Animals as Leaders - the Joy of Motion
Alice in Chains - Facelift
Tool - Lateralus
etc.
...asking me to leave all but one of them out is like asking me to label a bunch of great music "inferior" when I do not feel it is inferior at all. [I suppose I can bundle them all into a collection - I'll call it "Most Awesome Music EVAR!!!" and rank that number 1. Problem solved.]
---------------------------------------------------------
Because I am an amateur composer, I would be interested to hear some of this music you are fond of. This is off the point. But if you wish give me a link.
You asked FMF "it sounds like you want to avoid ranking of any kind...why?" I could just as well ask, "why are you so keen to rank things"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I am not afraid to come out and say "I think the Bible is the most important writing when it comes to reading comprehension."
I'm just not afraid to say so.
I have nothing to hide about it. And saying so doesn't mean other writing is not important also.
Yet another caveat. I rarely agree with everything a book has to say, especially one that covers far-reaching and difficult topics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My proposal that people suggest a writing most important to reading comprehension does not insist EVERYTHING in the writing is well understood. It allows that portions of the writing be still under much study, discussion, and trying to understand.
So, I'd add that, not only is it important in general to comprehend what one reads on weighty topics, but also to think critically about what one has just read. It is normal and healthy for parts of the writing to be accepted and others discarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to the Bible, I would use the phrase "Put on the back burner for awhile" rather than "discard".
Sure, parts of the Bible I "put on the back burner" for a latter time. As experience and understanding grow, those portions can be revisited.
Asking only about the understanding part leaves out the critical second part of taking writing on board the mental ship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many caveats.
Perhaps you're just saying - 'Don't even ask such a thing".
However, I see no harm in asking.
04 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipRE: sentences: "important" isn't the right word. 1) is true and 2) is false.
[b]First - the Bible is many books; a collection of writings spanning centuries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I purposely said "writing" in the thread title rather than book.
So, by ranking the entire collection #1, you've allowed an easy way out of the chore. Just pick all t ...[text shortened]... erhaps you're just saying - 'Don't even ask such a thing".
However, I see no harm in asking.
RE: "rationale which would influence me to change my decision" - please relax; I am not try to change your decisions. I'm just discussing a topic of mutual interest.
RE: music - the point of listing my music wasn't to have you listen to it; I was thinking out loud. I am sure you have a similar list of your favorite music. I was just trying to get you to imagine someone asking you to rank a bunch of things you consider to all be 'great'.
RE: "I guess I am not afraid..." - this didn't answer my question, which was "why are you so keen to rank things?"
RE: "back burner" - this is fine. To me, this qualifies as thinking critically. You are struggling with difficult bits of the text instead of simply accepting them as true.
RE: "don't even ask..." - that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is important to both 1) comprehend what is read 2) think critically about what the author said. I am stressing that 2) should not be left out. But it sounds like you're doing 2) to me, so I think we are more or less at the same place on this point.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
04 Jun 16
2 edits
I cannot but help thinking how important the very first sentence in the Bible is:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
How important to understand even this much - one verse.
1.) Before all the universe One was in existence already - God.
2.) The universe has not always been. It has its beginning in the creative act of an all-powerful God.
3.) We may not know HOW God was able to do this.He does not forbid us to try to figure out how.
But that we believing readers know the ORIGIN of all things is important. They have their origin in God Who created heaven and earth "in the beginning".
How important it is to mankind to read and comprehend this simple straightforward truth.
This is the first sentence in the divine revelation of the Bible. This is the first sentence in God reaching out to SPEAK to humanity -
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1 verse 1 !
"Lord give me the reading comprehension to grasp this. And You will save me a lifetime of groping in darkness about where I came from."
05 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonship
I cannot but help thinking how important the very first sentence in the Bible is:
[b] "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
How important to understand even this much - one verse.
1.) Before all the universe One was in existence already - God.
2.) The universe has not always been. It has its ...[text shortened]... to grasp this. And You will save me a lifetime of groping in darkness about where I came from."[/b]Your 1), 2), and 3) add content to the verse. You are not performing a simple act of reading comprehension here. You are interpreting.
Here are some particulars.
How can you be sure that "heavens and the earth" is the same as the universe? I read "heavens and the earth" and I picture one planet and one sky above it. Where's the rest? - comets, nebulas, other planets, other solar systems, etc.
How can you be sure God and the Universe are separate?
How can be sure the Universe has not always been? Maybe the moment of creation was t0 and there was no time before that. In that case, the Universe has always been.
I think it's obvious with your 3) that you stopped caring about your own post having anything to do with comprehending Gen 1:1 at that point. You probably should have avoided numbering that one to make it more clear that you were not claiming that 3) follows from the reading of the verse. [If you are claiming that 3) follows from simple reading comprehension of Gen 1:1, then my only response can be, "Good Lord, that's sloppy."]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Your 1), 2), and 3) add content to the verse. You are not performing a simple act of reading comprehension here. You are interpreting.
Interpreting is allowed. You're interpreting my post right now.
Here are some particulars.
How can you be sure that "heavens and the earth" is the same as the universe?
The best interpretation is that for all intents and purposes, the writer means everywhere. Now the seer may not have seen everywhere or all the galaxies and the things grander than the known cosmos. That much I would grant.
But the best interpretation, I think, is that the heavens and the earth for all intents and purposes means man's entire physical environment. And of course the repetition of Scripture assures that vital matters are repeated in more than one place.
Genesis 1:1 is by no means the only Bible verse to speak of the creation of the entire cosmos.
I read "heavens and the earth" and I picture one planet and one sky above it. Where's the rest? - comets, nebulas, other planets, other solar systems, etc.
It is a concise statement. Neutrinos, Quarks, Asteroids, Black Holes, Red Dwarfs, etc are not specified. The widest possible usage to met the needs of the most people of the human race is uttered.
I do not mistake the simplicity of the writing for naivete.
I use to. But eventually instead of naivete I saw great wisdom from God in the utterance.
How can you be sure God and the Universe are separate?
If God is the universe that He would have to exist before He existed.
That makes no sense. So "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" must mean that He is eternal and brought the universe into existence.
Pantheism and Panentheism are alternative philosophies. But I see a transcendent Creator of the creation.
How can be sure the Universe has not always been?
I take the passage as it is stated. "In the beginning ... " before it was created only God was. At a moment "the beginning" God was and in addition the creation was too.
I don't think it is hard to understand that part.
Maybe the moment of creation was t0 and there was no time before that. In that case, the Universe has always been.
I don't feel the necessity to explore how the statement could not be true.
I recognize that human limitations can hardly conceive of the precise mechanics of such a beginning. That is ok.
The major point is that God transcends all the created world.
Latter we see in the Bible that He clothed Himself in creation and became a man.
But you have to keep reading, and with patience.
You are not performing a simple act of reading comprehension here. You are interpreting.
As you have done with my post, I have offered something of my comprehension of Genesis 1:1
What am I doing that you are not doing ?
05 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd I say this is an example of post justification, it you wish to show something then look for justification for it, and end up saying things you don't actually believe at all.
I say the Holy Bible.
I say its translation into so many languages is evidence of its importance.
Do you say that the top 10 items on this list are also important? What of the top 100?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_translations
I see Asterix and Harry Potter in there. Are they important to understand? Have you even read them?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jun 16
6 edits
Here are some particulars.
How can you be sure that "heavens and the earth" is the same as the universe?
i think it is clear in Genesis. But I would be helped in other parts of the Bible explaining creation.
1.) Not one thing is excluded from God's creative power.
"All things came into being through Him [Logos], and apart from Him not one thing came into being. (John 1:3)
2.) For Him and through Him are all things.
"Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him." (Col. 1:16)
3.) Christ is the heir of the all things (universe) created through Him and for HIm.
"Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, through whom also He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:2)
4.) All things not being were sourced in the One Who called them into BEING.
" God ... who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Rom. 4:17)
5.) All things were created for His will.
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created." (Rev. 4:11)
6.) More poetically God stretched forth the heavens for the earth, and the earth for man. This imagery reminds me of the expanding universe.
" The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1)
7.) Paul indicates that height, depth, are creatures along with the future, the present, angels and even life and death are created matters.
" For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor ANY OTHER CREATURE will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:38,39)
05 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipYour 1), 2), and 3) add content to the verse. You are not performing a simple act of reading comprehension here. You are interpreting.
Interpreting is allowed. You're interpreting my post right now.
Here are some particulars.
How can you be sure that "heavens and the earth" is the same as the universe?
The b ...[text shortened]... ed something of my comprehension of [b]Genesis 1:1
What am I doing that you are not doing ?[/b]
Interpreting is allowed. You're interpreting my post right now.Good - I am glad you admit it. I think it's an important addition to the thread's topic; every reader interprets everything they read.
Realizing this, we come to understand that reasonable people may take different meanings from the same bits of writing - because of differing interpretation, and not because either of them have failed to comprehend the writing in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now the seer may not have seen everywhere or all the galaxies and the things grander than the known cosmos. That much I would grant.But the seer saw the Sun, and yet it was not created until the 4th day. This is a strong indication that "heavens and the earth" does not mean "everywhere".
But the best interpretation, I think, is that the heavens and the earth for all intents and purposes means man's entire physical environment. And of course the repetition of Scripture assures that vital matters are repeated in more than one place.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pantheism and Panentheism are alternative philosophies. But I see a transcendent Creator of the creation.On what basis do you label them "alternative"? Are you sure scripture rules them out?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I take the passage as it is stated. "In the beginning ... " before it was created only God was. At a moment "the beginning" God was and in addition the creation was too.Where'd the "interpreting" go? Sigh. And we were doing so well just a minute ago.
Here's my interpretation: In the beginning, at the Big Bang, God [the Universe] created the heavens and the earth [the planet earth and the sky above it]. This requires no separate entity to exist BEFORE the big bang. [The very concept of "BEFORE the big bang" is not coherent anyhow.]
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't feel the necessity to explore how the statement could not be true.You have not offered much, if any, justification for that claim, in my view. I don't see any direct support in the text for this claim. I would like to know how you derive that interpretation, because I'm not getting that from the reading at all.
I recognize that human limitations can hardly conceive of the precise mechanics of such a beginning. That is ok.
The major point is that God transcends all the created world.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As you have done with my post, I have offered something of my comprehension of Genesis 1:1Right now, you are treating "comprehension" and "interpretation" as equivalent concepts. They are not.
What am I doing that you are not doing ?
"Comprehension" is limited to things like the grammar and structure of sentences and the meaning of words. It does not allow for ideas outside the text to be included.
"Interpretation" admits things like "reading between the lines" and considering the author's background, overarching message and such.
--------------------------------------------------------------
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jun 16
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemGood - I am glad you admit it. I think it's an important addition to the thread's topic; every reader interprets everything they read.Interpreting is allowed. You're interpreting my post right now.Good - I am glad you admit it. I think it's an important addition to the thread's topic; every reader interprets everything they read.
Realizing this, we come to understand that reasonable people may take different meanings from the same bits of writing - because of diffe ...[text shortened]... d, overarching message and such.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Did you imagine that this would be something difficult for me to state, as if it was a confession of some kind ?
Realizing this, we come to understand that reasonable people may take different meanings from the same bits of writing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some understandings of a passage are more valid and some less so.
But there is a difference between the interpretation of a Bible passage and an application of that passage. There is a distinction between the logos and the rhema of God's speaking. Both Greek words translate to word in English.
Rhema may be more flexible and applicable to a person's personal situation as the Holy Spirit wants to speak something to that person/s.
One of the ways the Lord Jesus prepares the church for Himself is by the washing of the water of the [rhema] wor (Eph. 5:26)
" That He [Christ] might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word [RHEMA]. "
This is an instant speaking, very applicable to an immediate spiritual need. This speaking reflects God's up-to-date wisdom of one's condition. He speaks some immediate rhema word shining light and supplying grace to a need in a very specific way.
You see, with the Bible we do not have just the letters and no Person behind those letters. We have the book and a living Spirit of God standing behind the book. He speaks the logos of the eternal word and He also washing, like the washing of water with His instant rhema word.
The church must have both. Sometimes when I speak of some instant rhema word God impressed me with, people cynically take it as the interpretation as if there is one and only one matter this word could mean.
But the rhema of the word and the illumination we can obtain by the application of the Scripture make is a living book of exhaustless riches. It peals like an onion. And we needn't fear that God could not illuminate a passage for our benefit in more than one way.
Having said all that - No, I would not trust anyone claiming to "interpret" Genesis 1:1 to purport that atheism is being seen in that passage. Anarchy, I am not proposing.
Originally posted by sonshipDo you ever stop for a moment to wonder why, in so far as your beliefs and imaginings go, your God figure didn't just supply humans with a book they could read which was clear and unequivocal, and instead provided stuff that allowed people like you to nominate yourselves to "interpret", cherry pick from, and simply add stuff to at will?
Interpreting is allowed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jun 16
7 edits
- because of differing interpretation, and not because either of them have failed to comprehend the writing in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is safety in the Bible repeating its major themes much more than just twice, as I demonstrated.
But the seer saw the Sun, and yet it was not created until the 4th day. This is a strong indication that "heavens and the earth" does not mean "everywhere".
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you are really serious about proper interpretation you may notice that the SUN is not said to be CREATED on the 4th day. The word used for the 4th day is not bara but asah. This is the same as Exodus 20:11 .
Exodus 20:11 does not say God created the heaven and earth in six days. It says He made it in six days.
The base word asah is also used for trimming finger nails, preparing a meal. trimming a beard. And it implies working with already existing material.
Now, some overlap of the two words may be argued for in Scripture - created and made . So an absolute distinction might be hard to press too far. But I feel had God meant to say He CREATED the 4th day lights He would have said that. As it stands He MADE the 4th day lights.
And I count that to mean that perhaps He caused them to appear generally, from behind the haze of otherwise obscuring atmospheric conditions.
Also the word for the bodies of Sun, Moon, and Stars on the 4th day is not the same Hebrew word for light in Genesis 1:2 - "Let there be LIGHT." Rather the word is better translated LIGHT-HOLDERS or LIGHT-BEARERS. It denotes a more localized receptacle which more clearly reveals a specific source of light.
So when we talk about interpretation we consider these matters.
And still, of course, some reasonable folks can differ.
Right now you're speaking with me. And I have no problem with LIGHT being said to BE on the first day and LIGHT-BEARERS being MADE on the 4th day.
The Recovery Version on Genesis 1:14,15
And God said, Let there be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven ... (v.14)
And let them be light-bearers in the expanse of heaven to give light ... (v.15)
06 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipInteresting thread. Here are my immediate thoughts:
When it comes to reading comprehension, what is the world's most important writing that needs to be comprehended ?
Whose writing do you think is the most crucial that something of it, if not all of it, is crucial to be grasped through reading comprehension?
Jer 31:33
"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Her 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.
The most important writing is that which the Lord writes in the hearts and minds of his people.
06 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFI think about this quite a lot.
Do you ever stop for a moment to wonder why, in so far as your beliefs and imaginings go, your God figure didn't just supply humans with a book they could read which was clear and unequivocal, and instead provided stuff that allowed people like you to nominate yourselves to "interpret", cherry pick from, and simply add stuff to at will?
Originally posted by divegeesterFor all his rhetorical flourishes and Master's Degree-type forensic literature analysis, sonship's contortion and reaching and "interpretation" to try to make the scriptures sound convincing point not so much to very clever text decipherable by very dedicated people, but rather to a sloppy "revelation" story cobbled together by early Christians. I'm not saying I think you think about THIS quite a lot. But it is what I think. 😉
I think about this quite a lot.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMFSpeaking bluntly, I regard this as a truly stupid remark.
Do you ever stop for a moment to wonder why, in so far as your beliefs and imaginings go, your God figure didn't just supply humans with a book they could read which was clear and unequivocal, and instead provided stuff that allowed people like you to nominate yourselves to "interpret", cherry pick from, and simply add stuff to at will?
I do not mean this as an insult though it is one.
I truly regard this remark as stupid.
In a family there are different levels of growth and maturity. And in the spiritual house there are different levels of maturity. God has given one book which has to meet the needs of newborns, toddlers, adolescents, adults, middle age, and elders.
One book of God has differing levels of wisdom. You take this to mean contradictions, fights, and disagreements on interpretation. And so there be some. But the real seekers will not be discouraged overly by this. They come to taste God and touch God in His word.
If I reduced my study of the Bible only to the most elementary portions perhaps you would be the first to complain that it is too childish. I trust that from the same book we may discuss the lighter issues and the more substantial ones and the quite heavier ones to different levels of spiritual progress.
Chances are that if you respond to this post I will glance so quickly over it that the reading comprehension police will cry. But you have nothing. You really don't have anything of Spirituality to talk about that I can see.
So I can go along with new believers in the milk of the word. And I can go somewhat along with those needing meat. And sometimes I can go along with some who are ready for hard meat.
Whether mild or meat or hard meat the Bible is still, I think, the most important writing in man's languages to be read and comprehended.
Behind the writing is the living God who you contemptuously like to call "your god figure". God helps the seekers in navigating through His word even though there be different viewpoints and interpretations. He can lead seekers to Himself and be nourished in faith by His book.
I'm sorry for you that you are not sure of anything.