20 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by OdBodIts self evident that you have not otherwise you would not have made the statement that you did. It is nothing to do with a perceived difference of opinion. All i need to do is ask you where in the Biblical text it teaches confusion and division among religions and what will you proffer as evidence? I can certainly demonstrate where it advocates unity and oneness of thought.
I presume you are suggesting that anyone who holds a different view to yourself ,has not read the bible?
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you seriously suggesting that religions based on the bible agree with each other with regard to it's interpretation ?
Its self evident that you have not otherwise you would not have made the statement that you did. It is nothing to do with a perceived difference of opinion.
20 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodNo i am asking you for evidence that the Bible teaches confusion and division. That was your assertion. What those who profess to follow its teachings actually practice is something entirely different. Why you cannot differentiate between what a text actually states and what persons who profess to follow that text actually practice , I cannot say.
Are you seriously suggesting that religions based on the bible agree with each other with regard to it's interpretation ?
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe number of different interpretations giving rise to so many religions suggests the bible is not good at giving clear direction .
No i am asking you for evidence that the Bible teaches confusion and division. That was your assertion. What those who profess to follow its teachings actually practice is something entirely different. Why you cannot differentiate between what a text actually states and what persons who profess to follow that text actually practice , I cannot say.
20 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodThis is not evidence of actual Biblical teaching, in fact its more likely to be evidence of divergence from Biblical teaching, for clearly the Bible advocates unity and oneness of thought. Let me show you,
The number of different interpretations giving rise to so many religions suggests the bible is not good at giving clear direction .
(1 Corinthians 1:10) Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.
(Philippians 2:2) make my joy full in that you are of the same mind and have the same love, being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind,
(Romans 15:5, 6) Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant you to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had ;that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
and there are many others
20 Apr 13
Many people who claim to be Biblical scholars have read the Bible
and a lot of them disagree with each other. A lot of them have
their own reasoning and interpretation of the passages contained
therein. So you saying that that one would not make such a statement
if they had read the Bible is wrong because it is not always as clear cut
as you claim it is.
Just because someone does not agree with you Robbie, it does not mean
that they have not read the book or the particular passage.
The problem with the Bible is that it is written in riddles and this is why
people, even eminent scholars all have different meanings from reading
the same passages.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by OdBodActually, the number of different interpretations are deliberate. The bible says this..
The number of different interpretations giving rise to so many religions suggests the bible is not good at giving clear direction .
2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
So if it of no "private" interpretation, we must decide "who" can. The answer to this is that the bible actually interprets itself. We can get this interpretation by study and "rightly dividing" the Words of scripture.
2 Tim 2:15-16
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
NKJV
The words "rightly divide" are actually "right cutting". There were no chapters or punctuation in the originals. The words were run together like this....FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLD, etc.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
20 Apr 13
The way Bible translators use capitalization of words or punctuation marks or even chapter and verse markings may alter what the Bible is really saying. Let’s look at chapter and verse markings for example. Although chapter and verse markings are an essential tool to help us find certain sections of Scripture they are not inspired of God. And at times they make it ore difficult to follow the flow of thought. Here is an example from the gospel of John.
And everyone went to his own house.
(John 7:53)
John 7:53 is the end of the chapter as we have it in our Bibles, and then begins chapter 8.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
(John 8:1)
As far as the context and the flow of thought, it looks as if John 8:1 should really be the last verse of chapter 7. Then we would read,
And everyone went to his own house.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
This would make more sense as far as the flow of thought is concerned. Then chapter 8, would logically begin with John 8:2 and we would have something like this:
And everyone went to his own house.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the
people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
(John 8:2)
If we rearranged the chapter and verse markings like the example above then John 8:2 would become the new John 8:1 and we would not have cut up the flow of thought or the context. You should know that in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no verse markings or punctuation marks. It wasn’t in their style of writing. I’ll grant you that verse markings and punctuation marks are very helpful, but sometimes they can change what the Bible is really teaching us.
20 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyIf the Bible teaches confusion and division as was asserted then produce the evidence, citing what others think about its contents is irrelevant.
Many people who claim to be Biblical scholars have read the Bible
and a lot of them disagree with each other. A lot of them have
their own reasoning and interpretation of the passages contained
therein. So you saying that that one would not make such a statement
if they had read the Bible is wrong because it is not always as clear cut
as you ...[text shortened]... why
people, even eminent scholars all have different meanings from reading
the same passages.
20 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat others think about the bible is entirely the point! Quoting chapter and verse is all we ever hear from religious experts, yet still we see disagreement. It is not unreasonable to suggest the form and text of this document is a fundamental cause of those disagreements.
If the Bible teaches confusion and division as was asserted then produce the evidence, citing what others think about its contents is irrelevant.
20 Apr 13
4 edits
Originally posted by OdBodNo all we ever hear is unsubstantiated statements like, 'the Bible teaches confusion and division', from persons who have never read it and who know next to nothing about its content. This is the third time I will ask you, if it teaches confusion and division as you have asserted then produce the teaching, it should be easy, its divided into chapters and verses, simple cite the chapter and verse, if you cannot or will not, then i would be pleased if you stopped making prejudiced statements made on the basis of ignorance of its contents.
What others think about the bible is entirely the point! Quoting chapter and verse is all we ever hear from religious experts, yet still we see disagreement. It is not unreasonable to suggest the form and text of this document is a fundamental cause of those disagreements.
Its 2013 and to have no knowledge of the most widely distributed, widely accessible and widely translated book in the history of humanity is inexcusable and borders on wilful ignorance.
Where is your evidence?
21 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodI believe you may be referring to the Protestant Reformation. I quote some information from wikipedia below:
It seems that the bible is great at teaching confusion and division amongst religions! As matter of interest, how many religions has the bible spawned,all of which claim to be the "divinely inspired" correct interpretation ?
The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century schism within Western Christianity initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants. It was sparked by the 1517 posting of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses. Luther taught that salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin.
The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.
The efforts of the self-described "reformers", who objected to (protested) the doctrines, rituals, leadership and ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
Protestants (most significantly starting with Martin Luther) and evangelical Christians have formally taught that the Bishop of Rome, along with the Catholic Church, greatly abused the original teachings and practices of the primitive or original Christian church. They teach that the Papacy slowly became corrupted as it strove to attain great dominion and authority, civil and ecclesiastical.
Following the Protestant Reformation, the denominations spawned from the Reformation have considered their own teachings to be restorative in nature, returning to the basic tenets of Biblical Christianity and sola scriptura. These views are taught in the modern descendant denominations and these doctrinal stances account for their continuing separation from the Catholic Church. Although Protestant Christianity, as a whole, rejects the overall concept that the original church was thrown into complete anarchy and chaos through Catholicism, it does assert that there was gross abuse of Biblical authority (especially by the Papacy) and a wandering from clear Biblical teachings prior to the Reformation.
Therefore, although these groups believe that errors can and have come into the church, they deny that there has ever been a time when the truth was entirely lost. They affirm that there shall be times when errors shall predominate, as they believe is foretold in the Bible. (1 Timothy 4:1-3; Acts 20:28-29; Matthew 24:10-14)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by OdBodIt does no good to agree, if what you agree on is false.
What others think about the bible is entirely the point! Quoting chapter and verse is all we ever hear from religious experts, yet still we see disagreement. It is not unreasonable to suggest the form and text of this document is a fundamental cause of those disagreements.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, here is just one example.
No all we ever hear is unsubstantiated statements like, 'the Bible teaches confusion and division', from persons who have never read it and who know next to nothing about its content. This is the third time I will ask you, if it teaches confusion and division as you have asserted then produce the teaching, it should be easy, its divided into chapter ...[text shortened]... story of humanity is inexcusable and borders on wilful ignorance.
Where is your evidence?
When Jesus was crucified and he was speaking to the two
people crucified with him. He said to one of them,
Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise.
Experts disagree with the way and the context in which Jesus said those words.
Some say he meant......TODAY you will be with me in paradise.
Other experts say that he said TRULY I TELL YOU TODAY.......... you will be with me in paradise.
Indicating that what he meant was I am telling you today
not that they would be there today.
Yet others say no he meant today, we will be there today.
Now that is a very simple example of how men have argued
for centuries over a small piece of text.