24 Jun 06
Originally posted by geniusYou would have to blame humans. Christ set the example and it is up to us to follow. Even Peter his disciple raised a sword to defend Christ but was rebuked by him for doing so. This is where we get the saying, "He who lives by the sword, dies by it."
yes, but which do you think is to blame? the bible, or humans?
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by gharguthYou and I have missed each other here. What Paul wrote is now considered scripture. It was cannonized a very long time ago. When one reads any literature, one must consider the original audience to be certain one gains the full import of what has been written. Do you read a science textbook the same way you read a Steven King novel? Paul and John both wrote at the urging of the Holy Spirit. I believe God is quite capable of speaking to the early church and to us today as well as to the generations to follow. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. However, PAUL did not know he was writing what would one day be considered scripture. Let me give you a more concrete example of what I mean... Paul speaks of spiritual gifts in his letters and even lists many of them. People today have professed (I've heard them!) that if it was not on that list, it cannot be a spiritual gift. Poppycock. If Paul thought he was writing a book that would last more than 2,000 years, he might have attempted to be more exhaustive in his list! But even Paul could not have forseen how modern technology has allowed other gifts to emerge. I am not questioning the validity of the choice to cannonize Paul or John's writings. I agree with you on the beauty of the workings of God. I'm simply trying to point out that we need to use our brains when interpreting the various books contained in the Bible.
Do you hold the same standard for John's letter (Revelation)? Can we glean truths from it? Yes. Was John writing from his heart and at the urging of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Did he write the letter to us" Yes or No? Based on your argument, if a document is classified as a letter it is not Scripture, this should hold true for Revelation but yet you cons ...[text shortened]... Paul were writng to the people of their time and us? Isn't this the beauty of Holy Scripture?
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by geniusYes. I agree with you. see my last post!
i disagree. the bible was not just written for men by men, it was divinely inspired. paul was filled with the Holy Spirit. he did not know that what he was writing would be read the world over years later, but God most certainly did! he wrote those letters to a church, but God wrote them to everyone. also, often he asks his letters to be forwarded to other ch ...[text shortened]... erestimate the importance of this book. while Paul's letters were inspired, this came from God.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyThis is my point illustrated beautifully. You quote 2 Timothy. There was no New Testament when this was written. Paul is referring to what we call the Old Testament. Paul was not included in "holy scripture" for hundreds of years after that was written! I am not and did not say that the letters written by Paul did not contain truth for us today. They were not written specifically for us. I am not challenging their validity as part of the Bible. I am happy they are in there. I have been touched and transformed by the truths Paul wrote. I'm just saying that when you read them, you must take into account who they were originally intended for and read them with that in mind! Just like I said above. The "scripture" referenced by Paul in 2 Timothy is not the letters he wrote to various churches. The New Testament DID NOT EXIST THEN!
Have you not read 2 Timothy 3:16? ALL scripture is given by inspiration of GOD (not men), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. According to the Bible, it was written by men such as Paul who were inspired by God. Of coarse this was written by Paul so I'm not sure you will receive it as truth. You sa ...[text shortened]... and. If we did not have him and his letters, the majority of the New Testament would be amiss.
I agree the Bible is timeless. I'm asking you to use your brain instead of blindly reading with no thought behind it. Dig deeper. Pray for divine revelation of your own as you read the Bible. Ask God to show you more about Him in what you read. Ask to be given full understanding. I have not taken away anything from Paul or John to ask you to think for yourself while reading! God gave you a mind capable of comprehending many things. God gave you a mind capable of creating beautiful and wonderous things. Don't put your mind in neutral when seeking God.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by MythicalSkippySo, in your mind, what are the boundaries of Scripture?
This is my point illustrated beautifully. You quote 2 Timothy. There was no New Testament when this was written. Paul is referring to what we call the Old Testament. Paul was not included in "holy scripture" for hundreds of years after that was written! I am not and did not say that the letters written by Paul did not contain truth for us today. ...[text shortened]... reating beautiful and wonderous things. Don't put your mind in neutral when seeking God.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by MythicalSkippyYes but if you think about the Old Testaement who was it written for? Was it written for the Gentiles? No, not specifically, it was not. You could use the same logic for the entire Bible.
This is my point illustrated beautifully. You quote 2 Timothy. There was no New Testament when this was written. Paul is referring to what we call the Old Testament. Paul was not included in "holy scripture" for hundreds of years after that was written! I am not and did not say that the letters written by Paul did not contain truth for us today. ...[text shortened]... reating beautiful and wonderous things. Don't put your mind in neutral when seeking God.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, you miss my point. Do you read Song of Solomon the same way you read Genesis? Is Proverbs the same "kind" of book as Amos? Just because something was written for one group does not mean that we cannot glean truth and instruction from it. I am say that to fully understand the Bible you must consider it's original audience. How would they have understood it? The point is not to exclude anything. The point is a deeper understanding that leads to a closer relationship to God.
Yes but if you think about the Old Testaement who was it written for? Was it written for the Gentiles? No, not specifically, it was not. You could use the same logic for the entire Bible.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by MythicalSkippyFrom one of your earlier posts, you indicate that God spoke to the early church and that He speaks to us today. I am curious if you are suggesting that the Bible is not the final authority on spiritual matters, and whether or not our experiences today are equally valid.
Genesis to Revelation. I know. That's a smartass answer. I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking.
29 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH:-) Freaky, God has been speaking to humans since the beginning, since before we had a Bible. The FINAL authority on spiritual matters is God. The Bible helps us understand God so we can figure out what His stance is on spiritual matters. As to whether our experiences today are equally valid... you brought a smile to my face! How could they not be valid? We are experiencing the same God today that spoke to Moses. God touches you and me in much the same way He touched Peter or Paul, even Mary. (Ok. I couldn't resist the pun!) Of course our experiences are valid.
From one of your earlier posts, you indicate that God spoke to the early church and that He speaks to us today. I am curious if you are suggesting that the Bible is not the final authority on spiritual matters, and whether or not our experiences today are equally valid.
The Bible tells us that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God exists outside of time and space and so is not hampered by our linear existance. Time is of no consequence to the Almighty. The Bible should be considered an authority, a source for answers for spiritual matters, but it is not a substitue for a personal relationship with the Divine. If you want to know God, get to know Him. He wants to know you.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by gharguthgharguth,
Someone explain this one to me please
The concept of the "infallability of scripture" crept into the church in the last century. It is a belief that everything (and I mean everything) you read in the Bible is 100% accurate. There are no errors in the Bible, no contradictions, nothing except literal truth. The backside of this arguement is that if you don't believe this to be true, then somehow you are not a Christian.
The problem is that there are some contradictions in scripture. I'll give you just one to illustrate my point...
In Genesis, God made Adam and Eve. They had two sons, Cain and Able. After Cain killed Able he went off (Gen. 4:16) to the land of Nod, east of Eden. "And Cain knew (snicker) his wife; and she conceived and bore Enoch..."
Where did the people from the land of Nod come from? Were they also children of Adam and Eve? Why doesn't the Bible mention them then? Were there other peoples created in addition to Adam and Eve? What's up with this whole thing?
There are also those people who believe that only the teachings in the Bible are all we are to know. God never meant for us to know anything other than what made it into the Bible. Hmmm. I guess it's a shame then that someone figured out how to cure smallpox. I know we have boat building instructions in the Bible but cars are right out.
It troubles me when people take religion to such extremes. They end up using the Bible more as a club than as the healing salve it was intended to be.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by MythicalSkippyI hear this kind of arguement frequently in regards to criticising scripture. For example, in the gospel of Mark it may say that Jesus went to town X but it is not mentioned in the gospel of Matthew. Matthew then says Jesus went to town Y but it is not mentioned in the gospel of Mark. Then they will use this bit of information to say that the gospels do not agree. They do not stop to consider that just because things are omitted from scripture that scripture is saying that it never happened. Jesus could have gone to both town X and Y even though it is not mentioned in both gospels. If both gospels were exacly alike, why write a different gospel? As far as Genesis goes, the people from Nod were simply not mentioned up until this point in scipture. You then assume that Genesis is therefore in error.
Where did the people from the land of Nod come from? Were they also children of Adam and Eve? Why doesn't the Bible mention them then? Were there other peoples created in addition to Adam and Eve? What's up with this whole thing?
There are also those people who believe that only the teachings in the Bible are all we are to know. God never meant ...[text shortened]... They end up using the Bible more as a club than as the healing salve it was intended to be.[/b]
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyAs for the differing Gospels... we all see things differently. Matthew wanted to make a different point than Mark did. Actually, Matthew included a large portion of Mark and then added his own material. This doesn't make either of them wrong.
I hear this kind of arguement frequently in regards to criticising scripture. For example, in the gospel of Mark it may say that Jesus went to town X but it is not mentioned in the gospel of Matthew. Matthew then says Jesus went to town Y but it is not mentioned in the gospel of Mark. Then they will use this bit of information to say that the gospels do no ...[text shortened]... mentioned up until this point in scipture. You then assume that Genesis is therefore in error.
Many people want to make the Bible wrong. It allows them a convenient way to dismiss the truth in it.
To me, it is not important where the people from Nod fit into the story. I don't assume Genesis is in error. I do see how it can be contrived as a contradiction. To go back to the thought that started this, i don't believe in the infallability of scripture. If one looks hard enough, you can find contradictions. People were still involved in the process, even if they were divinely inspired. We sometimes get confused about our inspiration, don't we?
I personally don't believe that the story of Genesis is supposed to be a literal, blow-by-blow account of creation. Moses is the one who wrote it. He's writing down an oral history to preserve it for future generations. I believe Genesis serves as a way of understanding our relationship to our Creator and to His creation.