How do you decide what is True in the Bible? Part 2

First of all, I was raised to read the Bible as inerrant and literal - with the NT taking precedence over the old and in fact many parts of the OT actually ignored in practice if not explicitly.Today I no longer think the Bible should be read as literally and inerrantly true. In fact it is my personal belief that to read it this way diminishes the larger truths that can be found in the Bible.
Some fundamentalists say, "Well you are picking and choosing, so you might as well throw it all out." That is not a strawman - I have been told that numerous times in different ways in many conversations both on and off the web. My answer to that is that everybody is picking and choosing as to which part of the Bible they are going to take literally, which part to take figuratively and which part to simply ignore, implicitly or explicitly. No one, not even orthodox Jews, follows ALL of the commandments in Leviticus, for example. Christians in particular mostly just take seriously the NT save for most of the Ten Commandments. Even then, most Christains don't adhere to the "graven image" prohibition (save for the Amish) and many Christians don't adhere to Paul's admonition in I Corinthians 11 that a woman's hair should not be cut and she should wear a veil on her head (again save for the Amish and some plain Mennonite groups). Many Christian churches will allow divorced people to get married - even though Jesus himself has some rather unambigious things to say about that-yet they do refuse to allow gay people to get married - and Jesus says nothing about that. Many Christian churches in the United States have U.S. flags in their sanctuary and seem to equate Christianity with U.S. nationalism, a direct violation of "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Finally, many Christian churches, both fundamentalist and otherwise, put way more emphasis on doctrinal purity, slick "contemporary worship" services, and multimillion dollar megachurch sanctuarys than they do following the actual teachings of Jesus.For me the central message of the whole Bible culminates in the life of Jesus - not just his death and resurrection but his teachings also. If we do not follow his teachings (the core ones being the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself) but accept the fact that Jesus died for our sins we are indulging ourselves with a kind of "cheap grace" that I believe will not serve us well. We are missing the best part of the message of Jesus - the opportunity to serve God.So - to sum up - wrangling over how much of the Bible is true is a kind of side show and doesn't benefit anybody. Certainly it doesn't feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, heal the sick, welcome the stranger or visit the prisoner. And Jesus said we had better do that or he will even know us.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-29-2005 11:23 AM

i agree. it's a forest for the trees kind of thing. the bible is much more interesting once you get over the literal/inerrant bit. this is a point i tried demonstrating when eltonianjames first started up. he went on about homosexuality, and then accused me and a few others of picking and choosing in the same breath. i posted my standard diatribe listing various sins and abominations -- all of which ej is of course guilty i'm sure. he pretty effective ignores (or at least doesn't think about) commandments like "don't cut your hair or shave" and "ham and cheese sandwiches are bad." we all do, really.the point wasn't so much that he is a sinner. all christians accept this when they are saved. i was trying to remind him that condemning people with the law is silly if you do not follow it yourself.he who is without sin can throw the first stone, as jesus said.we all sin. we all choose what we accept, and we all ignore parts.but i think there are certain things that more important than all the rest, and should not be ignored under any circumstances. these are the wonderfully benevolent things jesus said:love your neighbor, even love your enemy. do not judge. turn the other cheek. do not condemn. have compassion. give to the needy. what right do we have to call ourselves christians if the bits we're ignoring are the teachings of christ? who cares about genesis 3 or ezekiel 28 or leviticus 19? christians should be followers of christ first and foremost.if that means you have to exclude other bits, so be it. leviticus says we are to stone people who do work on saturdays. would jesus agree? who should we believe? amen! (i see i'm preaching to the choir...) it's also a question of how serious you wanna make it, too. that's really about idolatry, but technically it forbids all art, modern books, photography, lithography, anythign with an engraved serial number...intent, i think, is important. not the letter of the law. quite.

---

אָרַח

Sorry for the long delay but the conference kept me quite busy. The topic of this thread is..."How do you decide what is True in the Bible?" and so the sites that were offered were quite applicable to this thread. The post was meant to offer just a couple of the hundreds, if not thousands, of sites out there that claim to have Biblical truths. More on this later as the board is about to shut down.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

Thanks to all of you here! After reading several posts on this thread, I am even MORE convinced that I must share how much I have come to truly love my faith! Yes, I realize that this may be like inviting my own cyber-crucifixion from both sides on here, but I must anyway! Please just hear me out, and seriously consider the evidence. Please!First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not making any assumptions, nor do I believe anyone should, about the state of another person's heart and soul. I also want to make it clear that I am not saying that any person of one religion or belief system is any more or less worthy or valuable of a person. That's just ridiculous, since we were all made by the same, magnificent, loving God! So, first and foremost, I believe in speaking the truth in love - not one without the other.Many people just don't realize why there are so many different Christian denominations in the world, and therefore so much confusion about what Christ REALLY taught, or, even more confusing, what "the bible REALLY says".Divine revelation... If, as I firmly believe, there really IS an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnisicent God, it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out what He wants from us, right!? Right! That's only logical.So, for those who have been sincerely pondering the right (intellectually honest) questions, and believe they are really ready for some serious, potentially life-changing answers, here is a very brief reminder of the history of the three main "branches" or divisions of Christianity:I. The Catholic Church: In approx. 33 A.D. (for those who didn't know, A.D. stands for "Anno Domini", which is Latin for "In the year of Our Lord), Christ (God Himself) established HIS Church upon Peter, "the rock" (Matt. 16:18-19), along with the other 11 apostles that Christ Himself hand-picked and personally and diligently trained (called "The Twelve") to lead His Church "for all times" and "into all truth". This Church had, and always WILL have (because Christ/God promised it would), THREE important, and INSEPERABLE ingredients:1) Sacred Scripture, 2) Sacred Tradition, and 3) the Magisterium of the Church (the teaching authority, i.e., the apostles, with Peter as the "Prime Minister", and their successors - Matt. 16:18-19, Acts 1, John 21, and many more, for more go to "Catholic Answers")--------------------------------------------------------------------II. The Eastern Orthodox Churches: In 1054 A.D., split off from the Catholic Church, denied the prime authority of the "Bishop of Rome", the successor to the "chair of Peter", which left them with:1) Sacred Scripture (but this time including the New Testament), and 2) Sacred Tradition (including the books of the New Testament, apostolic succession - Acts 1, and others - but NOT papal succession? - Matt.16:18-19).----------------------------------------------------------------III. The Prostestant Reformation (experiment): In 1517 A.D. Martin Luther and the other "reformers", not only denied the authority of the magisterium, but they also denied the need for Sacred Tradition (including the authority that gave us the bible!), which left them with the Protestant battle-cry of "Sola Scriptura" (authority by scripture, alone), and "Sola Fide" (Salvation by faith, alone) - both of which, ironically, or contrary to Scripture, and were virtually non-existent for the first 1,500 years of Christianity!!Since the Protestant Reformation, there have been an almost countless number of reformers, after reformers, after reformers - each trying to "fix" the previous Christians "mistakes". To date there are well over 33,000 Christian denominations - each one claiming to have "the truth", and each one slightly, or very signifcantly different in what they believe Christ taught, or what "the bible says"!So, in close I ask you to consider these three facts that the whole universe cries out in testimony to:1) There really IS a God, and He does give us the answers we need to live the ultimate best way that only HE knows. (Natural apolgetics - God reveals Himself in nature, and in all things)2) God really DID come to earth around 2,000 years ago, and become a man by the name of Jesus, the long-awaited messiah (Christ) - fully God and fully human, to teach us how awesome He is, and how to live our lives "more abundantly". (Christian apologetics)3) Jesus/God really DID established a Church, upon Peter, the rock (Matt.16:18-19), and promised that he would guide it by the power of His Holy Spirit, into all truth, for all times. (Catholic apologetics)In close, if anyone would like to read more about what I believe is the most awesome, most beautiful, most exciting, most life-changing, most logical, most historical, most biblically sound, most psychologically sound "worldview" that exists, and possibly discuss it on here as time allows, here is my website:
http://www.threestepstothefountain.comPeace and prayers,
One4TruthThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-09-2006 11:32 PM

What human being could it be said of that: ??What human being would God say was perfect in his or her ways from the day they were created?David was said to be a man after God's own heart. That's pretty good. But what does David say after his sin with Bath-sheba?"Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)If the most prominent king of Israel, David, a man after God's own heart was "brought forth in iniquity" and "concieved in sin" how is it that a heathen king of an idol worshipping pagan nation is said to be "perfect in thy ways from the day thou was created"?Psalm 58:3 says "The wicked are estranged from the womb; They err from their birth, speaking lies. Their venom is like the venom of a serpent; They are like a deaf cobra that has shut its ear, Which does not hear the sound of the charmers"So if the wicked go estray from the womb how is it that God pronounced the King of Tyre as perfect in his ways from the day he was created?"Man, born of woman, is of few days and full of trouble ... Who can bring a clean thing out from the unclean" (See Job 14:1,4)But someone wants to say that God pronounced a fallen man, a descendent of sinning Adam, as perfect in his ways from the day he was created?It is highly unlikely that God would pronounce any human being this side of the sin of Adam and Eve as perfect in thier ways from the day they were created.It is also highly unlikely that God would call the king of Tyre the anointed cherub that covers the ark of the testimony. The nation of Tyre and its kings had nothing to do with the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel.No pagan king could be compared to the cherubs of glory covering the glory of God in the holy of holies. The thought that God is talking about a human being in certain portions of Ezekiel 28 is highly suspect.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-10-2006 12:18 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-10-2006 12:20 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-10-2006 12:23 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-10-2006 12:24 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-09-2006 11:32 PM

Folk, what do either of the last two posts have to do with the topic?The question is, "How do you decide what is True in the Bible"?Can we try to address that issue?

---

jar,The third post in this series read: And then you followed with a quotation of what appears to me as a major portion of Ezekiel 28, after saying this: So, I thought that you were allowing in this thread some discussion on Ezekiel 28.

Okay, answering as jar for debate mode.No, the question is "How do you determine what is True in the Bible"?What we are looking for is some method of determining whether or not something mentioned in the Bible is true.We're not trying to interpret a passage. An assertion was made that a passage was prophecy of Jesus. I simply asked how can anyone say that when the rest of the material does not seem toapply.It is not an issue of what is or is not right, but rather, how can anyone tell?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why would God have something written that is not truth? All of the Bible is true. 1co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. This means that God would not say something that is not true.

quote:

---

Why would God have something written that is not truth?

---

Why wouldn't he? Even if we assume that God exists, we do not have any real clue as to what his purposes and motivations are. He may not be above using a little deception (or even a lot of it) to further his plans. If we assume that the Bible was written by God or due to direct revelation or inspiration from him, then the Bible becomes suspect as an accurate, unbiased source about God since it is God who is deciding what we should know about him. So the claim that the Bible is accurate because God would not lie, and we know that God would not lie because the Bible tells us so becomes a circular argument.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi, You provide a great argument against the Bible being God's word! I never thought of it that way before, but your post provides the foundation for a nice syllogism.God would not have something written that is untrue.
The Bible contains many untruths.
Therefore, the Bible is not the word of God.Excellent, well done Alphablu, you have just proven that the Bible is not the word of God.Brian.

No! Brian, it goes like this:God would not have something written that is untrue!
The Bible is the word of God.
Therefore, everything in the Bible is true.Some corollaries
Anything that contradicts the Bible is false.
All science that contradicts the Bible is wrong.
All history, reasoning, archeology, logic, or reasoning that contradicts the Bible is wrong.And that's the TRUTH!Wasn't that easy?lfen

You have a false premise in there. (although it is still a logical argument, albeit invalid)Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-13-2006 04:41 AM

Probably two false premises, but one is enough.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The theme of this thread is "How do Decide What in the Bible is True?"You don't have to make a decision on everything at one time. It is a gradual process which can take a long time, even a life time.If you want nothing to do with turning your life over to God then you decide by regarding those things which convict your conscience as not true. Those things which present no problem to your conscience you may regard as true.Now if you want God to come into your life you apply this kind of test:Does it make me love God more?Does it make me depend on God more?Does it make me open and willing to receive Christ as Lord?If this is the case you may regard the matters as true.In converse:Does it make me disdain God more?Does it cause me to feel justified in my reservations against God?Does it make me more independent and not needing God?Does it cool my heart towards Jesus Christ in indifference?Then it probably is not true OR you are understanding the matter from the wrong angle.The way to obtain truth is gradual. Somewhere in the book of Proverbs it says that the way of the righteous is like the dawning of the sun, growing brighter and brighter, or something very close to that.God does not want us to be greedy for what is true in the Bible in the sense of just satisfying our curiosity. The book is meant to change your life.This is a very important fact. The Bible, whether we like it or not, has a basic and major function to CHANGE you and to CHANGE me.If the Bible does not change your life, you probably haven't touched ANY truth at all regardless of what you believe.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-16-2006 09:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-16-2006 09:35 AM