Can a person be a Christian if they don't believe the Bible?

[lionfamily1999]

I don't see why this should be.

I already said this, but I'll say it again. I don't believe a follower of Christ has to take the whole OT and believe it. I mean, you have to believe in God, but as for the rest of it... I think you can let it rest.

 

Logically, Christ being the son of God, is easy. I can't speak for the OT, because I haven't studied, haven't really concerned myself with much of it. I was taught much of it as a child, but as an adult, I focus on Christ. Again, believing in Christ as the son of God, logically, is easy.

 

If you're trying to convince yourself that God does not exist, or that it's all hogwash, then I don't know what to tell you. All the pat answers, God works in mysterious ways, for everything there is a reason, etc. are there, for what it's worth. I've had some low lows, but I can see (now) how much I got from them, I can see that (as much as I disagreed at the time) it was not more than I could handle. I can see that I grew because of those times.

 

I'm not all sunshine lollipops and rainbows, but I do try to hand things over to God. I'm stiff necked by nature and it's HARD to give it up, it's hard not to cling onto the things I disagree with or want to change. All I can do is try, pray, read, trust. It's a shaky limb, putting all those eggs in one basket, but... I mean, it's God's basket, His limb, and if I can't trust Him, well that means I really am all alone. God won't FORCE me to trust Him. If I choose to be alone, then there's no one to blame, but myself.

[Lovedtodeath]

I do know that I don't pray for people not to lose jobs or to die from cancer. I pray for understanding. I pray to be reminded that He is there and has a plan. I pray for people to feel His love. And above all, I pray for His will to be done and for us to accept it.

 

That might be insane or foolish or quaint or strange. :D(shrug) It keeps me in peace though.

:iagree:Paul prayed that God remove the thorn in his flesh. He got an answer to his prayer, just not the one he was expecting. God promises to give us peace if we put our trust in Him. He doesn't promise to take away our troubles.

[Erica in PA]

I have no problem with it, but if I had written an erotic poem of a similar nature and posted it here, I suspect a lot of people would have found it offensive.

 

Probably so... but how does that support your premise that the inclusion of Song of Solomon shows that the Bible is the work of men, not God? If God created sex and called it good, why wouldn't He include a book about that in His Word?

[OnTheBrink]

I have no problem with it, but if I had written an erotic poem of a similar nature and posted it here, I suspect a lot of people would have found it offensive.

 

Yeah, well, you're not God. ;) I'd much rather read an erotic, sexual poem written by the designer of said sexual love than the interpretations of a man, who may or may not have the same view of sex that God does.

[Lovedtodeath]

Logically, Christ being the son of God, is easy. I can't speak for the OT, because I haven't studied, haven't really concerned myself with much of it. I was taught much of it as a child, but as an adult, I focus on Christ. Again, believing in Christ as the son of God, logically, is easy.

Actually, many people decide whether or not they believe in Jesus as the Messiah based on the Hebrew Scriptures, since they told us what to look for and expect out of the Messiah. It means a lot to me that Christ fulfilled the prophecies about him.;)

[Storm Bay]

How about the near pornographic imagery of Song of Solomon? How is this useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness?

 

It's beautiful poetry, but it was obviously written by some guy when he was caught up in erotic feelings toward his lover, not when God was directing his hand.

 

 

 

It's useful in marriage. If you believe that God is the Creator (regardless of how you think He did it), then s*x is one of the things He invented. Inherent in pornography is the objectification of another person (making a person an object to gratify your desires), and you don't see that in Song of Solomon. I have to say that that's a book I don't spend much time in, but yes, it is useful for teaching. Not every scripture is used for all of those purposes all at once.

[Peek a Boo]

Okay, there is the "day-age" theory. Each "day" is a figurative day, not one 24-hour day.

This has a hole, because then plants existed for some long "age" before God worked out that it would be necessary to make the sun. That's a pretty big oversite, IMO.

 

why is that a hole?

as Dirtroad alluded to.....If God can make the plants w/o the sun, surely He can sustain them, right?

There was already Light :)

 

the opposite question would apply: how could there be a 24 hour day w/o the sun? well, if God is the author of the hour, then He can keep time accurately w/o the sun :D

 

It also has a hole, because the pattern of six literal workdays and then a day of rest is presented as the model in Exodus for working six days and resting on the Sabbath. (Saturday, BTW, not Sunday.)

 

well sure -- because God's timing is not our timing. We celebrate lots of things in smaller increments to represent longer periods of time [like Advent] -it's not really that huge of a concept ;)

 

There is also the "gap" theory. As I understand the "gap" theory, all the unexplained phenomena gets squished in there between the earth being "formless and void" and then the next verse where God begins creation "for real". That has a hole if you believe that death did not come before the Fall.

 

not a theory, just plain reading of scripture.

and not a hole for me :D

 

Scripture doesn't match either. Genesis 1: 25-27 says that God created animals, then created man. Genesis 2: 18-19 says that God created man, then created animals. Genesis 1&2 also say that God took different lengths of time to create the Earth, that fowl came from either the water or the earth.

 

This is because these chapters had different authors, with different understandings about the creation story. And this isn't just an isolated example. There are many, many contradictions in the Bible.

 

no, but there are [apparently] lots and lots of people who simply haven't studied scripture very well.

 

here --read up: you can even take your pick of interpretations ;)

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080214221502rn_1/www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

 

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR133.htm

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, well, you're not God. ;)

 

that's a pretty important distinction, i think. ;)

[Storm Bay]

why is that a hole?

as Dirtroad alluded to.....If God can make the plants w/o the sun, surely He can sustain them, right?

There was already Light :)

 

the opposite question would apply: how could there be a 24 hour day w/o the sun? well, if God is the author of the hour, then He can keep time accurately w/o the sun :D

 

 

 

well sure -- because God's timing is not our timing. We celebrate lots of things in smaller increments to represent longer periods of time [like Advent] -it's not really that huge of a concept ;)

 

 

not a theory, just plain reading of scripture.

and not a hole for me :D

 

 

no, but there are [apparently] lots and lots of people who simply haven't studied scripture very well.

 

here --read up: you can even take your pick of interpretations ;)

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080214221502rn_1/www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

 

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR133.htm

 

 

Thanks, Peek, for doing this. I just came back from 2 days and this thread had grown and grown.

 

As for another's poster's thread asking who is the authority, I believe that God is. I also believe that the Bible needs to be studied inductively, not deductively. There are some great, logical guidelines to do this that in no way block God from working in you when and where necessary. But to wait for Him to tell you everything without having to work obviates the need for a thinking brain, and scripture is clear (if you're following it and studying it, not if you think it's not necessary, since you won't do it anyway) that you're to study it yourself. But it's easy to study the Bible and never believe a word of it or be a Christian, so that in and of itself means nothing.

 

To answer another question or two that one or more people asked: Faith, logic and reasoning are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

Regarding the reference to certain doctrines originating from Dante's Inferno--that's nothing new. There are a number of doctrines lumped with Christian doctrine that have their origins in other religions and philosophies. They have to be squeezed in in order to make them fit with scripture, but people tend to get so used to being taught one way that they fail to see it another. You see this being addressed even way back in some of the epsistles (eg Timothy deals with gnostic teachings that were creeping in, and there's another epistle that deals with worldly philosophy, etc). It's been going on since the first century church at the very least.

 

As for what to take literally and what not, that is pretty easy, since there are legitimate figures of speech that help with most of those issues. As for that of the flood, etc, being full of holes, that depends on how you interpret observations in the world and whether or not you choose to question science or assume that imperfect men and women have really come up with all the big answers in the past 150 years or so. If you are totally convinced that the theory of uniformitarianism is true, then of course you cannot make that fit. However, if you question that (and I think any scientific theory ought to be regularly questioned or it becomes a religion in its own right.)

 

We've veered far off of the OP's original question, which had nothing to do with creation/evolution or any of that. We've had plenty of threads on those already in the 1.5 years or so since this forum started.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, light was already there. Ever hear of a greenhouse? :D

 

The way I was taught, the sun was already there, but not visible from the earth. In Genesis 1:1, the heavens and the earth were created and I take this to mean the sun and stars were created (Hebrew verb bara'--create). Genesis 1:3,4 indicates that there was day and night, which would make me think that the sun was affecting the earth. In Genesis 1:16 the term "make" (Hebrew verb asah') is used in relation to the sun and the moon, not "create", so this would indicate a difference.

 

And yes, the Bible does appear to have contradictions. Most of these are not contradictions when one has the help of God's people, the "faithful and discreet slave" and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 24:45-47)

[Lovedtodeath]

To answer another question or two that one or more people asked: Faith, logic and reasoning are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

:iagree:

Should Faith Be Based on Reason? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site If we are truly interested in pleasing God, should we not consider seriously the accuracy of what we believe about him?

Why I Believe the Bible - A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

 

What do you think is the right reason for believing in God? What does the Bible have to say on the matter?

[Dirtroad]

DH and I were discussing the DAY as 24 hours debate.... the word used in earliest translations (Greek?) is the same in Genesis as it is throughout the rest of the Bible when always refering to a 24 hour period. I think this is very important & it helped me to better accept it.

 

There are other words for day which might mean a "period of time" or an era.... this IS NOT the word in Genesis.

 

We had this lesson in a class once, but I do not know the exact Greek word. Others may know it. But, I remembered the class b/c it was regarding Genesis, etc.

 

Another issue is when God divided the DARK & the LIGHT... it is clear & distinctive division which gives us a reference to TIME. I think this is there intentionally and early... before animals, man & plants. This is something to consider also.

[Guest janainaz]

I'm responding to a few different previous posts, but specifically to clarify that everyone who is a child of God is on a unique spiritual journey. None of our lives are the same, we have all had paths and that shapes our thinking, our level of faith and our hearts. There was a time I was so angry at God - I did shake my fist at him, I did drive off in my car in deep despair and human frustration and I did end up on my knees begging him to give me understanding. He did. It didn't fix the past, but it let me see it's purpose i my present. If you read what love is and what it is not in Corinthians, all those attributes describe God. He made me, He can handle my emotions - He made me human, He gave me feelings and me pouring out my heart is me letting God know me. It's me having faith that God is who He says He is and being authentic, real and not lukewarm. If I don't feel it, I don't pretend to - with Him. It is also me trusting that I can be me and that He won't leave me.

 

If you read the book of Psalms, David was like a roller-coaster. He was up and he was down. I feel very comfortable with just being who I am and being willing to admit that I don't have God figured out. I dislike the pompass attitude from Christians that they have arrived, they have the answers, they have the way. In our small group, excuse me while I gag, I sat and listened to one lady tell me how she was "fine tuning". She was not worried with the big sins anymore, she was just working on the little ones. You know, the little stuff. So, there she sat with Bible in hand, an authority on God's word, while she reeked of her pride. I still love this woman because she is blind in her ways, just like me.

 

I don't have Christianity figured out, but I can focus on the heart behind it and that is love. All I can do is know that love is key and I need more of it, I need to learn to do it better and become selfless in it - in every way. There are some common grounds in Christianity that unite - love your neighbor as yourself and love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This alone fulfills the law. It's about living in the moment. It's also about believing in people and believing that whereever they are, they are searching for truth, too.

 

As my faith grows stronger, I have been able to look at things from a different perspective. This has taken time, this did not happen overnight. Much of my faith comes from looking back at what God has done in my life and it does strengthen me. I did have a very traumatic childhood and that took time to heal. I also know there are people dealing with much bigger stuff than I am and encouragement is never telling them they should feel stronger than they do. Faith unshakable is a really great thing, but what about those that are feeling weak? I know that I've been unable to speak my heart before some other Christians without being judged. There is no display of love in that.

[Lovedtodeath]

That was lovely Jana.

[justamouse]

 

no, but there are [apparently] lots and lots of people who simply haven't studied scripture very well.

 

here --read up: you can even take your pick of interpretations ;)

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20080214221502rn_1/www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

 

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR133.htm

 

I love it. The judgment that because we have differing opinions, those of us who disagree with these beliefs haven't studied scripture very well. How is it not possible that they were created man and woman through evolution? And like I said before-Augustine himself didn't believe in the 24 hour day interpretation. So HE didn't study scripture well, either?

 

Theistic Evolution. I love God, and I love science. I don't see evolution as taking the glory from God, I see it as enhancing it. God IS science.

Edited August 25, 2009 by justamouse

[lionfamily1999]

Actually, many people decide whether or not they believe in Jesus as the Messiah based on the Hebrew Scriptures, since they told us what to look for and expect out of the Messiah. It means a lot to me that Christ fulfilled the prophecies about him.;)

I know, and for those people the law would apply. I'm actually writing down the prophecies as I go, so I can backtrack and read them in the OT, because I'm curious to hear what they specifically say and the context.

 

All I meant was, Gentiles were not expected to follow the old laws, they had to follow the new laws put forth by Christ. Thus, imo, a 'new' Christian does not HAVE to go by the OT, but can spend their time studying the new.

 

Really, for me, I read 'More than a Carpenter.' The logic in that book turned me completely, from luekwarm to hungering.

[Lovedtodeath]

DH and I were discussing the DAY as 24 hours debate.... the word used in earliest translations (Greek?) is the same in Genesis as it is throughout the rest of the Bible when always refering to a 24 hour period. I think this is very important & it helped me to better accept it.

 

There are other words for day which might mean a "period of time" or an era.... this IS NOT the word in Genesis.

 

We had this lesson in a class once, but I do not know the exact Greek word. Others may know it. But, I remembered the class b/c it was regarding Genesis, etc.

 

Another issue is when God divided the DARK & the LIGHT... it is clear & distinctive division which gives us a reference to TIME. I think this is there intentionally and early... before animals, man & plants. This is something to consider also.

I don't have anything on the Hebrew words used for "day" handy... I will probably look into it though, now that my curiousity is peeked. I have noted that all six creative days are refered to as one day at Genesis 2:4. In addition to this, Paul seems to indicate that the seventh day is still going. (Genesis 2:1-3; Hebrews 4:1-11)

[justamouse]

Quote:

Reason excludes faith: Look at this, this is why I don't believe

Reason includes faith: Look at this, this is why I do believe.

Faith includes reason: I believe, and here's why I believe.

Faith excludes reason. I believe regardless.

 

It's the last group who are unshakable because faith is not dependent on God providing, explaining how He does things, or even living up to His "end of the bargain."

 

Yes, but I dont see why the "unshakable faith" people should be considered above it all. Sometimes, they just seem like idiots. :tongue_smilie: Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Why is someone who just keeps on keepin' on an example of superior faith? Maybe they're just too foolish to stop staring at the horseshoe.

 

My mom is the unshakable faith type and while I think it's "nice" in a whistful sort of way, I don't get it at all. I don't get how a person can be all hearts and lollipops over God when life is crumbling down around their ears, know what I mean? I don't get how mom can dutifully put prayers on her prayer chain and pray in earnest for everything from lost jobs to brain tumors, even as people die, people lose their jobs, people suffer senseless tragedies. :confused: It's quaint, but strange. I'm sure it speaks more to my failures than my mom's, but I have no clue how a person can be like that.

 

Wow, I read that answer 180 degrees opposite of how you did.

 

It's the last group who are unshakable because faith is not dependent on God providing, explaining how He does things, or even living up to His "end of the bargain."

 

 

I read that as I can look to science to explain things, and it doesn't shake my faith in God (Nor does it contradict him because He IS science). I didn't read it as me not being reasonable=believing everything I read in the Bible as literal.

[NavyWifeandMommy]

I am not going to read all the posts but will put m two cents in. I am Christian and so is my husband and my children. Hubby and I don't follow the Word. It's a book written by a man so ther will be flaws. After he went to Iraq and I have gone to Germany and just seeing other religions I cannot sit here and say I am 100% on the bible but I am 100% on God. I do use a Christian base curriculum but when it points out that the Bible is the end all be all I change it up.

[Reya]

As a restorationist I definitely agree that many honest hearted men seeking the truth started denominations and brought us more light.

 

Any many of the consequences are terrible. A divided church is one of the great challenges for Christianity today. It is SO unfortunate that the historical papacy took the direction that it did. If the councils of bishops had continued as they were at their height, I think we could have avoided SO much corruption, unhealthy dissension (versus healthy discussion and prayer), violence, and division that has weakened the church into irrelevance in so much of Europe today. The sheer hatefulness of the propaganda and the very low bar set for many of the attacks didn't just destroy the opposition--it weakened Christianity itself.

 

Sadly, many of the criticism of the Catholic Church against the Reformation at the time that it was getting started *weren't wrong.* But there was no place for reformation within the Church anymore--it had become the political plaything of the rich and corrupt, and remained that way for many more years.

 

A hard, sad time in history....

[Ginevra]

I'm thankful for all the useful responses. I am sorry I don't have more time to speak to each one individually. Jana's most recent post was really lovely.

 

I'm planning to vaccate the thread now, because I do actually have to be a homeschooling mom, along with my other rolls, and concern about this thread is consuming too much attention. :D

 

I think the evolution/creation/YE/OE, etc. conversation is interesting, but I don't have the time or inclination to vigorously look at that right now. I've already looked into this subject very extensively, so it's not as though I'm ignorant of the different points of view. I have not arrived at one cohesive, conclusive view on the subject and that is part of why it relates to my OP. But, as I said, I need to put this subject on the back burner now.

 

Just said so no one will "miss" me or think I've abandoned the discussion with or because of themselves.

[Storm Bay]

. How is it not possible that they were created man and woman through evolution? And like I said before-Augustine himself didn't believe in the 24 hour day interpretation. So HE didn't study scripture well, either?

 

Theistic Evolution. I love God, and I love science. I don't see evolution as taking the glory from God, I see it as enhancing it. God IS science.

 

 

I love God and think science is cool. But I disagree with Augustine on a number of points and was an agnostic evolutionist until I studed evolution in detail before turning to the Bible. The only point to this comment is to let you know that some of us who have spent a lot of time with science can and do think it is possible for God to create Adam and Eve without evolution. I've met former atheists who have come to the same conclusion as me, btw--change in belief goes in all directions.

 

None of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how life started. I've been the evolution route and caught up on it again last year when I read some more current authors of evolutionary theory after a couple of huge discussions on this on the forum back then, and I'm still not convinced (see Answers in Genesis, although I don't agree with everything they post, either.)

[Storm Bay]

Any many of the consequences are terrible. A divided church is one of the great challenges for Christianity today. It is SO unfortunate that the historical papacy took the direction that it did. If the councils of bishops had continued as they were at their height, I think we could have avoided SO much corruption, unhealthy dissension (versus healthy discussion and prayer), violence, and division that has weakened the church into irrelevance in so much of Europe today.

 

 

The church was divided before there ever was a papacy. There were schisms forming very early on. I am no longer opposed to the church being congregational (in the small c sense, not in the denomination of that name) because you can even see that in the Church epistles where different things were being addressed to the early Christians in Rome than to those in Jerusalem. You also see Paul confronting people on saying they were of different people.

 

Christians don't even agree on whether the apostle Simon Peter ever was in Rome and never have. Each of us who considers ourselves Christian is ultimately responsible to God and to love as we've been called to love, etc.

[melmac]

2 Peter 1 (King James Version)

 

 

2 Peter 1

 

 

1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

12Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

15Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

2 Peter 1 (King James Version)

Okay, I am such a hypocrite. What point was this making/question was this answering exactly? :D

[lionfamily1999]

Carmen, I went and looked and I think she was answering the OPs question... which leads me to believe I was wrong.

 

I'm going to narrow this down to (what I think) is the most pertinent part...

 

1 Peter 2:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of god spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

Hmmmm, part of me wonders if this includes all of the OT, calling it all prophecy, or if it leaves room for wiggling where creation etc are concerned...

 

Another pertinent (imo) section:

 

1 Peter 2:16

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

That part speaking more to people that are unsure whether or not Jesus did all the miracles that are recorded in the NT.

[KingM]

Probably so... but how does that support your premise that the inclusion of Song of Solomon shows that the Bible is the work of men, not God? If God created sex and called it good, why wouldn't He include a book about that in His Word?

 

Well, when you put it that way, maybe He would. I guess I just need to wrap my head around the thought of God writing/inspiring erotic poetry.

 

I'll have to think about it some more.

[Lovedtodeath]

I am impressed Julie. I am having a particularly hard day with my treatment, so I wasn't up to decifering things today. You can tell from almost all of my posts. :o How embarassing to not realize it was to the OP. Yep, this thread is long.

 

Romans 1:2 and 15:4 were also speaking of the Hebrew scriptures if one researches their meaning.

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, when you put it that way, maybe He would. I guess I just need to wrap my head around the thought of God writing/inspiring erotic poetry.

 

I'll have to think about it some more.

There is also a scripture about Isaac enjoying Rebekah in a way that only a husband would. ;)

[OnTheBrink]

Well, when you put it that way, maybe He would. I guess I just need to wrap my head around the thought of God writing/inspiring erotic poetry.

 

I'll have to think about it some more.

 

Who do you think created sex? The whole reason fornication is sin is because it sullies what God created to be beautiful between a husband and wife. MAN'S the one to took sex and made it dirty, not God. HE just said it had be within the confines of marriage.

[Donna T.]

Or they believe some of it, but not all. Or they are unsure. Or they believe in the example of Christ, but not the veracity of, say, literal creation or The Great Flood.

 

The thread on "We're all Hindus..." made me wonder what the different views of this would be.

 

What would you say of someone who wants to/purposes to be a Christian, but just doesn't believe a lot of the Bible?

 

No, a person is not a Christian if they do not believe the Bible. Christians love Jesus and the only information we have about Him is in the Holy Scriptures; therefore, Christians love the Bible. The Bible says... "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). It is through the reading and hearing of the word of God (the Bible) that one comes to have and grow in their faith. There is not faith outside of the Bible. That's why Bible translations matter. They can't all be correct! Truth is absolute and if translations differ, then one needs to decide which one they are going to hold to and needs to understand they are not all the same. There is one Bible, but not all Bible translations are equal.

 

Of course, a person can lack understanding in some areas of doctrine, and there are some doctrines that we may even disagree on that are not foundational to Jesus, His Divinity, what His Death did for the sinner who will place their faith in Him. Things like the age of the earth, for example. There are differences of opinion there and I think that's to be expected. But to just not believe the Bible would mean that one is most definately not being conformed to the image of Christ, therefore, they would not be a Christian. We can not be conformed without the Bible and even with the Bible, you can't be conformed without faith in it.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

We can not be conformed without the Bible and even with the Bible, you can't be conformed without faith in it.

:iagree:with all, but didn't want to quote the whole thing.

[PineFarmMom]

.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Texas T

[lionfamily1999]

I am impressed Julie. I am having a particularly hard day with my treatment, so I wasn't up to decifering things today. You can tell from almost all of my posts. :o How embarassing to not realize it was to the OP. Yep, this thread is long.

 

Romans 1:2 and 15:4 were also speaking of the Hebrew scriptures if one researches their meaning.

Shucks, thanks :)

 

It feels good to actually know the answer to a question :w00t:

[Ester Maria]

DH and I were discussing the DAY as 24 hours debate.... the word used in earliest translations (Greek?) is the same in Genesis as it is throughout the rest of the Bible when always refering to a 24 hour period. I think this is very important & it helped me to better accept it.

 

There are other words for day which might mean a "period of time" or an era.... this IS NOT the word in Genesis.

 

We had this lesson in a class once, but I do not know the exact Greek word. Others may know it. But, I remembered the class b/c it was regarding Genesis, etc.

 

Another issue is when God divided the DARK & the LIGHT... it is clear & distinctive division which gives us a reference to TIME. I think this is there intentionally and early... before animals, man & plants. This is something to consider also.

The original is in Hebrew, not in Greek. The word used is yom. Septuagint (the first Greek translation) uses the word imera (or, if you read Greek with the reconstructed pronunciation - hemera). Both of those words are also modern words for days as we know it (24 hours), and they're also used in text to refer to the day as we know it.

 

However, there are issues as to whether it's 24-hours day or no.

Notice how you have yom echad, not yom rishon ("day one", not "the first day"); while after that you have yom sheni, yom shlishi, and so on ("second day", "third day").

Septuagint saves that distinction: it speaks of imera mia ("one day", not imera proti, "first day"), and then of imera deutera ("second day") and so on.

 

As far as I understand it, in order to have something "second", you must first have a concept of that something in order to be able to "derivate" from it.

The only way yom can be conceptually defined is "a time span from sunset till sunset". As time was being created at the time of creation, all we know is that time as we know it was created by the end of creation. It doesn't necessarily mean that yom echad was of the exactly same lenght - hours-wise - as yom sheni, or as yom shishi. As a matter of fact, that kind of yom is the best translated and understood as a time span in which something had its beginning, developed itself and ended, i.e. really as a kind of period, specific temporal unity, more than 24-hour day. So a "sunset till sunset" period in its specific unity, yes, but I never viewed it as a 24-hour day we knew, despite the fact I used the same word for any regular day in my life. :confused:

 

Ontopic, the only problem I have with literalism is the fact that people who support that view tend to cite me translations to support their opinions. I mean okay, but if you really stick to the text, then stick to the original one, not a man-made approximation to suit another mindset and culture (which de facto any translation is). There are innumerous potentially problematic aspects in translating even formal documents, let alone sacred books.

 

And why would it matter if Septuagint uses the same word imera all the time? Why would Septuagint matter at all, I mean? Septuagint and Vulgata are the roots of some of the common misconceptions which came to other translations through them (translation of a translation... doesn't sound good), but okay, that's waaay off topic already (and I didn't deal with it enough anyway). :)

 

No idea why I just wrote this, but since I did, I'll post it anyway.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

No idea why I just wrote this, but since I did, I'll post it anyway.

I appreciated it. :) Interesting. I have an explanation in my Bible Encyclopedia for the sunset to sunset meaning that you describe. "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning" During the evening period things would be indistinct, but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. (see also Proverbs 4:18) In the evening, God knew what his plan was, but all observers didn't have the full picture until "morning", when God's plan was accomplished for that day.

[justamouse]

 

No idea why I just wrote this, but since I did, I'll post it anyway.

 

 

Whoa, that was awesome.

[Devotional Soul]

Just to add some Vedanta for anyone interested, in Vedic scriptures, one day of the Creator equals 4.32 billion years, and one complete day and night equals 8.64 billion years.

 

According to Vedic scriptures, God created this universe (among unlimited universes) 150 trillion years ago, and there have been 36,000 partial destructions/recreations since then, the last one by flood being 120 million years ago by flood, in which 8 saintly people survived with the plants and animals in a boat (the story of Matsya), and 2 billion years ago is when this 'day of the creator' began which is also a recreation, which aligns with scientists earliest life forms.

 

According to Vedic scriptures, God rests on an ocean at the bottom of the universe, which aligns with "God's spirit moved across the waters of the deep". According to the Bible, everyone spoke one language before the tower of Babel, and according to Vedic scriptures, the whole earth was united in Vedic culture and spoke Sanskrit, the oldest language. Moses spent decades with the Midianites who had connections with India and Vedic knowledge. Vedic culture has been greatly corrupted since the beginning of the age of corruption, Kali Yuga, which began 5,000 years ago, when scriptures began being written down because memories and life spans shortened.

 

I believe that none of this really matters compared to what Jesus said "love God with all of your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself". Everything else is mental and knowledge that will be revealed as we are ready, and falls perfectly into place when we aspire to love and serve and surrender to the Lord.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Devotional Soul

[justamouse]

I love God and think science is cool. But I disagree with Augustine on a number of points and was an agnostic evolutionist until I studed evolution in detail before turning to the Bible. ...(see Answers in Genesis, although I don't agree with everything they post, either.)

 

In all seriousness, I really couldn't give two nickles about the whole thing. :) God is still God to me whether he created us through evolution, or we sat up from a dirt pile whole. And, I'm not all that worried about being wrong, either, my belief in his love for me is secure (and mine for Him). I was just offering an argument as to why you can't call a person who doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible 'Not a Christian'.

 

 

OT re: Song of Solomon, wow, that's some hot writing. If you want to read an exceptional translation, pick up The Song of Songs: A New Translation by Ariel and Chana Bloch. It's worth it for their commentary alone.

Edited August 26, 2009 by justamouse

[Peek a Boo]

I love it. The judgment that because we have differing opinions, those of us who disagree with these beliefs haven't studied scripture very well. How is it not possible that they were created man and woman through evolution? And like I said before-Augustine himself didn't believe in the 24 hour day interpretation. So HE didn't study scripture well, either?

 

Theistic Evolution. I love God, and I love science. I don't see evolution as taking the glory from God, I see it as enhancing it. God IS science.

 

whoah there chickie-----you and I agree a bit more than you think ;)

 

you missed what i was responding to: I wasn't talking about the 24 hour day thing At. All. take another look at the post i responded to:

 

Originally Posted by KingM View Post

Scripture doesn't match either. Genesis 1: 25-27 says that God created animals, then created man. Genesis 2: 18-19 says that God created man, then created animals. Genesis 1&2 also say that God took different lengths of time to create the Earth, that fowl came from either the water or the earth.

 

This is because these chapters had different authors, with different understandings about the creation story. And this isn't just an isolated example. There are many, many contradictions in the Bible.

 

Now I, personally, couldn't care less about the time period. Similar to your post directly above, I fall in what Phred called the Goddidit Philosophy. ;)

 

But I do care, very much, when someone is throwing around accusations about Scripture being inconsistent. God is constant. "contradictions" in the Bible are the result of man's failure to comprehend God, not God's lack of preservation of His Word. The examples I gave happen to address a 24 hour day, but it's easy enough to legitimately interpret it to be any time period. The point is that gen 1&2 are pieces of the same puzzle, not 2 wildly different stories.

[Peek a Boo]

No idea why I just wrote this, but since I did, I'll post it anyway.

 

I'm glad you did :)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I believe that none of this really matters compared to what Jesus said "love God with all of your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself". Everything else is mental and knowledge that will be revealed as we are ready, and falls perfectly into place when we aspire to love and serve and surrender to the Lord.

That was very cool. About the quote... the problem lies in that some people are stumbled by these areas that seem to not be important. They can't get past not having a reasonable explanation and therefore do not look further into the Bible/don't understand God's personality and therefore do not grow to love him/do not trust the Bible.

[lionfamily1999]

That was very cool. About the quote... the problem lies in that some people are stumbled by these areas that seem to not be important. They can't get past not having a reasonable explanation and therefore do not look further into the Bible/don't understand God's personality and therefore do not grow to love him/do not trust the Bible.

Right, and if you allow the OT or the parts of it you can't understand, to keep you from believing the NT, then (imo) you would not be a Christian. I think what's lost between the two camps (yes you can, no you can't) is the distinction between believing in Christ and believing in the law that preceded Him. I do believe that the difference spoken of by Paul and Peter, between the Gentile and the Jewish Christians (circumcision/uncircumsized), allows the Gentiles to go forward, without having to look back and start at the beginning.

 

LOL, I don't even know if that makes sense to anyone besides myself.

 

I do think, having read the pp from 1Peter, that you should not claim the OT is false. I don't think you have to study it or proclaim it, but you should (imo) keep mum if you think it might be bunk.

 

Also, the translation of a translation post set me thinking about all the apparent discrepancies. Nuance is lost in translation, and I think the confusion comes (as the pp said) from the translations of translations...

 

An easy way to see how this works is to read Twain's Jumping Frog, then read it in French, then retranslate it from French back into English. You aren't even talking about the leap of language to second language to third language, but so much of the story is lost just translating it back into English that what remains is really, hardly readable.

[Lovedtodeath]

Also, the translation of a translation post set me thinking about all the apparent discrepancies. Nuance is lost in translation, and I think the confusion comes (as the pp said) from the translations of translations...

True, but we have many resources available to us to fully understand the meaning in the original language. One only needs to do the research and get an accurate understanding. We also have books like the one below to help us with our translation decisions.

 

"TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"

Author: Jason David BeDuhn

 

About the story of Genesis: I know this is a big hangup for many. The explanation that I was taught takes science into account and does not seem so far fetched, and it still harmonizes with the scripture. Jonah/ Bable/ flood/ Red Sea etc... God is all powerful in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. If we do not believe that He demonstrated that power by performing miracles then what are we putting our faith in? I don't get it.

[lionfamily1999]

True, but we have many resources available to us to fully understand the meaning in the original language. One only needs to do the research and get an accurate understanding. We also have books like the one below to help us with our translation decisions.

 

"TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT"

Author: Jason David BeDuhn

 

About the story of Genesis: I know this is a big hangup for many. The explanation that I was taught takes science into account and does not seem so far fetched, and it still harmonizes with the scripture. Jonah/ Bable/ flood/ Red Sea etc... God is all powerful in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures. If we do not believe that He demonstrated that power by performing miracles then what are we putting our faith in? I don't get it.

In Jesus Christ. I'm trying to come from a Gentile point of view. It was more, from this day forward you will ------, instead of a go back and learn all the old stuff, first. I'm moving through the NT, and it's giving me things to go back and look up to better my understanding. That doesn't, imo, make me a non-Christian, it just means I was not raised in the law and before I can go back, I HAVE to go forward. Again, that sounds really nonsensical, but I hope you know what I mean.

 

I can see where someone would be skeptical about the OT, but I do think that that would change over time. As they moved forward through Christ, the OT would become more understandable and more believable. After all, God raising His son from the dead, sacrificed His only child, and a man (a MAN) being the son of God are big things to believe. There's a lot needed to allow those things to really soak into your heart, your soul and your mind. Maybe, it's the mind part (probably the hardest part) that leads you to reevaluate preconcieved notions regarding the OT?

 

I'm in such a state of flux right now that I can really truly understand where the OP is coming from and where you are... but I don't know that I can make sense of it to either side. What a great place to be :lol:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

In Jesus Christ. I'm trying to come from a Gentile point of view. It was more, from this day forward you will ------, instead of a go back and learn all the old stuff, first. I'm moving through the NT, and it's giving me things to go back and look up to better my understanding. That doesn't, imo, make me a non-Christian, it just means I was not raised in the law and before I can go back, I HAVE to go forward. Again, that sounds really nonsensical, but I hope you know what I mean.

I see what you mean here.

[Storm Bay]

The original is in Hebrew, not in Greek. Septuagint and Vulgata are the roots of some of the common misconceptions which came to other translations through them (translation of a translation... doesn't sound good), but okay, that's waaay off topic already (and I didn't deal with it enough anyway). :)

 

No idea why I just wrote this, but since I did, I'll post it anyway.

 

 

May be off topic, but this is a very important point.

[Lovedtodeath]

There are many Christians today who believe that Jesus was fully human--but of divine conception, perfect, the second Adam, the only way to the Father, the saviour etc. There has never been a full embracement of the Jesus is God theology in Christianity ever. If you study the history of it, you'll see that Constantine split the Christian church in two when he decided that that doctrine was true.

 

Too often I see people think that there are only 2 camps--you either think he's God or you think he's not the son of God and only a regular man. But that's incorrect because there are at least 3 camps on this.

 

Sorry to "stir the pot", but in my research today I found these quotes. I had never noticed them before and thought that they pertained to this discussion:

 

 

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

 

from this link

[LittleIzumi]

Yup. Believe fully in my Saviour, Jesus Christ, God's literal Son--and know that there are lots of translation and interpretation errors in the Bible and that some of it is allegorical and in parables and that God's ways are not our ways--and some of it I will have to ask Him about when I get there! :D

[mommaduck]

Sorry to "stir the pot", but in my research today I found these quotes. I had never noticed them before and thought that they pertained to this discussion:

 

 

from this link

 

 

Correction:

 

Please look at the quotes AND references here http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm Both Church Fathers are listed and both say the opposite of what the JW website claims neither does their website list references for comparison. The other men listed on the JW site are also listed on this site.

Edited September 26, 2009 by mommaduck