Actually, that's not in the Bible

[Joanne]

I think we need to be careful stating that being a part of a church is wrong or leading someone astray. There are many very good churches that preach the Bible as it is written. Man is fallible and a pastor's interpretation of the Bible is possibly flawed at times. We cannot say that housechurches are the best and institutionalized churches in America should all be banned.

 

Or vice versa. ;)

[AuntPol]

I never thought any of these things were in the Bible. Do people really believe that? I always thought they were just idioms, some biblically based but not direct quotes. I have never heard anyone claim they were quoting the Bible when they say these things.

[Truscifi]

She wore a pearl necklace...

 

(oh, oops, wrong audience)

 

 

a

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Not entirely the wrong audience. :D

[ktgrok]

I never thought any of these things were in the Bible. Do people really believe that? I always thought they were just idioms, some biblically based but not direct quotes. I have never heard anyone claim they were quoting the Bible when they say these things.

 

People do think they are in the Bible. I took a New Testament class in college, at a secular school. There were SO MANY times where a student would say "but the Bible says _____________", only to have the instructor say "fine, show me where it says that." And of course, they couldn't show him, because it DIDN'T say that. The student would usually continue to protest that they learned in church or at home that the Bible DID say that. And couldn't seem to grasp that if it wasn't in the book, it wasn't in the book. It was REALLY frustrating.

[Truscifi]

I think the word neckLACE should be redeemed. :D

If you were neckLESS, how could you wear a neckLACE?

Sorry, my teacher eyes are twitching...:lol:

 

Thank you. This was driving me nuts.

[mommaduck]

Really? Were only some Proverbs included in the Septuagint?

 

Hmm, I see that it seems to go from v 5 to v 7. Can anyone comment on this?

 

There are MANY differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts.

 

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

 

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/proverbs.html (I'm not familiar with this site, but found the comparisons on it interesting)

Edited June 7, 2011 by mommaduck

[ktgrok]

Am I alone in wishing (in the context of a thread that touches on biblically sanctioned child beating) that we could change "Pearls on a Neckless" to "Beads on a Neckless?"

 

Every time I see "Pearls" my eyes start to twitch ;)

 

Bill

 

I'm finding myself agreeing with you way too much lately Bill! Now where is that circumcision thread...

[OnTheBrink]

I never thought any of these things were in the Bible. Do people really believe that? I always thought they were just idioms, some biblically based but not direct quotes. I have never heard anyone claim they were quoting the Bible when they say these things.

 

Sadly, yes. I was speaking with someone last week who was shocked to find out that "God helps those who help themselves" was not in the Bible. I was shocked she was shocked.

[Parrothead]

... we were not going to be back to that circle of churches.

Good for you guys!

[MorganClassicalPrep]

Have to say, I'm with Eliana on this. Those aren't the reasons why, they're modern theories and ideas about why and they aren't the only ones. I tend to think there's some truth to them but I also think the culture of the Ancient Hebrews was more complicated and many of the things mandated/forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures likely had more then just one reason behind them.

 

I tried to find the source that I read those explanations in, but it has been quite awhile since I've read it and couldn't come up with it.

 

I didn't say they were the *only* reasons why, and I agree that there probably were multiple reasons behind the proclamations in the Bible.

 

I still stand behind my belief that in order to fully understand the Bible, the cultural context in which it was written must be considered. Yes, the Bible was inspired, but there were human authors- who were not without bias. You (general you, not any specific you) can't write a work without putting some of yourself in it. I don't believe that God just arbitrarily decided which animals were good and bad for eating. I believe he had a reason for it. To me, it makes sense that he was trying to protect his people from their lack of knowledge about healthy eating habits. It also makes sense that he would want to distinguish between his chosen people and the other societies.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

I had been part of a home church for 8 plus years and the bible was subtly misrepresented in certain areas there as well by some. The thing about homd churches is that there is usually an air of superirity that goes along with them. It is fine to have a preference and I love the family feel and participation of the body not just the pastor and worship team in ministering on Sundays, but there can be some real problems that are unique to that set up as well...overbearing, controlling personalities, 'likemindedness' is the goal often not in scripture, but convictions and opinions of others working out the word, and we are still being told by friends who remained there that the jst don't see how we could have tasted the goodness of home fellowsip and go back to traditiona pl church! Well we just feel like a part of the family at ou new church...Gods family!! Yes, there are things we miss, but things we love as well and prefer.

[Ellesmere]

I think that it is human nature to use whatever system of authority you revere to justify what you want to do. It is probably possible to find, for example, Constitutional justifications for quite a number of opposing viewpoints. ...

 

Of course, that is a ways away from my original dissatisfaction with the article, which suggested that a wider access to the Bible resulted in an inacurate familiarity with its contents. That just seems silly to me.

I don't think I was trying to defend a particular system of authority.

 

As I said, I do agree with your point that contempt for the amateur is disagreeable and I clearly agree that plenty of people can accurately quote the Bible without any theological degree. I've known some lovely ones that quote it and speak intelligently about it. But maybe I didn't sense the same contempt from the quoted professor. I'm not saying he does or doesn't have contempt.

 

I was just expressing my encounters with many, many people who hold doctorate degrees (in theology/divinity) and still more who have absolutely no college-level training. (To clarify, these living room studies I've seen may not be what Craig Hazen was talking about.) I'm speaking of some particular churches -- that are vehemently against the integrated church movement -- that have rather traditional (well, depends on who you ask) way of meeting in a building for Sunday worship, but also have the kind of studies that Hazen described -- drinking coffee, munching on brownies and encouraging people with no training lead intensive Scripture studies.

 

None of them are guilty of the mis-quoting that is discussed in the article but plenty of them can perfectly quote large portions of Scripture and proceed to argue how they prove all sorts of things, from why The Lord of the Rings is dangerous to far more serious issues, and again, I'm not going to get started on the sermon that used Psalm 23 to justify "proper" discipline.

 

I've known pastors who make an art out of taking verses out of context, rearranging them to fit their own message, and charismatically leading groups of people astray. It is more common than not. It is hard work (and takes an education) to AVOID doing this.

 

I could make it look like the Bible says anything I want it to say, but it doesn't mean that's what the Bible really says.

 

I think the word "pearl" should be redeemed.;)

:iagree:

[Ellesmere]

Good for you guys!

Thanks, Chucki. :001_smile:

[Cheryl in NM]

I think there is a difference between quoting (mis-quoting) and paraphrasing.

 

The Bible definitly alludes to Eve's serpent being satan. We should hate evil and satan just as Genesis says "and I will put enmity between you and the serpent..." Gen. 3:15 NIV If God put humanity in charge of the animals (Gen 1:26) why would he "enmity" between a human and an animal unless the animal was satan? Then the Revelations verse that was quoted earlier equates satan and the serpent who tricked humanity.

 

People have already discussed the "spare the rod...", but the theory behind this is to discipline your children. I don't think any of use would disagree with the need to discipline our children in some form.

 

The "God helps those who help themselves" might refer to Bible verses that urge people to work, depend upon themselves, to not sit back and wait for God to take care of everything while the people don't try.

 

I consider a mis-quote to be "In Genesis the Bible says that Satan told Eve to eat the apple". We all know that *satan didn't tell Eve to eat an *apple. It was the serpent and it was fruit. I consider paraphrase to be "Satan caused the fall of mankind when he tempted Eve in the garden". It's a nuance IMO.

 

I agree, Christians who wish to live a Biblical life and wish to defend the Bible must know the Bible. Of course, it takes many years to learn the Bible well enough to know every little, tiny bit of it.

[justamouse]

:lurk5:

[Sputterduck]

I think there is a difference between quoting (mis-quoting) and paraphrasing.

 

The Bible definitly alludes to Eve's serpent being satan. We should hate evil and satan just as Genesis says "and I will put enmity between you and the serpent..." Gen. 3:15 NIV If God put humanity in charge of the animals (Gen 1:26) why would he "enmity" between a human and an animal unless the animal was satan? Then the Revelations verse that was quoted earlier equates satan and the serpent who tricked humanity.

 

People have already discussed the "spare the rod...", but the theory behind this is to discipline your children. I don't think any of use would disagree with the need to discipline our children in some form.

 

The "God helps those who help themselves" might refer to Bible verses that urge people to work, depend upon themselves, to not sit back and wait for God to take care of everything while the people don't try.

 

I consider a mis-quote to be "In Genesis the Bible says that Satan told Eve to eat the apple". We all know that *satan didn't tell Eve to eat an *apple. It was the serpent and it was fruit. I consider paraphrase to be "Satan caused the fall of mankind when he tempted Eve in the garden". It's a nuance IMO.

 

I agree, Christians who wish to live a Biblical life and wish to defend the Bible must know the Bible. Of course, it takes many years to learn the Bible well enough to know every little, tiny bit of it.

 

:iagree:

 

And also... serpents that are just serpents don't talk. When someone finds me a serpent that can speak to me, then I'll consider that maybe that verse is not about Satan.

[asta]

:iagree:

 

And also... serpents that are just serpents don't talk. When someone finds me a serpent that can speak to me, then I'll consider that maybe that verse is not about Satan.

 

Oh! So THAT is how people justify not letting their kids read Harry Potter!

 

 

asta

[leeannpal]

The "God helps those who help themselves" might refer to Bible verses that urge people to work, depend upon themselves, to not sit back and wait for God to take care of everything while the people don't try.

 

I think you might have a real problem with the verses that tell us not to worry about what we will eat or drink or the clothes we will wear because God knows what we need.

 

I really, really dislike the "god helps those who help themselves" quote. There are many times in life when we can't "help ourselves," and we must trust in God and "lean not unto our own understanding."

[mamachanse]

I always thought that "spare the rod, spoil the child" was an endorsement of Miquon and Miquon-like activities :D

 

Bill

 

I just spit my drink out. :lol:

[WishboneDawn]

I still stand behind my belief that in order to fully understand the Bible, the cultural context in which it was written must be considered. Yes, the Bible was inspired, but there were human authors- who were not without bias. You (general you, not any specific you) can't write a work without putting some of yourself in it. I don't believe that God just arbitrarily decided which animals were good and bad for eating. I believe he had a reason for it. To me, it makes sense that he was trying to protect his people from their lack of knowledge about healthy eating habits. It also makes sense that he would want to distinguish between his chosen people and the other societies.

 

I completely agree with the bolded. I'm currently steeped in biblical criticism, documentary hypothesis, four source theory...:) I just want to be careful with language.;)

[WishboneDawn]

I consider a mis-quote to be "In Genesis the Bible says that Satan told Eve to eat the apple". We all know that *satan didn't tell Eve to eat an *apple. It was the serpent and it was fruit. I consider paraphrase to be "Satan caused the fall of mankind when he tempted Eve in the garden". It's a nuance IMO.

 

 

I don't think of the serpent as Satan at all. The only true connection is made in that one verse in Revelation and that's a book so steeped in metaphor and imagery I'm uncomfortable assuming anything literal from it, like the serpent was literally Satan.

 

Not that your view doesn't have support. But I think this is a probelm with the way we look at the Bible today and why those quotes that don't actually exist make the rounds. We treat the Bible as if it contains the final word on everything while a good read reveals many things where it's conflicted or the aim isn't clear. To ME that's because we're being asked to do this, use our God-given reason to discuss it and puzzle it out and see what we can make of it.

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree:

 

And also... serpents that are just serpents don't talk. When someone finds me a serpent that can speak to me, then I'll consider that maybe that verse is not about Satan.

 

Donkeys don't talk either but there was never any hint that Balaam's was Satan. :)

[WishboneDawn]

We have a big thing about distinguishing which things are from the Torah, and which are commentary, interpretation (as you can see from my hangups displayed on this thread), but it happens to us all too often too...

 

A classic example: Ask an observant Jewish kid to show you where the Torah gives the story of Avraham Avinu destroying his father's idols, and all too many will pull out their Chumashim and try to find it for you.... as little ones they hear the text with interpretation first... and then when they begin studying it, it is almost always with extensive use of Rashi's commentaries... We try to be clear, but it the lenses through which we, all of us regardless of faith, filter things are strong... and usually our own are invisible to us!

 

From a Christian - yep, yep, yep. Our approach to the Bible these days often seems to me to be very shallow, even with some of the most Biblical Christians.

[asta]

I don't think of the serpent as Satan at all. The only true connection is made in that one verse in Revelation and that's a book so steeped in metaphor and imagery I'm uncomfortable assuming anything literal from it, like the serpent was literally Satan.

 

Not that your view doesn't have support. But I think this is a probelm with the way we look at the Bible today and why those quotes that don't actually exist make the rounds. We treat the Bible as if it contains the final word on everything while a good read reveals many things where it's conflicted or the aim isn't clear. To ME that's because we're being asked to do this, use our God-given reason to discuss it and puzzle it out and see what we can make of it.

 

You remember

in Dumbo when there are psychedelic pink elephants running amok? Um... yeah.

 

 

a

[elegantlion]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Not entirely the wrong audience. :D

 

Now I'm thinking of an entirely different group of bearded men. :lol:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't think I was trying to defend a particular system of authority.

 

As I said, I do agree with your point that contempt for the amateur is disagreeable and I clearly agree that plenty of people can accurately quote the Bible without any theological degree. I've known some lovely ones that quote it and speak intelligently about it. But maybe I didn't sense the same contempt from the quoted professor. I'm not saying he does or doesn't have contempt.

 

I was just expressing my encounters with many, many people who hold doctorate degrees (in theology/divinity) and still more who have absolutely no college-level training. (To clarify, these living room studies I've seen may not be what Craig Hazen was talking about.) I'm speaking of some particular churches -- that are vehemently against the integrated church movement -- that have rather traditional (well, depends on who you ask) way of meeting in a building for Sunday worship, but also have the kind of studies that Hazen described -- drinking coffee, munching on brownies and encouraging people with no training lead intensive Scripture studies.

 

None of them are guilty of the mis-quoting that is discussed in the article but plenty of them can perfectly quote large portions of Scripture and proceed to argue how they prove all sorts of things, from why The Lord of the Rings is dangerous to far more serious issues, and again, I'm not going to get started on the sermon that used Psalm 23 to justify "proper" discipline.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I guess I was unclear. I wasn't saying that you were defending a particular system of authority. I was suggesting that there will always be people who will use whatever authority they lean towards as a means of justifying their own opinions and actions. For some it might be a religious work. For others it might be the Constitution. For others it might be some other political work like an international human rights document or political economic manifesto. But the hallmarks that I see in this sort of people is that they are using the text as a justification for what they want to do (appeal to authority).

 

I see something different when someone is searching through a document that they think is worthy and/or true to determine what they ought to do. Often they are struck with the realization that what they ought to do goes against their natural inclinations. (I don't mean that they now feel called to beat their children in order to keep them on the straight and narrow.) I do mean the many instances I've seen where someone has decided that he really does have to show love toward those that he doesn't like or who have wronged him. Or to protect free speech or assembly or worship for those he disagrees with.

 

But in the end, I think that the different results come from a humbleness in spirit and a willingness to be wrong, rather than just a difference in the text that is being sifted through (though I do personally think that there are superior texts for organizing ones life, but that is a different thread). But I think when you find a person using appeals to a textual authority to justify evil, you look for evil first within the person.

[Greta Lea]

.

[mommaduck]

.

 

:iagree: and "The Roman's Road" (let's cherry pick our way through ONE book of the NT).

[Lizzie in Ma]

With so many people having a Charlton Heston Ten Commandments understanding of the Bible, I don't expect this is going to improve any time soon.

 

:lol::lol:

[mommaduck]

Eliana, thank you for your posts and I agree with you on the Serpent/Eve/Satan section :) Not all Christians share the same view on these things ;)

[justamouse]

Eliana, thank you for your posts and I agree with you on the Serpent/Eve/Satan section :) Not all Christians share the same view on these things ;)

:iagree:

[6packofun]

There is a verse in Revelation (12:9-10) that equates the serpent, sort of, with Satan but frankly, Christian snake handlers have as much scriptural support for their view of snakes as the idea that the serpent is Satan does.

 

I was a little shocked when I first sat down and read Genesis years back and discovered there wasn't any mention of it being Satan. It doesn't even come off as evil. Mischievous yes, but not evil.

 

 

 

I'm not saying the serpent was or was not Satan, but your take seems to be that it was a reptile with a somewhat charismatic personality (mischievous?) which is not a more plausible explanation to me.

[WishboneDawn]

I'm not saying the serpent was or was not Satan, but your take seems to be that it was a reptile with a somewhat charismatic personality (mischievous?) which is not a more plausible explanation to me.

 

*shrug* I tend to look back and see the serpent from Gilgamesh in the Genesis serpent as well.

 

Regardless, I'm just sharing what I thought when I read it, not offering an alternate explanation.

 

ETA: My surprise was mostly related to not finding what I'd been primed to find with the common notion that the serpent was Satan. I was such a Bible noob. :D

Edited June 7, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[lionfamily1999]

I like that...lol.

 

It always makes me think of "...thy rod and thy staff they comfort me," from the 23rd Psalm--if we're going to use a "rod", let's at least make sure we understand its function thoroughly.

:iagree: The rod was used to beat off predators. The staff was used to lift and guide. Spare the rod (don't beat off the predators) and you hate your child. On a side note, realizing what the rod was gave me a lot of pause and I have been reevaluating the things I allow my children to watch, listen to and read. IOW, imo ;) that version seems more anti-HP :lol:

The "God helps those who help themselves" might refer to Bible verses that urge people to work, depend upon themselves, to not sit back and wait for God to take care of everything while the people don't try.

 

I think you might have a real problem with the verses that tell us not to worry about what we will eat or drink or the clothes we will wear because God knows what we need.

 

I really, really dislike the "god helps those who help themselves" quote. There are many times in life when we can't "help ourselves," and we must trust in God and "lean not unto our own understanding."

:iagree: Name one person in the Bible that "helped themself" and it turned out well.

 

Just one.

 

You can't, because there aren't any. People "help themselves" into plenty of corners, they help themselves right into that handbasket. That saying runs so completely contrary to everything the Bible teaches us. Namely that we can't help ourselves, we must rely on God to help us.

[Rai B.]

:iagree: The rod was used to beat off predators. The staff was used to lift and guide. Spare the rod (don't beat off the predators) and you hate your child.

 

Is that what it is for? I have been wondering if it (In the 23rd psalm) was one of those sticks used for herding geese, but I guess someone would probably not be hauling both at once.

Either way, that chapter in Proverbs has a lot about advising, rather than an emphasis on punishment.

 

Regarding the quote about Luther and bible study--the fall of Satan/Lucifer, Satan specifically being the telling Eve to eat the fruit, and the fruit in the garden being an apple are all in the medieval mystery plays (York cycle at least) and so they definitely predate the Bible being available in native languages.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Rai B.

[TheAutumnOak]

I never thought any of these things were in the Bible. Do people really believe that? I always thought they were just idioms, some biblically based but not direct quotes. I have never heard anyone claim they were quoting the Bible when they say these things.

 

:iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

Is that what it is for? I have been wondering if it (In the 23rd psalm) was one of those sticks used for herding geese, but I guess someone would probably not be hauling both at once.

Either way, that chapter in Proverbs has a lot about advising, rather than an emphasis on punishment.

 

Regarding the quote about Luther and bible study--the fall of Satan/Lucifer, Satan specifically being the telling Eve to eat the fruit, and the fruit in the garden being an apple are all in the medieval mystery plays (York cycle at least) and so they definitely predate the Bible being available in native languages.

Yes :) The difference in what I tend to think of when I think of a shepherd (guy following the flock, tapping them into place and pushing them ahead to where he wants them to go) is actually the opposite of how it was done then/there. The shepher went first and the sheep followed.

 

It's worth looking into, it changed my view on a lot of things.