Can you really believe everything in the Bible?

by proplog2 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    If we take the Bible at face value we are confronted with a serious problem. How do we know when God is telling us the facts and when is he just telling us something he thinks we are capable of understanding? This is not quite the same as the argument that God lies on occasion. Those situations where it speaks of God putting falsehood in the mouths of false prophets are considered minor points by the "true believer" and they believe they can easily explain them away by manipulating the exact translation of some of the terms involved.

    The problem I’m referring to is found at Exodous 32:9-14

    9 And Jehovah went on to say to Moses: "I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. 10 So now let me be, that my anger may blaze against them and I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation."

    11 And Moses proceeded to soften the face of Jehovah his God and to say: "Why, O Jehovah, should your anger blaze against your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent he brought them out in order to kill them among the mountains and to exterminate them from the surface of the ground’? Turn from your burning anger and feel regret over the evil against your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, in that you said to them, ‘I shall multiply YOUR seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have designated I shall give to YOUR seed, that they may indeed take possession of it to time indefinite.’"

    14 And Jehovah began to feel regret over the evil that he had spoken of doing to his people.

    Take a close look at what is happening in this situation. The most straight forward explanation of this scripture is that Jehovah acts crazy- mad without considering all the consequences. That doesn’t make for a very pleasant picture of the person who in his omnipotence and omnicience created everything in the universe. An apologist is immediately tempted to explain this with some kind of personal theory about God’s objective in the situation. For example it might be asserted that God was testing Moses in some way. Perhaps he was testing Moses’ commitment to leading the Israelites. Or some may claim that Jehovah was teaching Moses a lesson in showing mercy. Maybe one or another of these claims is true. But, the Bible doesn’t say. These tales are spun because if you take it literally it makes God look bad.

    There is a catch 22 to all of this. If you accept one of the invented explanations you have started a game of croquet with the queen of hearts. Grab a flamingo mallet and try to hit the hedgehog balls. At the very least you must now consider the possibility that every situation in the Bible may or may not be designed to teach some lesson and therefore not to be taken literally. For example how do you know that the Genesis story of creation is a real representation of the facts or is it trying to illustrate some principal such as the headship of man over woman. Or consider the Battle of Armageddon. Is God really going to destroy 6.5 billion people, thus admitting he produced an unreliable prototype? Or is he going to later get talked out of it - teaching humans a lesson in mercy.

    This is not an attack on those who believe in the Bible. It is an attack on the dogmatic approach JW’s and other fundamentalists take in explaining the meaning of the Bible. For me, personally, this means I can pick and choose the parts of the Bible I want to believe.

  • gumby
    gumby
    11 And Moses proceeded to soften the face of Jehovah his God

    14 And Jehovah began to feel regret over the evil that he had spoken of doing to his people

    These two verses should answer your question

    Gumby

  • DaveNwisconsin
    DaveNwisconsin

    The problem that I have with the bible is that it has been rewriten so many times. I think that things that were writen have been used to condem modern problems. If you had a bible that was like 1500 years old and read it from cover to cover, would it say exactly what it says today? I would love an old one to check out. I have a bible that is 70 years old and when I have checked out some of the scriptures, they seem so vauge compaired to a new bible I would go out and buy today. So what does that say?

  • deeskis
    deeskis

    Well, I know you definately can't believe everything in the NWT.

    As for other translations, I just dunno.......

  • Star Moore
    Star Moore

    I had an idea....what if Jehovah is "a work in progress" like the rest of us? What if he is going thru a learning process..just like us..and he does feel regret sometimes...??

    Thinking also that at the end of the tribulation..what if people just die spiritually? But God let's them finishing living their lives out..like he did with Adam and Eve.?

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan
    At the very least you must now consider the possibility that every situation in the Bible may or may not be designed to teach some lesson and therefore not to be taken literally.

    All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

    I didn't read "profitable for history" or "profitable when taken literally"

    therefore not to be taken literally

    Now that is an understatement !

    The fundamentalist / literalist views have wreeked havoc on the lives of many, for thousands of years - and still do - jehovahs witnesses are but one example

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    Well thought out. This mix of literal/figurative interpretation is what has led to 30,000 sects.

    Even something as seemingly staightforward as whether God approves of homosexuality can be explained away. I have read articles that go into the Greek and Hebrew, explain the surrounding circumstances to come up with God approving of Gay sex.

    How do you know what the bible is really saying?

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    How do you know what the bible is really saying?

    When you come to terms with the fact that the way you framed the question is the real problem you will have a much easier time reading the Bible. "The Bible" doesn't say anything. Each story writwer, each poet had something to say. They never anticipated later authoritarian religious leaders collecting a selection of these works and insisting the collection was one book.

  • gumby
    gumby

    Pete,

    "The Bible" doesn't say anything. Each story writwer, each poet had something to say. They never anticipated later authoritarian religious leaders collecting a selection of these works and insisting the collection was one book.

    Wouldn't you say that either one story at least was built upon another story in much of it? Would you say there is a "theme" in any of it that rhymes with what other writers wrote or not?

    Such as...in Jesus case. Did his begginings such as told in the gospels and his future claims of what he would become.....have a harmonius agreement between various bible writers/authors?

    Also...do you feel these collected writings that we now consider the canon are written as they were written then ...........or were thet altered and arranged in a way so as to look to a reader it is a god inspired book with a harmonius theme that could not have been harmonius by chance?

    *checkin to see if his notes ryhme with mine*

    Gumby....................................................you can say stuff too narkster

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    Wouldn't you say that either one story at least was built upon another story in much of it? Would you say there is a "theme" in any of it that rhymes with what ;other writers wrote or not?

    It is true that some of the work is a rewrite of earlier material if that is what you mean. The Chronicler was deliberately rewriting 2 Kings for example. The writer of Matthew was deliberately rewriting Mark for another. Clearly they did not then intend the two to be laid side by side for comparison so as to create some sort of "theme". Because of the way the works were made they bear some resemblance even at times near perfect duplication but this is not to be mistaken for "harmony".

    Such as...in Jesus case. Did ;his begginings such as told in the gospels and his future claims of what he would become.....have a harmonius agreement between various bible writers/authors?

    Not sure what you mean. Mark doesn't know of any miraculous birth and the kingdom is a secret being revealed in the present not distant future. As the later rewrites/recensions of Mark (called Matthew and Luke by later tradition) felt the need to incorporate a miraculous birth they each wrote a distinctly different one. They also anticipated the Kingdom as future and political. Years of redaction blurs some of this but the writers hardly envisioned 3 or 4 versions of the story being compiled together. There were apparently dozens of other Jesus stories in circulation in various places and times that were just too dissimilar to be brought into the collection but because the 3 Synoptics (meaning same) were in reality 3 versions of the same story they were easier to harmonize. John has some relationship to the other 3 but was apparently brought into the collection because of its popularity and its theologically useful passages.

    ;Also...do you feel these collected writings that we now consider the canon are written as they were written then ;...........or were thet altered and arranged in a way so as to look to a reader it is a god inspired book with a harmonius theme that could not have been harmonius by chance?

    We have a great deal of texual evidence of active harmonizing redaction between Gospels, there is every reason to presume much more took place before the 3rd and 4th centuries from which we have texts.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit