2 SURVEY QUESTIONS

by Terry 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • tec
    tec

    And its for that reason that many hold onto the bible despite its unreliableness, simply because they feel its still usefull and there is nothing else to build thier faith upon."

    But that is untrue. I get that many feel there is nothing else to build their faith upon... but the only one we are meant to build our faith upon... is Christ.

    That is my case in point with how people view the bible. You excuse the glaring errors it contains that you normally would not make for any other book like say, oh , the Quran.

    That is not true, actually. I hold the Quran and any other Holy Book to the same standards as the Bible. I just didn't start with the Quran or any other Holy Book. Mind you I was also around thirty when I first read the bible... but I believed in God since, always. Just wasn't always sure WHAT was TRUE about God... until knowing Christ.

    The fact is, your God did a crappy job preserving the bible.

    You are assuming that it was His job to preserve the bible.

    He spoke... He did not write. He spoke to Abraham, to Moses, to prophets. Christ spoke and taught also... and after He died and was resurrected, He still spoke as the Spirit.

    He made sure that after only a few decades the only accounts of these events in existence are copies of copies of copies which will be verifiably altered and added to in historically and theologically significant ways from generation to generation, sect to sect.

    HE did not make sure of that. That is what man DID. Christ even warned about it... as well as had John add a warning in the book of revelation about adding to or taking away from (which warning would not be needed if it was impossible to add or take away from, yes?)

    He did not preserve the original copies of these accounts, he did not protect them from revision, did not set in place any mechanism of protecting them from being interpreted in hundreds upon hundreds of ways most of which being heretical and therefore punishable.

    Are people supposed to be putting their faith in what is seen? Are they supposed to be putting their faith in their own or in others interpretations? Man has always done that. But what did Christ say that God wanted?

    "Those who worship in Spirit and in Truth."

    The bible is a witness (or rather many witnesses) pointing TO Christ, who IS the Spirit and who IS Truth. But the bible is not the Spirit or the Truth, itself.

    Christ also said, "You continue to search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life... but you refuse to come to ME for life."

    When it is CHRIST who IS the Life.

    Does it sound like Christ promoted the bible and putting faith in it.. or knowing it to know God.

    "If you know ME, you know my Father."

    "You do not know ME, so you do not know my Father, either."

    But that was his plan right Tammy? To be really confusing? What is even worse is that, when all is said and done, you demand that he be praised for his rediculous plan.

    That was NOT His plan... and if you listened even just to the words we do have written from Christ... you might see that... and go to HIM who DOES speak, and put your faith in Christ - the Spirit and the Truth.

    Why would God or Christ NEED to rely upon a book that can be altered or mistaken... when they are Spirit and can communicate with those who would hear them in that way?

    Man and religion prevent people from knowing this truth... because they, themselves, do not know it. Like the pharisees who stop up the kingdom... they themselves do not enter, and they do not allow those who are seeking, to enter.

    Is he the god of the bible? Is he perfect and if so, shouldn’t his word be perfect? But you do not care that there are contradictions, historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in the bible so debating is futile.

    He is Jahveh... the Father of Christ... the Most Holy One of Israel. He is much more than the bible. He is the God of the LIVING. His image (Christ) is not dead stone, golden calves, wood, paper or ink... but LIVING, as He is.

    His Word speaks only Truth... but His Word is NOT the bible. Christ is the WORD of God. The living Word of God.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    2 tim 3 v 16

    That's what did it for me. Either that is true, or ANY scripture could be false.

    That IS true... but you are adding to what it actually says (because that is what man and religion... who taught you... do)

    "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching , rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

    So there are some questions raised for those who think that this means that the bible is inspired and inerrant:

    Is everything that is written... scripture? (From God, From the Spirit - inspired by the Spirit)

    Does this verse actualy say a single word about inerrancy?

    If the bible... or even scripture... was inerrant... then why the warning at the end of Revelation? Why did Christ say... 'woe to you SCRIBES'? Why does the bible itself speak of 'the lying pen of the scribes' in Jeremiah 8:8?

    (After deciding I didn't believe the bible was the word of god, I noticed I had no actual basis for a believing IN a god [who may or may not go around dictating books to folks])

    The bible is not the word of God.

    Christ is the Word of God.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • LucidChimp
    LucidChimp

    Tammy: You seem to be saying that god could inspire something full of error?, or COULDN'T inspire something inerrant.

    If we take your definition of what "scripture" actually is (though I've no idea how you decide that) - and then we take your definition of what "inspired" really means... Are those "scriptures" inerrant?

    Help me out here...

    (And it seems [to me] that the warning in revelation is there so that an inspired and inerrant book stays that way? [By book I mean revelation, not the bible]... So do you believe that the bible would be inerrant if the writings were still in their original form? If not, how do you chose between the writings?)

    How does one choose without christ telling them? (I'm not actually sure how to describe the direction you say you get without sounding flippant or mocking, but I guess you know what I'm asking)

    Salaam back at ya.

  • tec
    tec

    Tammy: You seem to be saying that god could inspire something full of error?, or COULDN'T inspire something inerrant.

    Neither God nor the Spirit gave something that was in error. The Spirit is Truth... and speaks only truth. Man is the one who runs ahead and adds or takes away from that truth. So God did not inspire something full of error. The errors came into it due to the error in understanding (or motive or whatever) of the scribes and teachers of the law. (including the professed teachers today)

    If we take your definition of what "scripture" actually is (though I've no idea how you decide that) -

    Scripture is that which is inspired by God... given by God and/or the Spirit. (who is Christ)

    Whoever is speaking (and later written about) SAYS if they received from God or the Spirit.

    For example, the prophets all state that they were 'in the spirit' or 'received from Jahveh' or 'This is what God says to Israel (or whomever)'.

    Luke, however, states that he wrote his book based on careful investigation, and that others did the same because it seemed good to them to do so. No mention of receiving it from the Spirit, or even being TOLD to write it down.

    Luke writes an accounting from other witnesses to Christ. John (in Revelation) writes about what He recieved DIRECTLY from the Spirit, and He was even TOLD to write it down.

    Christ also opened the eyes of his disciples to what was written about Him (prophecy/inspired)... "in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms." (luke 24:44)

    and then we take your definition of what "inspired" really means... Are those "scriptures" inerrant?

    Here is a link to the etimology of the word inspired/inspiration... to help you see for yourself:

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inspiration

    And no... nothing written is inerrant (inerrant meaning that it CANNOT have an error in it) because man may add to or take away from something that was given.

    That does not mean you cannot know what is true or not. That does not even mean that it is useless. It works as a witness. It helps people to SEE. But it is not PERFECT. It is not the WORD of God. THAT is Christ, and Christ alone. But it does explain how some things can be in conflict, and why God, as written about in the OT... does not always resemble the TRUTH and LOVE, that Christ revealed to us about His Father.

    We do not throw away books and dismiss their contents simply because they do not claim to be inspired, right?

    Once again though... God sent us his WORD to know Him... His WORD being CHRIST.

    (And it seems [to me] that the warning in revelation is there so that an inspired and inerrant book stays that way? [By book I mean revelation, not the bible]...

    I know what you mean, so no worries. But does your conclusion above make sense, truly? Do you need to add a warning to ensure that something remains inerrant... if it physically cannot be added to or taken away from?

    So do you believe that the bible would be inerrant if the writings were still in their original form? If not, how do you chose between the writings?).

    I do not think so. Because not everything is scripture, that is written in the bible. Not everything was given by the Spirit and God. Some things are history, and some things ar written as people remembered them after the fact, some things are laws also added because of the hard-heartedness of the people (as Christ also said).

    Would scripture be free from error if the writings were in their original form? Would that not depend upon whether it was the one who received from God who did the writing... or if it was another who wrote down what he understood from the one who received from the Spirit?

    How does one choose without christ telling them? (I'm not actually sure how to describe the direction you say you get without sounding flippant or mocking, but I guess you know what I'm asking)

    By testing.

    One can test what one reads against the Spirit... what He says. (which is Christ telling or confirming something to you, yes)

    One can test what one reads against love... because nothing that comes from God or Christ will be against love; and if there is no love in something that you have read, then you misunderstand what you are reading... or someone else misunderstood what was true and wrote according to their misunderstanding.

    One can also test all things that are written in that book against what Christ is written to have said; because at the least; at the conclusion OF that book... it is still Christ that God said to listen to. He said thatin front of Elijah and Moses... and of the three, God did not say listen to Moses or Elijah... but to Christ, His Son. It is still Christ who is called the Truth. The Life. The Image and Word of God.

    Not the bible (the bible itself is never mentioned)

    Not religion.

    Not man.

    Just Christ.

    Christ is the means to know God. Christ is the Rock upon whom to build faith. So Christ is the starting point. Test everything against Him. Don't test Him (the truth) against other things that are not the truth.

    Salaam back at ya.

    Thank you!

    Peace once again to you,

    tammy

  • Theredeemer
    Theredeemer

    But Tammy, we are not talking about Christ. We are talking about the validity or need for an error filled, inconsistant holy book.

    Terry asked:

    If whatever Holy Book(s) turned out to be unreliable for any reason (or at least hit-and-miss) would that be any different from being totally wrong?

    You argue that it is not God's fault it is error filled but is it not.

    For example: If I was a manager at a bank and I chose an ex-thief to work the teller booth and he was later caught stealing, ultimately, upon whom would the blame fall upon; me or the thief? Although the thief would be prosecuted for the crime I would probably be fired for hiring an ex- thief.

    But that is untrue. I get that many feel there is nothing else to build their faith upon... but the only one we are meant to build our faith upon... is Christ.

    Says who? Again, Terry asked about Holy Books, not just the Judeo-Christian bible. You are limiting everyones faith to Christ just because you have discerned him to be the one and only. What about Alah, Krishna, Vishnu, Budha and the countless other Gods?

    That was NOT His plan... and if you listened even just to the words we do have written from Christ... you might see that... and go to HIM who DOES speak, and put your faith in Christ - the Spirit and the Truth.

    So the bible, written in its imperfection, is not in God's plan...except the parts about Jesus. How convinient!

    Why would God or Christ NEED to rely upon a book that can be altered or mistaken... when they are Spirit and can communicate with those who would hear them in that way?

    But thats exactly what , apparently, he tried to do. Obviously, God saw the need for his word to be written down. Only it was done very very poorly. If you want to blame it on human error or the recording methods of the time, wouldnt he, being all knowing, know that in the future things could have been recorded much better? Instead he chose some idiots to do it.

  • Theredeemer
    Theredeemer

    Tammy, you admit that the bible has errors.

    So let me ask you two questions,

    What parts of the bible do you consider to be in error?

    Is it possible that many of the parts or, at least some, that deal with Jesus may be in error? Remember, I said possible..

  • tec
    tec

    Okay, I am going to first clarify my answer to Terry's second question... (and go point by point)... because even I don't think the response I gave is clear, lol. I will add to my response in brackets and underlined, and hope that I am clearer in doing so.

    If whatever Holy Book(s) turned out to be unreliable for any reason (or at least hit-and-miss)would that be any different from being totally wrong?

    (Example: You have a list of important things that will hurt you, help you and waste your time--but--they aren't categorized which is which!)

    That (a bible that has errors) is what we DO have... though being errant (having errors, and so being hit-and-miss in spots) does not make something (the bible) useless or totally wrong. (the bible is not one book, but many, over a great period of time)

    You can learn what is what (what might be true, what might hurt you, help you and waste your time) by experience... and testing. Just means that you think and reason and test what a witness WROTE (or a witness to that witness wrote, or a scribe later wrote/translated)... same as you would test something that a witness SPOKE.

    (You test against the Truth... who is Christ; and against love, as God is love, so nothing that comes from Him is other than love, and truth)

    My apologies for being unclear the first time around. I will go on to your questions now, theredeemer...

    Peace,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    But Tammy, we are not talking about Christ. We are talking about the validity or need for an error filled, inconsistant holy book.

    Well, He factors into those questions that Terry asked.

    If whatever Holy Book(s) turned out to be unreliable for any reason (or at least hit-and-miss) would that be any different from being totally wrong?

    You argue that it is not God's fault it is error filled but is it not.

    For example: If I was a manager at a bank and I chose an ex-thief to work the teller booth and he was later caught stealing, ultimately, upon whom would the blame fall upon; me or the thief? Although the thief would be prosecuted for the crime I would probably be fired for hiring an ex- thief.

    Only if hiring an ex-thief was prohibited by your company. Ex-thief implies that one is no longer a thief. Otherwise, the blame would fall upon the thief, not upon the man who gave an ex-thief a chance and a job.

    That being said, your analogy depends upon God having hired the scribes who lie in the first place. But is this so? Do you think that God hired the wts writing committee? Or did they just go ahead and change/interpret/speak as they choose, according to their own understanding or their own agenda?

    Says who? Again, Terry asked about Holy Books, not just the Judeo-Christian bible. You are limiting everyones faith to Christ just because you have discerned him to be the one and only. What about Alah, Krishna, Vishnu, Budha and the countless other Gods?

    If you are putting your faith in the Father of Christ, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the Most Holy One of Israel... then your faith is meant to be upon Christ.

    As to what about the others... TRUTH says, one way or the other. Test them the same.

    That was NOT His plan... and if you listened even just to the words we do have written from Christ... you might see that... and go to HIM who DOES speak, and put your faith in Christ - the Spirit and the Truth... tec

    So the bible, written in its imperfection, is not in God's plan...except the parts about Jesus. How convinient!... the redeemer

    I was responding to your words here:

    But that was his plan right Tammy? To be really confusing?... the redeemer

    Why would God or Christ NEED to rely upon a book that can be altered or mistaken... when they are Spirit and can communicate with those who would hear them in that way?... tec

    But thats exactly what , apparently, he tried to do. Obviously, God saw the need for his word to be written down... theredeemer

    Seeing a need... is not the same as GOD needing. MAN needed... to SEE... because man has little faith. Otherwise man would HEAR... as Abraham did, as Noah did, as Moses did, as the prophets did, as the apostles did, etc, etc. Man hardens his heart... often due to fear.

    Only it was done very very poorly.

    Hence the warning and admonition against the scribes. From prophets speaking by the Spirit, and from Christ when He walked in the flesh. Every 'holy book' is subject to the same.

    If you want to blame it on human error or the recording methods of the time, wouldnt he, being all knowing, know that in the future things could have been recorded much better? Instead he chose some idiots to do it.

    It is not so much a matter of recording methods as it is lack of understanding and/or faith... and perhaps also pushing an agenda. Modern technology would not change that. People see what they want... and dismiss what they do not want. Twist what they want to suit their beliefs, etc, etc.

    We know, today, that Christ is recorded to have rebuked Peter for cutting the ear of the servant off. That He said... no more of this, and 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' We know that Christ, from what is recorded, never condemned anyone, never stoned anyone, never tortured anyone, never directed any of his followers to do these things... and yet those who profess to following Him, even saying that they are christian... have done this things anyway; revealing that it is not Chrsit that they are listening to or following, and that it is not Christ that they belong to.

    They teach THEIR followers to do the same.

    I speak of Christ... because I know Him. But it is the same with any holy book, or any prophet. People will twist what they want to suit what they want to do; thereby revealing who it is they truly listen to, and what is within them.

    Peace to you,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    What parts of the bible do you consider to be in error?

    Anything that might be in conflict with the Truth/Christ.

    (like God sending she-bears to maul and/or kill 42 youths; like God ordering people to smash the heads of babies against rocks; like God striking Uzzah down in anger for touching the ark to steady it; etc, etc)

    Is it possible that many of the parts or, at least some, that deal with Jesus may be in error? Remember, I said possible..

    Yes, it is possible. So those things can once again, be tested against Him (in spirit... and perhaps even corroborated with other accounts, so that the context is understood)... and against love.

    Peace to you,

    tammy

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Reluctantly, I have to go fully with what Tec says. Many people knew of Him before there was a book. I know from those many people of his noodily appendages.I have never read the book that now exists about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and yet I know all about him. most of what I have learned about flying spaghetti monster comes from the internet. As for point number 2, the book about Him could be totally wrong because it was written as a joke.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit