Does the Bible interpret itself, or a fiddle you can play any tune with?

by Rod P 66 Replies latest jw friends

  • gumby
    gumby
    Why can't biblical scholars, who have spent their whole lives researching and studying the Bible, agree amongst themselves what the scriptures mean? One says a certain passage is to be understood literally, while others argue it is symbollic or metaphorical or parable.

    One of the big problems why bible believers feel they have to interpret correctly or god might get pissed, is the NT own example of it's most rightous hero's doing exactly that! Arguing whether circumcision is neccesary or not, whether "grace" surpasses the law, whether gentiles needed needed some slack, how monies would be distributed.

    Since the bible is said to be "Gods Word" , not mans.....then it's believers expect it to be of high class, truthfull, no contradictions. It's also assumed that since it's Gods Word, it must have his protection. One assumes that even though it's writings are thousands of years old and have been passed down through many generations, god would protect it's meaning. One also assumes since god knew this book would apply to many generations of people with many different backrounds, he would be coherent enough to write in such a way there would be no mistaking of it's meaning to all who read it in sincerity, regardless of backround.

    Since none of the above applies to the bible...and yet is SUPPOSED to, perhaps this is why man cannot agree to it's meaning.

    Gumby

    *of the "I hope Terry ain't right" class*

  • Rod P
    Rod P

    Hi Gumby, nice to hear from you.

    I think you have presented a good profile as to the expectations most people have about their sacred book, the Bible. If this is really God's Word, and it is inspired by Him, then He should protect it, and He should make it's meaning(s) clear for people from all the diverse eras of human history- past, present and future. And it should tell the truth, and all prophecies should come true as stated. It should also reveal God's will, teaching mankind truths that he could not know in and of himself.

    Knowledge, science, medicine, politics, economics, etc. may advance over time, but human nature pretty much stays the same. Study some of the characters in the Old and New Testaments and we can readily recognize some of the age-old behaviours and motivations of people living in this day and age. Study Shakespeare, with his inciteful character analysis and studies, and we could just as easily tell the same stories for the same characters in the context of the 21st Century. In other words, another one of the high standards for sacred texts is that it must apply to the human race for all time periods and not just for 2000 years ago, or 5000 years ago, to the cultural flavour of the day.

    Having said all that, I would further add that this is pretty much the standard that believers hold up for their Sacred Texts that are not the Bible. And so we have the Defenders of the Faith, the Apologists, the Scholars who make it their Mission in life to "prove" their Holy Book is inspired of God. Some make a thorough study of the history and culture of those times, while others focus on the ancient languages and hermeneutics and textual criticism in respect of the Bible, all of which they feel builds strength and hope in their faith that this is of God.

    Enter the detractors, the skeptics, the atheists. They set about attempting to disprove everything in terms of the above claims, and the great debate is on, with them on one side, and the believers on the other. There are winners and losers on both sides, and so you will, observe, over time, individuals on one side or the other change their conclusions and cross over to the other side. But by and large, they pretty well stick to their own convictions, becoming more and more "sold" on the notion that they are right and the other side is wrong.

    And so it is not surprising to me in the least that we are never going to find unanimity or consensus when it comes to the Sacred Scriptures around the World. Also, so much has been invested in time, expense and reputation that no-one is ready to give things up so easily. Many would defend their position to the death. "God is on our side." says the believer.

    The skeptic and the atheist are equally intransigent in their viewpoint that only what you can see, hear, feel, taste or touch (and a few other things that scientfic instruments have detected along the way) will be accepted as valid. Everything else is myth, illusion, superstition or self-deception. They worship at the Altars of Science and Humanism, and are convinced this is the only logical alternative.

    With all these colorful and varied viewpoints, perspectives, belief systems, attitudes, biases and predispositions, all intermingled with race, language, culture and nowadays scientific method, it is inevitable that the debates surrounding meaning and interpretation will rage on endlessly.

    This is exactly why I do not buy the argument that any one religion is right, or that only one religion has the right interpretation of the Bible. And therefore, the question of our Eternal Salvation, IMO, cannot and does not rest on whether we accept the Bible as the Word of God, according to the interpretation of some Church or Religion.

    Rather, I see the Bible, like many other Sacred Texts, as precursors, leading us on an individual and inward journey, and there we shall find the Kingdom of God. This is the world of Inner Truth and Light, that will take us beyond mere words. This is a world that will change the Mythical, the Theoretical, the Speculative and the Pseudo into the Mystical, the Spiritual, the Authentic where will be found Wisdom, Harmony and Love. These are not mere platitudes, but rather qualities to be experienced, not rationalized. Our brains need to get out of the way, so to speak, because our intellect at one point, actually stands in our way. Rather, we need to take the plunge into the Unknown, and just let it happen. "Be still, and know that I am God." That is my Mission and my Goal.

    This is not my attempt to convert you to some kind of belief system. I am only telling you all that "For Me" this is where I am heading. You have to decided what's right for you.

    Rod P.

  • Mac
    Mac

    *edited to delete.....

    ( lost count, 3000 was supposed to be my pumpkin' post..................................................................ad infintum)

  • gumby
    gumby

    You can't do that Mac.....put the other post back there cuz I was commenting on it dammit!

    Wasn't Doug Kershaw Bruce Sprinsteens drummer?

    And therefore, the question of our Eternal Salvation, IMO, cannot and does not rest on whether we accept the Bible as the Word of God, according to the interpretation of some Church or Religion.

    Rather, I see the Bible, like many other Sacred Texts, as precursors, leading us on an individual and inward journey, and there we shall find the Kingdom of God.

    Let me ask you something Rod. Where did you get the idea there is a "kingdom of God" ....and that there is an "eternal salvation" awaiting some? Where do these that attain salvation live? What do they do there? What one spec of evidence to you have that either exists?

    Gumby

  • Rod P
    Rod P

    Gumby,

    If you want me to point to some place on a map of this planet and say "This is where the Kingdom of God is." then the answer is, there is none. If you insist on the outward, physical form of the Kingdom of God, then I doubt you will find it. This is my big beef with you materialists. That's the only proof you will accept. And that's fine with me, if that's the way you see things, sobeit.

    But for me, that's just not good enough. You ask for evidence where the Kingdom of God is. That is not the criterion used by Jesus. (Yeah, I know, He's all a myth to you as well.) I believe (Yes, I said the word "believe") that there is a Kingdom of God because so many Sacred Texts from around the world speak of this. Not just the Bible.

    Now, for starters, what is meant by the Kingdom of God? I want to say to you that it is not a physical place or location. A better description would be that it is a "state of mind". It is an "attunement" or "at-one-ment with the Divine. Call it an "altered state of consciousness" or state of being, if you want.

    Luke 17:20-21 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the "Kingdom of God" should come, he answered them and said, "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observations. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold the Kingom of God is within you.

    Gospel of Thomas- Saying 3 (Blatz):

    Jesus said, If those who lead you say to you, see the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of heaven will go before you; If they say to you: It is in the Sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.

    (Poverty means not knowing yourself. "God did not give us religion. We must find our own way." (John /Feth))

    Eternal Salvation: By this I do not refer to Jesus' "ransom sacrifice", the shedding of his blood on the cross for the sins of mankind. There is an interesting debate around this subject, which says that this is a teaching that crept in later, and was not the original concept of Salvation.

    Gospel of Thomas- Saying 70 (Blatz) - Jesus said: If you have gained this within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have this is you, what you do not have in you will kill you.

    The Kingdom of God and Salvation is not an Objective Experience or concept. It is a Subjective one. You can only know it by experiencing it from within. The Materialist and the Skeptic will never know the Kingdom of God, because his very thinking acts as the barrier to exploring and experiencing it. He will simply go on denying the possibility that it exists. If I showed you testimony of those who have been there and in that state, you will deny that too! There is no "proof" that will convince the skeptic, because he is never satisfied. If there was, you'd probably turn the matter over to the Great Randi the Magician to see what trick he could conjur up, so that you could then say, "See, it's all just a trick." If God came down and whacked you over the head, you would probably say someone hit you accidentally with a golf ball, or some other "rationalization" because for you, the Spiritual is all myth. Therefore I say, "Let's simply agree to disagree! No harm done."

    Rod P.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    then it's believers expect it to be of high class, truthfull, no contradictions. It's also assumed that since it's Gods Word, it must have his protection. One assumes that even though it's writings are thousands of years old and have been passed down through many generations, god would protect it's meaning. One also assumes since god knew this book would apply to many generations of people with many different backrounds, he would be coherent enough to write in such a way there would be no mistaking of it's meaning to all who read it in sincerity, regardless of backround.

    Since none of the above applies to the bible...and yet is SUPPOSED to, perhaps this is why man cannot agree to it's meaning.

    Nice summary of the fundamentalistic assumptions. Now where do those assumptions come from? Not from any "revelation," but from a so-called common "reason". Fundamentalism is a hybrid of faith and rationalism.

    Why, in the end, should not "God" lie, contradict him/her/itself, change his/her/its mind, forget, betray, be unfair (funnily enough the Yhwh of the OT does all this and a lot more)? Just because this is not our rational idea of God: a circular reasoning ultimately reduced to the definition of a single word.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Terry:
    Thanks for that. It's MUCH easier to read! I think this site uses Arial 10pt, which I agree is a little on the wee size

    What is so great about the wacky ideas of ancient people? Would you use their ideas on medicine, childbirth, science, social heirarchy, slavery, economics, politics? Or, are you just enamoured with the religious ethos? Hmmm?

    That's an incredibly seductive argument.

    I've lost track, but was it yourself that called the bible "diaries of an ancient people"?
    That would sum up my position on it.

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    The Bible, Koran, and other religious books can all be interpreted many different ways; hence the abudance of different religions in the world.

    DY

  • gumby
    gumby
    Now, for starters, what is meant by the Kingdom of God? I want to say to you that it is not a physical place or location. A better description would be that it is a "state of mind". It is an "attunement" or "at-one-ment with the Divine. Call it an "altered state of consciousness" or state of being, if you want.

    Yea.....the witnesses warned me about apostate bastards like you Rod. They tole me there would be religious people who thought gods kingdom was "within you." Jesus taught it was material....not spiritual. Do you actually believe Jesus diciples didn't believe in a literal physical kingdom? If it were spiritual....why didn't they know about it? Why did they assume it was physical?

    Nark.....these assumptions are made because that's the message it gives.....correct?

    Gumby

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Gumb-pleaingtoahigherauthority:That would be one way of interpreting it
    LOL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit