How are we to be sure that what we're reading and trying to live is correct?

That's another question I have too.  When you think about it, really, really think about, a big chunk of the world's population are living their lives according to a single book.  One book.  That may or may not be 'divine' or even untampered with.

It's amazing, if you think about it.

BTW, are any of us Christian scholars?

People with multiple personalities are not schizophrenic.

You're right, schizophrenia does not mean that a person has multiple personalities.  Multiple Personality Disorder is what I should have said.

I've had my eyes on The Other Bible, and I enjoyed it.  It gives a different perspective on a lot of things, and it makes me think that the christian bible isn't the end of the story...that there's a lot more.

BTW, are any of us Christian scholars?

I dunno.  Gideon is probably the most knowledgeable, but I dunno about his 'scholar' status.  I'll have to ask.

I guess I always figured it was the royal "We" ... Imagine the Queen of England saying "We will take the dog for a walk in our yard."

The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue. Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf. God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent. Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.

So...pretty much anyone who's Christian hasn't a brain in their bodies? It's all wrong so why believe it at all?

Since I believe that there is a God, and that the Bible is God-breathed, I don't see how He, who is supposed to have His hands in EVERYTHING, would allow his Bible to be mistranslated in a way that the original meaning is lost. Just because its not translated word for word doesn't make the message any less meaningful.

So, if that's the case, why are we still having the evolution vs creationism debate in schools? I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible. They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.

Frankly, I don't see why there SHOULD be a debate at all. If both points of view are being shared with kids and being taught as theory and not fact, what's the problem? Can you prove to me, without a doubt, that some big explosion happened and now we have oceans and continents and amoebas and giraffes and humans and trees and sharks and sea sponges? No. Can you prove to me with scientific evidence that God created the universe, the Earth and Mars and Jupiter and all of our animals and humans and plants? No. If I were teaching that to my students in school...I'd have to be objective, no matter what I believed. If they have questions about things and beliefs regarding the formation of Earth, they need to talk to parents and families about that. That's not my job.

And I agree with you about the whole picture. If my husband gets in a fight with another man and I go and drag him home by his penis, who's going to cut off my hand (I think that's in Leviticus)? I mean really? We need to look at who Jesus is and what His role in our lives are and if we believe it and then look at how we're to conduct our lives and treat other people.

Ok, now look at the statement from a non-believer's POV....HOW could he?

Well...hmmm...I guess I don't know how to answer that. I think if a non believe had questions I think I'd point them towards the New Testament first...because we KNOW so much more about it. There's not speculation about who wrote those books, we know for sure. They're written by REAL men who were REALLY with Jesus and spent time with him. There's 4 different perspectives on His life and death, you know? It's still God-inspired, but it's not written by someone that we can't really pinpoint.

But that's my point to mason about why the 'us' part couldn't refer to the trinity. Because the three part harmony didn't come about until waaaaaayyyy after Genesis had been written.

Hmmm...lemme go grab my Bible...Okay...check this out:

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

So...that means that Jesus was with God in the beginning...right?

I don't get it either, though...If God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son...I just don't get it. I can see how its possible for one like God to be two places at one time...but...what about at the crucifixion wher God turned away from Jesus. If God is Jesus, how did He turn away from Himself? Were they two separate entities at that point?

God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.

lol...kinda. I have the three members of the personality pictured in my head like this:

God, the Father: Stern, but Just. Expects his directions to be followed. Gives lots of chances with warnings of consequences. Loves His Kids.

Jesus, the Son: The Hippie. Loving, compassionate, but honest about right and wrong. Taught by example. Loved those others considered unloveable. Brave, accepting, but still human in His emotions.

The Spirit: God mobilized--God on wheels. Someone's talking? He's listening. Feeling alone? He's there. Makes house calls.

I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible. They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.

One problem with the "chapter/verse" method of interpretation, is that it ignores one of the most fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation; that of concept. Was the passage in question written to the Jews, to the Christians today, or to a specific person? This error, of course, led to the Crusades, when the Christian church viewed itself as heirs to the Holy Land, and set about reclaiming it. A prime example of its misuse in contemporary Christian thought is the "prayer of Jabez"...two verses not repeated or referenced elsewhere in scripture used as the foundation of a newly repackaged version of Christian witchcraft.

I believe in the authority of the Bible, and believe that it is God-breathed. And while I do not believe one needs to be a scholar in Greek, Hebrew or Chaldean to understand it, I believe that if your study revolves around all but the most basic concepts, you really need to spend time with study materials of those who have done the research before you (a word of caution, though: check their work for accuracy). The basic concepts, however, can be gleaned from an interpretation.

Does that make any sense? I'm trying to explain things, but my brain's in hibernate mode right now....lol

I guess I always figured it was the royal "We" ... Imagine the Queen of England saying "We will take the dog for a walk in our yard."

woulda been my guess as well. altho i believe it's more accurately termed as imperial rather than royal (as in the roman emperor). the translations were commissioned or approved by people who lived in much the same sorta world as do many of today's islamic culture and believed their authority was divinely ordained. so it seems likely those in power would have attributed imperial reference to the only 'lord' they recognized.

Marci...

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. What I'm doing is showing fault in the literal interpretation approach. The message can be maintained through different wordings and translations. There are many ways to express the same idea, and even if the words don't match quite right, you can still get the point across.

I think if anything, God would protect the message being presented, and forget about the words. The Old Testament is a series of lessons told through stories. The individual words are irrelevant if examined individually our without context. Put the words together and you get the lesson, and the lesson can be taught using any number of different words.

If you look at it, the entire Bible boils down to one rule... just one rule to live your life by...

Don't be a dick.

That's it. That's what every story, every lesson from Christ etc teaches. The individual words are just pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that forms that larger picture. I think we get lost focusing so hard on the individual pieces that we don't even realize there's a puzzle in front of us. If we concentrate on a given piece hard enough, we trick ourselves into thinking that everything else is just plain wrong. We miss the point entirely when we latch onto individual verses to prove points, individual stories to form the basis of an argument.

Let's look at the Bible from the "Don't be a dick" perspective.

-God creates the world, the animals, the fishies... all the good stuff.
-God creates Man.
-God gives Man ONE rule... just ONE rule.
-Man is a dick, breaks the rule.
-Man is a dick to fellow Man for a while
-God is tired of Man being a dick, wipes 'em all out to start over
-God gives Man a LONG list of Do's and Don'ts to make it very very very clear how not to be a dick... cause obviously just one rule was too vague.
-Man continues to be a dick... but this time Man is a dick in the name of God.
-God gets tired of Man being a dick again, goes away for a bit to rethink the whole deal
-God sends down Son to smack some sense into Man
-Son spends 30 years telling people to not be dicks.
-Man doesn't understand simple message.
-Son has to come up with cryptic examples of how not being a dick works
-Some people start to understand the Don't be a Dick plan
-Rest of Man becomes angry at the idea that it could all be that simple.
-Man is ultimate dick and nails Son to a plank to die
-Son and God make ultimate non-dick move and make Son's death absolution of Man's dick-ness

Man spends next 2000 years being dicks to one another in the name of the Don't be a Dick cause. God chuckles at ultimate irony.

We need to look at who Jesus is and what His role in our lives are and if we believe it and then look at how we're to conduct our lives and treat other people.

The thing that gets me is that christ was a rebel of his time.  He came and told people to forget about the law of the day.....he was a real rabble-rouser.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The issue I have with that is that that gospel was written way after Genesis was.  Therefore, John could be retrospectively saying 'this is how it is'...

 

God, the Father: Stern, but Just. Expects his directions to be followed. Gives lots of chances with warnings of consequences. Loves His Kids. Jesus, the Son: The Hippie. Loving, compassionate, but honest about right and wrong. Taught by example. Loved those others considered unloveable. Brave, accepting, but still human in His emotions. The Spirit: God mobilized--God on wheels. Someone's talking? He's listening. Feeling alone? He's there

I have much the same imagery.  Very much the same....whodathunk that, huh?

 

You'd no doubt enjoy some of the gnostic texts as well, dharma, and other books of the bible that were ultimately rejected at the council of Nicea.

Actually, i just ordered 'The Other Bible' from Amazon.  I've seen it before, but I'm really looking forward to getting stuck into it again!

 

One problem with the "chapter/verse" method of interpretation, is that it ignores one of the most fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation; that of concept

Exactamundo! 

I believe in the authority of the Bible, and believe that it is God-breathed.

I don't know that I believe that.  I think that it's a handbook as to how to live, that the overall message is good....but I'm not entirely sure that it's divine.  Divinely inspired, perhaps....but I don't know about the 'breath of god' thing.  I think that it's all a matter of faith.....

 

so it seems likely those in power would have attributed imperial reference to the only 'lord' they recognized.

That's what I have come to understand on my quest for an answer this morning as well....however, I would hva expected, were that the case, to see that pluralism used more throughout the bible.

 

Don't be a dick.

Eaxctly.  Or, in the immortal words of Bill and Ted: 'Be most excellent to each other'!

 

Man spends next 2000 years being dicks to one another in the name of the Don't be a Dick cause. God chuckles at ultimate irony.

I have often wondered if, if there really IS a god, that is...if he's not looking at what's going on and saying 'dudes, you have it sooooo wrong.  That's not what I meant at all when i said that....you totally took that the wrong way'.

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. What I'm doing is showing fault in the literal interpretation approach. The message can be maintained through different wordings and translations. There are many ways to express the same idea, and even if the words don't match quite right, you can still get the point across.

If we don't take the Bible literally, and have to "interpret" meaning from every verse instead of taking it at face value, whose interpretation is right? That's the issue with that. There are over 1000 people that attend my church. We might all read a passage and we're probably all going to get something different from that passage. So...who's right? If I have to "interpret" it, it becomes too messy, and doesn't follow the order that God created in the world...

I think that we like to make things really really complicated. The Bible's complicated enough as it is without having to come up with our own meaning for the thing.

We have faith.

We believe, that the Bible, while human-crafted, contains the word of God. As a Lutheran, I believe in the Holy Trinity. As it goes like this.

To quote the Athanasian Creed:

We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only.

To quote the Athanasian Creed:

That's a man made creed.  So's the Nicence Creed the Anglican Church uses.  Those are the words of man, not of god.  The problem I have with organized christianity is that it has a long history of keeping away from the public eye the things that it thinks we shouldn't see or hear.  The Council Of Nicea, for example, rejected some books of the bible, and there are many other ancient texts that weren't included.  You ought to read The Other Bible like I am, Beebles....I think it would really open your eyes. 

I think that we like to make things really really complicated. The Bible's complicated enough as it is without having to come up with our own meaning for the thing.

That's the problem.  Because we don't know for sure what is meant by each verse and passage, we have to rely on our own interpretation.   Unfortunately, there's no 'Guide To The Bible - what I meant when I said that' by god or christ or anyone else.  It would help if there were, and I'm sure there wouldn't have been near as many wars, cursades etc etc etc as there have been if something like that were available.

I've read portions of the gnostic bible. I know most of the history of my faith. But that does not cause me to disbelieve that Jesus sacrificed his life to save me from my sin.

And, I quoted the Athanasian Creed to explain why it says OUR. That was your original question, right?

*Edit*

I'm also reading the Koran... and a history of the Muslim faith. Just like the Bible was edited by The Council of Nicea and Constantine, the Koran was edited as well. The winners write history, after all.