Do you read the Bible?

[Disney Guru]

You know what everybody has their own ideas about reading the Holy Bible and other Scriptures. We all have a right to choose our own religions and what we belive or not so lets just let it at that.

[Starion]

I don't think I have read any part of the bible. I'm not Christian. Are Genesis and "The Lords Prayer" in the Bible? Just wondering.

Genesis is the first book of the Bible, and The Lord's Prayer is included in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Possibly in Mark and John as well, but I'd have to look that up.)

Ok, thanks for the information. I remember seeing a book of a Bible in a motel. Ever since I saw that one book, I thought the whole Bible was in one book, not several like you noted. In my Mythology class, the professor talked about Genesis, God, Adam and Eve. The stories that I read in class are interesting.

I'll see if I can find a copy of Gospels of Matthew and Luke and The King Jame's Version since everyone got me interested in reading the Bible. My western history professor said that I should be careful in interpeting the bible though.



Thanks to everyone for participating in an interesting discussion! Later

[AwallaceUNC]

Actually, Starion, it is all in one book. The Bible is basically an anthology made up of 66 books, but they are bound together in the form of one book. Does that make sense? You can find some of the books printed on their own, outside of the Bible, but complete Bibles can be gotten for very low prices- or even free- so you might as well just get one of those.

Your professor is right, you should be careful. In fact, I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written. Anyways, it's good to see that you are interested and have a healthy thirst for knowledge!

-Aaron

[poco]

Your professor is right, you should be careful. In fact, I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written. Anyways, it's good to see that you are interested and have a healthy thirst for knowledge!

-Aaron

How can you read something and NOT interpret it? It's like reading something and not comprehending it or getting anything out of it. if that is the case, it would be a waste reading any book in my opinion.

Rev. Poco

[Sekaino Jasmine]

Matthew Highlights

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29, 18:8
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
Jesus tells his disciples not to pray in public. 6:5-6
Jesus says that most people are going to hell. 7:13-14
Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 10:21
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34
John the Baptist is still not sure about Jesus (he's in prison and is soon to die). He sends his disciples to ask, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Well, if he isn't sure after seeing and hearing the events at Jesus' baptism, then how can anyone else be? 11:3
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb (blind and dumb people are possessed by devils). 12:22
Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest ... they ... should understand ... and should be converted, and I should heal them." 13:10-15
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Isn't this from the Republican Party platform? 13:12, 25:29
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
Jesus is rejected by those who know him the best -- the people of his home town of Nazareth. 13:55-57
Herod thought Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist. Apparently, it was a common opinion at the time. If so many of Jesus' contemporaries could be so easily fooled regarding John the Baptist, what does this do to the credibility of Jesus' resurrection? 14:2 16:13-14
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." 15:4-7
Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. 16:28, 23:36, 24:34
Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." (Epilepsy is caused by devils.) 17:15
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give your a big reward. 19:29
Matthew has Jesus ride into Jerusalem sitting on both an ass and a colt (must have taken some practice!). 21:2-7
"Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25

A lot of this is probably incorrect translations and people changing the stories around. I do read the bible, and I believe that it is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

[AwallaceUNC]

Your professor is right, you should be careful. In fact, I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written. Anyways, it's good to see that you are interested and have a healthy thirst for knowledge!

-Aaron

How can you read something and NOT interpret it? It's like reading something and not comprehending it or getting anything out of it. if that is the case, it would be a waste reading any book in my opinion.

Rev. Poco

It's quite simple. If interpretation implies construing meaning from something, and that's how I was using it, then I don't believe the Bible is open to our interpretation. To read something literally is not an interpretation, it's simply reading what is there, and in this case, believing it. I comprehend the Bible and get much from it, without interpreting anything whatsover. I don't search what it's trying to say, I read what it does say. That's the point I was trying to make.

-Aaron

[pinkrenata]

PS Loomis, in no way was that meant to be a critique of you or your beliefs. Simply a critique of the information on SAB. If these people are going to go to the time to critique the ENTIRE bible, they should at least do so in a reasonably scholarly fashion. I imagine it took someone years to put that together, but in the end, what they've put together is basically crap. It doesn't contribute at all to a meaningful discussion on authority.

From what I've been able to gather from the site (which I find highly entertaining), it is meant to be looked at lightly. All it does is look at the Bible from a very literal point of view. It isn't trying to be scholarly.

[PrinceAli]

A lot of this is probably incorrect translations and people changing the stories around. I do read the bible, and I believe that it is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

And who is to judge which translation is right? There are so many denominations in Christianity that fight over who's bible or word is correct.
So many priests or church people are able to twist the words in the bible to their liking. How can you say the translated version on the site is incorrect and your's is? If that is so, I'd suggest you write your own bible and spread it around and make sure everyone knows that your translation is tru-est of them all!

[poco]

How can you read something and NOT interpret it? It's like reading something and not comprehending it or getting anything out of it. if that is the case, it would be a waste reading any book in my opinion.

Rev. Poco

It's quite simple. If interpretation implies construing meaning from something, and that's how I was using it, then I don't believe the Bible is open to our interpretation. To read something literally is not an interpretation, it's simply reading what is there, and in this case, believing it. I comprehend the Bible and get much from it, without interpreting anything whatsover. I don't search what it's trying to say, I read what it does say. That's the point I was trying to make.

-Aaron

I am still confused. It sounds like you are contradicting yourself when you say that you read it to read it, but don't extrapulate any meaning from what you are reading then, well, what is the point? And if it is not open to our interpretation, then whose interpretation to extrapulate meaning for unanswered questions we have or why we engage in some behaviors and not others, or why we should believe this specific holy text over others, etc? Pretty much all denominations have some form of interpreting this text to extrapulate meaning. The emphasis on who interprets and what to interpret is what differs from each denomination. If God gave us a brain, why not use it? If you are reading something just to read it literally, then why have you given this text such meaning to follow it? you follow because it means something to you so in essence you are interpreting it for meaning.

Rev. Poco

[reyquila]

Of course I read It. It is my main source of inspiration and the way of salvation.

[AwallaceUNC]

I am still confused. It sounds like you are contradicting yourself when you say that you read it to read it, but don't extrapulate any meaning from what you are reading then, well, what is the point? And if it is not open to our interpretation, then whose interpretation to extrapulate meaning for unanswered questions we have or why we engage in some behaviors and not others, or why we should believe this specific holy text over others, etc? Pretty much all denominations have some form of interpreting this text to extrapulate meaning. The emphasis on who interprets and what to interpret is what differs from each denomination. If God gave us a brain, why not use it? If you are reading something just to read it literally, then why have you given this text such meaning to follow it? you follow because it means something to you so in essence you are interpreting it for meaning.

Rev. Poco

I don't suscribe to any denomination. The idea is bothersome to me, and the bickering over interpretation is just one reason why. It's not open to anyone's interpretation. The answers are there, in plain text, black and white. If they aren't, then we don't need to know them. Interpretation is only needed when people don't like, or can't accept, what is there. God gave me the need to follow it, I didn't derive that myself. It means a good deal precisely as it is written because it is the truth. The truth is meaningful. It's not that I'm saying the Bible doesn't mean anything, obviously. I'm saying that we don't need to try to figure out what it's trying to say, or try to install meaning into it ourselves. The Bible doesn't need us to decide what it says, it already says it, plain and clear.

-Aaron

[PrinceAli]

The Bible doesn't need us to decide what it says, it already says it, plain and clear.

-Aaron

I am sure everyone would love to know what "it" is or means...

[AwallaceUNC]

Meaning in the Bible need not be sought any further than what is written on the pages. It is what is written in the Bible. You don't have to agree, but the concept isn't difficult to understand.

-Aaron

[Loomis]

PS Loomis, in no way was that meant to be a critique of you or your beliefs. Simply a critique of the information on SAB...It doesn't contribute at all to a meaningful discussion on authority.

From what I've been able to gather from the site (which I find highly entertaining), it is meant to be looked at lightly. All it does is look at the Bible from a very literal point of view. It isn't trying to be scholarly.

Pink's got it right here. The SAB, I think, is a response to people who use random bible quote's to justify their belief system. The author of the site is just showing that he/she can do it too, and that sometimes random quotes can not only contradict each other, but be used to DISPROVE the very things people use the Bible to "prove". But as pinkrenata says, it is all in good fun.

Actually, Starion, it is all in one book. The Bible is basically an anthology made up of 66 books, but they are bound together in the form of one book. Does that make sense? You can find some of the books printed on their own, outside of the Bible, but complete Bibles can be gotten for very low prices- or even free- so you might as well just get one of those.

Your professor is right, you should be careful. In fact, I don't think you should interpret it at all, but rather, just read it as it is written. Anyways, it's good to see that you are interested and have a healthy thirst for knowledge!

(Emphasis added by the Loom).

I have a problem with your reasoning there. You say that the Bible is actually 66 books, written at different times. Yet you also say we shoudl read it as written and not interpret it. I don't think you can make those two statements and not make the leap to the next logical point - the Bible is not a consistent text. Of course, if you are a believer (which I am not), then you believe the Bible (or Bibles, in this case) were written by god. Ok, let us assume that is the case. It is still god writing through a number of people, sometimes hundreds of years apart (evidence indicates that most of the New Testament was written years after the events it describes). The individual can't help but have an influence on that text. Secondly, much is going to be lost in translation. And thirdly, there are now so many different religions who all use their own version of the bible - how does one even begin to "take the words as written" if there exists no common translation for these things? You could, as some have suggested, learn Herbrew and other ancient language, but you are still "translating", as you have to put those words into a modern language (at least in your head), and this will give a whole new meaning to what may/may not have been originally intended.

I think you HAVE to add your own interpretation to it. When you simply believe someone else's interpretation of a sacred text, and follow that blindly, that is borderline fundamentalism.

Of course you need to interpret it. As 2099net raised with the Old v New Testament debate, there are different belief systems in place, some who follow both, some who follow one or the other. Who is to say who is right? All of them? None of them? Some of them? Each of these faiths uses the same book - how can they all be so different? Interpretation.

You know what everybody has their own ideas about reading the Holy Bible and other Scriptures. We all have a right to choose our own religions and what we belive or not so lets just let it at that.

For once, I'm going to agree with DG. Everyone is going to have their own interpration of the bible. And as he has said, in a way, people have chosen their own religions based on that same book. Every literary work is open to interpretation. Once we start thinking we don't have the right to question something (be it a book, a teacher or a president), then we start to lose that "fight for democracy" that entire nations have been supposedly fighting for on a global basis over the last year or so.

[Disney Guru]

Thank you for agreeing with me Loomis. I am glad to see that somebody belived my side on the matter. I say again we all have the right to our religions. And nobody should push us around about it.

[AwallaceUNC]

I have a problem with your reasoning there. You say that the Bible is actually 66 books, written at different times. Yet you also say we shoudl read it as written and not interpret it. I don't think you can make those two statements and not make the leap to the next logical point - the Bible is not a consistent text. Of course, if you are a believer (which I am not), then you believe the Bible (or Bibles, in this case) were written by god. Ok, let us assume that is the case. It is still god writing through a number of people, sometimes hundreds of years apart (evidence indicates that most of the New Testament was written years after the events it describes). The individual can't help but have an influence on that text.

Can't help? That places emphasis on the individual. God didn't just take a gamble and hope His message came out ok. Not only were the divinely originated, they were divinely protected. They came out on paper precisely in the way that God wanted them too, without flaw. But as you said, if you're not a believer, you won't believe that.

Also, perhaps failing to capitalize God was a simple mistake or oversight, but it shows disrespect. I don't mean to attack you on that, but believer or not, it's still a proper noun unless followed by an article or made plural.

Secondly, much is going to be lost in translation.

Actually, it hasn't been. Today's text matched up with the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were found. History supports that, given the monotonous and strict procedures for translation. And then there's that belief that God protects His word.

And thirdly, there are now so many different religions who all use their own version of the bible - how does one even begin to "take the words as written" if there exists no common translation for these things? You could, as some have suggested, learn Herbrew and other ancient language, but you are still "translating", as you have to put those words into a modern language (at least in your head), and this will give a whole new meaning to what may/may not have been originally intended.

Sure, lots of versions exist, but they are transliterations- adapted from other translations, or paraphrased from the original. Obviously, those must be discounted (at least for the sake of careful study). The word-for-word translations differ little, if at all. When they do differ, it's because there may be some uncertainty over the meaning of a word in the original Hebrew or Greek. The wonderful thing is, though, that we know when such uncertainty exists. It doesn't occur often, but when it does, translations note this with either subscript or italics.

When you simply believe someone else's interpretation of a sacred text, and follow that blindly, that is borderline fundamentalism.

As stated earlier, I did take the initiative to learn Hebrew (though not Greek). But when study after study after study shows a lack of discrepencies between the ancient documents and the modern translations, I see no reason to believe a conspiracy is at hand. And again, the belief that God protects His word arises.

But following a translation is not necessarily following someone else's interpretation. And I do indeed consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist (by what it means, not by its false connotation), but not because I 'blindly follow someone else's interpretation,' but because I believe that what is written in the Bible, be it a translation or in the original ancient language, is literal truth.

Of course you need to interpret it. As 2099net raised with the Old v New Testament debate, there are different belief systems in place, some who follow both, some who follow one or the other. Who is to say who is right? All of them? None of them? Some of them? Each of these faiths uses the same book - how can they all be so different? Interpretation.

God has decided who is right. The Old Testament is a guideline for finding the Messiah, the New Testament is a submission of evidence for a Messiah. All of the groups you're referring to (those who use the same book) accept the Old Testament. Some accept Jesus' claim as Messiah, and the ensuing pact He made on the authority of that claim, others reject it. God knows which is correct, and the answer will be presented to each party at either the end of their life or the end of the age.

Every literary work is open to interpretation. Once we start thinking we don't have the right to question something (be it a book, a teacher or a president), then we start to lose that "fight for democracy" that entire nations have been supposedly fighting for on a global basis over the last year or so.

Not every literary work is God's truth. Only one. The Bible is much more than a literary work. Christians hardly have the right to submit God to literary criticism. You certainly have the right to question it, though; hopefully it will lead you to God. If not, though, be prepared to accept the consequences for questioning too long. Then there's the worst choice of all, not believing or question, but simply ignoring.

-Aaron

[Loomis]

Actually, it hasn't been. Today's text matched up with the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were found. History supports that, given the monotonous and strict procedures for translation. And then there's that belief that God protects His word.

I had no idea it was written in English. Cool. Matches exactly. Awesome.

Although you then go on to say:

When they do differ, it's because there may be some uncertainty over the meaning of a word in the original Hebrew or Greek. The wonderful thing is, though, that we know when such uncertainty exists. It doesn't occur often, but when it does, translations note this with either subscript or italics.

Wouldn't you say then, logically, that these passages in particular are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. I can't image that there would be that much difficulty in translating something that you describe as God's own words.

Not only were the divinely originated, they were divinely protected. They came out on paper precisely in the way that God wanted them too, without flaw.

So - why is there any difficulty in translation at all? Surely if god wanted us to know and understand it, and wanted ALL of us to do so, his omnipotence would have enabled a text that could be EQUALLY translated throughout the ages by everyone? Or are you suggesting that some of us should understand it and others should not?

You go on to then say:

God has decided who is right

I don't think I like the idea of a god who choose what followers he wants. Is the idea we are all god's children? If so, no matter what path or book you follow, should we all be welcome "up there" when the time comes? Because you seem to be suggesting a hierarchy based on which book you read, and only god knows which one is right. So would that also mean half the book is NOT written by god, and half of his followers are following a false text? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Not every literary work is God's truth. Only one. The Bible is much more than a literary work.

Well, when you put it like that, how can I possibly disagree?

[TheZue]

I took a couple of philosophy courses on the OT and NT at University last year and it was really interesting. We basically read the entire Bible over the year and looked at all the contridictions as well as how believers look at it.

Generally I felt really really confident in the translations after taking that course. Before going in I had all the same reservations expressed by several people on the board; but after learning about how the books were written, and traslated my opinion changed. The reputable traslations (not the paraphrased for easy reading Bibles) are all very very very similar. But I'm still an agnostic

Honestly I think whether you believe or not won't be changed about how solid the translations of the Bible are. It comes down to a lot more than that.

The one thing that really made my jaw drop in that whole book was the mentioning of the Bohemaths (I totally flubbed the spelling) since to me it just sounded exactly like Dinosours.

[AwallaceUNC]

I had no idea it was written in English. Cool. Matches exactly. Awesome.

Shockingly, that's not what I was saying. Literal translation is quite possible. If you do literal translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, you get the English translation today. If you match up the Hebrew Bible of today to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are entirely identical.

Wouldn't you say then, logically, that these passages in particular are OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. I can't image that there would be that much difficulty in translating something that you describe as God's own words.

No, they are not open to interpretation. Even in these rare cases, it's a "most likely" situation, based on comparisons to other ancient usage of Hebrew. But it's important to simply remember that we don't know, or that the word just doesn't fully translate. None of these incidents have been incidents of real importance.

So - why is there any difficulty in translation at all? Surely if god wanted us to know and understand it, and wanted ALL of us to do so, his omnipotence would have enabled a text that could be EQUALLY translated throughout the ages by everyone? Or are you suggesting that some of us should understand it and others should not?

Actually, we are assured in Daniel that man will not know the entire Bible until it is unlocked (often used in assertions of the Bible Code).

God has decided who is right

I don't think I like the idea of a god who choose what followers he wants. Is the idea we are all god's children? If so, no matter what path or book you follow, should we all be welcome "up there" when the time comes? Because you seem to be suggesting a hierarchy based on which book you read, and only god knows which one is right. So would that also mean half the book is NOT written by god, and half of his followers are following a false text? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Perhaps I should have said that God has decided what is right. We decide whether or not to side with it. God hasn't preselected followers- we are all welcome. However, the choice of whether to accept His offer lies with us. Jews are not following a false text, they are simply ignoring its second half. And yes, there is only one path to God. Only Jesus. Islam and orthodox Judaism (in its unconverted stage) won't earn you salvation.

Not every literary work is God's truth. Only one. The Bible is much more than a literary work.

Well, when you put it like that, how can I possibly disagree?

Now exactly why is that worthy of an eye-roll? What about that is an illegitimate argument? Is it not the belief of Christianity? Are we not here to share those beliefs?

But I, too, would like to roll my eyes. You still aren't capitalizing God.

-Aaron

[Loomis]

Now exactly why is that worthy of an eye-roll? What about that is an illegitimate argument? Is it not the belief of Christianity? Are we not here to share those beliefs?

But I, too, would like to roll my eyes. You still aren't capitalizing God. :roll
:

I roll my eyes because your argument is circular.
It is god's word because the bible says it is god's word, and the bible must be right about that because the bible is the word of god.

It is like me saying my argument is correct because I'm always right, and that must be true because I said it.

And I don't capitalize god any more than I would capitalize cheese, tree or book. If you are all for freedom of belief, to me god is nothing more than an abstract entity that I have no inclination to give any more authority to than I would a piece of wood. If however, I were a believer such as yourself I would capitalize the word. Until then, I exercise my own interpretation.

Islam and orthodox Judaism (in its unconverted stage) won't earn you salvation.

But then, I'm probably just a heathen like the rest of these groups you have just insulted.