The Bible: Agree or Disagree and WHY?


#1

Dear friend in Christ,

Consider this Bible “fact”

**Do you Agree?

Disagree?

Please share why.**

THERE IS ONLY ONE INFALLABLE RULE FOR RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE:

NEVER-EVER MAY, OR CAN ONE PART; PASSAGE OR VERSE MAKE VOID; INVALIDATE OR OVERRULE ANOTHER VERSE, PASSAGE OR TEACHING.


#2

The Bible is not full of facts, it is full of truth. Some of those truths are also historical facts, some parts of the Bible use other methods to convey truth.


#3

I agree. The Bible is infallible in its containing of Truth, but that does not necessarily mean that all of it is of exact fact. There are plenty of indications that certain parts were written with literary styles that would indicate a story and metaphor, and others to indicate an exaggeration (such as with numbers of people). Also, with some instances of long periods of time between the events and when they would have been written could make these events not so fresh in the mind of the writer. However, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their errors in exact detail are not a problem because it still contains Truth. I do think that most of these events have happened, but not necessarily to the detail that the writers mentioned. For instance, the flood in Genesis, claims the whole world was flooded. But I feel it is more likely that God flooded the region, or the known world at the time, and that he took two of as many animals he knew of and not of every species on Earth. But again, this is my opinion.


#4

I would say, and this is merely my personal impression from independent study of theology and philosophy, that of all the religious texts I have perused and analyzed, I find the Christian Bible to be the most inspired and intriguing of them all. Yes, I do believe that the Bible contains very sacred and fundamental truth - perhaps some parts of the Bible, such as the earlier parts, are more symbolic and abstract, but the teachings of the man called Christ can be called nothing but holy.


#5

I don’t think this is even a logical construct. The Bible isn’t “a book.” It’s just that we finally developed the technology to get all the ancient writings in the Canon between covers in a convenient size for portable and personal use.

How can we say “These poems can’t contradict that history or either contradict that letter?” And all these diverse writings were created over a span of like 1500 years?

These writings we call the Canon of Scripture aren’t meant to be anything that can be limited the way the quote does. A huge long mathematical proof could be described that way. A chemistry text, something like that. Not 72 diverse writings from various authors over hundreds and hundreds of years.


#6

The term Greek biblia was originally a neuter plural: ta biblia “the books” (or to be more accurate to the ancient context, “the [papyrus] scrolls”). It only became a feminine singular noun in medieval Latin, which in turn produced the modern term “Bible.”


#7

I don’t completely agree. The Bible has several books, written by different people, in different times and different situations. A historical, contextual exegetical study must be performed before reading the Bible to understand the real meaning of the Word of God.


#8

One of the main arguments from the skeptics is that the Bible is full of contradictions. If you don’t perform exegesis, you’ll fatally fall for that difficulty and believe in the apparent contradictions of the Bible as a reason to not believe in its inspirational character.


#9

The thing about the Scriptures (a term which I currently prefer over “the Bible”) is that they are pretty much like the universe: containing different shades of opinion and perspective in it. (Now I don’t mean that in the extremist sola Scriptura sense where the Scriptures are self-sufficient and self-interpreting, mind.) There is an ancient Jewish saying which goes: “turn the Torah over and over for everything is in it,” and I believe we can say the same thing for the other books as well.

I would even say that is not a book of ready-made, black-and-white solutions many people make it out to be, but a vast library of endless questions upon questions and a fount of ambiguity and ostensive ‘contradictions’, many of which are not so easy to reconcile at first glance. Which in my opinion shows that the Scriptures are never meant to stand by themselves contra Luther and other reformers.


#10

Like milking a cow? :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

A little story I’d like to share. Once, there was a king who had two servants. One was wise, while the other was foolish. One day, the king gave to each servant some wheat and a bundle of flax and left for a journey. The wise servant ground the wheat into flour and made bread out of it, and made the flax into linen and wove a cloth from it. On the other hand, the foolish servant did nothing.

When the king returned home, he said to the two servants, “Show me the wheat and the flax I gave you.” The wise servant at once spread the cloth he had woven on a table and laid the bread which he had baked upon it. The other simply put the wheat in a box and laid the flax on top of it. Now, the question: which of the two was more beloved by the king?


#12

To answer the OP (I always use the acronym OP by osmosis, I don’t really know what it originally means but I believe it to be a reference to the thread owner :p:p), I agree, as the Torah-Bible-Scriptures-you-choose-the-name is an evolution of (what I hope it to be) God’s revelation to us. I agree so much that I’m still stuck (reason why I still haven’t adhered to Christianity yet) in the book of Genesis. I’m struggling with its doctrine because it is the basis to all the rest of the OT and the NT, none of them make any sense without what’s taught in the Genesis, and fail to have a Jewish-Adamic-patriarchal origin, all the lamb of God doctrine falls apart. Are the prophecies proven to be a fabrication, we have no Messiah, and you can see how far we can go. :shrug:
Blame me on reading obscure sources, but I’m still fighting to make sense of myself out of Genesis. Yes, unfortunately I’m still with this kind of thought…


#13

In other words, G-d gave us the Torah in the form of wheat for us to make flour from it, and flax for us to make clothes from it. Say, do you think that’s exactly what Moses did with the Word of G-d? Made “bread” and a “garment” from it?


#14

I’m Catholic but I have to say that I disagree for one verse in particular.

The verse where Jesus declared all foods clean.

That ONE verse INVALIDATED many verses of Jewish dietary law.


#15

I don’t think so. Moses added that rule to the Mosaic law for the sake of the health of the israelite people. They realized that, since they were desert dwellers, the consumption of pork meat (among other food) caused them many diseases, they didn’t know that but they didn’t keep the meat properly, remember a refrigerator didn’t exist back that time for example. :shrug: Mosaic law was a set of rules valid to a set of circumstances in a set of time.


#16

It means “Original Poster” when capitalized and “original post” in lowercase.

I know this because I, yes, I personally, was the one who introduced those terms to forum posting almost 20 years ago.

You’re welcome.


#17

=Julia Mae;9778206]I don’t think this is even a logical construct. The Bible isn’t “a book.” It’s just that we finally developed the technology to get all the ancient writings in the Canon between covers in a convenient size for portable and personal use.

How can we say “These poems can’t contradict that history or either contradict that letter?” And all these diverse writings were created over a span of like 1500 years?

These writings we call the Canon of Scripture aren’t meant to be anything that can be limited the way the quote does. A huge long mathematical proof could be described that way. A chemistry text, something like that. Not 72 diverse writings from various authors over hundreds and hundreds of years.

Of course the Bible is “a book”:slight_smile:

Where do you get the 15000 years from?

God Bless,
Pat


#18

=Corki;9777828]The Bible is not full of facts, it is full of truth. Some of those truths are also historical facts, some parts of the Bible use other methods to convey truth.

OK, we can agree on the “truth” issue.

BUT the questions remains may or can on part of the Bible invalidate another TEACHING TRUTH?:shrug:

God Bless,
Pat


#19

You have one too many zeros in there, Pat.


#20

No it isn’t; the Scriptures are, properly speaking, ‘books’ (or ‘scrolls’, if that’s what you prefer). :wink:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.