Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Must all the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4134 | ||
I thank Prayon for his response to my question as I first stated it. However after rereading what I wrote I feel I need to restate my orignal question in way that will lead to a more open discussion. I have heard many men explain that a particular Biblical doctrine or teaching doesn’t apply today because the writer was responding to “thus and such”. Or "this" isn’t for today because it is addressing a custom of the time that is no longer in effect. In light of the above statement will someone explain to me why God, would allow the inclusion, into the Bible, of doctrine, precepts, statutes, ordinances, or commandments that would become invalid or outmoded because of changing customs or social trends? Or why God would allow the human writer’s bias or prejudices to contaminate the writing? |
||||||
2 | Must all the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4163 | ||
Dear EdB: Thank you for your question. I will do my best to answer it. You ask: ". . . explain to me why God, would allow the inclusion, into the Bible, of doctrine, precepts, statutes, ordinances, or commandments that would become invalid or outmoded because of changing customs or social trends?" My answer: God had the authority to add or even change in one era what He had given in another. What God revealed as binding in one period may be rescinded in another, not by man but by God Himself. There are but few basic principles of Bible interpretation. What follows is one of those principles. "Recognize the progress of revelation. Remember that the Bible was not handed down all at once as a complete book but that it came from God through many different writers over a period of about 1,600 years. This means that in the progress of revealing His message to man, God may add or even change in one era what He had given in another. "The New Testament adds much that was not revealed in the Old. Furthermore, what God revealed as binding in one period may be rescinded in another (as the prohibition of eating pork, once binding on God's people, has been lifted today, 1 Tim 4:3). This is most important; otherwise, the Bible would contain apparently unresolvable contradictions (as Matt 10:5-7 compared with 28:18-20)" (pp. 1959-1960, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody, 1976, 1978). |
||||||
3 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4198 | ||
I'm not talking about what God has changed or the perceived differences between the OT and NT. I'm talking about a precept, statue, or command that is minimized by man as being nothing more than the writer addressing a social situation of the time. My question is why would an all knowing, all seeing God allow something to be included into the Bible, a book given to us for life’s direction, knowing that it would cause confusion in later generations that had no direct knowledge of the existing situation? If I lived on the make believe island of Jabuck. And I had no religious training or knowledge of Bible times and was given a Bible in my language. If I read and studied it with purity of heart and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit would I ever conclude, “this” precept, ordinance, statue, or commandment, while it doesn’t say so, was in fact addressing a social situation that doesn’t exist today, therefore I should discount it? |
||||||
4 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4203 | ||
I do not intend this as a criticism or putdown of you in any way. I perceive from your writings that you are a sincere fellow Christian with an honest heart. So with no disrespect to or criticism of you, I offer my best and most honest answer. The question you ask, although still lacking specific examples that would facilitate a reasonable answer, is one that I'm sure many people would like to know the answer to. In reply to your last paragraph, "If I lived on the make believe island of Jabuck . . . ", let me say this. Your last paragraph begins with the word "If" and is therefore a hypothetical question. So my reply addresses a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying YOU are doing this, I merely point out what would happen IF one did what you speak of in your last paragraph. If one were to go into isolation, cut off from all contact with the outside world, pretending that we're not connected to 2000 years of church history, with nothing but the text of the Bible (no English or Bible dictionary, no background information -- no archaeological, historical, or language information -- on the verses in question, and no knowledge of the basic (universal) principles of interpretation), then one would have no guarantee that all of his own understanding, interpretation, and conclusions would be correct. Follow it through to its logical conclusion. If it were possible to retire to a desert island and come out several years later with perfect understanding of every Bible teaching, then all one would have to do to be a world class Bible expert, is to do just that -- throw away and close your mind to everything but the text of the Bible. This sounds like a holy, pure, righteous and right thing to do -- ideally. But in reality it wouldn't work. You would not get at the truth of the Bible in this way. The method you describe in your hypothetical answer is not much different from what the founders of the Watchtower organization actually did. Look at the conclusions and teachings they came up with as a result. |
||||||
5 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4227 | ||
Thank you for being more than gracious in your answer. How do we explain the phenomena in the Soviet Ukraine? Bibles were smuggled in behind the iron curtain and for the most part readers became healthy Christians without any additional teaching. Where problems did arise, in isolated cases, it was found the problem occurred because the group only had fragmented sections of the Bible. They had based their doctrine not on the whole Bible but rather the sections they had. Similar stories are starting to emerge from the main land of China. I think your example of the watch tower is what I’m questioning, didn’t they take God’s word and reduce it down to human reasoning? They took the sections they liked and kept them, the sections they couldn’t explain they rewrote so they could. |
||||||
6 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | melchizedekau | 4230 | ||
If i was you i would be questioning all things that are jehova s witness. put all things in context with the Word of God and dont let them tell you you have to work to get to heaven. cause we are called and chosen by God. He does the work and Gives us the desires.All by the Blood of Jesus.YIC. | ||||||
7 | Wow! Where did that come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4338 | ||
Where did that come from? I don't think for a moment anyone bought anything the Jehovah Witnesses are selling. They can't even get God's name right. Jehovah is a made up word by William Tyndale in the 1500's. He took the constants in the Tetragram YHWH and added the vowels from the Latin Adonai and using common laws of speech came up with Jehovah. But thanks for the thought. |
||||||
8 | Wow! Where did that come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4353 | ||
Apparently the King James Version translators fell into the trap set by Tyndale in giving us "Jehovah" for the tetragrammation YHWH. Jehovah is a hybrid linguistic contrivance that is the result of an "ignorance gap" by the translators, both Tyndale and the King James committee, of the Hebrew language and customs. They did well with what they had, but much more has been added to the lore of the ancient languages and customs since 1611. YHWH, the name itself, was considered by the Hebrews as too holy to utter so the Hebrew word adonai (Lord) was substituted when the text was read. Most modern translations have set Lord in upper-case type, LORD, to indicate YHWH is meant. The designation "tetragrammaton" is from the Greek, meaning "four letters". --Hank | ||||||
9 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 4711 | ||
I will probably be accused of beating a dead horse but let me ask my question once more. Should the Bible be taken literally? By that I mean in some passages some men say, “this particular passage is only addressing a problem brought about by a custom or tradition of the time and does not pertain to the church today.” Again I hesitate to point to a specific passage, but let me cite one that is less inflammatory there are many other examples. God in his wisdom told the Jews not to eat pork. I have heard the reason for this was bad sanitation of the time and pork’s susceptibility to parasites. I also heard that because they didn’t have refrigeration and that pork spoiled quickly as being another reason. Another said that they weren’t able to cook the meat completely and so forth. I think we have all heard such examples. We also all know that the prohibition did not apply gentile believers, and that various other passages clearly tell us as Christians we are not under the law and the old dietary prohibitions, and that God has made all thing clean, etc. However we also now know that pork probably isn’t the best thing for us to eat and God may have reasons for the prohibition we never considered. God might have included that just to see who would be faithful in the small things. The truth be known we just don’t know why God gave this prohibition to the Jews. Let’s not get into a discussion of whether we should eat pork or not. Please this question is not whether we should eat pork or not. My question is if God through his faithful servants writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says “thus and such”. Should we attempt to apply man’s logic to what God said and if being able to do so, upon finding out our theorized situation no longer exist should we then ignore the scripture? |
||||||
10 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 4850 | ||
The Bible must be taken literally, unless there is a figurative word used ... words like as and like. Does it all apply to us? NO. Mark 16:18 come to mind. I am not going to pick up snakes or drink poison. However, we cannot theorize that the Holy Spirit wants us to change the Word, so we do what we want. For example, I believe we do not worship as God wants - on our knees prostrate before the Almighty ... focsing on Him alone. We add praise, giving Him worth, service and other activities. |
||||||