Biblical inerrantists: How do you account for this?

[Mean MrMustard]

Most people do not interpret the Bible literally. Its earliest form was poetry from stories told almost 100 years before being written down. (at least for the new testement)

Go even further back and study up on Greek and Roman mythology. There are striking similarities between that and the Bible. Yet, what the Greeks and the Roman thought is considered mythology. It makes you wonder about the Bible, huh?

Craig

 

[gopunk]

I would respectfully disagree with you GoPunk especially looking at the original post.
They all pretty much say the same thing.
They went to the grave, Jesus wasn't there but one or two angels were telling them Jesus has risen from the dead.

sorry, i intended my comments for those who take a literal interpretation of the bible. you know, the people who think dinosaurs never existed (mass conspiracy by the world's scientists) and that the universe is 4000 odd years old.

 

[gopunk]

Most people do not interpret the Bible literally. Its earliest form was poetry from stories told almost 100 years before being written down. (at least for the new testement)

Go even further back and study up on Greek and Roman mythology. There are striking similarities between that and the Bible. Yet, what the Greeks and the Roman thought is considered mythology. It makes you wonder about the Bible, huh?

have you ever seen that PBS special on mythology, with joseph campbell? good stuff...

 

[Rio Rebel]

Sorry about that - not an intentional ommission.

So we actually have John saying there is two men AND two angels...


I often hear the question, "If you start questioning the validity of any part of the Bible, how can you trust any of it?" I admit, this is a fair question. My answer is that the Bible was inspired by God, but written by men, and to men. Like men, and the words of men, there is always some truth, some error.

To me, a better question is this: If you believe the Bible to be inerrant, yet when there are factual contradictions you must rely on "not taking them literally", isn't this just as dangerous? If you don't have a clear guideline to when to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively, you are left at the same place - you cannot rely on it for direct, literal guidelines in all cases.

Not to re-open the Catholic/Protestant issue (PLEASE), but Joe does make an interesting point. Most fundamentalist churches do not believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. How do you know not to take that one literally?

 

[Rio Rebel]

<< Go even further back and study up on Greek and Roman mythology. There are striking similarities between that and the Bible. Yet, what the Greeks and the Roman thought is considered mythology. It makes you wonder about the Bible, huh? >>



No, frankly, it doesn't. I don't see all these similarities, and I have read Greek and Roman (and Norse) mythology extensively...AND I interpret the Bible much more liberally than most of my Christian friends here.

I do see a lot of similarities between the Bible and Dune, but I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that (Frank Herbert is a prophet? God likes Spice?)

 

[Netopia]

<< Most fundamentalist churches do not believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. How do you know not to take that one literally? >>

Well... not to be overly simplistic, but if it were His real body and blood that He was breaking/sacrificing on Passover, then what was the use in Him going to the cross? You don't sacrifice the same thing twice!

Joe

 

[fatalbert]

I would look for differences in translation.

For example,

The King James version of the bible was translated from latin (I think). This was itself a translation from Greek. Which was a translation from the original language (be it Hebrew, Aramiaic (sp?).

but translation has forced a number of changes throughout history in religious texts.


For example, God is referred to as He in the the english versions of the old testement. The original Hebrew had pronouns that did NOT associate gender to God. However, when it was translated to Greek, they were forced to choose a gender. Those translators choose the Masculine forms for God, probably because they were male.

these type of errors often crop up throughout translations.


This is why I would want to go back and see what were the sources of the King James translation, and see if originally, way back when, they did agree.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Not to re-open the Catholic/Protestant issue (PLEASE), but Joe does make an interesting point. Most fundamentalist churches do not believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. How do you know not to take that one literally?

You take the Bible literally unless there is good reason (based ONLY on the Bible) not to.

For example, let's consider the case for the Lords Supper. Is there good reason to read this allegorically rather than literally.

1. The Body of Christ is used allegorically throughout the New Testament.
2. When Christ said that this is my body, he was still in the room and whole. The Greek for for (is) is
2076 evsti, esti {es-tee'} Meaning: 1) third person singular of "to be". Same as in reference for the wine and the shedding of blood
3. If the wine is the blood "shed for the remission of sin", but that hadn't happened yet.
4. He actually only mentions the cup not the wine.

So, we can conclude that this is one place where there is Biblical rationale for reading this allegorically.

John
Hit the road Johnny Reb or would you rather I addressed you as Polgara?

 

[lebe0024]

The first task of the interpreter is called exegesis. Exegesis is the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning. This is basically a historical task. It is the attempt to hear it as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.

This is where almost all bad interpretation starts from. EXAMPLE: Some say, "Jesus never claimed to be the 'Son of God', he claimed to be the 'Son of Man'." Is this true? Yes and no. He did refer to himself as the Son of Man, but he was refering to the Messianic figure in Daniel. This was obvious to his original audience, but it's not to us. So, in order not to fall into interpretive failures we need to be careful. So, if the original author didn't mean for what he said to be taken literally, then it would be poor exegesis to take it literally. And likewise, if he meant for something to be taken literally, then by all means it should be taken literally.

One of my favorite theologians, John Piper, always says "Dig and you get diamonds." This is very very true. Have any of you read Mark? I mean REALLY dug into Mark? I have with a group of people. We use unmarked RSV manuscripts (no chapter #s, verse #, or paragraph breaks). We're not allowed to use any "interpretive" source, so no commentaries. And we try hard to forget anything we've ever heard about the Gospels and the NT all together. In fact, we're not even allowed to use anything in the bible except for the Old Testiment. We can't even look at the NT. Then, using only concordances, and bible dictionarys and various other historical sources, we dig through it all, little piece by little piece. Let me tell you, there is some crazy confusing stuff in Mark. But, after struggling through it all, I've never been more convinced of the inspiration of Scripture. Read throught it, there's about a hundred questions that need answering in just the first chapter. Dig and you get diamonds (Mark ch4).

 

[Dually]

They are different people that visited the tomb of Jesus and they didn't all see the same angels. The men referenced are angels, ArchAngels don't have wings and look normal.

 

[lebe0024]

ArchAngels don't have wings and look normal.

Say's who?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Most people do not interpret the Bible literally. Its earliest form was poetry from stories told almost 100 years before being written down. (at least for the new testement)

Go even further back and study up on Greek and Roman mythology. There are striking similarities between that and the Bible. Yet, what the Greeks and the Roman thought is considered mythology. It makes you wonder about the Bible, huh?

Craig >>



Actually no because the Bible also has the New Testement which makes it the Bible. The only thing you can draw simularity to is the Old Testement.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I would respectfully disagree with you GoPunk especially looking at the original post.
They all pretty much say the same thing.
They went to the grave, Jesus wasn't there but one or two angels were telling them Jesus has risen from the dead.

sorry, i intended my comments for those who take a literal interpretation of the bible. you know, the people who think dinosaurs never existed (mass conspiracy by the world's scientists) and that the universe is 4000 odd years old. >>



LOL You mean the kind that come to your door

 

[Texmaster]

<< Not to re-open the Catholic/Protestant issue (PLEASE), but Joe does make an interesting point. Most fundamentalist churches do not believe the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. How do you know not to take that one literally?

You take the Bible literally unless there is good reason (based ONLY on the Bible) not to.

For example, let's consider the case for the Lords Supper. Is there good reason to read this allegorically rather than literally.

1. The Body of Christ is used allegorically throughout the New Testament.
2. When Christ said that this is my body, he was still in the room and whole. The Greek for for (is) is
2076 evsti, esti {es-tee'} Meaning: 1) third person singular of "to be". Same as in reference for the wine and the shedding of blood
3. If the wine is the blood "shed for the remission of sin", but that hadn't happened yet.
4. He actually only mentions the cup not the wine.

So, we can conclude that this is one place where there is Biblical rationale for reading this allegorically.

John >>



Thanks for the translation Johnny!

 

[Maetryx]

I'd like to add that the oldest existing fragment of a manuscript of the book of Mark has been dated back to around 70A.D. This doesn't mean that it was written in 70A.D., because in all liklihood, that fragment is itself from a copy of (a copy....) of the original. It is easy to see that the Gospel of Mark could have been written very soon after Jesus' time on earth.

Secondly, I'd like to discuss the forensics of eyewitness testimony. Wouldn't a police interrogator be disinclined to believe a story told by three friends that were absolutely identical, as if none of these individuals ever noticed something that the others did not?

And wouldn't that police officer be even more incredulous if the three friends were not even relating an event that they saw with their own eyes, but a story told to them by several girls' that they hung out with? The story would be obviously cooked. There would be no way that the girls' would have told them the exact same details (even while telling the truth), and that they in turn telling it from memory would get it identical with the other two friends.

That's the way I see that difficult passage from the Gospels. The stories aren't contradictory in the philosophical sense. If I have two cars, isn't it also true that I have one? (yes, I have one AND another one). There was in a similar vein one angel present AND another one.

--Maetryx

 

[Moonbeam]

I would say that modern Christianity is a cargo cult. About the only thing of the original preserved is a flavor of the tremendous personality of Christ. I don't think Christ just happened and had some average childhood like we did. I think he came out of a profound, and and advanced metaphysical tradition, a hidden mystical school probably still present somewhere on earth that brought about the three successive waves of monothism as revealed and extant, externally, today. When you look at the Kabala, the idea of the Bible letter codes, the fact that Arabic appears to be an artificially created language specifically designed to conceal or reveal to initiates hidden meanings as in the Koran and compare that with data from other traditions of great profundidy like the Tibetan or Hindu ones where all manner of extraordinary phenomena not unlike the miracles of Christ are reported but held as guarded secrets, I conclude that I probably know so little of what is really happening that I'm just feeling the elephant's wisker. I have heard discussions claiming that, in fact, the body and flesh of Christ's offer were real not symbolic and provided a vehicle for contact after death. This was provided in the contest of of a discussion of the astral body and it's connection to the body through a boney groth that occurs in powerful individuals in the neck area aqnd by which the individual can still be contacted after death. This was likened to relics claiming to be the ear bone or some such bone of the Buddha that are thought to be sacred and just days ago I read an account that when a certain high Tibetan monk was recently creamated, shell like structures that are considered of great import there, were discovered in his ashes.

I mention this stuff only to point out that as far as I can tell, there is more in heaven and earth than meets our philosophy. I think religion has an outer and an inner face and that our best chance of understanding or getting anywhere near comprehending it is to try to love. The more selflessly we can love the closer we will be.

 

[ElFenix]

<< So no - the Pope is not "higher" than the Bible by any means. We simply believe that the Church's interpretation is the true one, so it is a higher authority than someone else's personal interpretation. >>

huh... the catacists didn't say that...


as for greek and roman myths, december 25th was the traditional day of mithras' birthday. i assume the early Church assimilated that holiday.