Christians: practical use of Bible in spirituality

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
Hoo boy! This really is turning into a catchall thread, isn’t it!

OK, Psycho, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. But would you mind trying to convince me? I’ve never seen any reason at all for believing that that’s what the Bible is, as opposed to, say, the perfectly human words of godly people truely (but not verbally) inspired, or, perhaps, a faithful record of humans encountering and struggling to understand the divine. Why believe it is the perfectly preserved record of God’s verbal dictation?

Usually, the answer I’ve gotten is that it is an article of faith, but I understand faith to be something Christians are to have in God. Certainly the Bible doesn’t talk explicitly about faith in itself, but about faith in God through Christ. And it is clearly possible to have such faith without coming to believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. So why do you so believe? Why should I?
As far as preservation goes, Psalm 12:6,7 says:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven* times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”(KJV)

*seven is the number of completion in the Bible

And Isaiah 40:7-8 says:

“the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”(KJV)

What I believe is that the King James Bible is the inspired, preserved word of God in the English language. Most modern Bible translations may, in a general sense, say the same thing, but they deviate considerably from the King James, particularly, or in key doctinal issues. For instance, consider the NIV (the current best selling version) translation of Ps. 12:6,7:

“And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever”

I highlited the pronoun “us” to point out that in the NIV it is clearly people who are preserved, in the King James it is just as clearly “the words of the LORD.”

It appears to me that Isaiah 40:7,8 would give the lie to the NIV version. In any case the two versions do not come to the same conclusion.

I have done a verse by verse comparison of Paul’s letter to the Romans, between the KJV and NIV, and found some very prominant differences in such key doctrinal areas as salvation and justification.

I do not believe the KJV is perfect or flawless as far as every single word being exactly right. From publisher to publisher one can find minor deviations. I do, however, believe it is perfect in its presentation of doctrine.

One other thing you might consider: In order to obtain a copyright on a Bible version, copyright law says there must be substantial differences between it and other Bibles. All modern Bible Versions are copyrighted, but not the KJV.

Last, but not least, it is true that one need not believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture in order to be saved. ! Timothy 2:4 says that it is God’s will “that all men be saved…” and Romans 12:3 says He has “given to all men the measure of faith.” Therefore I believe all men are endowed with just enough faith to believe and be saved. I got saved 18 years ago last June, and at the time, did not own a Bible, and could not have quoted one verse of Scripture (save for the Lord’s prayer, which I wasn’t even aware was a part of Scripture). All I did was respond to something a man said, which was. “Christ died for your sins, and was raised for your justification. Identfy yourself as a transgressor, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he’ll save you.” I believed and got saved that night, and have never doubted it for a moment since. I learned much later on that what I heard that night is what the apostle Paul refered to as “the gospel of Christ,” which he said was, “the power of God unto salvation…to everyone that believeth…” (Romans 1:16) Before that I would have laughed at the idea that the Bible was inspired. After it I had no problem believing this, and over the years, my study of it has done nothing but reinforce this belief.

42

The KJV is a lousy translation. Trust me.

43

“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jer 17:5)
(KJV)

44

You should believe in the Bible. It’s the testimony we have. And it’s enough. The book was written over a period of, what, 6000 years or something like that? It’s a conglomeration of all of the history of Judaism and Christianity up until Christ. The writers didn’t know that they were writing a portion of the Bible. A lot of the Bible is a letter to some other group of people. If they knew that they were going to be included in the most read book of all time, the authors would have written differently, but the language throughout is consistent. This leads me to believe that it comes from one source, rather than the 50+ authors that put the words to paper.

It is basically, the words of God. In order to have faith in someone, you have to believe what they say. God said the Bible. He didn’t necessarily dictate it, but he did proof read it.

Also, (this might be self-fulfilling but…) read 2 Timothy 3:16…

There you go, the Bible is inspired by God because it says so. Believe it or not, it’s up to you.

Now I’m not too sure of the other contradictions, but the Genesis contradiction isn’t a contradiction. It’s two tellings. One is more detailed than the other. It might be confusing because chapter 2 is not in chronological order. The story skips around. God (apparantly) created Eve on the 6th day, after he created Adam, but before the seventh day. If you look at it this way, there is no contradiction. This interpretation might not conform to some people’s Christian doctrine, but it’s scriptural, which I’ll believe over any “doctrine” any day. And this interpretation has no contradiction. The human leaders of the religion sometimes interpret the Bible incorrectly, but the word is still infallible. It’s up to you to study and to decide for yourself if what your leaders say is consistent with what you find. Sometimes the language might be difficult. Sometimes there are additional complications, like the non-linearity of the story. But the difficulty doesn’t make it any less true, just more difficult to study and interpret.

45

According to Christian doctrine, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. According to Jewish tradition (which is what was presumably on the mind of both Isaiah and the Psalmist, though that doesn’t necessaraly exhaust the texts’ meaning), the Torah is the word of God. Where do you get the idea that the Christian canon is the word of God?

Unfortunately, my Hebrew isn’t up to evaluating the KJV’s translation of these verses. What is your basis for believing that the Hebrew does not suggest that we are the objects of God’s protection. Surely that reading is also compatible with Christian doctrine. (And if it isn’t, but is nevertheless the accurate reading of the Hebrew text, isn’t that so much the worse for Christian doctrine?)

46

Well that settles that.

Less than 1000 actually, from about 600 BCE until about 200 CE for both testaments.

Well it’s “history” only in a very loose sense of the word.

“Christianity up until Christ?” :confused:

What do you mean by “differently?” Why?

Um…no it isn’t, Neither literally nor figuratively. The main languages are Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT, but the dialect, style, vocabulary and narrative voices are widely variable even within the same languages.

Well any amount of serious textual criticism says otherwise. Who told you the “language was the same?” Or is that an impression you got from reading a homogenized translation?

The Timothy verse only applies to the Hebrew Bible (there was no NT yet) but it’s circular logic anyway. “The Bible is inspired by God because it says so” is no more valid a proof than if I say this post is inspired by God because it says so.

Not.

The two stories are flatly contradictory. They are actually two different literary narratives from two different authors arranged side by side. You can’t wiggle out of the contradictions by pretending that one story is out of chronological order. The text doesn’t say or imply that. There is an unambiguous and unsquirmable contradiction, for instance, about whether Adam was created before or after the animals.

Not that it matter much, I’m sure you’re aware that Genesis is empirically, demonstrably falsifiable as “history” anyway. Contradictions are not required to disprove it as literal history. That’s not to say it has no value mythologically or spiritually but getting hung up on literalism is silly and misses the point.

47

Sorry for my ignorance but, isn’t the Torah the same thing as the Christian old testament? I think the Torah has some additional books, but it was my understanding that they were mostly the same.

Yeah, I just checked. According to http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm the old testament is known as the written Torah.

48

I don’t see how you get “said” or “proofread” (two very different concepts!) from inspired. I believe God inspired the Bible. I don’t believe God said it or that he proofread it. I don’t believe the Bible is the “word of God” in any but a poetic sense. Christ is the Word of God. Not scripture.

But chapter 2 makes explicitly chronological claims that appear on the face of it to contradict those of chapter 1:

and

[quote]

  • Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.*
    Do these verses not imply that Adam was created before either plants or animals?
49

The Torah is only the first five books of the OT. The entire Hebrew Bible is called the Tanakh.

50

Did you read them recently? Chapter two is a continuation of Chapter one. Chapter one ends with the sixth day. The seventh day is mentioned in verse two of Chapter two. Where does it say that man was created before the animals? Again, think of it as if it’s not chronological. Chapter 2 verse 19 (after the creation of man is mentioned) Genesis says:

What if it said, “God created the animals. Then, after God created Adam, he sent the animals to Adam for naming.” All that is missing is that it specifically saying that Adam was created after the animals. But just because it’s left out doesn’t make it false.

51

As that site points out, the word "Torah has several meanings, but I’ve never seen it used to refer to the entire Tanakh (what Christians call the Old Testament). It generally refers to the Five Books of Moses, and by extention to all Jewish teaching which has that as its basis. In any event, it is my understanding that it is the Five Books of Moses that are believed in Orthodox Judaism to be the actual word of God. And it certainly doesn’t include the New Testament.

And Diogenes–prisoner6655321 explicitly asked us not to try to talk him out of his positions. This isn’t my thread, but I’m trying to respect that. I’m interested in understanding what the reasons (as he understands them) are for his beliefs. That won’t be helped if he gets smacked down for being unreasonable every step of the way. We all know you can do it, and we all have fixed opinions on the validity of your objections. (I agree with them of course.) But we (or at least I) won’t learn anything new by repeating that debate.

52

Some simulposting going on there. Just to be clear, in each case I was responding to the quoted posts only, and often wasn’t aware of intervening posts at the time.

53

You are assuming that all of this is chronological, just because one thing is written after another. Step outside of the box with me and think about every verse all by itself, without the other verses.

[quote]
and

You’re skipping a bit, but I understand. You don’t want to have to write every verse. See my previous post. Again, you are assuming that because one is in the chapter first, it happened first. Again, read my previous post.

Now I could be mistaken. I’m no scholar. This is just an interpretation that works for me. Any other explanations I would be willing to consider, except for the one that says “This proves that this is a work of fiction.”

54

Of course.

No. It’s a completely different telling of the story.
Chapter one ends with the sixth day. The seventh day is mentioned in verse two of Chapter two. Where does it say that man was created before the animals?
[/quote]

[quote]
and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [6] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [7] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But it is chronological, quite explicitly so. Why would I pretend otherwise?

That isn’t what is says. What it says was that Adam was created before there were even any plants, much less animals and THEN he created the plants and animals. It IS chronological. There’s no way out of the box. It’s just a result of redacting two similar tribal creation myths into a unified narrative

But since Genesis is not literal history anyway, why get hung up on a contradiction? .

55

I was saved in Army Boot Camp after a Chaplain gave me a NT Bible/KJ version. I find the KJ to be most acurate so that’s the one I memorize.
When one of my twins was 5 a boat fell on him and his head was caved in. The doctors said he was brain dead and they’re was nothing they could do. I read in the Bible that “God IS the God that healeth thee”. I kept saying in my head "God, You said You ARE the God that healeth. Not the God that could or might, but the God that healeth. Then I heard my son say, “Mommy, don’t cry, look there’s Jesus/” God healed his brain and skull and he is 30 and has blessed me with a grandson and grandaughter.

56

Oh, okay. Sorry, I was too eager. Yeah the website I listed still has the rest of the Old Testament there along with an explanation

So the point I was making is still valid… The Old Testament is entirely represented in the Tanakh. There are additional teachings in the Tanakh though. So they aren’t equal. The Tanakh has more stuff, like I said. I just used the word Torah instead of Tanakh.

57

As far as that goes you have a point. There’s no profit in debating a witnessing post. OTOH, it’s bad form for him to try to actually argue a position about something, as he’s doing with Genesis and then say he doesn’t want to hear any rebuttals. We could all win a lot of GD debates that way.

58

I think that passage all by itself implies chronology pretty strongly, though not absolutely. The first passage, however, seems to me to very explicit that the human were created before plants.

This is the nub of the matter. I was specifically trying to learn where you see the dividing line between fiction and non-fiction. Would you be willing to consider some of these passages to be poetic? Allegorical? True in theology but not in historical detail? Why or why not?

59

I’m sorry. Did I say I didn’t want any rebuttals in this discussion? If I did, then it must be about something else, or I’ve forgotten. Butt on! But I’m going to bed now. I have to dig a ditch tomorrow morning at 8 (it’s 1:30 now).

60

Oops! My mistake, Pris. It was Psycho Pirate who said that, and hasn’t graced the thread since. You responded to my questions to him, and even though I knew in the back of my mind that you weren’t the same person, I got sloppy.

I fairness to the absent PP, his no rebuttal demand has some justification given that the OP asked about how Christians see the Bible spiritually. He answered the OP’s question (sort of), but didn’t want to hijack the thread by inviting a tangential debate on Biblical literalism. (Plus he used a winking smiley.)