The Bible: How do you interpret it?

[Blade6119]

I had a long discussion with a friend of mine over this debate. Both of us are christians, and both believe in god. We come from different sects, but thats not the issue here. We debated for quite some time over the literal interpretation of the events in the bible. He is of the firm belief that every word written in the bible is fact. Every feat performed.

I, on the other hand, believe it to be more embellished the the actual facts. I take a more material approach to the bible. While my faith in god has never wavered, my beliefs about jesus and his feats have. I cant say they didnt happen, but i have come to believe thats its most probable they didnt. I watched a history channel special once that said that parts, most i believe, of the bible were written in captivity in a foreign city after being conquered(babylon i think, not sure). This lead me to believe that many parts of the bible were more story telling then fact, in an effort to keep faith and hope alive in their culture. Supposedly, despite keeping them as prisoners, the babylonians allowed them to write whatever they wanted. Some wrote the bible.

Things like the 10 commandmants, i now have trouble believing. It would seem to me he went and chiseled the laws down and brought them to the people. Or with walking on water, im not so sure that happened. The bible is written by his closest followers and best friends. And history has shown us people in that role NEVER embellish the truth ;) . So i find myself at a crossroads, as it leaves me somewhat at a crossroads of my faith. Do i believe blindly that which the bible states(i believe he was a man, went around giving sermons, and generally led a good life). I just dont know if i believe he turned water into wine and what not(rose the dead, etc.)

So my question to you all, regardless of faith really, is do you take religious teachings like the bible literally or more as stories with a moral behind them. I personally am a christian scientist, and my religion's founder wrote a book that is used as closely as the bible. In her life, it is documented she rose a dead person as well. I find myself doubting that fact, and in conjuction, how can i believe the bible if i doubt that fact. Both were documented by close followers, and thats it. I have no doubt Mary Baker Eddy and Jesus lived, died, etc. I believe Jesus was crucified, but i start to wonder on the outlying details of my faith(moses and the red sea, noah and the ark)

So, what do you all believe?

[Flasch186]

Im jewish so ican only talk old testament, but I believe that the books are a conglomeration of stories, visions, attempts to guide, attempts to mislead, attempts to usurp power, attempts to keep power, etc. While some of it may be true, some of it may not and therein lies the rub. I believe that the framework of the books are good, and that is where one lies their hat. Act with goodness and you should be ok no matter what religion you are. Thats my opinion but again its just mine and, who knows, maybe believeing in Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed, is all that matters and the others rot....or we all do anyways. Whatever helps one be a better person is all that matters, I think, maybe with some room for error :)

All of this is only opinion, Ive never talked with, met with, or seen God...so who knows.

[Craptacular]

My brain tends to shut down on Friday afternoon ... perhaps I can respond on Monday.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I think the Bible is what it is commonly known as: The Good Book.

I believe it is much like a manual that comes with a car. If you follow what it says, you will have a better understanding of how to operate your life. You can get by without it, but it can be very helpful.

Was it written by men who copied the very word of God, spoken to them? Probably not. It is much more likely that God may have guided these men to write their books in an indirect way, than for God to have essentially said to the authors of the books "Alright, how good are you at taking dictation?"

Why should we not eat pork? Well, if not cooked properly it can make you very sick. People could have seen that as God not wanting us to eat pork. Others could see it as a warning to actually cook the pig! (I am in the later... I love me some ribs!)

As for Jesus... I do not know that he was any more the son of God than any of us are. It could be said that we are all God's children. What I do know is that historically he was a man who did exist. All the stories I have heard lead me to believe he was a great man. If he was as great a man as I have read about, who says that God did not put him here to change religion fundamentally? I can say that the world is a better place for the stories and teachings of Jesus, so that is a good thing! Whether the whole virgin birth thing is true or a creation of the church in order to embellesh the story and win more converts really means nothing in comparison to the teachings of Jesus. Whould Jesus rather have people in awe of a story of his birth, or have a good and loving relationship with God and his fellow man?

[Abe Sargent]

I believe the Bible to be authoritative.

au·thor·i·ta·tive Audio pronunciation of "authoritative" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-ttv, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.

1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.
2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.
3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.


I'd say all three definitions are correct in regards to the Bible. I have no difficultly believing in miracles. Once you've accepted the belief of a being so powerful that they caused the world, miracles are a minor addition.

Now, I'm no idiot. Centuries of man-handling have made the Word less than perfect. There are two passages in the New Testament that are controversial, likely because a scribe or monk skipped a page when scribing the document or somesuch.

Anybody who thinks the Bible is perfect and flawless has to simply ignore basic logic. After all, how does one who thinks every single word in the Bible is true defend the proposition that a rabbit chews its cud, as stated in the Pentateuch?

Nevertheless, I don't find the concepts of miraculousness to be contradictory to a very powerful being. Its not hard, if you are super powerful, to send a fish to swallow a disobediant prophet, or to make lead float, or to make it rain for 40 straight days and whatnot.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

Dola - And as one of the few ordained ministers here on the board, I always feel like I should weigh in these threads. :)

-Anxiety

[Swaggs]

Dola - And as one of the few ordained ministers here on the board, I always feel like I should weigh in these threads. :)

-Anxiety

Shouldn't your nickname be "First 100 Fans," rather than "100 First Fans?"

[Greyroofoo]

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I like the literal approach

[Abe Sargent]

Shouldn't your nickname be "First 100 Fans," rather than "100 First Fans?"


The First 100 people who ordered something from the Jags website were part of a group called the 100 First Fans, and are an offical Jags group - we each got a T Shirt and everything! That's the official name, and I suspect that they chose 100 First Fans over First 100 Fans because the former makes all of us a First Fan whereas the latter makes us just one out of a hundred.

-Anxiety

[astrosfan64]

I had a long discussion with a friend of mine over this debate. Both of us are christians, and both believe in god. We come from different sects, but thats not the issue here. We debated for quite some time over the literal interpretation of the events in the bible. He is of the firm belief that every word written in the bible is fact. Every feat performed.

I, on the other hand, believe it to be more embellished the the actual facts. I take a more material approach to the bible. While my faith in god has never wavered, my beliefs about jesus and his feats have. I cant say they didnt happen, but i have come to believe thats its most probable they didnt. I watched a history channel special once that said that parts, most i believe, of the bible were written in captivity in a foreign city after being conquered(babylon i think, not sure). This lead me to believe that many parts of the bible were more story telling then fact, in an effort to keep faith and hope alive in their culture. Supposedly, despite keeping them as prisoners, the babylonians allowed them to write whatever they wanted. Some wrote the bible.

Things like the 10 commandmants, i now have trouble believing. It would seem to me he went and chiseled the laws down and brought them to the people. Or with walking on water, im not so sure that happened. The bible is written by his closest followers and best friends. And history has shown us people in that role NEVER embellish the truth ;) . So i find myself at a crossroads, as it leaves me somewhat at a crossroads of my faith. Do i believe blindly that which the bible states(i believe he was a man, went around giving sermons, and generally led a good life). I just dont know if i believe he turned water into wine and what not(rose the dead, etc.)

So my question to you all, regardless of faith really, is do you take religious teachings like the bible literally or more as stories with a moral behind them. I personally am a christian scientist, and my religion's founder wrote a book that is used as closely as the bible. In her life, it is documented she rose a dead person as well. I find myself doubting that fact, and in conjuction, how can i believe the bible if i doubt that fact. Both were documented by close followers, and thats it. I have no doubt Mary Baker Eddy and Jesus lived, died, etc. I believe Jesus was crucified, but i start to wonder on the outlying details of my faith(moses and the red sea, noah and the ark)

So, what do you all believe?

I take it as a flawed history book. Some relevent happenings with a religious/godlike slant. Some good lessons, like the message of Jesus Christ that are timeless. "btw not a Christian here".

[Franklinnoble]

I take it literally.

[st.cronin]

I think to be a Christian you have to accept that the Bible is literal truth, or else Christianity has no foundation. Having said that, though, it still requires interpretation. My interpretation is my life. Often it's a pretty poor interpretation, I admit.

[dixieflatline]

Franklin,

What do you make of some of the writing of Paul then? Things like Corinthians 14:34 really make me wonder about a literal understanding.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Now I have been told my several scholars that this was added by Paul because church services were pretty crazy and this was used to help keep the order and such. Still if this is the word of God literally then I would think he should have made that clear. When Paul takes about slavery it is a similiar thing. I would interpret what he is saying as slavery is fine if done properly but scholars tell me different. Still if this is the literal word of God I would think this wouldn't be left unclear as that would have helped us out a lot.

[Bad-example]

Worst...thread...ever.

[GreenMonster]

Worst...thread...ever.

You don't want to know my thoughts on the bible.. I would offend many so I will not share..

[st.cronin]

Worst...thread...ever.

thanks for the input

[Groundhog]

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Mac Howard]

I see it as:

a) an attempt to understand and explain the incredible world we live in and our position in it

b) an effort (reasonably successful) to bring order to a species with awful tendancies to anarchy, violence and mayhem

c) a determination by the priesthood to maintain control over its community

d) an overwhelming influence on the development of western culture and other cultures throughout the world

I see considerable evidence to suggest that its stories are based on historical events though often, as a consequence of the relative unsophistication of the knowledge of the natural world of the authors, explained by the supernatural and in fantastical terms.

As an agnostic I have no problems with the bible. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the dogma that often accompanies its interpretation :(

Edit: added d)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The First 100 people who ordered something from the Jags website were part of a group called the 100 First Fans, and are an offical Jags group - we each got a T Shirt and everything! That's the official name, and I suspect that they chose 100 First Fans over First 100 Fans because the former makes all of us a First Fan whereas the latter makes us just one out of a hundred.

-Anxiety
Do I hear a violin? :D

[Edward64]

As a non-practicing Catholic who went to college in the South, I've had many interesting discussions about the Bible with my Baptist friends. My belief is the Bible is pseudo-historical document (ex. New Testament gospels). My Baptist friends pretty much take the Old/New Testament of the Bible literally and but some concede the Old Testament may not be literal.

I generally start off with how old they believe the Earth is. If they quote around 10,000 yrs I know there is no hope for the discussion and cut it short. If they say the Earth may truly be very old but they don't believe in macro-evolution of man, then I know there is room to explore differences.

I approach them with which Bible do they believe in. I tell my Baptist friends the Protestant Bible has left out several books from the earlier Catholic Bible during Martin Luther's Reformation.

Which one is correct? If they say the Protestant Bible is correct, that would imply the earlier Catholic Bible had faulty books in it ... and therefore, if it had faulty books in it, what other faults could there be that now resides in the Protestant Bible?

Then I ask how can they take the King James literally when its been translated from the original language (ex. no, I am not an expert on the origins of the Bible but know well enough it wasn't in English). This would imply zero room for error.

We generally end up agreeing to disagree.

[SFL Cat]

I take it quite literally.

To me, it is some revealed truth about THE TRUTH. Even scriptures say that in our earthly life we don't have access to the fullness of truth about God, "For now we see things in a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now my knowledge is in part; then it will be complete, even as God's knowledge of me." 1 Cor. 13:12.

I do find it interesting that those who profess faith in biblical miracles have problems believing that the Spirit of God might have trouble ensuring that His revealed Word is passed down through the ages as He intended. Seems to me that this would be a much simpler task than, say, parting the Red Sea.

[revrew]

I found the earlier discussion of authority interesting. The reason being, once I claim for myself the authority to determine which portions of a religious scripture are true and which are not, I assume quite a bit of authority. Where does that authority come from? Is my knowledge so superior?

Jesus claimed authority, then affirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament several times, including the famous quote about "not one jot nor tittle". Later, Paul claimed authority over such matters and stated that "all (of this) Scripture is God-breathed." Finally, John claimed authority in such matters and gave warning about removing words from his writing.

In my opinion, it all comes down to a question of authority. Who has the knowledge/wisdom and right to say what is and isn't true? Who has perfect knowledge into seeing things I don't understand (from molecular biology to ethics and the afterlife)? IMO, Jesus proved he had that authority. IMO, Paul and John likewise proved their authority came from this same Jesus to say the things they said.

If I claim--despite what Jesus, Paul, and John said--that this part is, and this part isn't true, then I am essentially declaring I know more about these things than they did. I simply cannot say that myself.

I choose to believe that Jesus proved his authority when it comes to the things of God. An earlier post said something to the effect, "I've never met/seen God, so how do I know?" THAT is the correct question to ask. I believe, however, that Jesus both met and saw God, as did Paul and John. That gives them the authority to tell me this is true, whether I understand it 2000 years later or not.

[OldGiants]

I was actually thinking about this yesterday, with no around to talk to.

I'm at best an agnostic, but I do consider the Bible to be one of the most important books in Western culture. The reason should be obvious. It has had tremendous influence.

That said, my problem with anyone citing Biblical passages is, how do you know it really says that? By that I mean, you don't read Hebrew (and here I'll acknowldge Jews have an advantage with the Old Testament, but not as much as might be apparent) or Aramaic so you have to depend on the translations of groups of people whose agenda's have not only changed over time, but often don't agree with you, that is, Protestant versus Catholic.

Getting the words right is important. An example of what I mean is the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Is that what it really means in Hebrew? Or, as has been suggested by folks of equal translation skills, does it mean "Thou shall not commit murder?" The distinction is important, because it knocks out pacifism has having divine law behind it. The ancient Hebrews made a distinction between killing enemies in battle (good for the protection of fellow Jews) and murder (evil sin). So killing in battle was never considered a sin.

For those of you who have trouble with the fanciful stories of the Bible--loaves and fishes come to mind--check out the Jeffersonian Bible. Thomas Jefferson basically cut out the myth parts and left in the moral law he agreed with. An interesting take on religion by the man who was the smartest and most talented American of his age--and perhaps ever.

[Franklinnoble]

I found the earlier discussion of authority interesting. The reason being, once I claim for myself the authority to determine which portions of a religious scripture are true and which are not, I assume quite a bit of authority. Where does that authority come from? Is my knowledge so superior?

Jesus claimed authority, then affirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament several times, including the famous quote about "not one jot nor tittle". Later, Paul claimed authority over such matters and stated that "all (of this) Scripture is God-breathed." Finally, John claimed authority in such matters and gave warning about removing words from his writing.

In my opinion, it all comes down to a question of authority. Who has the knowledge/wisdom and right to say what is and isn't true? Who has perfect knowledge into seeing things I don't understand (from molecular biology to ethics and the afterlife)? IMO, Jesus proved he had that authority. IMO, Paul and John likewise proved their authority came from this same Jesus to say the things they said.

If I claim--despite what Jesus, Paul, and John said--that this part is, and this part isn't true, then I am essentially declaring I know more about these things than they did. I simply cannot say that myself.

I choose to believe that Jesus proved his authority when it comes to the things of God. An earlier post said something to the effect, "I've never met/seen God, so how do I know?" THAT is the correct question to ask. I believe, however, that Jesus both met and saw God, as did Paul and John. That gives them the authority to tell me this is true, whether I understand it 2000 years later or not.

What he said.

Thanks, Rev... you put it a lot more clearly than I would have.

[law90026]

For those of you who have trouble with the fanciful stories of the Bible--loaves and fishes come to mind--check out the Jeffersonian Bible. Thomas Jefferson basically cut out the myth parts and left in the moral law he agreed with. An interesting take on religion by the man who was the smartest and most talented American of his age--and perhaps ever.

This is where I disagree. This becomes an edit of the Bible, a completely unsanctioned one, which, IMO, detracts completely from the faith. If one were to read the Jeffersonian Bible and folllow it, I'm not sure if such a person could be considered a Christian. More likely, that person would be a Jeffersonian.

I agree with what Rev said, it is the word of God after all, and if you have faith, you believe that the Bible and its contents are true.

[Subby]

I just don't have any faith that Man has not ruined the original teachings and meanings of scripture throughout the ages. When God leaves Man to his own devices and agenda, things go wrong. And God - throughout history - has done this (insert millions of examples of pointless human suffering here). He put us on this Earth, sent his Son to die for our sins and get us righted, and that's it. Just like we are destroying this planet and destroying each other we have destroyed the original intent of his Word.

I'm just a man. All I can do is try and do right by others. If God's plan differs from that, then I guess I'm in trouble.

[Drake]

You're in trouble.

[revrew]

I just don't have any faith that Man has not ruined the original teachings and meanings of scripture throughout the ages. When God leaves Man to his own devices and agenda, things go wrong.

Herein comes the question of faith. Has indeed God "left man to his own devices"? If so, the Bible would certainly have been twisted through the years to fit man's agenda. If God hasn't, but has protected and preserved his Word, then there's hope.

Though I have other reasons for such hope, the Dead Sea Scrolls (which verified the words of the book of Isaiah have remained virtually--and in all significant meanings--unchanged for over 1600 years) lend some empirical credibility to this hope.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

...how do you know it really says that? By that I mean, you don't read Hebrew (and here I'll acknowldge Jews have an advantage with the Old Testament, but not as much as might be apparent) or Aramaic so you have to depend on the translations of groups of people whose agenda's have not only changed over time, but often don't agree with you, that is, Protestant versus Catholic.

Getting the words right is important. An example of what I mean is the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. Is that what it really means in Hebrew? Or, as has been suggested by folks of equal translation skills, does it mean "Thou shall not commit murder?" The distinction is important, because it knocks out pacifism has having divine law behind it. The ancient Hebrews made a distinction between killing enemies in battle (good for the protection of fellow Jews) and murder (evil sin). So killing in battle was never considered a sin.

For those of you who have trouble with the fanciful stories of the Bible--loaves and fishes come to mind--check out the Jeffersonian Bible. Thomas Jefferson basically cut out the myth parts and left in the moral law he agreed with. An interesting take on religion by the man who was the smartest and most talented American of his age--and perhaps ever.
Hmmm... Would man change what is considered the word of God to fit his own agenda? What a concept! I have never read the Jeffersonian bible. Did he leave in the part about Moses leading his people to freedom from slavery? I know that seemed to be a part of the Bible that many slave masters left out when reading the Bible to their slaves...

[Drake]

I agree with rev that this is ultimately a question of faith. You either believe that God is big enough to keep his Word intact--and by "Word", I mean the intent or the message rather than each actual word--or you believe that man is more twisted and infantile than God is powerful. How you interpret the scriptures (or, if you choose to lend them any credence at all) is going to depend on which of those things you believe.

Personally, I tend to interpret literally, but I have my quirks. I think the whole Jonah and the Whale story is a piece of allegorical literary fiction. I also think readers at the time it was written also understood it to be a work of fiction and treated it as such.

[Subby]

I agree with rev that this is ultimately a question of faith. You either believe that God is big enough to keep his Word intact--and by "Word", I mean the intent or the message rather than each actual word--or you believe that man is more twisted and infantile than God is powerful. How you interpret the scriptures (or, if you choose to lend them any credence at all) is going to depend on which of those things you believe.

It isn't a matter of can't. It's a matter of won't. If God won't keep little girls from being raped and murdered, then I seriously doubt he is working overtime to make sure that evangelicals are getting the exact literal meaning of his Word out to everyone.

[Toddiec]

I am on the same page as Drake and Revrew. I believe in the bible being accurate through faith, just as I believe that God exists through faith. Now, I also believe that I have experienced things personally in my life that give "proof" to my faith. Through faith I can look at things that happen to me (good and bad) and start to see that there was a reason that it happened according to the things I believe. But, I have to stop myself when I get to the point that I think I know the exact reason why something happened to me or those around me because there is no way I can understand what God's overall plan is.

Anyway, that is the point that I am trying to make. None of us can understand why things happen, but by faith I believe that all things happen for a reason. I will never know why. I can just try to live my life as a Christian and let my faith guide me that God knows what is best for me and everyone.

This is just my opinion and story about what drives me. I respect Subby's (and all others that posted)views and I don't want to come across as displaying them as "incorrect" or anything. My faith is everything to me, but I also know that trying to force it on anyone is not good for anybody.

[kcchief19]

Though I have other reasons for such hope, the Dead Sea Scrolls (which verified the words of the book of Isaiah have remained virtually--and in all significant meanings--unchanged for over 1600 years) lend some empirical credibility to this hope.
I don't think the last 1,600 years are as nearly as problematic as the 400 years preceding it.

Setting aside issues of religion and belief in God and only addressing the question as asked of how do you interpret the bible, the short answer is that to me The Bible is merely a piece of a larger puzzle.

First, The Bible in whatever form you choose is an anthology; a judgement was made regarding what books would be included and what would be excluded. Writings changed over the years. To me, recognizing The Bible as an anthology is the only way to reconcile the contradictions within the different books of The Bible. Each book is a different writer's interpretation of events.

Second, recognizing the writing of The Bible was derived from oral histories that were written down anywhere from 80 to 120 years after the events occurred at a time when lifespans were shorter, human knowledge was more limited and communication consisted only of the spoken word. I think it is unrealistic to believe that in that time the stories that became The Bible survived without hyperbole or exaggeration. To me, that's important to consider when interpretting the original meaning of the content.

Lastly, and I know this won't make me friends, but I interpret The Bible along side other religious texts and ancient mythology. I'm not saying The Bible is myth; I'm saying that The Bible shares numerous similarities with these other texts.

In the end, I share a belief that M GO BLUE noted of The Bible as a manual. I do take a slightly different path, however. Like other religious texts and myths, the lessons of The Bible go well beyond morality. Almost all of these texts address issues of healthy, safety and lifestyle. I think the dietary directions of The Bible are a great example of this. The Bible clearly states which and which not animals can be eaten. These definitions were seemingly intended to discourage people from eating animals that can make you sick if prepared incorrectly or animals that were often the source of disease. While informative and relevant for the time, some information has been proven to be false or inaccurate given our higher level of understanding today.

I've never fit well within organized religion because I simply can't rationalize in my head strictly interpreting parts of The Bible and then ignoring other parts of The Bible. We have a commandment that says thou shalt not kill, but the death penalty is OK. Honor thy neighbor, but slavery is OK. You can eat a cow, but you can't eat lobster. You can't plant two different crops side by side or wear a garment made of two different threads. NFL players are in deep trouble; you can't touch the skin of an unclean animal and the penalty for working on the sabbath is death.

In the end, I interpret The Bible my own way. I anticipate and recognize the right and privilege of other individuals to interpret The Bible the way they choose. What I don't like is when other people believe it's OK to force their interpretation of The Bible onto me.

[kcchief19]

This is where I disagree. This becomes an edit of the Bible, a completely unsanctioned one, which, IMO, detracts completely from the faith. If one were to read the Jeffersonian Bible and folllow it, I'm not sure if such a person could be considered a Christian. More likely, that person would be a Jeffersonian.

I agree with what Rev said, it is the word of God after all, and if you have faith, you believe that the Bible and its contents are true.
I don't know if we'll ever agree on the first paragraph. I think The Bible is without a doubt and edit of the word of God in that if you accept the timeframe of when The Bible was written, it is not only unlikely but virtually impossible that the word of God was capture and handed down accurately.

I bristle at the critique of The Jefferson Bible and being a Christian. The Jewish people are the people of The Bible and the followers of Christ that created The Bible became Catholics. While I a favor a loose interpretation of The Bible, I take a hardline on who is and who is not a Christian. To me, there are Jewish people, Catholics and Protestants. To me, Catholics and Christians are one and the same, but Protestants are not Christians. In my religious world view, I think equating protestantism with Christianity is an attempt to link protestant religions directly with Jesus Christ, when in fact they are offshoots of the Catholic Church.

I admit, I take a particularly hardline view on that and I'm certainly in a minority. If you consider a follower of The Jefferson Bible a Jeffersonian and not a Christianity, that's fine and dandy. But I think it's worth noting that there are people who believe that if you are not Catholic you are not a Christian but rather a Protestant.

[IwasHere]

Interpret this!



From the 1631 Edition of the King James Version.
"Thou shall commit adultery" [Exodus 20:14]


I think this is supposed to be taken literally.:D