Bible taken literally?

[what's her face]

The Bible is the Words of God right? Every single page and sentance correct and true from the Lord to be followed diligently by all believers, right? I was recently discussing with non-Christians about the context of the Bible - in that various Christians everywhere interpret portions of the Bible into completely different meanings from one another - this I agree with.. However, of my own reading, when I read something like I Timothy 2: 9-13, where Paul is writing to the church and asks women of the church to not braid their hair and wear gold jewelry and pearls.. does that mean the same to me? Am I not allowed to braid my hair and casually wear jewelry? People might say, "Nah man that was just the church of that day, that doesn't imply to current day churches.." isn't that taking what is written in the Bible and making an exeption or excuse for it to fit our current lifestyles? I understand churches in that day were different.. but if that is true, why did God have that inputted in the Bible? If God says it.. cuz even though Paul wrote that, its from God right? If God says it, He means it. So if I can read that and translate it how I like to fit me, can't I then go as far as to say that when it says don't be adulterious, that I can say, "Oh that was just the circumstances of those days, its ok in our current times." Obviously I don't believe that at all, and I'm not going to interpret crazy stuff like that. Anyways, I can list other stuff from various parts in the Bible, especially stuff from the old testament and argue the same, but you get my meaning.. so what am I supposed to make of this? It doesn't seem right to just disregard certain parts of the Bible because to fit me, the Bible is supposed to be perfect and wholey holy (haha). Followed by the letter is it not? Was Paul not writing to all churches, not just his church from that time? What difference in doctorines and moral codes are there between our churches and his? None I should think...

[Jessica Lauren]

I don't think they all apply to us right now. You can braid your hair. Its fine. You have to remember when that book was written... the times it was written IN. ESPECIALLY the OT. There were slaves then too, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't happen today, lol.

You have to also remember that the Bible was written by men... humans. Not God. There are a FEW, but there are some errors.

[VonKarman]

:: wonders where those errors are ::

[Stinker]

:: wonders where those errors are ::

There are a few additions that are noted in our Bible's side notes. Those additions are (Mk.16:9-20) & (1 Jn.5:8)

[VonKarman]

And how are these considered "errors"?

[WickedServant]

The Bible is the Words of God right? Every single page and sentance correct and true from the Lord to be followed diligently by all believers, right? I was recently discussing with non-Christians about the context of the Bible - in that various Christians everywhere interpret portions of the Bible into completely different meanings from one another - this I agree with.. However, of my own reading, when I read something like I Timothy 2: 9-13, where Paul is writing to the church and asks women of the church to not braid their hair and wear gold jewelry and pearls.. does that mean the same to me? Am I not allowed to braid my hair and casually wear jewelry? People might say, "Nah man that was just the church of that day, that doesn't imply to current day churches.." isn't that taking what is written in the Bible and making an exeption or excuse for it to fit our current lifestyles? I understand churches in that day were different.. but if that is true, why did God have that inputted in the Bible? If God says it.. cuz even though Paul wrote that, its from God right? If God says it, He means it. So if I can read that and translate it how I like to fit me, can't I then go as far as to say that when it says don't be adulterious, that I can say, "Oh that was just the circumstances of those days, its ok in our current times." Obviously I don't believe that at all, and I'm not going to interpret crazy stuff like that. Anyways, I can list other stuff from various parts in the Bible, especially stuff from the old testament and argue the same, but you get my meaning.. so what am I supposed to make of this? It doesn't seem right to just disregard certain parts of the Bible because to fit me, the Bible is supposed to be perfect and wholey holy (haha). Followed by the letter is it not? Was Paul not writing to all churches, not just his church from that time? What difference in doctorines and moral codes are there between our churches and his? None I should think...

Hi w.h.f. ;) ...wholely holy... nice. :D

The bible is often referred to as the Word of God, usually not the words of God. (I make this distinction only because there are words in it that come solely from the authors)

It may help to think of the Book as God's message to us. Or as the story of our relationship to our Creator.

The epistles are letters from the apostles to certain churches either reprimanding or commending them for their practices in those churches.

[Mrs12bfishin]

The Bible is the Words of God right? Every single page and sentance correct and true from the Lord to be followed diligently by all believers, right? I was recently discussing with non-Christians about the context of the Bible - in that various Christians everywhere interpret portions of the Bible into completely different meanings from one another - this I agree with.. However, of my own reading, when I read something like I Timothy 2: 9-13, where Paul is writing to the church and asks women of the church to not braid their hair and wear gold jewelry and pearls.. does that mean the same to me? Am I not allowed to braid my hair and casually wear jewelry? People might say, "Nah man that was just the church of that day, that doesn't imply to current day churches.." isn't that taking what is written in the Bible and making an exeption or excuse for it to fit our current lifestyles? I understand churches in that day were different.. but if that is true, why did God have that inputted in the Bible? If God says it.. cuz even though Paul wrote that, its from God right? If God says it, He means it. So if I can read that and translate it how I like to fit me, can't I then go as far as to say that when it says don't be adulterious, that I can say, "Oh that was just the circumstances of those days, its ok in our current times." Obviously I don't believe that at all, and I'm not going to interpret crazy stuff like that. Anyways, I can list other stuff from various parts in the Bible, especially stuff from the old testament and argue the same, but you get my meaning.. so what am I supposed to make of this? It doesn't seem right to just disregard certain parts of the Bible because to fit me, the Bible is supposed to be perfect and wholey holy (haha). Followed by the letter is it not? Was Paul not writing to all churches, not just his church from that time? What difference in doctorines and moral codes are there between our churches and his? None I should think...
Interesting question. I believe the Bible to be God's true word and I take it literally; however, it does help to think of when the Bible is written and who the audience is. Yes, we are the audience now, but the writers weren't exactly thinking of us. I believe this verse is telling Christian women not to focus our attention on our outer appearances, to dress modestly and not draw attention to ourselves. I've read a couple of different commentaries on this and they pretty much felt the same way: don't come to worship as if you are going out to a dance.

[dalej42]

I'll be honest. I don't take the Bible literally. I do take it seriously, however.

Yes, that was the title of a recent book.

I think a good study Bible will help anyone grow in their faith. A book which explains the context in which the books were written in.

[twistedsketch]

I believe in taking the Bible literally. Now, there is an art and a science to that, however. There are some sections where God Himself is speaking figuratively, such as the parable Jesus told. But the lesson is the same. Yes, I believe Jesus literally said all those things He said.

To answer your question about braiding, the concept of that verse is to avoid extravagance and immodesty in your dress. The extravagant women in those days had the braids and were loaded with jewels and bought expensive clothes. They were extravagant and immodest. You need to ask yourself what is extravagant and immodest today and avoid it. Paul didn't want church to become a beauty competition. You're supposed to be getting together to worship God, not make each other jealous with what you're wearing.

[holo]

OP,
I'd rather not start a new fight on these issues, but I think you should consider your reasons for concluding that the bible = God's word, infallible, 100% authorative, to be taken and followed literally etc etc. Why do you believe that? You don't have to answer me, just think about it.

How do you think Paul wrote his letters? Was there light from heaven and a choir of angels around him? Or did he perhaps just send out letters here and there, to the churches and people he loved? Did he sit down and think "I'm going to write some letters which shall be the no.1 authority for the church forever and ever"?

And how did they read these letters? Did they all rise and say "thus saith the word of the Lord..." or did they simply read them? Did they analyze every single sentence and word, comparing different Greek ways of saying things?

Did God instruct Paul by having him interpret and dechiper ancient scripture? Or did the two of them relate directly and personally?

Did God decide to not speak through dreams, visions, angels, prophets, donkeys, beggars, kings, miracles anymore, but only through a book? Did He decide to stop speaking directly and instead speak in vague terms and leave us to interpret them?

Did God decide that from the time of the apostles and until the printing press was invented, only the priesthood should have access to His word?

Does it make sense that you shouldn't be allowed to braid your hair?

[ChristIsTHEKing]

I believe in taking the Bible literally. Now, there is an art and a science to that, however. There are some sections where God Himself is speaking figuratively, such as the parable Jesus told. But the lesson is the same. Yes, I believe Jesus literally said all those things He said.

To answer your question about braiding, the concept of that verse is to avoid extravagance and immodesty in your dress. The extravagant women in those days had the braids and were loaded with jewels and bought expensive clothes. They were extravagant and immodest. You need to ask yourself what is extravagant and immodest today and avoid it. Paul didn't want church to become a beauty competition. You're supposed to be getting together to worship God, not make each other jealous with what you're wearing.

I think this post accurately answers the question in meaning. Read the Bible with the specific issues that the early church leaders were facing at the time. The early followers were often coming from pagan backgrounds and so for example the apostles telling the women to not braid their hair was to change them from their current pagan beliefs and following. This speaks to understanding to whom the Bible was specifically being written. Now, this DOES NOT mean that these verses do not have meaning for us or for the future. The idea is that it is written to a specific group in time, but timeless in it's meaning. The application for us would be to not follow or mimic the pagans and the things they do. We must stand out from the world. Anyone who wants to say that verses don't have meaning or application for us or that we should read the Bible literally has the impossible task of deciphering what they will and won't follow meaning they end up not following God wholly. "May God richly bless you my dearly beloved!"

[WAB]

I believe in taking the Bible literally. Now, there is an art and a science to that, however. There are some sections where God Himself is speaking figuratively, such as the parable Jesus told. But the lesson is the same. Yes, I believe Jesus literally said all those things He said.

To answer your question about braiding, the concept of that verse is to avoid extravagance and immodesty in your dress. The extravagant women in those days had the braids and were loaded with jewels and bought expensive clothes. They were extravagant and immodest. You need to ask yourself what is extravagant and immodest today and avoid it. Paul didn't want church to become a beauty competition. You're supposed to be getting together to worship God, not make each other jealous with what you're wearing.

Well said, and very applicable today.

Shalom... WAB

[SteelDisciple]

The Bible is the 100% accurate word of God as proven by the Holy Spirit inside of us all.

Keep in mind the era in which is was written and what was right at those times. Back then it probably was a tradition or part of scoeity for women to have their hair braided.

But also..when Jesus came...didn't that end most of the old "rules"? He changed many when he came.

But anyway...it was an era thing. Just like the head covering thing. It was a part of society and was deemed the right thing to do at that age.

[oliveplants]

Well, if you read it carefully, you'll see that we are not to ADORN ourselves with braided hair, not prohibited from braiding. Kinda the difference between "money is the root of all evil" and "the LOVE OF money is the root..."

But that was just an example, not your main point. POst #10 (sorry, don't remember the name; can't go back) seems to draw different conclusions than I would, but he has valid questions (except the last one - 'does it make sense to you' because it doesn't have to 'make sense'). How do you believe the BIble is inspired? Who do you believe is the author?

I can understand people discarding so much teaching when they don't believe the Bible really was breathed by God. What I don't get is people who do believe that and then go on the act as if they don't.

R.C. Sproul has a video set on Bible interpretation. Me makes the point that "literally" means "in the way in which it was written." Meaning that something that is obviously poetic or exagerated or (as mentioned before) the parables should be taken in that sense. But instruction to the church should (IMHO) be taken as instruction to the reader, personally (or their own pastor/fellowship, as was originally addressed to).

Even if we don't believe that our present Bible is breathed by God, that argument doesn't help as much as some claim, because Paul said he was writing to "all churches everywhere" and Peter includes the writings of Paul in his definition of "Scripture." They DID believe they were writing the word of God to us.

Sorry if my thoughts are too random; I was interupted at least 4 times just in this brief post.

[sabar]

All scripture is given by inspiration of G-d, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of G-d may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 16-17)

My understanding is that the whole Word is perfect for what we humans need. It is 'inspired' or G-d-breathed and comforts, instructs, disciplines, strengthens and is all we need to guide us in this life!

If the whole Bible is not inspired then we are all lost!!:help:

[Jacob4707]

All scripture is given by inspiration of G-d, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of G-d may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 16-17)

My understanding is that the whole Word is perfect for what we humans need. It is 'inspired' or G-d-breathed and comforts, instructs, disciplines, strengthens and is all we need to guide us in this life!

If the whole Bible is not inspired then we are all lost!!:help:

Not if the parts about being "lost" are uninspired! :D

[Nadiine]

All scripture is given by inspiration of G-d, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of G-d may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 16-17)

My understanding is that the whole Word is perfect for what we humans need. It is 'inspired' or G-d-breathed and comforts, instructs, disciplines, strengthens and is all we need to guide us in this life!

If the whole Bible is not inspired then we are all lost!!:help:

:amen:
REP on the way to you.

EITHER THE BIBLE TEACHES US WHO GOD IS, OR WE TEACH OURSELVES WHO GOD IS & become our own authority for knowledge of God.

What can God teach us thru His word if we make ourselves the authority as to who God has to be?
This is making yourself "unteachable".

& if it isn't ALL teaching the truth, THEN YOU ALSO CANNOT STAND ON THE GRACE COVENANT IT RELAYS of salvation by God's GRACE.
If it's wrong in some areas you dislike, you have nothing to base any of the doctrines you ACCEPT from it, on.

Simply put, if you don't like what it teaches, THEN BY ALL MEANS, DON'T BE A CHRISTIAN. Changing God to suit your preferences doesn't make it Christianity.

thanks for your post sabar.:thumbsup:

[Catechumen]

There are different levels of Biblical interpretation, the very lowest level being literalistic interpretation.
For example, when we read at the end of the book of Job that he lived to be 140 years old it really has no meaning. When we read a few verses before when the Lord tells him that his rewards will be doubled in the next life, it makes more sense and the real meaning begins to be uncovered. The text mentions two parts of Job's life, the first being his suffering and the second his reward. This is a parallel to our earthly lives and our lives in Heaven. Did Job really live to be 140 years? Who cares? It doesn't change the meaning of the text at all. He probably lived to be 70 years old, but the message that the passage intends to convey is still true.
People need to stop getting tied up in petty differences and trying to interpret much of the Bible literalistically as it only obscures the meaning of the text.

[Catechumen]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not a book.

[sabar]

:amen:
REP on the way to you.

EITHER THE BIBLE TEACHES US WHO GOD IS, OR WE TEACH OURSELVES WHO GOD IS & become our own authority for knowledge of God.

What can God teach us thru His word if we make ourselves the authority as to who God has to be?
This is making yourself "unteachable".

& if it isn't ALL teaching the truth, THEN YOU ALSO CANNOT STAND ON THE GRACE COVENANT IT RELAYS of salvation by God's GRACE.
If it's wrong in some areas you dislike, you have nothing to base any of the doctrines you ACCEPT from it, on.

Simply put, if you don't like what it teaches, THEN BY ALL MEANS, DON'T BE A CHRISTIAN. Changing God to suit your preferences doesn't make it Christianity.

thanks for your post sabar.:thumbsup:
You are welcome - thing is, either the Word is correct and perfect (Just as Jesus was, considering he is the very embodiment of G-d's Word) or it is not! We cannot have it our way and exclude what G-d has written. If it says we should not kill, then we cannot kill. I truly believe with my whole heart that the Bible is perfect in every way otherwise the Lord would not have caused it to be written it is the SPIRIT WORD!

[sabar]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not a book.
Jesus quoted often from the Word and endorsed what was written. The Bible is 'inspired' or G-d breathed and is therefore His Word and perfect. There are some translation problems I agree but we must not forget that it is the SPIRIT WORD. Jesus did not say that we should ignore or 'do away' with the Bible, he came to fulfil the Law of Moses but in so doing he left on record his life, his sacrifice and his promises. Of course we look to Jesus for our way of life but in so doing remember that he quoted and looked to the OT during his lifetime.

[Nadiine]

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not a book.

HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THAT WITHOUT THE BIBLE THAT TELLS YOU SO?

If it's just "a book", then why did Jesus Christ USE SCRIPTURE to teach them of Himself?
AND claim that THE SCRIPTURES TESTIFY OF HIM?
Here's some of Jesus' supports of the scriptures:
Mt. 21:42, 22:29, 26:54-56, Luke 24:27-45, Acts 17:2.

He also recited it to teach truth and rebuke with.

You may wanna backtrack & do some bible study because CHRIST upheld "the scriptures" (namely OT)- God's truth given to man.

The bible's claim of itself (by eyewitnesses who testify of Christ) claim the scriptures are FROM GOD, not MAN.
Sadly, this is the new "christianity" today, "i interpret it THIS WAY, because I can't grasp something it's telling me; therefore, it's just a story".
WHILE EMBRACING THE PRINCIPLES THEY DO LIKE.

You in essence have become unteachable and the authority on truth.

If it's subjective, then so are the teachings you accept in it, and you have ZERO to stand on for any real truth.
No foundation.

[sabar]

HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW THAT WITHOUT THE BIBLE THAT TELLS YOU SO?

If it's just "a book", then why did Jesus Christ USE SCRIPTURE to teach them of Himself?
AND claim that THE SCRIPTURES TESTIFY OF HIM?
Here's some of Jesus' supports of the scriptures:
Mt. 21:42, 22:29, 26:54-56, Luke 24:27-45, Acts 17:2.

He also recited it to teach truth and rebuke with.

You may wanna backtrack & do some bible study because CHRIST upheld "the scriptures" (namely OT)- God's truth given to man.

The bible's claim of itself (by eyewitnesses who testify of Christ) claim the scriptures are FROM GOD, not MAN.
Sadly, this is the new "christianity" today, "i interpret it THIS WAY, because I can't grasp something it's telling me; therefore, it's just a story".
WHILE EMBRACING THE PRINCIPLES THEY DO LIKE.

You in essence have become unteachable and the authority on truth.

If it's subjective, then so are the teachings you accept in it, and you have ZERO to stand on for any real truth.
No foundation.
Well said, Nadiine. Sadly many today do not base their actual Christian beliefs on what the Bible wants. Jesus is the total embodiment of the Word and he lived his whole life around what G-d required of him. His everyday teachings were interspersed with, 'Have you not read?' relating to the OT. To throw aside the Word of G-d is to literally throw away Jesus Christ! 'The word of G-d is quick and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. I do believe that little gem says it all!

[holo]

You don't have to choose between viewing the bible as either God's eternal inspired infallible Word, and "just a book".

To not consider it God's word, but for example the words of Paul, Job etc, isn't the same as saying it's not true, or that it's not to be taken seriously.

BTW, Jesus was quoting the scriptures when He was talking to the Jew, obviously.

And finally, the burden of proof is on whoever says the bible=the word of God.

[sabar]

You don't have to choose between viewing the bible as either God's eternal inspired infallible Word, and "just a book".

To not consider it God's word, but for example the words of Paul, Job etc, isn't the same as saying it's not true, or that it's not to be taken seriously.

BTW, Jesus was quoting the scriptures when He was talking to the Jew, obviously.

And finally, the burden of proof is on whoever says the bible=the word of God.
I actually view the Bible as being my spiritual food. If I don't eat a regular meal, I get really hungry and very sluggish. The same with the Word - I do believe that you need the spiritual food as much as natural food. The more you read the Word the more you grow in Christ - and I also view it as a kind of history book. It's wonderful for putting situations and places into perspective. There is a fine silver thread that runs from Genesis to Revelation and ties the whole Book together, beautifully.

[Catechumen]

The bible's claim of itself (by eyewitnesses who testify of Christ) claim the scriptures are FROM GOD, not MAN.
Sadly, this is the new "christianity" today, "i interpret it THIS WAY, because I can't grasp something it's telling me; therefore, it's just a story".
WHILE EMBRACING THE PRINCIPLES THEY DO LIKE.

You in essence have become unteachable and the authority on truth.

If it's subjective, then so are the teachings you accept in it, and you have ZERO to stand on for any real truth.
No foundation.

You clearly haven't read any of what I actually wrote, otherwise you would realize that this post is in no way a response to what I wrote.

Christianity is based on subjectivity. Everything in the world is based on subjectivity. This doesn't mean that objective truth doesn't exist, it just means that objective truth is meaningless unless you interpret it. For example, I can tell you my life story from beginning to the present but you would still only know about me no matter how much detail I went into. You wouldn't actually know me simply by knowing facts about me. Likewise, I can explain to you what it means to be Christian and the beliefs Christians hold, but it means nothing unless you live it and experience it yourself. Through your own experiences you come to know the truth.

"It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence."
- Soren Kierkegaard

[Nadiine]

You clearly haven't read any of what I actually wrote, otherwise you would realize that this post is in no way a response to what I wrote.


"It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence."
- Soren Kierkegaard

Here's what Peter says about subjectivity:
2 Pet. 3:16-17 "..as also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures."

I find many flaws in your philosophy here!
You can quote kierkegaard all you want, I'll quote the BIBLE which is the pure authority of what TRUTH is and what constitutes a Christian believer.:amen:

It makes narrow, emphatic truth statements. Even application of that truth isn't "subjective", since it's clear.

This doesn't mean that objective truth doesn't exist, it just means that objective truth is meaningless unless you interpret it

NO, IT'S MEANINGLESS UNTIL YOU INTERPRET IT CORRECTLY.
And since you claim such a small portion of scripture is literal, that poses a big problem in trying to interpret/understand it's True, intended meaning by the author.

Does this work with LEGAL documents?
"I interpreted & applied the content, 'TO MEAN ____THIS', therefore I expect my full settlement".
If you're interpretation of the document is wrong,
Do you think the law will bend your way due to your wrongful subjective application of written content so as to recieve a settlement?

Your falsely interpreted subjective understanding DOESN'T ALTER WHAT IS IN FACT, TRUE. It means that you were WRONG and a consequence or result will most likely come from it.

Worse, what if YOU write a contract with someone to rent your guest house, BUT THEY APPLY PARTS OF IT SUBJECTIVELY... do you hold them responsible for violating your contract when they claim "I understood & applied it THIS WAY, so I'm RIGHT"?

See Mt. 7:21-23, where many who thought they were God's people, find out they are kept out of heaven. THEY DON'T GET IN BECAUSE THEY INTERPRETED HIS TRUTH THEIR WAY... it didn't make it true for them. God rejects them.

Paul had to formally correct the Corinthians because THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT SALVATION WAS A LICENCE TO CONTINUE IN SIN.
Did their subjective interpretation of salvation by Grace make it possible to keep sinning? NO. (study antinomanianism).

Were the converted Jews correct when they wouldn't let go of the OT Law and push it onto the Gentiles to observe fully? NO. The Gentiles were under GRACE, and not OT Law.
Rom 2:14-15/ Acts 15

ERROR IN SUBJECTIVE APPLICATION/UNDERSTANDING DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING TRUE FOR YOU. Subjective OR literal.

& Even in subjectivity, there is no other way to properly apply MOST clear statements of scripture as they are written
(I think "subjectivists" treat secular fairy tales more literally than they do the Bible - for obvious reasons!!):
Even an ATHEIST has the sense to understand what the Bible is clearly saying in some important passages.

They're just honest enough to dismiss it as falsity and reject it rather than try to claim Christianity while manipulating the text to twist it into what they want it to be to suit themselves.

[VonKarman]

Hello,
Just following along in the thread here...

Nadine and Sabar:

I am proud to call you my sisters in Christ.
It is a blessing to see believers holding fast to the truth of the Word and living under the discipleship of CHRIST.

Kudos to you both for your posts!

In Him,

VonKarman.

[Nadiine]

In reading my post, I wanted to comment that I am not ANGRY with you or with anyone when I debate - it's just a debate style. When a subject is very important, I take it very serious & stick to issues.
Text Emphasis is meant only to highlight points & break up monotonous small text, not yell or be obnoxious:holy:
just fyi.

Catechumen, if you mean subjective interpretation of the Bible's writings (that they are written to be interpreted ANY WAY the reader views it personally; for themselves & whatever that is is RIGHT for them to believe & perceive from it), then I am in full disagreement.

If you mean subjective maturity/growth or fuller understanding in or of Christianity - spiritual growth due to the personal/subjective application of God's LITERAL TRUTHS taught thru literal Scripture into your life, then I can better accept that with a bit of reservation.

But we do need to be leary of 'experience only' type philosophies. They easily get warped into ungodly principles.
thanks for your posts.:)

[Catechumen]

They're just honest enough to dismiss it as falsity and reject it rather than try to claim Christianity while manipulating the text to twist it into what they want it to be to suit themselves.

Again you, like most people, have proven that you misunderstand what I have so plainly stated time and time again. It's not to suit myself and it's not about what I want it to be or what I consciously make it out to be. It's about what it is to me. Everyone has presuppositions that they bring to every aspect of their lives, including Biblical interpretation. We all have different lenses through which we view life and the world around us. All you're trying to do is say that everyone should use the same lens and mold ourselves and conform to a certain image which will rob us of our individuality and ultimately our free will, which are some of the most important things we have. I would rather passionately hold to a falsehood than have a detached belief in a truth. It's not about what we believe it's how we believe.

Do you see the difference here? I don't choose what the Bible means to me, my life experiences chose it for me as they have chosen it for you. Not one other person in the world agrees with you or any other person on every matter of faith.

They're honest in dismissing the Bible as falsity? If they're honest in doing so then why do you believe the Bible? Christianity is not about a "text" it's about a relationship. This relationship can be helped by the text, but it can only be established and fulfilled by God and by yourself. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible is an extremely important part of a believer's life, but since God is personal, the only way we can truly appreciate Him and His existence is on subjective terms.

[Catechumen]

Catechumen, if you mean subjective interpretation of the Bible's writings (that they are written to be interpreted ANY WAY the reader views it personally; for themselves & whatever that is is RIGHT for them to believe & perceive from it), then I am in full disagreement.

If you mean subjective maturity/growth or fuller understanding in or of Christianity - spiritual growth due to the personal/subjective application of God's LITERAL TRUTHS taught thru literal Scripture into your life, then I can better accept that with a bit of reservation.

But we do need to be leary of 'experience only' type philosophies. They easily get warped into ungodly principles.
thanks for your posts.:)


No that's not what I mean in the first paragraph. The second paragraph sounds more like it, but does not completely capture my views. There are literal truths and there is absolute truth, but no one can grasp it in its entirety... I'm not endorsing relativism, just subjective truth. There is a difference. A major one. The first paragraph, as I understand it, would be more relativistic, whereas the second paragraph would be more about subjective truth.
However, if absolute truth is not applied to your life personally then it has no meaning. For example, one can know what Christians teach but until he or she actually lives and experiences Christianity, it won't have any meaning. I'm having a hard time putting this into words. I'm sorry but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Thanks for trying to understand. :)

[Wisdom's Child]

I don't have the time to go into details here, but I do have one thing to say about trying to interpret what is taught in the Bible using cultural relevance.
Todays Culture (like the Culture that was present at the time the Scriptures were written) is a WORLDLY thing.
If there is one thing that is expressly prohibited to Christians it is to not be Worldly in your walk. Christians must Separate themselves from worldly things. People tend to forget that.
Trying to understand scriptures in a worldly (cultural) light leads to gross error.


.

[sabar]

I don't have the time to go into details here, but I do have one thing to say about trying to interpret what is taught in the Bible using cultural relevance.
Todays Culture (like the Culture that was present at the time the Scriptures were written) is a WORLDLY thing.
If there is one thing that is expressly prohibited to Christians it is to not be Worldly in your walk. Christians must Separate themselves from worldly things. People tend to forget that.
Trying to understand scriptures in a worldly (cultural) light leads to gross error.


.
Amen to that thought! Time and time again I hear the phrase 'Well times have changed so the Bible must change as well, it was not really meant for our generation anyway!' Hello! Do Christians really think what was relevant with God way back in Genesis does not apply to us poor folk 5000+ years down the line? G-d's Word is as relevant today as ever. It is infallible and also just as authorative. If we profess to put our whole trust in Jesus Christ who lived totally by the Word then we must not dilly-dally over the Word as to whether part of it is inspired, or not. The whole Word is inspired because the actual word inspired means GOD BREATHED. So men were stirred up by the Spirit to put pen to paper, just as King David was stirred up enough to plead with God not to take the Holy Spirit away from him! Some things are difficult to understand and perhaps we are not able to understand them in this life time, but they are there for our admonition and teaching so as to make us as perfect as is humanly possible. Thank you for your thoughts, they echo mine entirely.

[WesWoodell]

The Bible is the Words of God right? Every single page and sentance correct and true from the Lord to be followed diligently by all believers, right? I was recently discussing with non-Christians about the context of the Bible - in that various Christians everywhere interpret portions of the Bible into completely different meanings from one another - this I agree with.. However, of my own reading, when I read something like I Timothy 2: 9-13, where Paul is writing to the church and asks women of the church to not braid their hair and wear gold jewelry and pearls.. does that mean the same to me? Am I not allowed to braid my hair and casually wear jewelry?

The principle is always the same, but the application might be different today depending on the culture.

Here's an example:

1 Thess. 5:26
26 Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.
(NIV)

I don't kiss all the Christian brothers I run in to with a holy kiss today. That'd just be weird. In the first century that was alright, and even today in some cultures this form of greeting is the norm. So what's the underlying principle we can pull from this passage?

Paul is instructing the early Christians to greet one another warmly. That's the principle. The application in the first century would have been a kiss ... but what's the application today? It's certainly not a holy kiss - how about a handshake or a hug? That'd work. :)

Keep this in mind: the underlying principle of a passage, or the meaning of a passage, never changes. But the application of that principle/meaning certainly does change according to the culture of the day.

Unless I'm mistaken, back in the first century if a woman wore her hair in braids along with a lot of jewerly it was considered immodest. It would be comparable to a girl wearing an extremely short skirt to a worship assembly today.

That passage you mentioned (1 Timothy) has the underlying principle that says "Christian women should dress modestly." How does that apply today? Well, braids and jewelry are alright ... it would apply more to revealing clothes in our culture here in America. In other places in might still apply to braids and jewelry, but not here.

Something else to keep in mind is that the Bible teaches us to be careful not to violate another person's conscience if we can help it (1 Cor. 8, Romans 14, etc). Different things will offend different people depending on the culture. For instance, it's very offensive to give a 'thumbs up' sign to people in certain parts of Australia. Its perfectly ok here in the USA, but it would be sinful to go around giving a thumbs up to people down there (comparable to giving someone the bird).

Anyway, hope this helps. :)

[holo]

Amen to that thought! Time and time again I hear the phrase 'Well times have changed so the Bible must change as well, it was not really meant for our generation anyway!' Hello! Do Christians really think what was relevant with God way back in Genesis does not apply to us poor folk 5000+ years down the line? G-d's Word is as relevant today as ever.It may be, but the argument isn't that "God's word doesn't apply anymore", but that "the bible does not equal the word of God."

"The bible is the word of God" is a statement that needs to be backed up.

It is infallible and also just as authorative.How do you figure? Not to start an endless debate, but don't you think it's quite rational to NOT see it this way?

If we profess to put our whole trust in Jesus ChristExactly. In Christ, not in scripture. We may disagree on how to read this and that passage. It's not really that important, until someone demands we all see it the same way.

who lived totally by the Word thenHe did, but did He live by the scripture? I mean, He was supposed to stone the adulterous woman. In fact, the law demanded that He did. But He didn't.

we must not dilly-dally over the Word as to whether part of it is inspired, or not.The whole Word is inspired because the actual word inspired means GOD BREATHED.Again, that needs to be backed up. You could say that about scripture up until Jesus' time, but what about the NT? How can we know that the NT is the actual word of God? And which version of the OT? The Catholic church has its own canon.

[Catechumen]

Keep this in mind: the underlying principle of a passage, or the meaning of a passage, never changes. But the application of that principle/meaning certainly does change according to the culture of the day.

EXACTLY!

[Wisdom's Child]

It may be, but the argument isn't that "God's word doesn't apply anymore", but that "the bible does not equal the word of God."

"The bible is the word of God" is a statement that needs to be backed up.


Ok, I'll give it a shot holo...

The term "Word of God" is used in reference to both O.T. and N.T. in written form by the Scriptures.

Matthew 15:5-6
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

John 10:34-35
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


And that Scripture is both inspired <Theopneustos, God-breathed>,
and profitable.



2 Timothy 3:14-17
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.




Also, Scripture affirms that God is the author, and is a product of His creative breath.


2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


The "how" of inspiration—men "moved" by the Spirit.



N.T. asserts that other parts of the N.T. are Scripture



1 Timothy 5:18-20
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. <Deuteronomy 25:4, 1 Corinthians 9:9> And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. <Luke 10:7>



2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


The Writers were conscious of writing God's word



1 Corinthians 2:12-13
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Peter 1:11-12
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


Hows that?

[oliveplants]

All you're trying to do is say that everyone should use the same lens and mold ourselves and conform to a certain image


YES! That is exactly the point of Christianity. To be transformed from who we are into who He has called us to be.

ROmans 8:29 "For whom He diod foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son"

Romans 12:2 "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,"
vs 16 "Be of the same mind one toward another"

2 Cor 5: 17 "THerefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new."

Sorry, I think I'm waxing off topic, but that comment really hit me. The point isn't to keep being who we are, while serving God a little on the side. The point is to be perfect, as He is perfect. And the Word is the means to that end.

[holo]

Wisdom's Child,
good argument.

But I'll counter it by saying that the scriptures themselves don't actually equal the scriptures with God's word. Just consider the way "God's word" is used - for example, it wouldn't make any sense to say "the scriptures came to John in the desert" and so forth.

Also, wouldn't it be most logical to say that the word of God is whatever God says? And if so, how does God speak, normally? The scriptures testify of God speaking directly, through prohpets, dreams, visions, angels, mules, signs etc etc. IMO it's a shame that we so often reduce God's voice to scripture alone. And I don't think God usually speaks in parables or riddles. He doesn't conceal truth and leave it up to us to decipher it. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find truth at all, unless He chooses to reveal it. Luckily He's not the kind of father to withold good stuff from His children. I think that most of the time when we struggle to find out the truth, it's because we don't really listen, but are trying to figure it out by ourselves, for example by studying scripture day and night. God has many ways of speaking.

[Nadiine]

The principle is always the same, but the application might be different today depending on the culture.

Here's an example:

1 Thess. 5:26
26 Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.
(NIV)

I don't kiss all the Christian brothers I run in to with a holy kiss today. That'd just be weird. In the first century that was alright, and even today in some cultures this form of greeting is the norm. So what's the underlying principle we can pull from this passage?

Paul is instructing the early Christians to greet one another warmly. That's the principle. The application in the first century would have been a kiss ... but what's the application today? It's certainly not a holy kiss - how about a handshake or a hug? That'd work.

Keep this in mind: the underlying principle of a passage, or the meaning of a passage, never changes. But the application of that principle/meaning certainly does change according to the culture of the day.


CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT:preach: :)
yes. and Thank You for being clearer on this!

IN CONTEXT Paul's letters were predominantly Corrections & instructions to the newly converted gentiles who were establishing the early church.

Paul was instructing them in proper Christian living/conduct and church functionality.
ALL Pauls' statements were NOT emphatic commands to all believers (the Greek language clearly relays this).

So YES, there is alot of ancient custom mingled into the verses that do NOT apply to ALL readers decades & centuries later.
Same with the OT. and yes, the PRINCIPLES of what is "outdated" is what stands and is the point as far as how we conduct ourselves.
So I DO agree with this post.

At the same time, I think it's also important to lift up this key verse -as it would apply to "subjective application" of scripture:
2 Tim. 2:15 "Be diligent to present yoruself approved to god, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."


The bible also clearly teaches that it's "spiritually discerned" and that those who are not truly of God will not be able to rightly discern it's meaning/intent in fullness.
THERE IS A WRONG WAY TO APPLY GOD'S PRINCIPLES in one's life & alot hinges on their spiritual condition: Saved or unsaved.

Not that I'll go into a full discourse on it, I'll spare everybody including myself! lol:help: ...:sleep:

Anyways, if we're one of God's own, we should be able to rightly understand God's CLEAR-LITERAL teachings & commands and 'apply' them CORRECTLY (for the most part).

To misapply them wrongly could result in negative consequences --- eventually down the road.
(reaping/sowing principle - not that God can't turn it for good! Rom 8).

My previous posts are towards those who claim the Bible God yet continue living in AND promoting clear contradiction to God's commands (which are NOT subjective/relative). It displays questionable fruit [at best] & I'll leave it at that.

"Subjectivism" used with Christianity/as far as Christianity is concerned, is a buzz word IMHO.
& anytime I hear it, I get huge red flags & checks in my spirit.
I'd actually like another term to replace that one (in the way you apply it to "application") because today's "liberal" "Christians" are promoting ALL subjectivity over scripture & about God (whatever god is to them :confused: and they also reject most, if not all, of the Bible's literality! And that is NOT what the Bible teaches by any stretch.

Hope that was clear?
thanks for the clarity in the post

[sabar]

It may be, but the argument isn't that "God's word doesn't apply anymore", but that "the bible does not equal the word of God."

"The bible is the word of God" is a statement that needs to be backed up.

How do you figure? Not to start an endless debate, but don't you think it's quite rational to NOT see it this way?

Exactly. In Christ, not in scripture. We may disagree on how to read this and that passage. It's not really that important, until someone demands we all see it the same way.

He did, but did He live by the scripture? I mean, He was supposed to stone the adulterous woman. In fact, the law demanded that He did. But He didn't.

Again, that needs to be backed up. You could say that about scripture up until Jesus' time, but what about the NT? How can we know that the NT is the actual word of God? And which version of the OT? The Catholic church has its own canon.
Sensitive reading of the Bible record indicates tha the Bible writers not only recognised that they were inspired but also treated other Bible writers as inspired. Jesus is preeminent in this. When Jesus quoted from the Psalms of David, he prefaced this with the words, 'David in spirit....(Mt. 22:43) showing his recognition of the fact that David's words were inspired. Jesus also spoke of Moses' writings (Jn. 5:45-47), showing that he believed Moses to have literally written the Pentateuch. Although it is noted that many Christians have doubted whether Moses could write but Jesus' attitude clearly contradicted their approach. There are many allusions in Acts, the Epistles and Revelation to the Gospels (eg Acts 13:51, Mt. 10:14) indicating not only that they were all inspired by the same Spirit, but that the Gospel records were treated as inspired by the New Testament writers. Paul in 1 Tim. 5:18 quotes both Dt. 25:4 and Lk. 10:7 as 'Scripture.' Paul hammers home the point that his message was from Christ, not himself (Gal. 1:11,12; 1 Cor. 2:13; 11:23; 15:3). This was recognised by the other apostles; James 4:5 quotes Paul's words of Gal. 5:17 as 'Scripture.' God has spoken to 'us' in Christ, therefore there is no need for any further revelation. The fact that some books are said to be inspired whilst others are not is completely refuted by the fact that the Apostles treated each other's writings are completely inspired.

[holo]

Again, I'm not saying it's not true or inspired or supposed to be there or useful, but that it can hardly be said to be the same as God's word. Especially since the scriptures themselves
1) testify of the many different ways God HAS spoken in the past, and
2) speaks of how He WILL speak in the future, that is, through dreams and visions etc, but first and foremost through His very own Spirit, which has been given to EVERY believer - before the day of pentecost, having the Spirit on visit was quite rare, at least in comparison to having the Spirit IN you 24/7

[holo]

I don't know who wrote them all down, but when you consider who spoke them, you get quite a freaky gallery :)

a few that come to mind, are
god
jesus
satan
job
paul
a mule
adam
eve
moses
a dying thief
a bunh of farmers
demons
lepers
insane people
prophets
angels
kings
wizards

...which is one of my main reasons for liking the bible.

[sabar]

Again, I'm not saying it's not true or inspired or supposed to be there or useful, but that it can hardly be said to be the same as God's word. Especially since the scriptures themselves
1) testify of the many different ways God HAS spoken in the past, and
2) speaks of how He WILL speak in the future, that is, through dreams and visions etc, but first and foremost through His very own Spirit, which has been given to EVERY believer - before the day of pentecost, having the Spirit on visit was quite rare, at least in comparison to having the Spirit IN you 24/7
Right, so what you are saying is that you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of G-d and that the Bible is not the Word of G-d - or have I got that completely wrong? The two cannot be intrinsically entwined? If Christ quoted from the Scriptures and told us to learn of him then how can we if we do not have an authorative book to learn from? There is only one Bible and as stated in John 17:17 'Thy Word is truth.' The Bible surely reveals the (a) character of G-d (b) His purpose with this world (c) the history of mankind from Genesis through to Revelation, (d) the birth, life, death and resurrection of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ and finally (e) a handbook to help those who would be followers of Christ conduct their lives in complete obedience and submission to His will. Of course Jesus Christ is the Logos or Word because he alone is the embodiment of G-d's perfect creation, he is the pivot and purpose that G-d intended from before creation. Jesus has only ever been the One person to live his life perfectly - in so doing nothing could prevent him from rising from the dead. But how would any of us ever know about Jesus Christ if not from God's Word?

[oliveplants]

Right, so what you are saying is that you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of G-d and that the Bible is not the Word of G-d - or have I got that completely wrong? The two cannot be intrinsically entwined? If Christ quoted from the Scriptures and told us to learn of him then how can we if we do not have an authorative book to learn from? There is only one Bible and as stated in John 17:17 'Thy Word is truth.' The Bible surely reveals the (a) character of G-d (b) His purpose with this world (c) the history of mankind from Genesis through to Revelation, (d) the birth, life, death and resurrection of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ and finally (e) a handbook to help those who would be followers of Christ conduct their lives in complete obedience and submission to His will. Of course Jesus Christ is the Logos or Word because he alone is the embodiment of G-d's perfect creation, he is the pivot and purpose that G-d intended from before creation. Jesus has only ever been the One person to live his life perfectly - in so doing nothing could prevent him from rising from the dead. But how would any of us ever know about Jesus Christ if not from God's Word?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sabar again.
:thumbsup:

[Catechumen]

YES! That is exactly the point of Christianity. To be transformed from who we are into who He has called us to be.

Unfortunately, you're still missing my point.