Freedom of Religion also = Freedom from Religion?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

But doesn't God inspiring his Prophets to write scripture introduce the human element into His Book? Proven by inconsistencies in scripture such as Matthew, Luke, and Mark saying Christ stormed the Temple of Jerusalem days before his death. John, on the other hand, contends it is actually years before His death that the temple is stormed.

 

God chose imperfect people to carry His word for a reason. Whether it be Abraham and his numerous deceptions, Davids sexual immorality, Moses' murder, or Peters denial of Christ. These people are imperfect, make mistakes, harbor questions and doubt, are shrouded with mystery, and are described by Paul as being "jars of clay"... Yet, His word is to be taken literally and at face value even though He picks the opposite type of person to carry His wisdom?

 

There are A LOT of dangerous and un-Godly scripture if taken for face value and literally.

 

I agree that there isn't 10 different correct ways to interpret the Bible, but none of us truly know what the one correct interpretation is.

 

Your example in Revelation is an ironic one, IMO. You claim to take the Bible literally, yet take that particular piece of scripture figuratively.

 

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

 

Literally speaking, wouldn't that be a warning to those who add their own words to His Book or falsify the Bible in some way? I am not sure how you can take adding your own words and acting as if they are His, to mean you should be taking everything literally.

 

If you want to take it literally... Do so. The Bible is the inspired word of God written by imperfect peoples. Thus taking the Bible literally actually proves you shouldn't be taking it completely 100% at face value.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Im sorry, then this is where we just can't agree.

 

IDK how different the Catholic book of Revelations is from the Protestant (if different at all), but that book is extremely straightforward, and paints an ugly picture (for lack of a better term). Same thing with Luke 13.

 

It's one of those things that for me, it's pretty cut and dry on.

The Catholic Church's teachings on this are not much different from what you are saying. What is different is the views of a faction of Catholics that I tend to agree with.

[Thanatos 2,847]

But doesn't God inspiring his Prophets to write scripture introduce the human element into His Book? Proven by inconsistencies in scripture such as Matthew, Luke, and Mark saying Christ stormed the Temple of Jerusalem days before his death. John, on the other hand, contends it is actually years before His death that the temple is stormed.

 

It's simply two different events- this is the easiest and most straightforward answer.

 

The other possibility is that John is simply ignoring the chronological order of events, as he does multiple times.

 

I agree with your point about not taking everything literally, I simply wished to correct the implication that there is some contradiction in these two accounts.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I am glad you brought that up, yet I was more hoping the trap would be snagged by Dmac, instead. Yes, a lot of people actually view John as inaccurate, which backs the idea of the human element I was speaking to throughout my post and the very same theme Dmac says we need to stay away from in interpreting the Bible.

 

Unfortunately for that argument, John does this many times, so it isn't just a one time occurrence.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Each of the gospel writers were writing a different aspect of jesus. While Matthew, Mark and Luke focuses on the man Jesus, John focused on the son of God aspect. That's something I kind of remember from religious studies classes a long time ago.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I am glad you brought that up, yet I was more hoping the trap would be snagged by Dmac, instead. Yes, a lot of people actually view John as inaccurate, which backs the idea of the human element I was speaking to throughout my post and the very same theme Dmac says we need to stay away from in interpreting the Bible.

 

Unfortunately for that argument, John does this many times, so it isn't just a one time occurrence.

 

John isn't inaccurate. It's the American "arrogance" if you will, that puts that view forward. We tend to think of every story as being told by someone who follows the same "rules" of storytelling as we would. This is simply not the case. The Hebrews would tell stories where they would finish an event, and then go back and finish specific themes, instead of putting them all in the order it happened.

 

See Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 for a prime example of this- in Genesis 1, the author, (Moses I think), finishes the story of creation, then in Genesis 2 he goes back specifically to look at the creation of man. Yet many liberal scholars have put this forward as a contradiction. As if anyone writing a book with any modicum of sense would contradict themselves in the first two chapters. There was no question about this being a contradiction for the longest because it was understood how the Hebrews wrote. Now it is not, and people try to put things forward as contradictions and inaccuracies that are clearly not.

 

(The entirety of this post is not directed at you, Favre, just a pet peeve of mine.)

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

John isn't inaccurate. It's the American "arrogance" if you will, that puts that view forward. We tend to think of every story as being told by someone who follows the same "rules" of storytelling as we would. This is simply not the case. The Hebrews would tell stories where they would finish an event, and then go back and finish specific themes, instead of putting them all in the order it happened.

 

See Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 for a prime example of this- in Genesis 1, the author, (Moses I think), finishes the story of creation, then in Genesis 2 he goes back specifically to look at the creation of man. Yet many liberal scholars have put this forward as a contradiction. As if anyone writing a book with any modicum of sense would contradict themselves in the first two chapters. There was no question about this being a contradiction for the longest because it was understood how the Hebrews wrote. Now it is not, and people try to put things forward as contradictions and inaccuracies that are clearly not.

 

(The entirety of this post is not directed at you, Favre, just a pet peeve of mine.)

 

Unfortunately that doesn't stop a lot of folks from discrediting the 4th Gospel. Regardless of that perspective being right or wrong is lost somewhere in between. Honestly, we don't even know for sure that he wrote it being that the style of writing from John in Revelations differs greatly from the actual Gospel of John.

 

On of those great mysteries, though. Can't be proven either way.

[blotsfan 2,112]

The First Amendment says that Government can't establish any religion, but also rejects government action in this sphere! If your given positive freedom (freedom to do something), then you are given negative freedom (freedom from something) as well. In regards to being gay and stuff like that discussed in previous posts, I personally have marginal respect for most academic people because they have a liberal bias to start with, so any academic research will sprinkle that liberal bias in that research in an implicit way for sure. The media is that same way, which I have zero respect for, so if a media asshole is reporting on something like this, I take that report with a very skeptical view. I question why there have only been reports of gay people after WWII, really starting in the 1960's. I think that they should do an open study by doing brain scans and other medical testing of people who say that their gay, and then other people!

 

Everybody being disrespectful to Joel's (DMAC) opinion and posts needs to stop. Political Correctness is a form of censorship by the media to silence people who have different views than the political elite or the inherent liberal bias in the media. Honestly, if a reporter with a track record of this liberal bias is killed in the field reporting, I would obviously feel sad for their family but I wouldn't necessarily sentence the "murderer" to prison for first degree murder. Probably manslaughter at the most, if that!

You're a piece of shit. Just saying.

[Duck Fallas 209]

The Bible, contrary to popular belief, is not perfect. The Early Church convened and picked the books they wanted to be in the Bible. What their reasons for this were? I'm not sure. I'll go ahead and say that they were putting in the books that they figured would be convey Christ's message. However, it was ultimately crafted by humans and is thus not perfect.

Truth. Unfortunately, the Bible, while inspired by the voice of God, has human fingerprints all over it from top to bottom. There were many books left out, ones that the church felt did more harm than good to their views of Christ. Even since then, there are two versions of the Bible; the Christian Bible and the Catholic Bible. Which one is correct? What about the 40 or so books that were excluded?

 

In all honesty, the only "Holy Books" that are uncorrupted are the Torah and the Qu'Ran, which are still in their original languages and are never (as far as I know) recited in any tongue but hte original (Hebrew and Arabic, respectively).

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

But doesn't God inspiring his Prophets to write scripture introduce the human element into His Book? Proven by inconsistencies in scripture such as Matthew, Luke, and Mark saying Christ stormed the Temple of Jerusalem days before his death. John, on the other hand, contends it is actually years before His death that the temple is stormed.

 

God chose imperfect people to carry His word for a reason. Whether it be Abraham and his numerous deceptions, Davids sexual immorality, Moses' murder, or Peters denial of Christ. These people are imperfect, make mistakes, harbor questions and doubt, are shrouded with mystery, and are described by Paul as being "jars of clay"... Yet, His word is to be taken literally and at face value even though He picks the opposite type of person to carry His wisdom?

 

There are A LOT of dangerous and un-Godly scripture if taken for face value and literally.

 

I agree that there isn't 10 different correct ways to interpret the Bible, but none of us truly know what the one correct interpretation is.

 

Your example in Revelation is an ironic one, IMO. You claim to take the Bible literally, yet take that particular piece of scripture figuratively.

 

 

 

Literally speaking, wouldn't that be a warning to those who add their own words to His Book or falsify the Bible in some way? I am not sure how you can take adding your own words and acting as if they are His, to mean you should be taking everything literally.

 

If you want to take it literally... Do so. The Bible is the inspired word of God written by imperfect peoples. Thus taking the Bible literally actually proves you shouldn't be taking it completely 100% at face value.

 

God using non-perfect people to write his book isn't relevant at all to whether or not the book itself is perfect. And whether or not it's to have one specific meaning that may be straightforward. 2 Peter 1:20 and beyond touches on this. The only thing that did matter was that everyone used were Christians, who believed and had the Holy Spirit in them.

 

God used sinful men all the time to perform miracles, and cast out demons, and miracles are only supposed to be works done by angels through God and Jesus himself because he has no sin. In the same way that God uses imperfect men and women to perform miracles, God can use imperfect men and women to write a perfect book, especially if it's inspired directly from him. The Holy Spirit telling you what to write =/= You writing whatever you want to be taken however you want. He always chooses the people he wants to do his work and deliver his message, and no matter what their human intentions are he always gets them to do his will (story of Jonah for example).

 

He used the specific different style of authors so that different people can pick up the same message differently, depending on what you are trying to draw out of the book. If you want a direct story of Jesus' life from start to finish you read one of the first three books, if you want a more indirect story of Jesus' life with a bigger emphasis on the spiritual side you read the book of John. I have never heard a preacher ignore the book of John, it's the first book most people recommend others to read because he touches on the spiritual aspect more then anyone else. It was he first book I was told to read and it was the one I used to get saved myself. Regardless of the little wrinkles they throw in, the story is still the same, and the message is always the same.

 

Believing that all the Scriptures are to be interpreted literally is just understanding that figurative passages have literal truth of the figure revealed. That there is one interpretation of Scripture but this one interpretation could have many applications, although the applications should never cloud the literal interpretation.

 

The Revelations verse that I mentioned talks about adding words as in interpreting the Bible while throwing in your own twist or literally adding words to a Bible verse. When you start stretching interpretations, or adding, "it could mean this, or it could mean that, or it could mean this" is when things get dangerous. People say all the time that literal interpretations can be deadly, but how often does that actually get proven if you take the time to look elsewhere and make sure what you think it's saying makes sense and is consistent with the rest of the book?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The First Amendment says that Government can't establish any religion, but also rejects government action in this sphere! If your given positive freedom (freedom to do something), then you are given negative freedom (freedom from something) as well. In regards to being gay and stuff like that discussed in previous posts, I personally have marginal respect for most academic people because they have a liberal bias to start with, so any academic research will sprinkle that liberal bias in that research in an implicit way for sure. The media is that same way, which I have zero respect for, so if a media asshole is reporting on something like this, I take that report with a very skeptical view. I question why there have only been reports of gay people after WWII, really starting in the 1960's. I think that they should do an open study by doing brain scans and other medical testing of people who say that their gay, and then other people!

 

Everybody being disrespectful to Joel's (DMAC) opinion and posts needs to stop. Political Correctness is a form of censorship by the media to silence people who have different views than the political elite or the inherent liberal bias in the media. Honestly, if a reporter with a track record of this liberal bias is killed in the field reporting, I would obviously feel sad for their family but I wouldn't necessarily sentence the "murderer" to prison for first degree murder. Probably manslaughter at the most, if that!

 

... Devin, might be best to sit this one out. Lol.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Unfortunately that doesn't stop a lot of folks from discrediting the 4th Gospel. Regardless of that perspective being right or wrong is lost somewhere in between. Honestly, we don't even know for sure that he wrote it being that the style of writing from John in Revelations differs greatly from the actual Gospel of John.

 

On of those great mysteries, though. Can't be proven either way.

 

There is a significant difference in writing styles, however, this has been way overblown by some scholars as if it indicates a different writer. If it was John the Apostle who wrote the book of Revelation, he would have been significantly older than when he wrote the book of John, (20 years older or so), and one would expect his writing style to have changed. Indeed, if it remained the exact same, one might think this was evidence of some sort of fraud.

 

It could also be that it is not John the Apostle who wrote Revelation, but John the Elder of Ephesus.

[BwareDWare94 723]

There is a significant difference in writing styles, however, this has been way overblown by some scholars as if it indicates a different writer. If it was John the Apostle who wrote the book of Revelation, he would have been significantly older than when he wrote the book of John, (20 years older or so), and one would expect his writing style to have changed. Indeed, if it remained the exact same, one might think this was evidence of some sort of fraud.

 

It could also be that it is not John the Apostle who wrote Revelation, but John the Elder of Ephesus.

 

As a writer, I will openly state that might writing is significantly different by the semester because of new classes, new readings, authors I find and like. It could very easily be the same person.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I've already stated that I think the Bible is flawed because of the medium with which it was written. At the same time, referencing miracles and great deeds--are they really perfect? We are throwing the word "perfect" around far too loosely.

 

Also, any translation is flawed. We cannot read the Bible as an English text and expect to not find any potential snags along the way. I translate Norwegian in my head all the time, and often am confused when I discuss the text in classes because there is hidden context I am unaware of, different uses of words that literally translate to specific words in English that we use in separate meanings, etc.

 

In other words, we do not have the definitive document at our disposal. There's just no way that we can judge a text that we never truly see.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I've already stated that I think the Bible is flawed because of the medium with which it was written. At the same time, referencing miracles and great deeds--are they really perfect? We are throwing the word "perfect" around far too loosely.

 

Also, any translation is flawed. We cannot read the Bible as an English text and expect to not find any potential snags along the way. I translate Norwegian in my head all the time, and often am confused when I discuss the text in classes because there is hidden context I am unaware of, different uses of words that literally translate to specific words in English that we use in separate meanings, etc.

 

In other words, we do not have the definitive document at our disposal. There's just no way that we can judge a text that we never truly see.

 

Not sure about whether or not you can consider a miracle perfect. But only a perfect being should be able to perform them (if we are taking in the supernatural), unless if we are talking about a miracle coming from a devil, but that's for another day. A human being able to perform a miracle means that he's working through either God, or the man downstairs... At least according to the Bible.