Interpreting the Bible

[LiamOS]

The Bible teaches certain things for certain instances. It also teaches us that we have a New Testament and there are things in the New Testament which negate things in the Old Testament.

The testaments had different purposes. The old testament exists primarily to teach man that he is a sinner and that he has not means of escaping eternal punishment as a result of his sin.

The new testament teaches man is a sinner, but that Christ suffered the punishment for all sins. Hence man can escape his punishment by accepting Christ as savior.

To this, McCulloch presented a very pertinent question:

Is there any indication of this interpretation of the the purpose of the Jewish scriptures, known to the Christians as the Old Testament, it the Old Testament itself? Or was this a purpose attributed to the OT by the Christians, who needed to keep the OT myths but not the OT theology and instructions?

For debate:
-Why is it acceptable to take some parts of the Bible as true, and some others as allegory? Without God telling you in person, it stands to reason that it's all relevant all the time; commandments are commandments.
-Why is it possible to interpret the Bible in so many ways? Does this speak of the Bible's accuracy?
-For the literalists, why is Genesis taken as literal when other episodes such as Joshua and the sun(In case you do take a it literally, please voice your opinions here) are not?

[Skyangel]

I'll just take your thread as a joke (and many others like this one) and tell you to go figure it out on your own since I gave you a perfectly good example and explanation.

I'm sorry that my thread is beyond comprehension.

It is possible to interpret the bible in so many different ways because that is how the Word of God has been designed in the first place.

Well should it not have been designed to have minimal evil-interpretation potential?
Seems to be a long way off of that.

Why? The fools who wish to call it evil and perceive it as a lie need a good reason to believe it is a lie don't they? If it had minimum evil-interpretation potential maybe the fools would wise up a lot faster and not be fooled so easily by it?
If you wish to confuse a fool and make him believe the truth is evil or convince him it is a lie, you better make it look evil enough enough to convince him of it being a lie.
If you want to find the wisest and smartest people in the world then you need to give them a puzzle to work out which can only worked out by the smartest and wisest people, not by any fool who looks only on outward appearances and judges accordingly.

[LiamOS]

Why? The fools who wish to call it evil and perceive it as a lie need a good reason to believe it is a lie don't they?

Do you need good reason to believe the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lie?
Burden of proof is on you.

If it had minimum evil-interpretation potential maybe the fools would wise up a lot faster and not be fooled so easily by it?

Would an amnibenevolent God not think this a good thing?

If you wish to confuse a fool and make him believe the truth is evil or convince him it is a lie, you better make it look evil enough enough to convince him of it being a lie.

So God made the universe so he could make fools and damn them to eternal torture?

If you want to find the wisest and smartest people in the world then you need to give them a puzzle to work out which can only worked out by the smartest and wisest people, not by any fool who looks only on outward appearances and judges accordingly.

Or you could just make the wisest and smartest, you know, being God and all...

No offence, but that makes little sense, and all you seem to be saying is that logic doesn't work with the Bible; I'll agree on that, if that's what you mean.

[Adamoriens]

I'll just take your thread as a joke (and many others like this one) and tell you to go figure it out on your own since I gave you a perfectly good example and explanation.

Somehow I don't think you did, but no doubt that's because I'm a carnal-minded fool. There is no evidence that Jesus himself negated the Old Testament laws. Rather the opposite:

Matthew 5:17-20, NIV:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Evidently Jesus did not come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them (which I take to mean he is the fulfillment of the prophecies etc.). According to Jesus the Law is still in effect, with not "one jot or tittle" taken away. It's not until we get to the politically-minded Paul's commentaries that we encounter the idea that the old "covenant" has dissolved in favor of the "new" one. He arrives at such a conclusion through his own reasoning, and not on the basis of the gospels (which regrettably hadn't been written yet).

It is possible to interpret the bible in so many different ways because that is how the Word of God has been designed in the first place. It has been designed to make no sense at all to the carnal minded fools who wish to reject the truth and call it a lie. It has been designed to make perfect sense to all those who discern and interpret it spiritually at all times. it was meant to be spiritually discerned and interpreted not literally discerned and interpreted. The whole bible is a parable which can be perceived by the carnal mind to be one thing and can be perceived by the spiritual mind to be something totally different.

This appears to be a blatant power grab to exclude everyone who disagrees with you from the conversation. It's not that the Bible makes no sense to us carnal-minded fools; the problem for us is that it does make sense. And sometimes we find that sense abhorrent.

The idea that one has to be Christian to properly understand scripture is easily enough debunked. Plenty of atheists and non-believers have independently arrived at interpretations which are happily congruent with those of sincere Christians.

I view your move to exclude everyone who disagrees with you as utterly contemptible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Skyangel]

Do you need good reason to believe the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lie?
Burden of proof is on you.

I need a good reason to believe anything at all is a lie or is Truth. I have enough reason to believe the flying spaghetti monster is as much a fiction as Santa Claus is a fiction. I have enough reason to believe the bible is the Truth which is hiding Truth within truth. As you said, the burden of proof is on each individual person. Each person needs to prove the Truth for themselves. None of us can convince anyone else that something is true if the other person perceives the truth as a lie in the first place or vice versa. People see what they see and we cannot change anyone elses perception. Children who believe Santa Claus is true and real because they have the proof of the presents under the xmas tree get very upset when you try to tell them santa is not real at all. It takes maturity to comprehend that what appears to be true and real is sometimes not true and real at all, yet many morals and principles which are a reality are also taught in fictional ways as well as in Truthful ways. Take the principle of reaping what we sow. We can see that principle in nature and it is taught in many ways which are real and truthful as well as in ways which are fictional and allegorical.
If the "flying spaghetti monster" teaches you to be a better person then what does it matter if you believe the monster is real or not? If Santa Claus teaches you to be a person who gives gifts to others in secret, does it mater if you believe He is real or not? Does your belief in Santa and his principles cause you to live by those principles and cause you to become santa claus or not?
The people who believe in God and live according to how they perceive God wants them to live in obedience to God become the very God they worship, in their words and actions, do they not?

So God made the universe so he could make fools and damn them to eternal torture?

God does not make fools of people. People make fools of themselves by refusing to gain wisdom. God gives all people the same chance to become wise.
The only torture fools experience is the torture of their own mind which tells them they are fools. To believe you are a fool makes you a fool. People are what they believe they are in their very own heart and mind. Those who believe they are losers act like losers. Those who believe they are winners act like winners. Sinners act like sinners and saints act like saints and are told by the sinners that they ought to get off their high horse and come down to the level of sinners. Those who are confused cant make up their minds what they are or where they come from or why they are on this planet in the first place.
We were born to become wise. Very Few ever become wise because they don't bother learning from their own mistakes and taking responsibility for their own actions. They prefer someone else do their work for them and take all responsibility away from them. Fools hate responsibility and want to be mollycoddled babies all their lives.

Or you could just make the wisest and smartest, you know, being God and all...

No offence, but that makes little sense, and all you seem to be saying is that logic doesn't work with the Bible; I'll agree on that, if that's what you mean.

God did make the wisest and smartest people. Those wise people become fools so they can be wise. They are so wise that they outsmart themselves.

1 Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

A fool who knows he is a fool is wise.
A fool who thinks he is wise is a fool.
A wise man who knows he is wise is wise in his own eyes and a fool in the eyes of all fools who are jealous of his wisdom.
Is a foolish wise man the same as a wise fool?

[LiamOS]

The scientific method convinces people of the truth, whether they want it or not.

Also, you don't need reason to disbelieve in something. Do you have a reason to disbelieve in Russell's teapot? Obviously you don't, but you wouldn't believe in it until somebody showed you evidence for it.

[Skyangel]

I'll just take your thread as a joke (and many others like this one) and tell you to go figure it out on your own since I gave you a perfectly good example and explanation.

Somehow I don't think you did, but no doubt that's because I'm a carnal-minded fool. There is no evidence that Jesus himself negated the Old Testament laws. Rather the opposite:

Matthew 5:17-20, NIV:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Evidently Jesus did not come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfill them (which I take to mean he is the fulfillment of the prophecies etc.). According to Jesus the Law is still in effect, with not "one jot or tittle" taken away. It's not until we get to the politically-minded Paul's commentaries that we encounter the idea that the old "covenant" has dissolved in favor of the "new" one. He arrives at such a conclusion through his own reasoning, and not on the basis of the gospels (which regrettably hadn't been written yet).

It is possible to interpret the bible in so many different ways because that is how the Word of God has been designed in the first place. It has been designed to make no sense at all to the carnal minded fools who wish to reject the truth and call it a lie. It has been designed to make perfect sense to all those who discern and interpret it spiritually at all times. it was meant to be spiritually discerned and interpreted not literally discerned and interpreted. The whole bible is a parable which can be perceived by the carnal mind to be one thing and can be perceived by the spiritual mind to be something totally different.

This appears to be a blatant power grab to exclude everyone who disagrees with you from the conversation. It's not that the Bible makes no sense to us carnal-minded fools; the problem for us is that it does make sense. And sometimes we find that sense abhorrent.

The idea that one has to be Christian to properly understand scripture is easily enough debunked. Plenty of atheists and non-believers have independently arrived at interpretations which are happily congruent with those of sincere Christians.

I view your move to exclude everyone who disagrees with you as utterly contemptible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am no more ashamed of myself than light is ashamed of dispelling darkness.

Light tends to exclude darkness from its presence. If you wish to be in the presence of light you need to become light.
Every coin has two sides. To only see one side of the coin and think there is no other side is foolishness. That is how most people perceive the scriptures, as a one sided coin. Believers hold to one side and unbelievers hold to the opposite side, yet its the same coin in spite of the fact that neither side can see the others point of view and they fight because they are totally opposed to each other instead of understanding how they fit together perfectly and make "one coin"

[Adamoriens]

I am no more ashamed of myself than light is ashamed of dispelling darkness.

Light tends to exclude darkness from its presence. If you wish to be in the presence of light you need to become light.
Every coin has two sides. To only see one side of the coin and think there is no other side is foolishness. That is how most people perceive the scriptures, as a one sided coin. Believers hold to one side and unbelievers hold to the opposite side, yet its the same coin in spite of the fact that neither side can see the others point of view and they fight because they are totally opposed to each other instead of understanding how they fit together perfectly and make "one coin"

If one has to become light in order to be in the presence of light, does that mean no-one can receive light from someone else? If no light can be shed on others, then what is to distinguish light from darkness?

Perhaps you see yourself as a [Sky]Angel of Light, but as explanations go this needs one.

[Skyangel]

I am no more ashamed of myself than light is ashamed of dispelling darkness.

Light tends to exclude darkness from its presence. If you wish to be in the presence of light you need to become light.
Every coin has two sides. To only see one side of the coin and think there is no other side is foolishness. That is how most people perceive the scriptures, as a one sided coin. Believers hold to one side and unbelievers hold to the opposite side, yet its the same coin in spite of the fact that neither side can see the others point of view and they fight because they are totally opposed to each other instead of understanding how they fit together perfectly and make "one coin"

If one has to become light in order to be in the presence of light, does that mean no-one can receive light from someone else? If no light can be shed on others, then what is to distinguish light from darkness?

Perhaps you see yourself as a [Sky]Angel of Light, but as explanations go this needs one.

It's like the sunrise. As soon as the light appears the darkness dissapears because the light has been shed on it. Light tends to convert darkness to light because that is its nature.

[arayhay]

The Bible teaches certain things for certain instances. It also teaches us that we have a New Testament and there are things in the New Testament which negate things in the Old Testament.

The testaments had different purposes. The old testament exists primarily to teach man that he is a sinner and that he has not means of escaping eternal punishment as a result of his sin.
The new testament teaches man is a sinner, but that Christ suffered the punishment for all sins. Hence man can escape his punishment by accepting Christ as savior.

To this, McCulloch presented a very pertinent question:

Is there any indication of this interpretation of the the purpose of the Jewish scriptures, known to the Christians as the Old Testament, it the Old Testament itself? Or was this a purpose attributed to the OT by the Christians, who needed to keep the OT myths but not the OT theology and instructions?

For debate:
-Why is it acceptable to take some parts of the Bible as true, and some others as allegory? Without God telling you in person, it stands to reason that it's all relevant all the time; commandments are commandments.
-Why is it possible to interpret the Bible in so many ways? Does this speak of the Bible's accuracy?
-For the literalists, why is Genesis taken as literal when other episodes such as Joshua and the sun(In case you do take a it literally, please voice your opinions here) are not?

Fundamentally the Bible is God SPEAKING. He says what He says. Its not what I think He says that matters. If my approach is clouded by false positions, I'm in trouble already.

[Hawkins]

For debate:
-Why is it acceptable to take some parts of the Bible as true, and some others as allegory? Without God telling you in person, it stands to reason that it's all relevant all the time; commandments are commandments.
-Why is it possible to interpret the Bible in so many ways? Does this speak of the Bible's accuracy?
-For the literalists, why is Genesis taken as literal when other episodes such as Joshua and the sun(In case you do take a it literally, please voice your opinions here) are not?

The Bible is the same Bible but human minds vary from one another, no two human minds are exactly the same. That's why the different denominations. But there's only one set of salvation rules, disregarding the various denominations fitting for the various mind sets. And this unique set of salvation rules is more or less reflected in the Nicene Creed.