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?

[LiamOS]

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.

So all that stuff 'bout stoning unruly children is completely legit?

[Adamoriens]

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.

There happens to be many different understandings of atonement and "salvation rules." A sampling:

Ransom atonement, Christus Victor atonement, satisfaction atonement, substitutionary atonement, penal substitution atonement, governmental atonement, and moral influence atonement. They all lay claim to scriptural support.

The plurality of denominations still stands as an embarrassment.

[arayhay]

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.

Wikipedia
The Nicene Creed (Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the creed or profession of faith (Greek: Σ�μβολον τῆς Πίστεως) that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene (pronounced /ˈnaɪsi�n/) because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea by the first ecumenical council, which met there in A.D. 325.


I do not think ecumenical means unique


It is given high importance in the Anglican Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, and most Protestant denominations.


It appears to be unique to a lot of different denominations.



If you would, elaborate on these rules of salvation. What are they ?

[Adamoriens]

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.

Actually, what we think God says is the only thing that matters. It's all we've got to go on. If the Holy Spirit were truly guiding Christianity (which is what we would expect from Acts), then we should expect sincere believers to be unified in divine inspiration. But we shouldn't necessarily expect a unified Church since Jesus repeatedly warns of the rise of false prophets, which could account for the diversity of denominations.

What do we actually see in the world? Thirty thousand denominations, most claiming to be the true church of Christ. There's no consensus on how to distinguish the true one. And so we are left with a huge religion that looks embarrassingly like it's completely under human guidance.

[McCulloch]

Fundamentally the Bible is God SPEAKING.

The writers of the Bible don't even make that claim for the Bible.

He says what He says. Its not what I think He says that matters.

But it is only what you think God says that you will hear or obey.

[WinePusher]

Fundamentally the Bible is God SPEAKING.

The writers of the Bible don't even make that claim for the Bible.

Yea they do. The bible is the written word of God and was divinely inspired, so God did inspire the human authors to write what he intended.

[LiamOS]

How do you know that?

[WinePusher]

Yea they do. The bible is the written word of God and was divinely inspired, so God did inspire the human authors to write what he intended.

How do you know that?

My first answer would be, because we're posting in the TD&D subforum and the bible is assumed to be the authoritative word of God.

My second answer would be, because the Bible itself claims to be inspired by god in the 2 Timothy. And if Jesus can be proven to have resurrected from the dead, the claim that the Bible is the word of God would logically follow.

[McCulloch]

My second answer would be, because the Bible itself claims to be inspired by god in the 2 Timothy. And if Jesus can be proven to have resurrected from the dead, the claim that the Bible is the word of God would logically follow.

Second Timothy only makes reference to Scriptures known to Timothy from childhood, not the Bible as Christians know it.

[LiamOS]

My first answer would be, because we're posting in the TD&D subforum and the bible is assumed to be the authoritative word of God.

My second answer would be, because the Bible itself claims to be inspired by god in the 2 Timothy. And if Jesus can be proven to have resurrected from the dead, the claim that the Bible is the word of God would logically follow.

But where in the Bible does it say that the entire thing is God's word?
I'm not saying it doesn't say it; I wouldn't know. I just want to know.