ChristiansUnite Forums

As this was a topic heavily debated in another thread, it got me to thinking.  How do you view the scriptures?  Do you see them as literal, true, necessary and conforming?  Or do you see them as non-literal or unnecessary?  I'm just curious.  What do the scriptures mean to you?

Allinall,

The key verse for me is found in Hebrews 4:12 ."For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts, and intents of the heart.

God's Word contains His very character, His commands, past and present. God never changes. He is the same God of the "Old" Testament, as He is the "New". He is an angry God, He is a merciful God. He loves and He hates. His word is eternal, and should be taken literally.

Psalm 119

Well, there's one that I can completely agree with!  Thank you for that perspective Psalm 119.  And I like your handle too.  Psalm 119 shows the affect God's word can have on the life of a believer.  Thanks again!

You're assuming that "word" here means the bible, aren't you?  Even I know that "word" is a crummy translation of  "Logos".  The Logos - The Word of God, is Christ.
However, to keep tying this is going to get tedious, so I'm going to asssume when you say word you mean bible for the duration.  If I've got that wrong, we better start over.
I'm almost speachless.
You think the character of God can be contained in a few thousand words on paper?  Because that's what you just said.
I'm not sure of the relevence of this.

No its not.  Christ is eternal.  Some of the bible has only been around for a little under 2000 years and even the oldest bits are only a few thousand years old.  Eternal doesn't just mean forward in time.
And this follows how from any of the above how exactly?

My view (and I don't pretend its necessarly the correct view, but I do maintain it's a perfectly reasonable and valid view given the information available):

The bible is all true.  Some of it is historically accurate.  Some of it is mathematically and/or scientifically accurate.  

All of it is true in some sense; for us to learn from. I think some guy called Paul said something to that effect.

To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me.  If read in that way it contradicts itself & it contradicts what God reveals to us through his creation.  It makes God into a liar, and a poor one at that (he can't even get his story straight).  I don't buy that.

Some of the bible is clearly not literal - it virtually says so.  Do you believe the stories told in the parables actually happened?  I doubt it.  In which case you accept that some of the bible is not literally true, so we're just left to debate which bits.

To treat the bible as though it is God is heresy of the worst sort.  It tells us about God, it is a gift from God, but it is most definitely not God.

Amen

Brother Love :)

The Bible is the very word of the living God.

None of it is inaccurate, it is all true, and both literally true both in the physical and spirtual woelds.

To claim otherwise is to deny it.

And it is all that Christians need, since it given by:

2 Tim  3
16  .................. inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


And finally, that men might know that;

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Thou we may not have every word ever spoken by God, we have enough..



Blessings,

Petro

One more Amen

Brother Love :)

Amen and amen!

There are two instances of the Greek logos being used in your statement here, both of which occur in scripture.  "Logos" standing alone is translated "word" and very accurately so.  You see, it is only when the direct article is included that it becomes "The Word."  The Word is Christ, I agree.  "word" is just that, "word."  What you have here is called biblical hermeneutic.  It is what is required for understanding the scriptures.  It requires one to view the text in light of its context as well as its original language.   Had he meant to say Christ, he would have.


God can no more be contained in a book than He can in the entirety of His creation.  God can, however, be revealed as to His character, His will and His commands via the written word - the Bible.



He is pointing out what can be learned of God through His written revelation.  He is, btw, right!  He uses that biblical hermeneutic here again...


Christ is eternal!  Amen!  But so is the word of God:


This passage does not refer to Christ, but to the written word of God.  The word that Christ not only followed and fulfilled, but that Christ took literally and true.


Here you jump to many conclusions:

1.  Some of it is historically accurate - Which parts are not and upon what do you draw these conclusions?

2.  Some of it is mathematically/scientifically accurate - Same question.

3.  To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me - Of course not!  And why?  Because to do so without taking it into context would make it nonsensical.  There are points where Christ speaks in story form for the sake of the point.  Searching to discover if the prodigal son actually existed or not would be negating the point of the story.  However, to view parts that we do not understand as therefore allegorical in nature would also be nonsensical.  

4.  To treat the bible as though it were God is heresy of the worst sort - And where exactly did anyone state this?  You will not find me tucked away in my room praying to my bible.  You will find me searching it and praying to God in light of it.  One more for thought here...The written word and the Living Word have a very close connection that warrants deep adoration.  Every believer I know loves the bible, even reveres the bible.  Yet I know of no believer who worships his bible, rather, they worship the God of the bible, as revealed by the bible, according to the bible.

My point was, that logos does not mean in Greek what word means in English, and it does not mean scripture.  Or rather, it need not.  To assume here that the author means scripture is just that, an assumption.

God reveals part of himself in the Bible, sure. But that's not what he said, even if it's what he meant.


I'm not disputing the statement.  Just asking why it's there, but its not important.  Let's skip it and not get bogged down.


Christ IS the word of God.  The Bible is not eternal.  The bible is not Christ. What does he mean by word here?  


I disagree.


Followed and fulfilled, ok.
Took as true, sure.  So do I.
Took literally - how can you know?  AFAIK everything he said is consistent with him having taken it literally.  It's also  consistent with him having not taken it literally.  

He did have a lot to say about following the spirit of the Law rather than the letter, and you could argue that amounts to taking the law in a non-literal manner.  I don't think he had a great deal to say about history, science or maths, as far as we know.

The beginning of Genesis, because they disagree with what God's creation tells us about itself for one.  I don't propose to get into a detailed argument on this here, as there is a separate place to debate that.
From Exodus onwards I would say its increasingly literal, but to be honest I don't know where it changes from mostly myth/allegory/whatever you like to call it, to history.   I don't believe that's half as important as what we can learn about our own relationship with God from it.

Beginning of Genesis for same reason.  Places that imply pi is 3.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the sun standing still.  Nothing else springs to mind - I'll let you know if anything comes up that's relevent to the debate.


You see, I just don't get you're point of view on this. Why can't some of the OT stories be like the parables?  Christ didn't actually say "this didn't actually happen - it's a story to teach you something", but you're quite happy to take that as read ,based on the format, and learn from the story.  Great.  Genesis Ch 1 also reads like a story to teach us something.  To put it another way, the whole context of those chapters is myth.  Why can't you accept that as a reasonable position, even if you disagree?

And I didn't say anyone had.  This was the bit of my post when I was stating my views, if you remember.
On the other hand, if the cap fits...

Great.  Me to.
We'll not right now, 'cause I'm playing on the computer  ;)

This thread is, presumable, about discussing exactly that connection.  From my point of view, it is made hard by your insistance of refering to the bible as the written word [of God] because, although that's what you believe it to be, I believe that to be false and idolatory, but explaining this in every part of every reply would get boring for all of us, so you'll excuse me if I'm a bit sloppy and appear slighlty inconsistant in my replies.

I don't have images of you praying to a bible or anything, and I treat it with a great deal of reverence myself.  Other than that, see above.

Quoting myself:
You didn't address the main part of this, perhaps you would care to.

Last question.  In (any of) the great stories of the Old Testament, which is the more important thing to learn?  The history, or what it teaches us about our own relationship with Him?

Ebia,

I cannot attribute the Old Testament account of creation as a parable because it is not presented in that fashion.  To attribute such an approach would be contextually, as well as hermeneutically incorrect.  As for your question:


I assume you're referring to the contradictory statement.  If so, I stand on the fact that non of this book contradicts any other part.  There are many "antinomies" or mysteries therein, but are not contradictory just because we may not understand them.  This may sound ambiguously faith-based, but it is far from ambiguous.  You have undoubtedly a high view of God.  That much I can tell.  And rightly so!  Would it not stand to reason that so complex a God, while revealing Himself in His written word, may appear as confusing?  Think about it!  How truly can the finite grasp the infinite apart from the indwelt Holy Spirit to aid us?  And who's to say that that aid doesn't increase as our discernment, and understanding of what can be known of our God via His word as attained via that same Spirit?

As for your last question, again, I think we have a misconception.  By literal, I do believe it to be historically correct.  I do not, however, seek the historical!  In any truth, whether scientific, historic, poetic or otherwise, there is a lesson to be learned from the "ensamples" given us.  And I agree.  The lesson is the point, but not at the expense of the truth behind it.

To me (and to plenty of others) it does read like a myth or parable, written in an age when the boundaries between myth and history were not seen as being as sharp as we do today.

Fair enough.  Of course its confusing, how ever you read it.  Can't argue with that one.  It does seem a bit bit of a cop-out when applied to what appear to be pretty clear discrepancies, but I can respect your position, without agreeing with it.

What bothers me more is the contradiction between Genesis (read literally) and Creation.

Excellent.
But what you see as "the truth behind it", I see as a story to provide a medium for the message.  

We seem to agree on all the really important stuff.   :)    Does the (relatively unimportant) detail matter so much?

As far as faith and practice?  Yes.  As far as fellowship?  ONLY IF YOU AGREE WITH MEEEEE!  ;D  Seriously though, views such as yours limit God to our understanding.  Do you see where I say that?  If it cannot be explained or rectified by our observation, then it must be myth.  Should God be limited by our understanding?  Should we bend God's word to fit our beliefs, or our beliefs to fit God's word?  Make sense?

Umm, I'm not sure I know which way around you mean, so I'll restate the question to make sure I've read you right.
Given that we agree on the really important message behind Genesis, is it possible to put aside the differences on whether it represents scientific and historical fact and get on with Christ's mission, or not?

 You must have pretty boring converstions with your friends if you all have to agree on everything  ;D

No, I'm afraid I don't.   God is what he is. What you, I, or anyone else believes about Him doesn't limit Him in anyway.
I know that's not why you are trying to say, but I can't figure what you are trying to say.
I'm not bending God's word, I'm interpreting it, just as you are.  We are doing it in slightly different ways.   I don't believe we are meant to treat the bible as a science textbook.  Ultimately the way any of us read the bible (or anything else) is shapped by our beliefs.  Yours by your belief that it is the "word of God" and that every sentence must be literally true unless some other sentence say's it isn't.   Mine as above.   You can't avoid it - ultimately what you already know and believe affects the way you read and understand any text, even a simple one; how much more so for a text as complex and ambiguous as the bible.

To be honest, I think we'll all feel pretty sheepish when we get to the other side and find out which bits of our faith we've been getting completely wrong.

In the mean time:

1.  Whether or not the science is right in Genesis, it's not the main point.  (We've agreed on that.)

2.  Insisting that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a stumbling block to many (whether or not it's true), and both Jesus and St Paul had some pretty strong things to say about that.  (I hope we can agree on this.)

3. Creation, and the bible, have both been created by God; neither is God.  A literal reading of Genesis contradicts what we learn from creation.  A non-literal reading does not.  (I don't suppose we are going to agree on this, but never mind.)

Jhn 17
17  ..............., thy word is truth.


Blessings,

Petro

********
John here:

How much?? 2 Tim. 3:16?
Christ said that in the LAST days KNOWLEDGE will be INCREASED, but, we already have the Word, huh?
Now: In Hosea 4:6 'some' see that if one REJECTS this [EXTRA Knowledge], He WILL REJECT US!? Is that also 'THY WORD IS TRUTH'?

Surely it is TRUTH! Yet, it is not the WHOLE Truth without 1 Cor. 14:32!! "And the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Otherwise we see 'most' ones claiming the Master's PROMISES & never connect the TOTAL WORD OF GOD'S CONDITIONS, huh? Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant ones!

---John

huh?

Brother Love :)

**********
But 'very' few [here] will understand Matt. 4:4! :'( :'(
---John

John here,  have no idead what your point is.

Claiming something or nothing, does not chnage the reality of the Truth of Gods Word.

And here is the truth;

1 Cor 2
11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12  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.


Rom 8
9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  (1 Cor 2:15-16)


God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.  (Jhn 4:24)

And ,

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jhn 14:6

To Pilate, Jesus said;

Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Jhn 18:37

Some outright contradict the truth, which Jesus spoke.

But belief in the truth, will set people free.



Blessings,

PETRO

I'll be a stinker here and ask this: What is Christ's mission?


heheehee  ;D  Good one!  :D


If our view of God is not displayed by Him then it is diminished by us.  God reveals Himself sufficiently for our understanding (and even that little confuses us!) in scripture.  If we do not derive that view from there, we are left to view Him from what?  Creation?  Very good spot!  But that spot was always to point us to a more defined and refined revelation - scripture.  No.  We do not "limit" God or His power.  But our view of Him is limited if we fail to see Him in the pages of His word whether we understand everything we see or not.  That more clear?



I agree!  It's not a textbook or a science book.  It's His word.  So do I treat that word as He gives it, or as I understand it?  You mentioned that you were interpreting it.  Many do, and do so incorrectly.  Me too!  The problem with the word "interpretation" is that we give entirely too much credence thereto.  That is, we consider multiple interpretations to His word.  Why?  Because often times, for each of us, it is easier to accomodate our preconceived notions or education.  When we face truth from that word that disagrees with such notions or notations, what do we do with it?  We should bend our beliefs to fit that word, rather than interpret that word to fit our beliefs.


You mean like when I get to Heaven and find that not only are there Baptists there? *L*  If I had a nickel for every time I've thought this same thing, I'd be rich!  Here's a thought though: does this make my time in the word any less profitable?  No!  Why?  Because I search for God's understanding in that word, and in prayer, and in reflection of what I've already learned.  I share those things with other believers who shed more light on such areas, or find that I am the "shedder."  Yes, when we get to Heaven we'll be amazed at just how much we got wrong.  But what a blessing time spent getting those parts we got right can be!


Right!  But how valid a point would be made if that science was bogus?  I know!  We don't agree on the nature of this section, I'm just sayin...


Sorry, I have to disagree here.  The stumbling block isn't the interpretation but the disagreement with the interpretation given within the passage itself.  I would attribute a non-literal approach as a stumbling block that Christ and Paul spoke of in this case.


Nope.  Not gonna agree here!  ;D  With the exception that neither creation nor the bible are God.  But both reveal that God to us: creation, in that there must be a Creator; bible, in that that Creator is more clearly revealed to us.

Fair question, but not an easy one.   I'm sure it has more to do with spreading the Gospel message, doing our best to fullfil the Great Commandments and helping each other than insisting that we agree on the age of the world.

I think so, and I don't think I'd argue with that.

You can't avoid interpreting it though.  Any understanding of it is an interpretation.  Thats the nature of any text - meaning is something text and reader create together - you can't avoid it, so we are all doomed to interpret it with all our human failings.  Maybe that's part of the point.

I guess so - a nice thought in the mean-time anyway.  Thanks for that.  But wouldn't you feel really bad if you're instance on a point about which you had been wrong had driven a friend away from Christ.  Or even a point about which you were right.


I had in mind stuff like Romans 14, BTW.
I'm trying to leave aside our disagreement on how to interpret this chapter, so for the moment I will assume your interpretation is correct and mine wrong.
Let us take a hypothetical friend of mine, we'll call him Alan.  Alan has grown up with little direct Christian influence but a good secular education and has a chemistry degree.  He works in a semi-scientific job - a hospital technician say.  He starts to express an interest in Christianity, and starts asking questions.   If you insist that a literal belief in Genesis is necessary, then he is never going to take Christianity seriously enough to go any further.  If you can lay that aside, and concentrate on the the really important stuff - the Gospel message, and the underlying spiritual message in Genesis, etc, then maybe he can find God.  Whether or not he finally comes around to your interpretation of Genesis is surely of miniscule importance by comparison.  Hardly in the spirit of Romans 14.   Wait until his faith is solid enough, and then engage in a good debate like this - thats another matter.

("Alan", BTW, is not a single real person, but an amalgam of several).)

Agreed absolutely.  What we are arguing about isn't what the bible tells us about the creator - we seem to disagree about that very little if at all, but about what the bible does or does not tell us about creation, and on that score I think creation itself clearer.

I like the way the Orthodox Church in America puts it (I'm not Orthodox, BTW):

 ???
" ... If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HE SHALL give His angels charge concerning thee: and IN HIS HANDS THEY SHALL bear thee up, least AT ANY TIME THOU DASH THY FOOT AGAINST A STONE."

Thy 'WORD IS TRUTH'! How much of it does it take to be included in THE TRUTH? ALL OF IT! Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16.
And about the above verse, quoted to Christ by the 'd'evil himself? (as we see being done over & over again from his 'desired ones' here on earth! see Gen. 4:7) Where did Christ GET the 'Thy Word Is Truth From?

Surely the verses can be found by [REAL MATURE CHRISTIANS] without me including them?

OK: Forum. Now, we will hear from 'someone', and his 'echo' of professed 'love' huh?   :'( :'(

---John

I LOVE YOU JOHN ;D

Huh??John here,


Hello in There......   John where ........??


Blessings,  
Petro

Agreed!  My point, however, is that if the Genesis account has questionable origins, may not the very mission Christ has called us to?  But I digress to former argumentation...


No, but take to the interpretation the context of the passage.  Moreover, view that passage in light of the rest and under the teaching of the Spirit.  And yes, we are all doomed to our human failings.  But it is in those failings that we are made successful.  "Huh?" you might ask.  God's strengths are made perfect in our weaknesses.  If I fail to see or to understand, then I must rely on Him to give me insight on His word.  Not anything or anyone else.  Just Him.  I see alot of interpretation in our world today (in every area not just this) that is geared towards preconceived notions.  We come to the bible with how we think things should be, and if the bible disagrees with our thinking we consider the fault to be with the word or our understanding of the word - not with our thinking.  


Ok.  I'll open another can of worms here.  Can any point of mine, right or wrong, drive someone away from Christ?  


We have an assumption here again.  Were I talking to "Alan" it would be of my Savior and his need of redemption - not the literality of Genesis.  This is a topic that would only arise if Alan were so focused on it, that he may question coming to Christ in the first place.  My response to that would be simply, "Upon what are you willing to place your faith?  Your understanding, or God's?"  If he chose to argue based upon his understanding then he's already proving my point!  We cannot come to Christ with our own agenda.  We do so in faith.  Faith in Him, not in the science, or theology of the Genesis account.  If he struggled with this, I'd point Him to the Savior Who one day could help him with that as well.

As far as the Romans 14 approach...Would I chase Alan away with my correct "opinion" of God's word?  No.  Why?  That is assuming that were he to bring it up, that I would argue it with him!  That is slightly confusing to the issue at hand - coming to Christ.  When someone is coming into a grocery store, they should not bog themselves down with questions of who made the parking lot!  Once the task at hand is accomplished, there is time to consider other aspects.


Again, creation as interpreted by evolution, rather than creation as interpreted by scripture.  I know we'll disagree here, but it is, nonetheless, true.

Ok - I'll make a quick summary of the discussion so far, before the quoting gets out of hand.

We agree on:
1. We agree that the bible is from God
2. We agree that it is reliable in all matters concerning God, and our relationship with God.
3  We agree that creation is also from God, and therefore offers accurate testimony, about God (rather vaguely) and about itself (by definition accurately and precisely).
4. We agree that, whichever is the more accurate account of creation (a literal reading of the genesis, or the "scientific account" combined with less literal reading of genesis) it is of minor importance compared with other aspects of our faith.

We disagree on:
1 Whether to read Genesis (and the rest of scripture) literally or not.
2 (presumably) whether a literal reading of genesis is consistant with what creation tells us about itself.

Unless you have something further to add or question to ask, I don't see that we can go much further on debating point 1 without going in circles, and this is not the place to debate point 2, except to say that I never mentioned evolution.  Evolution is but one small part of science that cannot be reconciled with with a literal reading of such texts.

I hope you can, at least, respect my position as I respect yours.

I like quotes.   ;D  In most cases I agree.  However with 4, the importance factor I disagree with.  I'm not going to go to war with a non-believer over that approach, but I believe it to be of importance to the believer.


True.


I cannot respect a position that is in opposition to God's word.  Can I respect an individual who has an opposing viewpoint?  Absolutely!  Like I mentioned before, I'm sure when I stand before God I'll have some of my beliefs realigned. :)

As for anything else to add?  Only that I hope you can begin to approach God's word without the preconceived notions with which you already do approach His word.  That is my hope for myself in many other areas as well.

*******
Just a Word from the Master in Matt. 28:20 for one to get INSIDE information! (not to stay traveling in circles :'()

"Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER *I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. ..."
And Heb. 13:20's Everlasting Covenant is one of them!!

---John
********

Go on then - explain to my why it's THAT important.

I guess I'll have to settle for that then.  :)

We ALL bring preconcieved ideas to it - we aren't capable of not - the best we can do is acknowledge what they are.

YES!!!!

Brother Love :)