 |
|
|
|
 The author argues that there are many meanings of the adjective 'biblical.'
November 17th, 2012
10:00 PM ET
My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’
By Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN On "The Daily Show" recently, Jon Stewart grilled Mike Huckabee about a TV ad in which Huckabee urged voters to support “biblical values” at the voting box. When Huckabee said that he supported the “biblical model of marriage,” Stewart shot back that “the biblical model of marriage is polygamy.” And there’s a big problem, Stewart went on, with reducing “biblical values” to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform. It may come as some surprise that as an evangelical Christian, I cheered Stewart on from my living room couch. As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did. I hate seeing my sacred text flattened out, edited down and used as a prop to support a select few political positions and platforms. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter And yet evangelicals have grown so accustomed to talking about the Bible this way that we hardly realize we’re doing it anymore. We talk about “biblical families,” “biblical marriage,” “biblical economics,” “biblical politics,” “biblical values,” “biblical stewardship,” “biblical voting,” “biblical manhood,” “biblical womanhood,” even “biblical dating” to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics - that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them. But the Bible is not a position paper. The Bible is an ancient collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own. When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bible’s cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says. Nowhere is this more evident than in conversations surrounding “biblical womanhood.” CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Growing up in the Bible Belt, I received a lot of mixed messages about the appropriate roles of women in the home, the church and society, each punctuated with the claim that this or that lifestyle represented true “biblical womanhood.” In my faith community, popular women pastors such as Joyce Meyer were considered unbiblical for preaching from the pulpit in violation of the apostle Paul's restriction in 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 ("Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head"). Pastors told wives to submit to their husbands as the apostle Peter instructed in 1 Peter 3:1, but rarely told them to avoid wearing nice jewelry as the apostle instructs them just one sentence later in 1 Peter 3:3. Despite the fact that being single was praised by both Jesus and Paul, I learned early on that marriage and motherhood were my highest callings, and that Proverbs 31 required I keep a home as tidy as June Cleaver's. Opinion: What all those Jesus jokes tell us This didn’t really trouble me until adulthood, when I found myself in a childless egalitarian marriage with a blossoming career and an interest in church leadership and biblical studies. As I wrestled with what it meant to be a woman of faith, I realized that, despite insistent claims that we don’t “pick and choose” from the Bible, any claim to a “biblical” lifestyle requires some serious selectivity. After all, technically speaking, it is “biblical” for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt, “biblical” for a woman to be required to marry her rapist, “biblical” for her to be one of many wives. So why are some Bible passages lifted out and declared “biblical,” while others are explained away or simply ignored? Does the Bible really present a single prescriptive lifestyle for all women? These were the questions that inspired me to take a page from A.J. Jacobs, author of "The Year of Living Biblically", and try true biblical womanhood on for size—literally, no “picking and choosing." This meant, among other things, growing out my hair, making my own clothes, covering my head whenever I prayed, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church (unless I was “prophesying,” of course), calling my husband "master,” even camping out in my front yard during my period to observe the Levitical purity laws that rendered me unclean. During my yearlong experiment, I interviewed a variety of women practicing biblical womanhood in different ways — an Orthodox Jew, an Amish housewife, even a polygamist family - and I combed through every commentary I could find, reexamining the stories of biblical women such as Deborah, Ruth, Hagar, Tamar, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla and Junia. My goal was to playfully challenge this idea that the Bible prescribes a single lifestyle for how to be a woman of faith, and in so doing, playfully challenge our overuse of the term “biblical.” I did this not out of disdain for Scripture, but out of love for it, out of respect for the fact that interpreting and applying the Bible is a messy, imperfect and - at times - frustrating process that requires humility and grace as we wrestle the text together. The fact of the matter is, we all pick and choose. We’re all selective in our interpretation and application of the biblical text. The better question to ask one another is why we pick and choose the way that we do, why we emphasis some passages and not others. This, I believe, will elevate the conversation so that we’re using the Bible, not as a blunt weapon, but as a starting point for dialogue. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rachel Held Evans. soundoff (4,660 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Next »Post a comment
« Previous entryA new challenge for Andy Stanley
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Editor's Note: Rachel Held Evans is a 
The authors' confusion is evident that her mind wanders often and she does not want instruction in matters, but seeks more to align her views with worldly thinking than pleasing her creator. One cannot do both.
I would say that it's more that she's figured out that the bible and religion in general is bull but like a child with a security blanket, she doesn't want to believe what she's figured out (like the child not wanting to believe that they've outgrown the blankie) and is desperately trying to rationalize clinging to her faith when the best thing she could do is free herself from what she deep down inside knows is untrue and silly ancient myths.
@ AJD -
I think you've hit the nail on the head. But, I'd suggest she get an actual education on the subject, so that instead of going the uneducated way you suggest, she can learn the Bible is true and reliable... so she puts her trust back into what it explains.
You mean so she can continue to be confused by all the contradictions and logical fallacies of this supposedly "divinely inspired" book written by people with no concept of simple things like the chlorophyll in plants that make them green? No, she'd be better off casting that rubbish aside and living in reality and using her time to learn about things that actually are real and matter.
Contradictions and logical fallacies? You've peaked my interest...
If your interest has "peaked" , it's all downhill from here.
@ midwest rail -
Probably true. I've been interacting a bit here over the past day, and I've only had ONE atheist/skeptic show a glimpse of knowledge on the subject-matter we were discussing (which happened to be biology). Otherwise, it has been ignoramus-central. I guess I should have expected this on CNN 'belief' blogs, but sheesh!
Steve – I was simply making word play about "piqued" vs "peaked". As to the article, men and women have been arguing the correct interpretation of this passage or that since day one. What I find more valuable as a lesson is what people really DO.
Heh, you got me on that one!
Oh certainly. The Bible is not as clear on every possible topic as some would like, and there is certainly disagreement about various passages or points. However, the problem with this article is that Rachel indicates one thing in her self-description (being an evangelical with high regard for Scripture), but then does another (acts as if not to be taken too seriously, must be full of errors and issues, etc.). Which is it Rachel? Because, ultimately, what you believe DRIVES what you do.
The Stone despised by the builders has become the CORNERSTONE! (Psalms 118/22)
So if/when we read the Bible in the light of this CORNERSTONE now,
only then we will see everything clearly here:
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNFICENT MIRACLES
Ho hum. Another one that is the only one to figure things out.
We cannot say there is 'No evidence' for jesus, thats inaccurate. One can say there is incredibly little evidence for Jesus.
However, even among that miniscule fragmentary after-the-fact evidence for jesus that does exist, it is fair to say there is NO evidence whatsoever for a DIVINE jesus. There may well have been a mad scholar wandering around Judeah in the reign of Augustus caesar, who was eventually nailed to a cross. It would be unsurprising, that happened all the time. But was he anything more than another lunatic, perhaps with a bit nicer a message than most? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that.
'Jesus' was an extremely common name in those years...so there's as much 'evidence' as there is none.
Fact is that figures like jesus and mohammed prevent any discussion about the utterly nonsense they represent.
It's also 'proven' god has a penis, which is a huge fact without having any evidence about the guy himself.
All 'it' does however is make me wonder...why?...after all he created mankind after his own image and Eve was still in the pipeline.
Yes...the "Son of God" Jesus is equivalent to the Abraham Lincoln vampire killer idea. No matter how much evidence we have about Abe the man there isn't any reason or evidence to believe he was an early version of Buffy. No amount of textual accounts is evidence for the divine or miraculous. That the Bible depicts actual places or people isn't surprising...people and places actually exist...but stories about magical or supernatural events are just that...fanciful stories.
One thing I never understood was how the Bible is used as a support for Pro Life arguments. In the bible, God placed many genocidal kill orders that included women (pregnant or not) and children. (In addition he ordered virgins to be spared and taken as war booty) In Egypt he even sent an angel to slaughter firstborn children.........babies and all. How in the hell is the bible a good support for Pro Life folks?
I'm pro life myself......
Because what most Christians know about the bible does not come from them actually reading it themselves but from what they've been told it says through cherry picked verses here and there. Few people have actually read it cover to cover as you would any other work of literature. If more people did, there would probably be a lot more atheists lol. You are exactly right...god condoned the killing of women and children in the bible, quite frequently actually. But these same people you speak of are also the ones that will say they're "pro-life" but then be pro death penalty (though I'm not against the death penalty myself in certain cases) and usually are all ready to go to war, don't support programs that help these children once they are born, etc. I tend to call those people "pro-birth" and not "pro-life." The truth is, if god really is in control of everything, if nothing happens that's not his will, if he is all powerful...then he is the most prolific abortionist in the history of the world because around 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage...a natural abortion as it is termed...if he's truly all powerful he could have stopped it...but he did not....or you could go further and say that perhaps he even caused it if everything happens according to his "will." Religious people don't like that when I bring that up, but it's just the way the dots come together when you connect them.
YHWH is the being who drives all beings. Proof is for the knowing of things. Being requires no proof at all, and proof does not add to or subtract from a being. Being simply is. YHWH is the primal and ultimate being. We know of his significance through his words. By his word all things come into being, by his word he makes himself known, and by his word he became flesh in the glorious person of Yeshua, the Messiah King of the Jews.
On the contrary.....if you assert that something exists, the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove its existence, not on others to disprove it. This is the kind of crazy brainwashed prattle that I detest the most.
YHWH and his Canaanite goddess Ashera. Do you even know the history of where these names came from?
You are mixing concepts. Proof (or rather, evidence: proof is a terribly misused word) is necessary to establish Being. 'Being' may be or it may not be, but you have no evidence of this 'being' simply your personal belief based on what you have been taught by similarily deluded elders. Lacking evidence, you try and claim evidence does not matter. That simply shows your mind is small and shallow.
Well said, Gaunt. That's what really gets me. Religious people say things like "I don't have to have proof, I believe it's true and that's enough for me." Well ok, that's fine for YOU....but the problem is they extend that to mean that it should be enough for everyone else to believe as well and if we don't accept that and believe as they do, if we ask for more evidence then we're "evil" or "oppressing them" or whatever. If YOU want to believe in something with absolutely ZERO evidence whatsoever that it's true or that it exists and risk looking like an idiot, that's fine, that's your right.....but don't expect me to do the same!
Once heard Desmond Tutu make the remark that our God "is the isness of is". That to me says it all...
"King of the Jews."
There is no such a "thing" as a "king" or "jews" neither....just like I said, it's ALL politics based on hear-say and hypocrisy.
You're making claims out of an absolute vacuum.
It's a pretty well known fact that all the books of the Bible were written in the Greek and Hebrew languages, and that the translation into other languages was not an easy task. Many passages were not literally translated, but translated to the translators best efforts, and sometimes to reflect the morals of the day. The term "poetic license" comes to mind.
Sorry, by far the most disgusting article I have ever read. You are wasting your life on something that you stated yourself as being "poetry, stories, laws" that were written a thousand some odd years ago when life in all aspects was very different. We no longer all herd sheep, wear little thin sandals while walking in a desert, wear long robes, and eat flattened bread every night for dinner. Times have changed and along with it just about EVERYTHING in our daily life since these "stories, poetry, laws" were written. Calling your husband "Master" is just plain disturbing. All the Bible does is spill out a bunch of things you should and should not do. But never has a single logical reason why. All you need to do in life is enjoy it and raise a generation that will be beneficial to the planet. There is NOTHING that is going to benefit your life greater then any other by covering your head, growing out your hair, or sleeping in a tent in your front lawn because your uterus is shedding its lining for crying out loud! People that do things like this are weak and very single minded. What if a natural disaster ever happens??? Just going to sit there and pray to god for everything to be better? Starve in the process? Survival of the fittest.... and smartest I guess in this case.
Had I lived in that time I would have welcomed spending a week away from the rest of the family during menses. Sure must have been hard work doing everything a woman was expected to do back in those days & without the benefit of our technology. Some Native Americans have a tradition of the Moon Lodge where a woman in her menses or who has just given birth stays and is looked after by other women until the bleeding is over. The difference is it is not looked upon as dirty and keeping away from everyone but as a retreat & rejuvenation process for the woman. How can you be expected to care for so many when you are not cared for yourself? As for calling a man Master – I'd only walk 2 ft behind one to kick him if he wanted me to call him that lol.
There was a time when SOME of these "rules" may have been practical or had a logical reason for them in that time period (for example, the rules against eating certain animals could easily be explained by diseases that were not understood then that were commonly acquired by people that ate them.) Other rules were obviously nothing more than to subjugate women in a patriarchal society. The laws such as not having intercourse during a woman's period and for seven days after that is obviously because at that point is when a woman is most fertile and most likely to get pregnant and in those times of high mortality and in the interest of being a strong "nation" (i.e. more people to fight and gain power) it made sense...just not for the reasons that people thought it did, i.e. because "god" said. There are a few stories in the bible that do have some practical lessons that are good even today....but that's also true for Aesop's fables, yet no one believes they're real. They just take the good lessons from them and leave it at that.
We no longer need a flawed, ridiculous, inconsistant and contradictory text of ancient myths/fairy tales told by people with no concept of science written thousands of years ago. It astounds me that people easily accept that the myths of Ancient Greece and Rome are just that...myths...and that those gods have no reality or substance, yet people still desperately cling to Christianity (or any other religion) today. It's so much simpler just to live by one simple rule...to treat others as you would like to be treated. That's it. It's the only rule I've ever needed and it serves me quite well. This world will not know real peace and we never live up to our true potential until we cast aside the beliefs in myth and blind obedience and faith in them. As an atheist I have been told by religious people among other things that I must have a "void" in my life/heart to not believe in God. That is the furthest from the truth. I am far happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. On the contrary, I feel that there must be a void in the lives of religious people to feel that they need to force themselves to keep believing in these silly myths in order to have a reason to do good things and be good people...that it's not enough for them to be "good" for the sake of goodness, for the sake of our society and our world....that they must believe that there is to be some great reward for themselves or some great punishment after death in order to motivate them to be good. This author in my opinion deep inside is questioning her faith but like a security blanket to a child does not want to get rid of it and is looking for any explanation she can come up with to hold onto it even in the face of the reality that the text that faith is based upon is highly flawed and frankly quite silly.
And you don't think nations are silly?
I don't see any difference between obeying gods or founding daddies, it all depends on what's being claimed to be true first.
In other words; Politics=religion.
I think that's a bit off topic and a whole different discussion for another day, Evert.
<3
Same planet, same topic...it's only a tad "off" when hypocrisy takes over.
What gives you (and a "few" others) the right to claim a huge part of it (and everything that comes along with it)?...to claim the potentially available brain-space of youngsters?
".....if you assert that something exists, the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove its existence, not on others to disprove it. This is the kind of crazy brainwashed prattle that I detest the most."
So where does the us of a fit?
Evert....you're getting no where....mostly because no one understands wth you're talking about. If you want to talk politics, go somewhere where the topic is politics. This story isn't it. Honestly, reading the other things you're written here, I can't help but think that perhaps you skipped a dose of some prescribed meds.
What does it mean to be Christian, if not what is spelled out in Luke 10:27? From the New International Version (1984):
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
Unfortunately, it is much easier to put down on paper than it is to live.
"....mostly because no one understands wth you're talking about"
And still you don't see any common place here and there?
That figures.
Religion=politics (as is most other 'topic').
It's a fact that one can 'only' observe nations when all others believe in it....especially those outside of the imaginary border.
The godly versions do exactly the same thing.
It's up to you to make sense out of it and that's not the same as telling me I'm the one who's off topic a/o not understood.
**&- – really don't make things real.
Too funny, as if anybody can "be" the utterly nonsense washed on the brains?..in that respect not even "Americans" exist despite the founding daddies, stars, stripes and all.
I find it interesting that the prohibitionists, during prohibition, tried to alter the Bible to exclude any reference to alcoholic beverages such as wine. I wonder how many times in the last two thousand years one group or another was successful in their attempts to alter the Bible. Kind of makes me wonder what was written two thousand years ago compared to what the Bible says now. Hmmm.
Each time a new scroll is found in the Middle East, it is translated to see what it says. When some are found to be ancient books of the Bible, they are then tested to see how old they really are (based on the language, style of writing, paper or other material, etc.), then cross-referenced with the same books and scrolls. If it does turn out to be older than what has been previously discovered, better, more accurate translations can be made. Keep in mind new Bibles are published everyday. Corrections, revisions, etc. can be made with new information.
To echo what Jay said, this is exactly why finding things like the Dead Sea scrolls is so important. That text has been carbon dated to 33 CE, plus or minus 200 years. Folks studying these texts are able to tell if changes have crept into the Hebrew Bible, and make recommendations/corrections accordingly.
I hate it when Islamists are so koranical.
I born and breed in the United States this country was founded on freedom of religion you people and any other person can't stop me and the bible is the truth and way Jesus is the messiah and my god is the same as Alabama Genesis 12:1-5
Actually, our government is separate from religion by deliberate intent. This separation protects people of all religions as well as atheists from being persecuted for their beliefs. It is one of the great cornerstones of our freedom. This country would be diminished, if not destroyed, if we ever lost our freedom of - and from - religion.
To the comment below: it protects from persecution? What country are you living in?
Do you realize how much Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. are persecuted for their faith on a daily basis from the general public, mainstream media and social elite?
Nate,
Please do Alabama a favor and don't breed anymore. They obviously aren't able to properly educate the ones they have.
Nate. Punctuation is your friend. Learn to use it. Your third-grade writing skills are right in line with your foolish religious beliefs. Too much bible time, not enough textbook time. Pity.
jkeller; The First Amendment seperation of church and state is a result of the Church of England persecuting Cathoilics and members of other religions who didn't follow the Church of England started by Henry the VIII. Persecution was very real in the 1700s when the First Amendment was written. This is exactly why the First Amendment was written the way it was. In addition, any persecution you speak of is not perpetrated by the government, but by individuals. Your arguement in invalid.
What an embarrassment to the U.S.
Nate is an embarrasment to our educational system. How is he able to use a computer?
Ever realized countries are made up too?
Ummm where did this lady attend seminary? Oh the postmodern school of exegesis. Lol she's been reading to much of Bart erhman s books lol...
Sadly most of the Christina Universities are being taken over by post modernists.
An interesting dilemma for Christianity. Either don't stay current and risk quick irrelevance, or update the "word of god" and risk the backlash of it. So far Christianity has been changing the word of god to stay relevant, but now it is dying even faster. Now that we're nearing the end of Christianity, which way will they turn? My bet is follow the money. The will, as they have, continue to bend the "word of god" as much as needed to bring in believers and keep the coffers filled.
There is no more evidence for Jesus than Santa Claus, and no evidence for the magical evidence for either one.
While people stop believing in the magical acts of Santa as children, some adults believe in the magical acts of Jesus ( I believed in the magic until my 20's).
I think we should just fully combine the Santa magic with the Jesus magic.
Here is the basic idea of Santa-Jesus-mas:
- Jesus and Santa deliver presents to children on Dec 25
- Jesus was born in the stable where Rudolph and the other reindeer's were kept
- ...
you get the idea
No evidence for Jesus? Read Josephus, if you'd like to get some evidence outside the bible. Do your research before making such a claim. People were writing about Jesus just decades after he died and we still have the writings for that.
Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. He makes only one va.gue mention of a man named Jesus. There was a second quote, but that one was believed to have been added in the fourth century. To put it plainly, Josephus is not a reliable witness.
Really. A man who was born just a few years after Christ died therefore holds no credibility in mentioning him; not to mention the dozens of people who wrote about him just decades after? Including those who knew the disciples personally?
Not one single credible eyewitness. Not one. And if there were, we know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially when that testimony is from a zealot testifying on his obsession. Religious people are known to substitute emotional conviction for fact. Dishonesty abounds within religious ranks, even as they wag their fingers at others' "sins".
One cannot say there is 'No evidence' for jesus, thats inaccurate. One can say there is incredibly little evidence for Jesus.
However, even among that miniscule fragmentary after-the-fact evidence for jesus that does exist, it is fair to say there is NO evidence whatsoever for a DIVINE jesus. There may well have been a mad scholar wandering around Judeah in the reign of Augustus caesar, who was eventually nailed to a cross. It would be unsurprising, that happened all the time. But was he anything more than another lunatic, perhaps with a bit nicer a message than most? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that.
I believe those who suggest evidence of Jesus' existence are missing the point. There may be evidence that a man Jesus existed but not that a 'savior,' 'son of god' Jesus existed.
You know, to argue that Jesus didn't live is a bit silly. How do we know he lived? Well, the same way we know George Washington lived: people wrote about him. Now, you can argue if you like that what they wrote about him is inaccurate or flawed in some way, but I think there's ample evidence that a man named Jesus lived. I mean, if Josephus doesn't provide help, open up a Koran and you'll find references to the man.
Now, as to "was he anything more than another lunatic, perhaps with a bit nicer a message than most? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that.", I would point out that those who spread the word about what this lunatic said and what happened after he died, those people were not treated very kindly. In fact, look at how they ended up; why would anyone go through what they did? You can argue for mass insanity, but I have to wonder if there wasn't more going on. It sure appears that their convictions with regard to what happened to this man Jesus is fairly solid.
And as an aside, there is one character in the New Testament that repeatedly ticks off the religious people of the day, so much so that he ends up on a cross. The support of religiosity does not appear to have even been on his "to do" list. So to those people that have a problem with the politics of the "religious right", I'm with you, but don't confuse things and make that out to be a problem with Christ, because they're not the same thing...
the discrepancy is most don't identify if they're speaking of "some dude named jesus" or "jesus, son of god". Between those 2 there'd be myriad arguments, just as there are among religious folks who disagree how literally to adhere to scripture.
"As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did"
Right, the inspired word of God. With 300,000 errors great and small. And over 20 different versions around. Which one pray tell is the actual inspired word? The NIV? The KJV, ESV? GNT? or any of the others? How do you know which one? What about the earliest versions dating back to 200 AD that don't have anything after Mark 16:8? Where twelve verses were added hundreds of years later? A book filled with hundreds of contradictions and inconsistencies written by pre scientific Iron Age men. Not a god.
Anyone who really knows the history of the book itself will have MAJOR issues with its "inspired" nature.
Wow, 300,000 errors? And 20 versions? Looks like someone didn't do ANY research and decided to make blanket statements for the sheer fun of it! Typical CNN comments!
The Catholic Church compiled the canon of Scripture – so, I would say the Latin Vulgate would be the best translation. Anything from the Protestant side is an incomplete Bible, so I would stay away from that. Enjoy!
Well, one thing if for certain. The bible is chock full of contradictions. If it is the word of god, then your god must be schizophrenic.
There really aren't contradictions
Having said that, it would take quite a while to explain why – because I understand where you're coming from. The "contradictions" seem rather apparent, yes.
If you want to talk about schizophrenia, you can bring up the example about all the Christian denominations that claim the Holy Spirit inspires them to interpret Scripture. And yet, there are thousands of them that can't agree on simple doctrines of the faith. I find it rather humorous.
Not humorous at all. Rather pitiful to me.
jkeller,
Tis not I who claim these things, but Bible scholars who know much more than you or I ever will. And do you really think there is only one version of the Bible? Surely not. Just google "bible versions" and you will become much more informed.
1) God is satisfied with his works – Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works. – Gen 6:6
2) God dwells in chosen temples – 2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples – Acts 7:48
3) God dwells in light – Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness – 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4) God is seen and heard – Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard – John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5) God is tired and rests – Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests – Is 40:28
The traditional Jewish view on modern "Biblical" law flows from Deuteronomy 17, which states that you should follow the judges and priests in charge at your time period.
The Rabbis interpreted this as saying that the Rabbis could never vote incorrectly. Therefore, if today's Rabbis vote that women can now wear pants, then it is "Biblical" (correct) for women to wear pants. If electricity is declared like fire, then it is forbidden on the Sabbath almost as if God himself said so.
I personally have trouble with the inherent subjectivity of this system, especially when I seriously disagree with their opinions. But the argument is constructed so that it is difficult to argue against.
Being biblical means making a virtue out of not thinking.
The bible is incomplete. By the decision of man not all the writings of the history of Jesus are included in the bible. To fully understand this history all writings that can be found regarding the history of Jesus should be read. If this were done, we would have a totally different view of the bible's meaning, especially regarding the history of Jesus.
it's time to move on anyway
Secular philosophy provides better reason and basis than "god says.. or, do as I say" da da da
If that is your state of being, then It would be best that you return to the animal world as a dog, as humans have a sentient Spirit within the biological body. In a lab. it has been proven there is about 20 years between death and your next life that your spirit is in symbiosis in a body, and unfortunately, is at the mercy of the stupidity of its consciousness that it must put up with in all future lives as integrated memory. The Spirit contains only material memory unless you enter the Divine Realm for an Objective conversation. And, obviously not for you. As at the beginning of this civilization there were no mortals, only Immortals who experienced a Living and Objective Contact. Good luck, perhaps you will come back as my poodle.
woo hoo hoo, lol, barbara I have got to see your source for this garbage... I can't type, I'm laughing so hard.
,,,an adult commentary on people's simplistic view of the Bible. Well written.
Agreed. A good message for the church today.
Dear sister Evans
I rejoice in your seeming devotion to the Word and your recounted attempts in search of the truth behind the Bible's teachings. There is an accent of genuineness in your text that appealed to my Spirit in compassion. So hoping that I'm not mistaken as I typically refrain from secular communication venues as such, I wanted to humbly offer a hint of light.
Please reconsider that the Bible ("the inspired word of God" as you yourself know and write it) can never be cacophonic for that would suggest that our God is inconsistent or imperfect – leading us into blasphemy. Instead, may I suggest that you reach out to the Spirit of God which should be in you (if you are truly saved by Jesus' blood and born again as a new creation in Christ (John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17)) and understand that the Bible's separation of OT and NT should not be underestimated; mainly because Jesus in establishing the New Covenant of God with the world in the New Testament is essential for the quest that you are on or the doubts which your writing imply.
So without being too wordy, I simply wish to submit to you that things like animal sacrifices, incest, polygamy, war and The Law which mark the Old Testament were all part of God's Plan to show us that 1) left to our own methods in this world which is under Satan's ruleship, we are constantly in sin with no exits 2) we cannot depart from sin or evil on our own 3) we needed a Savior who would provide a means/pathway for our reconciliation back to God (so HE made the ultimate sacrifice through Jesus for that purpose) (Gal 3:10-25) and 4) in order for us to move pass sin we must come to Christ by accepting Him as Lord and Savior and walking along His path (the New Covenant).
Note that the OT is so much more than this to a Christian's life as it truly explains our story (humanity) and provides all the knowledge for us to understand ourselves, understand the nature of our God and what he wants from us (love, faith and obedience essentially). However, I believe that this can be a good foundation for the next step in your search (that is if indeed you still have the fire of the Spirit in you); because I am sure that you will quickly realize that there are no errors only tests of [our] faith. Therefore I pray Miss Evans that you will put down the pen, go back to your first love and let the Spirit of Jesus bless your heart with the answers you need. You do this by opening your heart in prayer for discernment BEFORE you open your Bible and take the time to meditate on your reading BEFORE you speak to your pastor or pick up a commentary or Bible study manual.
We truly wish you a blessed walk forward in Christ!
Patrick
Don't confuse that story book with the teachings of Christ, it's insulting...
Patrick, in short I am sympathetic to what you wrote to Ms. Evans. However, you did not mention anything related to her main point. Her main point seemed to be that regardless of our understanding of the differences between OT and NT, we all tend to over emphasize certain passages and under emphasize others. I suspect that had she focused solely on the NT, she would have shown similar challenges to the phrase "living biblically."
As an ordained chaplain, I get a little confused by people's use of the word "biblical." Like Ms. Evans, I can usually come up with some Bible verse which points out a person's error in thought, which they normally just brush aside.
Christopher