|
|
Post by John on Sept 20, 2009 11:34:38 GMT -5
I expect that this will spark a good debate:
do you believe that the bible is inerrent, the very words of YHVH? are there parts or all of it?
do you think that it records historical events, or do you think it should be interpreted allegorically?
are the mythos like the flood accounts, creation stories, nephilim... are they all literal historical accounts, or are they simply myths used to convey spiritual truths?
i think that none of the bible is inerrent. the bible does have contradictions, parallel traditions, etc. but that doesnt mean it cant be used for doctrine, and teaching spiritual truths.
really, the best thing to explain my view on scripture is an example... so i will use Torah:
the Torah composition has two theories, one of source, and one of form.
source critics say there are four narratives: JEDP...
J is the earliest narrative, mainly consisting of myths that convey spiritual truths. it is called "J" because it knows God as YHVH (in german, Y is J pretty much).
E is the traditions of northern israel, and knows God as Elohim.
P is a preistly source who uses dry lists and expounds on the ten commandments including purity laws and geneologies.
D is a deuteronomist, who expounds on the ten commandments with his own traditions, writing from the viewpoint of mosheh.
there was also a final person called R, the readactor, who combnined all these narratives into Torah.
the problem i have with cource critics on Torah is that they have a slightly unrealistic rheory, and they deny the possibility that any of the traditions could ioriginate during the time of mosheh.
form criticists say that the torah started out as J. then, P (collectively referring to priests and scribes who has access to geneological accounts and laws) did not have a FULL narrative, but just tacked on their own paralllel traditions, adding pretty much all of leviticus and the geneologies in genesis, as well as the paralle accounts of Gne 1 and the second flood account. D added his own traidionts from the viewpoint of mosheh. form criticists leave the possibility of D writing down an actual oral traiditon spoken by mosheh. E added the northern parallel traiditons to J. folk singers added the song of mosheh, the song of mariam, the song of deborah, etc... and eventually, the Torah was born.
now, does this mean the the Torah is false? NO! the fact is that the finger that points to the moon is not the moon. the Torah can point to the truth, but is not the truth itself. and it points to the truth through different techniques: J through myths, P through laws and records and lists, D through oral traditions, folk singers through songs, E through their own yths with the northern flavor to them. etc.
but we must realize that the Torah is part of jewish culture and is written for the culture of that time, with its own traidtions, etc. so the Torah was NOT written for gentiles (though gentiles CAN use it), but for jews. the pauline letters, written for the genitle cutlrure, not the Jews. now, the teachings of Torah are for ALL, and to be followed by all. but the communication is different.
i dont know really how to explain it, so i will answer questions when you ask them. its really hard to concentrate because while i am writing this, i am being confounded by keith on his radioblog. you should listen to it.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by itiswritten on Sept 21, 2009 17:35:41 GMT -5
No doubt that there are different styles throughout the scripture, but I also find a cohesiveness to it as well. I believe that in the "original texts" that it is without error. However because what we have our translations, there are some errors. As diligent as one is in translating from one language to another, there will be things that don't come across the same as in the original.
I believe that the narratives of creation, the flood, etc are reliable historical recordings of what happened. At the same time on deeper levels I believe that they are allegorical, metaphorical, etc.
Just as we have discussed before, there are many levels of interpretation of one passage and they can all be true on their own level. One thing that gives me even great confidence regarding the scriptures, especially the Torah is the ELS or Equidistant letter sequences. To me, there are too many instances of this that it is beyond coincidence.
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Sept 22, 2009 9:00:23 GMT -5
As well as Keith I do believe whole Torah + New Testament as it was written by Matthew, John, Luke, Peter, Paul and his help-writers, to be Word of God recorded into written form.
Like Keith, I believe it to be completely true and literal in the historical accounts, while also having another dimensions, BUT YEAH - IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES - IN HEBREW AND GREEK!!!
That's something why we do need to study Hebrew and Greek. I also believe that Hebrew should be the language of the chosen people that was preserved for the chosen nation from Shem, while God changed languages of other nations in Babel.
So that I believe that it could be Hebrew, the language spoken by angels and the language we'll speak when we go to heaven, even in all the Millenial Messianic Imperium of Yeshua reigning from Jerusalem.
I think we may throw all the bible and source criticism away over our heads.
Protestatistic bible criticism didn't bring any good. it is all an attempt to control God by man - that's impossible!
In fact, denying of Torah and other books - Tanakh - let's say whole Bible - is denying of One True God! Written form, unchanging is the only insurance material mankind have. How else would they divide true Word of God from the false prohecy, from heresies, from mere mysticism? What would Yeshua refer to, not having Torah and prophets?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 22, 2009 14:41:07 GMT -5
i highly disagree with this statement. source criticism is very reliable. you can believ e in source criticism and STILL even believe the traditional view of the bible, with only small amendments to the overall theory. form criticism is also very very reliable.
the fact is that we cannot go by the reformation's doctrine of "sola scriptura"- there is more to God and our relationship with him than just one text. God works just as much power and knowelde through Dan Brown books for me as he does the bible- and thats a lot. prayer and meditation help me center myself towards Him, making my thoughts like Adonai's as best i can (by ridding myself of the Yetzer hara- the ego).
the only doctrine that we really need to accept to be qualified as messianic is found in the writings of Paul (a rabbi, a MAN just like the rabbis who wrote the talmud; in fact Mark is essentially the talmud of christianity and seemed to have been intended as such (oral traditions started by peter and later written by Mark- the other traditions within this was the hypothetical oral document "Q") and the whole of the bible can be seen as the talmud of christianity!):
i believe that the lord died for our sins according to teh scriptures, rose again according to the sctiprues. and then he has peter, paul, yaakov, 500 brethren, etc all witness his resurrection. The central command after believingl this is to Love.
so essentialy, his death and resurrection is all that Paul requires for a believer. and if a man believes that than he loves, and everything else falls under that.
there are certain things in the bible that are just for israel, so i am inclined to believe that there were certain things just for certain people within israel and certain things meant just for people of that time.
ELS is to me personally a load of baloney... but after rethinking it time and time again, i think the only reason i think that initially is because of high possibility of misuse. (see "The Bible Codes" and see how many predictions in those codes failed to come true)
there are a lot of levels to scripture, but i am particularly speaking of the pshat... some things were written as allegory even on the pshat level... like the creation story... (the flood has a high possibility of being true, although stuff like "every animal" and such was probably an exgerattion).
but i do NOT think that this exludes it from being a tool in which we can understand the bible and create our personal halakhah.
shalom
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Sept 23, 2009 7:39:10 GMT -5
Are you kidding? You consider Dan Brown's work similar in the smallest to Tanakh and Brit Chadasha? Well, Da Vinci's code was something that I execrated after I have read it and this was the reason why I had to stick more into Bible and mark for myself anyone who wouldn't accept it as a form of God's speech - as heretics.
Well, if you read Da Vinci's Code, you may see things which you would highly and deeply disagree with. Would you believe and accept that the original doctrine of true Israelites and first messianics/christians was derived from paganic roots - something as practising "sacred sexual act", and other freemasonry practices that Dan Brown propagates through this book?
Would you accept that Yeshua has married Mary Magdalene as the gnostic heresies want us to tell? Well - as for me - NO WAY!
Every sober chasidic Jew or Christian with moral, orthodox feeling would offend on that and would never let it into heart, such thing being against Torah.
As for the other you have written, remember that Yeshua considered every little Yod to be holy and that it may not be moved. Apparently, He did consider it as undeniable Word of God, whole Tanakh.
So be it. As pentecostal/evangelical theology distinguish three levels of God's inspiration to Bible: plenar, verbal and dynamic.
It comprises that everything in the text is inspired by Ruach - Whole scripture, then every word authors used and why was just that word used, and all the culture environment - whether it is hebrew or greek - it is inspired by God and thus it is the Word of God in the original texts.
I admit only maybe one deformation - deformation made by translation to other languages, because other languages have not just the culture required to understand it in original.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 23, 2009 15:04:10 GMT -5
i did not say that i accepted all those things. butGod still speaks to me through the books i read, even if on the surface they are against scripture. the bible records a man raping Tamar- and GOD WORKS THROUGH THAT. if the bible were a movie, it would be rated R. God works through an R rated book! why cant he work through Dan Brown?
this was actually something added by Matthew to stress that Yeshua did not come to abolish the law... Yeshua probably never said those words. but even if he did, i dont think that the scripture is UNHOLY, and i dont think the Torah willl ever be done away with. even if noach's flood was not true history, it is still a holy myth through which God works his grace! all the laws of the Torah weree probably not given by YHVH on the mount- the only laws probably given to Mosheh were the ten sayings/mitzvot/commandments which oral tradition perserved. but this doe snot mean the the laws that P records are unholy- just a way to practice out the ten commands according to their tradition--- and their is nothing wrong with performing those acts now.
so it is not that i am denying that scripture should be used because it is "unrealiable." The fact is that it being written by many different authors and being changed does not mean that it is "unreliable"... God can work through a corrupted text. but we always fall into heresy when we read this corrupted text without the spirit.
you know, we have proof that the bible has changed over the centuries, for ther are more contraditctions in the bible than there are words, although thats counting the minor ones that dont matter. the piont is however, that the bible CANBE and HAS BEEN changed. the original tets may have been "inspired and written by the hand of God." but if we have not the original texts, what good does this statement really do? and if God has not preserved the originals, why would he write them in the first place? the bible is a very human book- although this does not take away from its spiritual value.
well, its good your accepting at least that.
jonotan, i used to believe the eexact same thing as you... but i couldnt deny the evidence. the evidence of the resurrection is what let me keep my faith in AYeshua... to deny evidence is to deny my faith itself. so the evidence says the bible has been changed. i still dont deny that it has spiritual value. it definitely DOES. but i had to assimilate my views to what caused my cognitive disequilibrium- evidence, very overwhelming and very very reliable.
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Sept 23, 2009 19:13:13 GMT -5
John wrote:
Scribal errors don't count as "contradictions" to me, so I'd disagree with this statement.
The Bible hasn't been changed in any spiritually significant way, so it still remains "inspired". I think you're underestimating how intact the Biblical text still remains.
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Sept 24, 2009 7:31:34 GMT -5
But there are UNCHANGED MASORETIC COPIES from Tanakh. Do you think, John that masorets of your Jewish brethren did not copied Tanakh over and over centuries without a fault, copying them and putting any script with one mistake made, into script cemetery?
God looks over His written Word to stay unchanged or at least not changed in the grave matter.
As for greek NT, there is the stuff what traditions are good in. Catholics fiercely, fanatically kept their Vulgata to be dogmatically without change, so the Orthodox Greek had to do with Greek NT.
No one wants to have his own holy scriptures deformed by time.
And masorets? Above anyone, they took care about every yod and tittle, didn't they?
Take it the way that we DO have original scripts - for we have the unchanged copies of original scripts.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 24, 2009 20:12:35 GMT -5
if one man said "son of God" and another accidently said "son of man" than those are contradicting statements. but if you dont see scribal errors as contradictions, than there are more errors in the bible than words.
i think most people overestimate it.
personally, i try not toestimate anything... i just accept that it could have been very polluted and could have remained very intact. honestly, the only major doctrine in the bible that could and was affected by scribal changes was the subject of the divinity of Jesus. everything else that i have seen is pretty minor- the overall message has stayed in tact. but think of all those sermons based on one word in the biblical text, or one passage- and think about the two scriptures that certain doctrines (though not fundamental ones)are based on.
the point is not that the bible cannot be understand as originally intended- that IS possible. i am saying that the bible is not inerrent and that the errors within it prove that. they also prove that it would be illogical to think that the original text was inerrent, as i partially explained in an above post.
but the masorets CHANGED scripture, and did not always keep a clear record- it WAS all for convenience sake, yes, but they still changed it. and they decided which interpretation was correct.
but yes, from the masorets on, the text is very reliable. but before that, the scripture was subject to errors as well.
you have no way to prove that, and the fact that there have been so many changes through the centuries weighs evidence against that.
i never understood why the bible had to be inerrent for it to be used for spiritual truths. i use it for spiritual truths and i dont think it is inerrent.
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Sept 25, 2009 19:13:37 GMT -5
Are you referring to a particular disputed passage? If so, please let me know which verse so I can comment on what I think about this supposed contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 25, 2009 21:13:18 GMT -5
hypothetical- if you want real examples read the thousands of the book on textual criticism. (although there are occurences of this example i am sure- even if by accident).
a well known story that was added: john 7 of the women caught in adultry (or john 8?- cant remember); verses 9-16 in the final chapter of mark. the trinity verse (johanine comma) in john... etc. there is a verse in 1 timothy that is said to say jesus is "god" when it is actually a textual error.
the errors were definitely BY MEN, but the book was also written BY MEN. it is an expression of certain spiritual truths shared by every religion, and the expression is within the jewish culture! in the same way, islam is another expression of these shared truths- now, the shared truths are good, but the way they express them can fall under two paths:
the path of light is the path that brings true happiness outside of ego, and does not do anything that might harm the "you", even if it means sacrificeing the "i"
the path of darkness is submersion into the ego- the "i", and forgetfullness of the "you".
any religion is fine, as long as it points to the truth. there are seeds of darkness within each religion- wars in the name of God (like moeses in the bbile, muhammed in the hadith, etc), but the message is the seed of light. the expression is through ego- since it is trying to reveal the truths of the light to those bound by the ego. ("ego" is a term that i use to consummate the whole of human vanity). but the religions themselves can piont to the unerlining truth... they are the hand, and you are the mind that directs the hand... you can point it to the sun (greater light; path of light) or you can point it to the moon (lesser light; the path of darkness)... but remember that the hand that pionts to the sun is not the sun. the rleigion can at best point to the truth, but is never THE truth itself.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 26, 2009 10:47:53 GMT -5
wow i got off on a real tangent!lol
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Sept 29, 2009 0:06:00 GMT -5
John, I am familiar with textual criticism, but the problem with all of your examples is that we have so many copies of the New Testament that we know when certain errors in copying sprang up. We're not in the dark. And by piecing together the evidence we can be very confident in the accuracy of our modern texts. John, what you are saying here concerns me. First off, what are you basing this theory of 2 paths on? Is this Eckhart Tolle speaking and what did you do with yeshuafreak?  First off, in the biblical outlook, there is nothing wrong with the concept of "I" or individuality. That's an eastern notion. God created us not to merely be absorbed back into his oneness but to each uniquely reflect his glory and to have relationship with us. There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ, and no hope for salvation apart from his physical resurrection. Though there is truth in all religions, all religous paths are neither equal nor able to be "boiled down" to mere commonalities without destroying their integrity. In the Scripture we have everything we need for life and godliness and all Scripture is God breathed (a separate idea than inerrency, but not less important). I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss elements of the Bible as "paths of darkness". |
|
|
|
Post by itiswritten on Sept 29, 2009 13:32:25 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what Anochria said. I've been getting a little concerned about you too John. I feel like you may be getting information that is not balanced. I know practically every time that History channel or A&E does some program on a Bible topic that they nearly always stack the deck with "experts" who disagree with or doubt the particular narrative being focused upon. I also agree that there are things that can be gleaned sometimes from other points of view even Tolle, but all of this needs to be read through a proper Biblical filter. There is a reason why historically Judaism required one to be at least forty before studying Kabbalah. By this time, the student had a strong foundation in the scriptures and could interpret the deeper levels through that solid foundation. Your honesty and dedication in studying should certainly be commended and I hope that you continue your quest. However I would like you to contact or read some "experts" on the other side too. I sent you a link once with some materials by a guy that I know that has done a lot of critical study into the reliability of texts. I wish that you would take another look at his site and maybe even contact him with some of your questions. www.hodsbs.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 29, 2009 14:07:37 GMT -5
i look at both points of view, but the view of errency of the bible makes a whole lt more sense.
i will look at the stuff, but i urge you also to look at the evidence. bart ehrmans misquoting Jesus gives some examples (HOWEVER: bart ehrman is now an athiest, and the conclusions he draws from his evidence are not totally rational. i believe every bit of evidence he presented in misquoting jesus, but i still believe in God.).
i fear that i will recieve rejection from my old church because i am so far from their views. tht shows that i am changing kindof against my will... but the truth is too strong. i cannot resist it, even though it might spoinl my reputation amoung those of the charismatic thread of christianity and MJ.
shalom
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 29, 2009 14:27:44 GMT -5
the didache and the last section of the epistle of barnabas, which is based off of the didache. on top of this, the gospel of John implies two paths often.
this is kindof offensive to me- i may agree with a lot tolle says concerning human nature, the ego, and such, but do not think that i have become a little tolle. i am my own person, though my terminology might change.
sometimes i simply convert the language of the bible into modern language so people not familiar with it can understand. tolle uses some terms that i have adopted but given different meanings too biblically. i pout it through a "biblical filter."
but we DO NOT have the original texts, and cannot construct the orignial texts. Yes the amount of textws make our job MUCH easier, but it does not make it a breeze. and it is impossible to construct the "original text" with absolute surety even with all the evidence we have. and my point is not that the bible cannot be trusted. it is that it is not inerrent. it means that the way we interpret the bible has to change- no matter how attached to your hermeneutical system at the present.
and if the original text was not perserved by God, why in heaven hell and earth would he inspire it in the first place? the traditional view of God does not fit- there are unanswerable questions.
(ie., If we think that God is totally good, and never created evil, and that he is omnipotent, why is there evil in the world when a loving God would definitely change that if he could? the most common option is saying "he is not omnipotent." the other option is simply to change our perspective of good and evil. Evil to god is ... what? exactly. the latter view makes more sense since the first one would deny God's godship. this is just one example, and it even deserves a little more of an explanation.)
this is a whole different topic. i agree completely, but probably in a different way than you.
perhaps you can start a thread.
though i adopt some eastern notions (as they are in the bible anyway, and the eastern terms sare sometimes more presntable to people since whan they hear "Jesus" they flinch.) i do not acept all. we each have something i call a base ego which is needed to survive... we have to care enough aboutourselves to live. this base ego is not going to be needed post-millinium however because each person will care for the other pesron, and no person will NEED to care for themselves simply because someone else is, while you are another person(s).
that has been lifted because the time has come that there has been an increase in knoweldge (da'at). so people who are very young are stuying kabbalah. please do not blame my unorthodox beliefs on kabbalah, which is actually a small part of my spirituality.
i do agree that scripture contains everything we need for life- otherwise it would ot have made it this long.
scrpiture is.. what do you mean by god-breathed?
the bible expresses the seed of light through the seed of darkness since it is speaking to those bound in the darkness. the Torah was made for the sinners (1 tim). The "seed of darkness" does not mean that the truth behind the expression is dark, for it is light, but that if interpreted literallly, the light behind the darkness will be veiled and we will end up living in darkness, not the light, because the light is veiled by the darkness- we are not permeating the veil and digging deeper into the true meaning. now, true darkness is produced not by letters but by sinful, egoistic man.
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 1, 2009 17:42:55 GMT -5
Regarding the "two paths"- obviously I don't have a problem with the basic notion that there is a path of evil and a path of righteousness. It was the extra details that you added that I have potential problems with:
There were instances in the Bible of God commanding someone to kill someone else, so this cannot be a strictly biblical perspective, nor is it a perspective that all religions share.
as I pointed out above, there is nothing inherently wrong with the "I" if by that you mean individuality, autonomy, and unique personality, all of which God endowed us with (contra to eastern philosophy)
I'm sorry that I offended you with the Tolle comment. I was only half-teasing. But I'm sorry. I realize that you form your own perspectives.
I'm not saying we do have the original texts, I am saying that we can have a high degree of confidence in the texts we do have.
You must understand that I see "inerrency" as something different from "inspiration".
What do you make then of Paul's claim that "all Scripture is God-breathed (inspired)"? (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 1, 2009 17:46:57 GMT -5
I don't think this is in any way evidence that the Bible isn't inspired. It is possible to maintain that God is simulatneously omnipotent, good, and not the author of evil. Check out the threads on this subject on my forums: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=suffering |
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 2, 2009 5:53:08 GMT -5
this is simply an example. and you seem to think that nothing contrary to your views is evidence enough to contradict them, (excuse me if i seem a little rude there- couldnt phrase it right).
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 3, 2009 12:36:10 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean. Why do you think that?
|
|
