Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is the Bible the Words of God?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So everyone who understands scripture differently than you have been deceived by an evil spirit, even other faithful  members of the church?

Interpreting scripture is a life-long process. The Jews rightly understood there to be different possible interpretations of scripture. In fact traditionally they have four types of interpretation they may apply to scripture. The first is literal, and the last is possible hidden meaning. I believe people interpret scripture differently based upon their level of understanding/intelligence, desire to understand, and seeking of the Lord. Why would God make the scriptures sometimes difficult to understand, full of symbolism, etc? I believe for the same reason as Jesus gave parables - because with understanding comes greater responsibility. Jesus was being merciful because if all understood but did not follow, then they who did not follow would receive greater condemnation. As God says

Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

God tries us according to the level of our understanding. He looks for a godly seed. I read and interpret scripture differently than when I was twelve, although I believe I had guidance by the Holy Spirit then, and saw enough to know the LDS church was true. That doesn't mean all GAs have interpreted the scriptures the same way I do. For instance I do not follow BY's belief that Mary was "married" to God. There are other instances. His belief does not make the principles of the gospel false - it makes him a mortal man who tried to follow the teachings of JS. I am perfectly entitled to the guidance and confirmation of the HS the same as any other member - including church presidents, and I don't accept all things/interpretations as true just because a GA said it.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In other words if the HS confirms another interpretation is true to me, I will follow it, if I deem it necessary. The HS will do the same for others who seek.

Link to comment
On 13 May 2016 at 1:25 PM, Monster said:

Probably not. If you are going to accept the beattitudes, you have to take the genocide, incest and other distasteful things. 

Or you could do what most people have done with the book and leverage the bits that support your preconceived notions of the world and dismiss the ones that don't. 

For example, some people (Mormons included) are quick to leverage the few scriptures that can be used to prohibit homosexual but tend to ignore the instruction to not wear mixed fibred clothing. 

Sometimes people will take a statement said by one person to another as being a statement that applies to everyone (e.g., there was a recent discussion here about how Jesus' statement to Thomas to not doubt was an instruction to all). Thankfully they don't apply it to the whole book... such as the times when God told people to go on an ethnic cleansing campaign. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

So everyone who understands scripture differently than you have been deceived by an evil spirit, even other faithful  members of the church?

Is that really the interpretation of what I said that you came up with?  Do you really think that is what I meant?  Don't you think you could have asked a more open ended question? 

My answer to your question is a definite no.  Not everyone.  But yes some.  And in some cases I would say some simply misunderstand scripture without an evil spirit causing them to misunderstand,  with their misunderstanding caused by them not giving much thought to what the writer of scripture was trying to convey in those words.

Perhaps if you'll read what I said again you'll understand that what I meant is that all that really matters in the end is whether or not you are following the Spirit you want to be following.  The Spirit that helps you to think about things in the way that you want to think about them.  The Spirit that is teaching you what you want to be learning,  and as much about whatever you want to learn as you want to be learning.  That the Spirit you are learning from is capable of helping you learn about the truth of ALL things.   That no good thought is left out as long as you diligently imquire into all the good thoughts you can get from any and all scripture.

An evil spirit will try to take away or reduce how much truth you get out of scripture, so don't settle with anything less than as much as you really want to know and are willing to live by.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

So everyone who understands scripture differently than you have been deceived by an evil spirit, even other faithful  members of the church?

You underestimate the power of culture to govern interpretation of texts, along with rampant biblical illiteracy -- not even taking into account the general lack of knowledge of biblical languages, linguistics, and archeology.  There is in fact a vast gulf between the cultures producing the Bible, and the modern reader of it in translation.

What should truly amaze you is that the LDS interpretation reaches such high levels of agreement.  Might one even posit that the unity of faith comes via the Holy Spirit?  The LDS Church is the Body of Christ, with multifarious limbs and organs, but united and successful as only the true Church can be.

We come finally to the paradox confronted by the late Joseph Campbell in suggesting the unity of symbology and meaning among all mankind.  How is that possible, given the negative and diffuse assumptions made by you?

Link to comment

Well this thread has gotten off track a bit. I really don't want to get into a discussion on how scripture is interpreted. I was more interested in thoughts on how we GOT the scriptures. Where they came from.   Direct from the mouth of God?  Thoughts of men believing they knew or heard the word of God. How much culture of the times wove their way into the scripture by men of their times. We certainly have seen doctrine in this dispensation reflect the culture of the times and had nothing to do with the words from God. There is really no reason to not expect the same thing to have happened in the past. I personally think that many of the doctrines Paul promoted had a lot to do with views on women and other attitudes of the time. 

I apologize  I let some posters lead me completely off track by their comments that really didn't have anything to do with the OP

i really do want to thank those that have expressed their opinions. I did find them interesting and thought provoking. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The Bible is an anthology of narrative stories, poetry, prophecy, legislation, wisdom, epistles, etc., which include the words of Satan as well as the words of God, along with a lot of human commentary on the meaning of God's mighty acts.  It is mediated to us entirely by fallible human means. It is translated into most languages of planet Earth.  Despite this, most people are biblically illiterate.

Hard to argue with anything you have to say there, Robert.

I will just add that in my youth, I imagined that if a person studied the Bible intensively, delving back into the earliest texts, and learned Hebrew and Greek in order to get at it from the original languages, there was some path up this rigorous mountainside where at the top everybody who did this would arrive at some agreed-upon truth as to what the Bible teaches.

What I found was the exact opposite.

The people who study the Bible the most disagree the most widely on what it says.

It is the people who study the Bible the least who have no problem understanding and agreeing on what it says.  ;)

 

Link to comment
On May 13, 2016 at 1:45 PM, california boy said:

Yeah. I decided to use the term 'words' rather than word because I am interested in how those words got into the Bible rather than whether the Bible is the word of God.   I think we have to start from a point that it is the word of God,especially on this board. Can you see how those are two different issues?  Not sure if I am being clear. 

Sadly, so many want to believe that it is not "the words" or "The Word", but it is...most do not want to believe that there are no consequences to choices that are in conflict with "the word" or Christ who is "The Word". There are always consequences to every good choice and every bad choice, otherwise all of scripture is void. All should read 2 Nephi 9-10 (chapters) and find the absolute hope and the absolute horror without Christ and HIS Atonement. There simply is no middle ground where HE and his Sacrafice offer, or deny. I spent a week on an Alaskan cruise...on the first full day, I collapsed again and spent most of the day in the medical facility, again due to my health. The next morning my blood sugar crashed again...but it was a wonderful awaking to the fact that God has allowed me to live as long as I have. Yesterday on the final day of the cruise a man died, I mourned for him and his family, and realized that HE, God knows my days and by HIS Grace they shall not be numbered less than he decides. So in my weakness I have found Him or he has found me...just as the Apostle Paul remarked, "I glory in my weaknesses". I can no longer play at the truth but proclaim it or be condemned. I do not wish to hurt, but rather bear witness of the truth. God grant that we all repent and understand all His words before it is too late! I have not given up on my health, but I have given up on trying to create God in my image, and instead to remember I am made in His, and thy to remake myself as He would have me. As a scripture states in the BoM, "I will give all my sins away to know him". I am not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I have come to like you as a poster and I hope a friend. God bless you "my friend". I will soon fly back to my beloved Atlanta, my kids and grandkids, and hope they are happy to see their "PA PA"...and Nanny of course. :) 

Edited by Pa Pa
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Ahab said:

It could be either of those 2 options or some other thing that caused them to see the same things differently. 

And as an investigator I'd want to know what those same things they saw were, independent of their own assessments of it.

I am also thinking that what they viewed as priority (can't think of another word for it) made a difference in what and how they thought about an event,

Link to comment
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 2:04 AM, california boy said:

I am interested to hear what people's thoughts are on what the Bible actually is.  Do you believe that every chapter, every sentence, every word was put there by God through his prophets.  

Or do you believe the Bible is a collection of opinions by the Bible writers on what they felt like were what God wanted them to write?  If so, how reliable is that?  For example, was Paul just writing a letter to the Ephesians, Corinthians etc on his thoughts on how they should behave and what they should teach.  Or was he the surrogate hand of God writing those letters, dictating the teachings and will of God Himself?  If we found a letter written by Joseph Smith to the saints in Missouri, would we treat it the same way we treat the found letters of Paul?  What point is it just personal opinion and what point is it the word of God.

Or is the Bible just a record of peoples relationship to God as they viewed it in their day.  For example.  recording that the sun stood still in the sky reflected on the peoples understanding of the universe at that time but actually probably never happened.  Where does the myths and customs of the culture stop and the word of God begin.  Certainly we have seen an acknowledgement in modern times where culture was thought to be the word of God, when in fact it was not.  We are only talking about a hundred year period let alone thousands of years.

Are the words of Christ His actual words?  Or did Gospel writers try and convey the message of Christ's teachings and not a recording His actual sermons, parables etc.  

I am sure there are more views on what the Bible is.  Love to hear your thoughts.

By definition, everything in the Bible is by God's design without exception. Those who have authored any of its passages have been in varying degrees inspired by God to write what they did after it naturally passed through each author's own "natural man prism" as it were. To the extent any given passage were of particular importance, God's inspiration overcame each man's skewed prism enough to relay what God wanted written down. Sometimes the inspiration was clear and sometimes vague. Literally every verse balances this inspiration with that particular author's abilities to understand the will of God. And He is just fine with this.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Hard to argue with anything you have to say there, Robert.

I will just add that in my youth, I imagined that if a person studied the Bible intensively, delving back into the earliest texts, and learned Hebrew and Greek in order to get at it from the original languages, there was some path up this rigorous mountainside where at the top everybody who did this would arrive at some agreed-upon truth as to what the Bible teaches.

What I found was the exact opposite.

The people who study the Bible the most disagree the most widely on what it says.

It is the people who study the Bible the least who have no problem understanding and agreeing on what it says.  ;)

My experience is just the opposite.  Indeed, rampant denominationalism does not come to us via experts in Hebrew & Greek, but via the self-absorbed hoi-polloi.  There is broad consensus in biblical studies and Near Eastern archeology, despite the new discoveries which constantly come to the fore, and which make annual professional meetings so scintillating.

The same has been true in the sciences, such as physics, where we find at the end of the day that fundamental facts make it possible for important advances in technology.  There is not chaos, but very specific and useful understanding -- translatable into everything from atom bombs to solid state electronics.

Link to comment

Would ancient Israelites or those in connection to them have ever called it a "bible"? When was the term attributed to the Canon?

I believe the Bible to be a collection of volumes of some history and the author's relationship with and to God. It is not a chronology of purely authentic history and should not be perceived as such. I do not believe it is a testament to the Divine anymore than any other religious text.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think this is called reductio ad absurdum

Hardly. No church or religion has any sort of monopoly on the spirit or greater truth. What would be ridiculous is to claim the spirit is in any way more potent in one's own religion than that of others. If a person ever encounters such a claim then they should run away as fast as possible and never look back.

Link to comment
On 5/14/2016 at 10:59 AM, consiglieri said:

Hard to argue with anything you have to say there, Robert.

I will just add that in my youth, I imagined that if a person studied the Bible intensively, delving back into the earliest texts, and learned Hebrew and Greek in order to get at it from the original languages, there was some path up this rigorous mountainside where at the top everybody who did this would arrive at some agreed-upon truth as to what the Bible teaches.

What I found was the exact opposite.

The people who study the Bible the most disagree the most widely on what it says.

It is the people who study the Bible the least who have no problem understanding and agreeing on what it says.  ;)

 

:PThis is probably why I find the bible so difficult for me to understand.

Link to comment

The Word of God is always spoken so in this sense, the bible is not the word of God and nor is the Book of Mormon for that matter. The iron rod in Lehi's vision is not written scripture; it is much more than that. The iron rod, or the word of God, is more likely Jesus Christ, It is also revelation, and priesthood authority. The bible contains passages that record the words God has spoken, but it is inaccurate in my view to equate the word of God with written scripture as if the two are synonymous. 

The Bible has many books that are not written by prophets. There is no evidence, for example, that the Book of Kings is written by a prophet under inspiration in the same way as Isaiah or D&C 76 is. It is a historical text with great stories with gospel application but there is no evidence it 'the word of God'. Many of the New Testament books were just letters and by modern standards would have been published in the ensign but not included in our cannon. I suspect that the documents that the early saints relied upon as scripture are long gone if they existed at all. 

Link to comment
On 5/14/2016 at 10:56 AM, california boy said:

Well this thread has gotten off track a bit. I really don't want to get into a discussion on how scripture is interpreted. I was more interested in thoughts on how we GOT the scriptures. Where they came from.   Direct from the mouth of God?  Thoughts of men believing they knew or heard the word of God. How much culture of the times wove their way into the scripture by men of their times. We certainly have seen doctrine in this dispensation reflect the culture of the times and had nothing to do with the words from God. There is really no reason to not expect the same thing to have happened in the past. I personally think that many of the doctrines Paul promoted had a lot to do with views on women and other attitudes of the time. 

I apologize  I let some posters lead me completely off track by their comments that really didn't have anything to do with the OP

i really do want to thank those that have expressed their opinions. I did find them interesting and thought provoking. 

You don't owe any apologies.  Your views and questions were thought-provoking and the exchange generated some helpful perspectives.  Not everyone liked some of those perspectives, but they provided useful info anyhow.

Link to comment
On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 6:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

My experience is just the opposite.  Indeed, rampant denominationalism does not come to us via experts in Hebrew & Greek, but via the self-absorbed hoi-polloi.  There is broad consensus in biblical studies and Near Eastern archeology, despite the new discoveries which constantly come to the fore, and which make annual professional meetings so scintillating.

The same has been true in the sciences, such as physics, where we find at the end of the day that fundamental facts make it possible for important advances in technology.  There is not chaos, but very specific and useful understanding -- translatable into everything from atom bombs to solid state electronics.

Maybe I should clarify here, Robert.

I am not referring to the largely secular efforts of higher criticism, where there are distinct majorities on most of the major issues (such as the late addition of the Johanine Comma), or the questionable authenticity of Hebrews, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, for example, as being authored by Paul.

What I am aiming at is more the theological interpretations of the books in the Bible, and more specifically the interpretations by those who see the Bible as an authoritative collection of texts.

Don't know if that makes any difference to you, but I thought I should clarify just the same.  ;)

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Maybe I should clarify here, Robert.

I am not referring to the largely secular efforts of higher criticism, where there are distinct majorities on most of the major issues (such as the late addition of the Johanine Comma), or the questionable authenticity of Hebrews, Ephesians, the pastoral epistles, for example, as being authored by Paul.

What I am aiming at is more the theological interpretations of the books in the Bible, and more specifically the interpretations by those who see the Bible as an authoritative collection of texts.

Don't know if that makes any difference to you, but I thought I should clarify just the same.  ;)

Oh, I agree, and know what you are saying.  But we ought to limit our scorn for wild theological speculation to those who are unqualified to do it.  Most biblical scholars have long since rejected creatio ex nihilo in Genesis 1, for example, just based on the Hebrew grammar and upon direct comparison with other ancient Near Eastern creation stories/rites.  It may be mere coincidence, but, at point after crucial point of this kind, the consensus among non-Mormon biblical scholars matches that of the LDS faith.  It hasn't been working that well for competing faiths.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

:PThis is probably why I find the bible so difficult for me to understand.

At least you are trying, and that is what counts with God... :)

I proffer tho that once you begin to understand the symbolism used by God, it really does help...

Link to comment
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 4:04 AM, california boy said:

I am interested to hear what people's thoughts are on what the Bible actually is...

The following is just my opinion; I'm not claiming anything beyond that - and even my opinion is subject to change without notice.

I don't know the actual process by which the Bible was written, it probably varied somewhat. I think nearly all of it was the best effort of the writer to convey what he witnessed or experienced or otherwise had very good reason to believe was true.

In my opinion it would be a mistake to accord anything “infallible Word of God” status EXCEPT what the Holy Spirit tells you. Anything mortal or produced by mortals is fallible. Including the sentence I just wrote.

Our first line of defense is our common sense. If something that a leader or holy book says doesn't ring true, then it would be a mistake to just automatically accept it. For example if the Bible quotes Jesus as saying that he “came not to bring peace, but a sword”, and that really doesn't sound to you like something he would say, then maybe it isn't. We would be wise to reserve judgment on questionable words like those until we are able to decide whether or not Jesus really did say them (and if so, what he meant), and/or whether or not it matters.

There is a voice inside each of us that speaks truth and our job is to learn how to hear it and recognize the difference between that voice and all our own self-generated internal voices. In addition to listening prayerfully, again we need to use common sense. If an inner voice tells us that we're supposed to have an intimate relationship with our best friend's wife, then no matter how good that idea may feel, we need to listen to our common sense and recognize that that voice is the wrong one!

We are going to make mistakes as we try to learn to hear and follow the voice of the Holy Spirit, and so we ALWAYS need to be willing to make course corrections. But there is a reason why the first thing that happens after you are baptized is, they sit you down and give you the Gift of the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, then He is a more reliable source of truth than any book or any man.

Communion with the Holy Spirit is a lofty goal and not easily reached even in a lifetime, so as we work on our progression, we would do well to learn correct principles that we can apply as needed. Here are a few: “Seek and ye shall find.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “The truth will set you free.” “As [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he.” “The kingdom of God is within you.” These and many other correct principles are found in the Bible, and they are not difficult to recognize.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...