Scripture - Its Use And Abuse

PeaceLikeaRiver said:
The use of scripture can be a divisive thing amongst Christians. Because of all the denominations of churches in Christianity, it is obvious that many people interpret the Bible in different ways. Some of the differences between denominations seem minor, and others seem like outright heresy to others.

Why is this a problem? Well, because the texts of the Bible have been used to support slavery, racism (example –the KKK), and the killing of others. So many people pluck out a single verse of the Bible, or multiple verses, that appear to support their views and their actions without regard for context. Certainly, the Bible doesn't support this, so doesn’t it all boil down to interpretation? Sure, we can say that they are wrong based on consistency in the Scriptures, but what about the interpretations that can't be proven wrong?

Also, what about when the Bible is silent? Firstly, I don't believe that all obtainable knowledge is found in the Bible. If we didn't look outside the Bible, we would be making statements like “insects have four legs” and “bats are birds”. God gave us intelligence and common sense for a reason, so we can use that instead when we cannot find lessons in the Bible about a particular subject. Also, there are convictions that God puts on some hearts that He doesn't put on others. This means that outside the Bible, we do have unique and individual commands from God.

If the Bible says nothing about a subject, does that mean it is opposed? Certainly not! If that were the case then we wouldn't be driving cars, using computers, using phones or doing anything that's been created since the last book of the Bible was written. Yet people continually look for Biblical justification about things, find nothing, and ask odd questions like, “Where does it say in the Bible that we should be doing X?” We cannot and should not be assuming disapproval when the Bible is silent.

All of this isn't to say that the Bible isn't the most important collection of books ever written or that God doesn't speak to us through it. I have had many experiences where something is revealed to me through the Bible almost immediately after praying, but we don't worship the Bible - we worship Christ Jesus. I would trust Him to guide me right even if we didn't have the Bible, because He is perfectly capable of it.
Click to expand...
I like to think of the times when there was no bible. What knowledge did Adam pass down to his kids? I safely assume it was 'do not sin, God hates it. He removes you from His presence'. Then Cain to his, ''if you sin, run like hell''.

The need to pen the bible (I stand to be corrected) came with the Jews. God chose Abraham. God chose Jacob. God chose Moses. Moses gave the laws to the Jews. The Jews strived to live by the laws. NOT the Chinese. Not the Japanese. Not the Indians. When Jonah went to Nineveh, did he tell them to honor the Sabbath? He told them to do exactly what Adam and Eve would have told their kids...'God hates sin. Do not sin. Stop it, repent'.

So, the Jews were extra 'blessed / cursed' to have 'more' of God's laws. How much more us? Sure the bible does not cover everything, but clearly what it does cover cannot be ignored in the slightest, as God does not lie or waste His time giving ants His commands. Now if we confuse what He has given us with 'clear' precedents like ''God hates sin / evil'' or ''God is good'' .....how mad are we?

The precedents known of God before scripture and those stated in scripture create an acid test that every interpretation of scripture needs to pass. God is good. God hates sin. God is no respecter of persons. God is merciful. Every example you mention, (support slavery, racism (example –the KKK), and the killing of others) fails and therefore there is definitely context missing.
 
Big Moose said:
I think much of the problem is in everyone wants the last word. I have run in to this often in making a comment which has a conclusion to the discussion, but someone continues to jump in basically to disagree with you, as if the first 20 such comments from that person were not enough.
I think we all could do better if we were aware of this childish behavior of always needing to counter to have the last word.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is childish behaviour. I think it is that many have never been taught HOW to debate correctly or to critically think and question things.

This comes down to lack of education in communication. Often our style of communication, especially in arguments, comes directly from how our parents did it.

Add to that if you are passionate, you tend to jump onto words faster than if you first drafted out what you want to say.
 
from an online article

In the Catholic Church, the Bible is the Douay Bible consisting of 73 books.
In the Protestant church only the 66 books that were approved by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 are in what is known as the Authorized King James Bible.

Though there is no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the complete Bible in scripture, there are over 20 books mentioned in the Bible, but not found there. This is proof that many have been removed and there is evidence that many more fell under the same fate.

In 1534 Martin Luther published his first Bible. In that Bible he separated the Scriptures of the Apocrypha from the Old Testament and placed them in a section that he titled "Apocrypha". Regardless of his reasons, he was the first to do this.

The first group to produce a Bible *without* the Scriptures of the Apocrypha (as far as anyone knows) were the Puritans in the 1590s. (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). The Puritans, unlike other Protestant sects of the day, believed that those Scriptures **should not** be included in The Bible.
 
Big Moose said:
Too many people bring their viewpoint into what the scripture says. They will twist it so their view is supported, instead of taking the scripture for what it says, find other scripture on the same issue to refine the meaning, pray about it and then read it all again until the message is understood. Those who research and study and can find scripture on a range of topics are the ones you should listen to and at least check their quotations for validity. Also, if you cannot find scripture to refute someone you disagree with, then maybe you should back off the debate. This temperament would do us all well to not be quick to disagree.
Click to expand...

Well said Moose! I agree !

All I see lately is "I think"....."I believe"......" don't think God meant". Nonsence!

We all have thoughts and opinion but when it comes to Bible doctrine or morality, what God says is the way it is and if we do not fall into line with God then we are wrong!

Example: When you play the game of Monopoly, whose rules do you play by. Yours or Parker Brothers?

This is the key to this discussion as it is most all of them. When someone does not like what God said and it does not agree with what their pre-conceived notion is......then they attack with their opinion instead of the Bible so as to affect the others who do not share that persons opinion.
 
Glomung said:
from an online article

In the Catholic Church, the Bible is the Douay Bible consisting of 73 books.
In the Protestant church only the 66 books that were approved by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 are in what is known as the Authorized King James Bible.

Though there is no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the complete Bible in scripture, there are over 20 books mentioned in the Bible, but not found there. This is proof that many have been removed and there is evidence that many more fell under the same fate.

In 1534 Martin Luther published his first Bible. In that Bible he separated the Scriptures of the Apocrypha from the Old Testament and placed them in a section that he titled "Apocrypha". Regardless of his reasons, he was the first to do this.

The first group to produce a Bible *without* the Scriptures of the Apocrypha (as far as anyone knows) were the Puritans in the 1590s. (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). The Puritans, unlike other Protestant sects of the day, believed that those Scriptures **should not** be included in The Bible.
Click to expand...

Glomung:
And when anyone reads those books left out of the KJV it becomes immediately clear why they were excluded. Those books directly oppose the Bible and are profoundly erroneous. The contradict the Bible and are in fact occultic in nature.
 
Dave Lucas said:
I don't think it is childish behaviour. I think it is that many have never been taught HOW to debate correctly or to critically think and question things.

This comes down to lack of education in communication. Often our style of communication, especially in arguments, comes directly from how our parents did it.

Add to that if you are passionate, you tend to jump onto words faster than if you first drafted out what you want to say.
Click to expand...

Emotions tend to take over!
 
Major said:
Glomung:
And when anyone reads those books left out of the KJV it becomes immediately clear why they were excluded. Those books directly oppose the Bible and are profoundly erroneous. The contradict the Bible and are in fact occultic in nature.
Click to expand...

Major, which books are you talking about? Maccabees? Esdras?
We are not talking about the books of Enoch or Hermas, which were never part of the official Apocrypha.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
73.
Click to expand...

And maybe that is the reason behind some of your thinking. I do not mean that in a nasty way at all just an observation that you have already posted.

Apocryphal books are never quoted in the New Testament. Although these writings existed in the first century, and likely were (by this time) incorporated into the Septuagint, they never were quoted or explicitly cited by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. Such a fact truly is significant when one realizes that the New Testament writers quote from, or allude to, the Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha) approximately 1,000 times. In all, thirty-five of the thirty-nine Old Testament books are referred to in the New Testament.

No apocryphal book actually claims to be inspired by God. In fact, some either disclaim it, or reveal evidence of errancy. Several historical, geographical, and chronological mistakes can be found in the apocryphal books—errors that are not characteristic of the 39 Old Testament books.

The books of the Apocrypha form no part of Scripture!
 
Major said:
And maybe that is the reason behind some of your thinking. I do not mean that in a nasty way at all just an observation that you have already posted.

Apocryphal books are never quoted in the New Testament. Although these writings existed in the first century, and likely were (by this time) incorporated into the Septuagint, they never were quoted or explicitly cited by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. Such a fact truly is significant when one realizes that the New Testament writers quote from, or allude to, the Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha) approximately 1,000 times. In all, thirty-five of the thirty-nine Old Testament books are referred to in the New Testament.

No apocryphal book actually claims to be inspired by God. In fact, some either disclaim it, or reveal evidence of errancy. Several historical, geographical, and chronological mistakes can be found in the apocryphal books—errors that are not characteristic of the 39 Old Testament books.

The books of the Apocrypha form no part of Scripture!
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the woman caught in adultery?

I understand your point with this Major, but you have to decide whether or not scholasticism should be applied to the canon at all, even the dueterocanon or if we should accept its inerrancy on faith. Say what you will but there are serious problems with Jesus' geneology as described in Mathew and in Luke. The common answer is that Luke describes Mary, and I accept that although its not apparent in the wording. Someone could argue though that one is wrong, and applying scholasticism too liberally could mutilate the whole canon.
 
Glomung said:
from an online article

In the Catholic Church, the Bible is the Douay Bible consisting of 73 books.
In the Protestant church only the 66 books that were approved by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618 are in what is known as the Authorized King James Bible.

Though there is no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the complete Bible in scripture, there are over 20 books mentioned in the Bible, but not found there. This is proof that many have been removed and there is evidence that many more fell under the same fate.

In 1534 Martin Luther published his first Bible. In that Bible he separated the Scriptures of the Apocrypha from the Old Testament and placed them in a section that he titled "Apocrypha". Regardless of his reasons, he was the first to do this.

The first group to produce a Bible *without* the Scriptures of the Apocrypha (as far as anyone knows) were the Puritans in the 1590s. (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). The Puritans, unlike other Protestant sects of the day, believed that those Scriptures **should not** be included in The Bible.
Click to expand...

This might shed some light:

 
Mitspa said:
Well that's not an error of the bible, that's an error in men who try to understand the bible.
Click to expand...
The point was not to lean on scholasticism when it comes to scripture. We accept it on faith. Because someone can mutilate scripture if they were searching for errors. Likewise completely severing the apocryphal in the name of scholasticism is not wise.
 
I would suggest that anyone who has questions about these other books, do some real study of these issue and don't just come onto a forum and speak about things you don't really understand. Its clear to me that some of you have no understanding of these books or how or why or when they was accepted and the intention that some had in including them along with the other established letters and books of the bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top