How much research is necessary?

[nobspeople]

When someone mentions biblical contradictions, often times they're met with responses like:
"Well, if you read XYZ, you will see that what it really means is..."
"You have to understand the world they lived in at the time"
"What god really means is...."
"The original language says...."

It seems as though, many think that in order to understand the bible, you must first have to have a understanding of the time it was written, history, other biblical passages (which I personally find hysterical - you expect someone to read another part of the bible to understand a different part of the same bible?!?), have an 'innate' understanding of what god 'meant', knowledge of the language of origin, and on and on and on.

This is the bible.
It's god's word directly (or inspired if you believe that) and it's meant as a map to god and or christ (again, depending on what sect you want to believe).

So why can't the bible just be presented, as an all-in-one roadmap, instead of needing other references and understandings?
Surely god knew not everyone would have access to knowing the 'original language', have the ability to 'know' what god means instead of what's written, a understanding of the time of it writing, and on and on and on, right?

Should the bible be the best and only source needed to find christ, or should people actively look for other sources to find christ?

[TRANSPONDER]

"What god really meant was..."

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with seeking explanation ; Jesus' disciples are reported to have done so.

MATTHEW 13: 36

Then after dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.”

"You have to look at the original language in order to understand what they were saying was..."

The original language of the bible is still the bible. You are not going elsewhere if you seek to understand the bible in its original language.

Surely, the bible is all that's ultimately needed to understand, no?

The bible is in my opinion the basic textbook ; The truth can be found using any translation of the bible but if people want to understand every word in every verse correctly (in depth study) then you may need help. In short, I believe it depends on what level you want to reach kindergarden or Phd?

Or should there be a secondary reference to go along with the bible?

Why not? As long as it is recognized that nothing supercedes the bible - that the bible is authorative - why should bible study the only subject where you don't need any textbooks (or teachers)? Who made up that ad hoc rule?

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

* bible interpretation

I have found that the translations have tried to reflect the original language. For instance Luke 2 'This was the first enrollment when Quirinus was governor of Syria' is correct in the Greek as a well as a the context, for all some apologists want it to read 'Before Quirinus was governor of Syria'. For that matter, they translate 'the circle of the earth' correctly with the hebrew base 'chwug' referring to flat,inscribed circle as with a pair of compasses, and not a sphere or globe (where they might have used 'ball' (dur). So in terms of translation, the research has been done.That said, I find I can work with the KJV well enough, as discussing the Bible does not usually require translation -shopping. The meaning and intent is pretty plain, including what is intended as metaphor and what is presented as though it was supposed to be an actual event.

It only remains to accept that there is one thing that supersedes the Bible: actual facts.

[Bradskii]

The bible is in my opinion the basic textbook ; The truth can be found using any translation of the bible....

That's not really accurate. Take this example (https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/ ... -the-bible):

'...Matthew's explanation in Matt 1:22-23. There the text says that the virgin birth of Jesus took place to "fulfill" the prophecy that "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel." Matthew is paraphrasing Isa 7:14.

But he is quoting a mistranslation. The original Hebrew text of Isa 7:14 is not about a virgin. Rather, the Hebrew used to describe the woman in Isa 7:14 is almah, a word that means "young woman." But then the Septuagint, an early translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, took the Hebrew almah and rendered it as the Greek parthenos, which means "virgin." '

Using 'young woman' for 'virgin' might not be hugely important in most circumstances, but in this case..?

[Miles]

I have found that the translations have tried to reflect the original language. For instance Luke 2 'This was the first enrollment when Quirinus was governor of Syria' is correct in the Greek as a well as a the context, for all some apologists want it to read 'Before Quirinus was governor of Syria'. For that matter, they translate 'the circle of the earth' correctly with the hebrew base 'chwug' referring to flat,inscribed circle as with a pair of compasses, and not a sphere or globe (where they might have used 'ball' (dur). So in terms of translation, the research has been done.That said, I find I can work with the KJV well enough, as discussing the Bible does not usually require translation -shopping. The meaning and intent is pretty plain, including what is intended as metaphor and what is presented as though it was supposed to be an actual event.

Whereas I've found that translations often reflect the theologies sponsoring them. Hence we get a wide variety interpretations such as.

Philippians 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Where, depending on the specific bible, the word "dung" is also given as

"refuse"
"rubbish"
"filth"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"
"sewer trash"

And where "evil" in

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

is also given as

disaster
doom
woe
sorrow
trouble
calamity
trouble(s)
bad
discord
hard times
bad times
adversity

And, depending on the bible, may use "grievous" in Psalm 10:5:

Psalm 10:5
His ways are always grievous;

Or

Firm
Prosper
Secure
Twisted
Successful
Succeed
Prosperous
Endure
Well
Defouled
Pain

And, depending on the translation, what Jesus said was in his fathers house in

John 14:2
In My Father’s house are many mansions;

Or

Places
Dwellings
Dwelling places.
Room
Room to spare
Rooms
Abodes
Places-to-stay
Homes[/indent




And what god told Noah to make ark out of in Genesis 6:14 may radically differ.

"wood"
CEB
so make a wooden ark. Make the ark with nesting places and cover it inside and out with tar.


"good lumber"
CEV
Get some good lumber and build a boat. Put rooms in it and cover it with tar inside and out.


"gopherwood"
KJ21
Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt cover it within and without with pitch.


"cypress wood"
ERV
Use cypress wood and build a boat for yourself. Make rooms in the boat and cover it with tar inside and out.


"pine trees"
GNV
Make thee an Ark of pine trees: thou shalt make cabins in the Ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.


"resinous wood"
TLB
Make a boat from resinous wood, sealing it with tar; and construct decks and stalls throughout the ship.


"teakwood"
MSG
“Build yourself a ship from teakwood. Make rooms in it. Coat it with pitch inside and out. Make it 450 feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high. Build a roof for it and put in a window eighteen inches from the top; put in a door on the side of the ship; and make three decks, lower, middle, and upper.

And just as a point of information, they're not necessarily the same or even of the same genus.

Gopher wood: Torreya taxifolia

Cypress: Taxodium distichum

Pine: Pinus spp

Teak: Tectona grandis

.

[TRANSPONDER]

True, but the general sense is the same (apart from 'twisted'). Reading the passage generally supplies the context. If there is doubt, a consensus of translation could be a guide. If there is a discrepant reading like 'twisted'(where everyone else says 'firm'or 'sure', then one can look up concordances and examples of the usage.

There were plenty of discussions of the 'Almah/Bethulah problem (you'll know that - Mathew translates that as 'virgin' because the Greek used Parthenos whereas the Hebrew says 'Almah' (young woman). But virgin in the sense of Parthnos is 'Bethulah'. Or I think that's the way of it, as I recall. Thus suggesting that Matthew read the OT in the Greek, and didn't know the Hebrew.

Well, there were plenty of attempts to argue that 'Alman' could have the same meaning as 'Bethulah', but checking the examples of usages argued against that. It might be an interesting exercise to check the usages of 'twisted'.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #9]

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with seeking explanation ; Jesus' disciples are reported to have done so.

For me, this is a good idea. But when you're told this by others, unsolicited, is when many have issue.

The original language of the bible is still the bible. You are not going elsewhere if you seek to understand the bible in its original language.

That's not in debate here. The issues are 1) why was it translated when that can loose or distort the meaning 2) not everyone speaks the original language (something of which I'm sure god is aware) 3) not everyone has access to the original language.
In other words, the current version should be 'just as good as' the original. If it is, no need to reference the original. If it's not, then there's a bigger issue at hand.

The truth can be found using any translation of the bible but if people want to understand every word in every verse correctly (in depth study) then you may need help. In short, I believe it depends on what level you want to reach kindergarden or Phd?

While I can't agree that 'the truth can be found' in any bible, I get what you're saying.
So is the current bible 'good enough' to be a christian and get into heaven, or should other reference material be used?

Why not? As long as it is recognized that nothing supercedes the bible - that the bible is authorative - why should bible study the only subject where you don't need any textbooks (or teachers)? Who made up that ad hoc rule?

A good question. When I mentioned 'reference material', I was excluding things you'd see in a bible study and the like. I was meaning adding to, or detracting from, the bible as it's written currently.
For example:
Revelation 22:18-19 ESV
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book
Apologies for being unclear.

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible is in my opinion the basic textbook ; The truth can be found using any translation of the bible....

That's not really accurate.

I'm sorry perhaps I should rephrase, in my opinion based on my experience, the truth about Gods purpose for mankind and how to obtain salvation can be found using any translation of the bible.

Others may of course have a different opinion but the above accurately expresses my own,



JW

[bjs1]

It seems as though, many think that in order to understand the bible, you must first have to have a understanding of the time it was written, history, other biblical passages

This is true of every book ever written. If I don’t understand the time it was written, its history, and if I haven’t read the rest of the book then there is very little chance that I will accurately understand the book.

If you believe that you have found a contradiction in the Bible that creates a genuine problem for Christianity – something that 2,000 years of Christians have never noticed – then I would suggest that you need to go well above and beyond the normal level of research.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #17]

This is true of every book ever written. If I don’t understand the time it was written, its history, and if I haven’t read the rest of the book then there is very little chance that I will accurately understand the book.

Every book? That seems like a grand claim. I'm not sure you need to understand the history of J. K. Rowling to understand Harry Potter.

If you believe that you have found a contradiction in the Bible that creates a genuine problem for Christianity – something that 2,000 years of Christians have never noticed – then I would suggest that you need to go well above and beyond the normal level of research.

Seems like many people have found issues with what's written in the bible (many can be seen on this very forum).
'Issues' create doubt.
Doubt seems to be the enemy of faith.
Faith is required to believe in christianity.
So any seeds of doubt need to be addressed, if one truly wants answers, from all sides, not just the 'biblical side'.
But not everyone who has doubt has the ability to thoroughly exercise their doubt by referencing other material, original texts, what-have-you.
Seems that, while beneficial, other material shouldn't be necessary and the bible should suffice, no?

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #17]

This is true of every book ever written. If I don’t understand the time it was written, its history, and if I haven’t read the rest of the book then there is very little chance that I will accurately understand the book.

Every book? That seems like a grand claim. I'm not sure you need to understand the history of J. K. Rowling to understand Harry Potter.

I completely disagree. We live in the same age as Rowling, so we understand her history and setting. However, in 1,000 years (if the world makes it that long) concepts like going away to school or riding on a train or the significance of a flying car in a given culture would be entirely foreign. Someone who did not know the history, setting, and who did not read the entire book would be confused or make many false assumptions about Harry Potter.

Seems like many people have found issues with what's written in the bible (many can be seen on this very forum).

Many “issues” have been brought up on this site. For the most part, they demonstrate why knowing the history, setting, and whole of the biblical text is important for accurate understanding.

'Issues' create doubt.

Possibly.

Doubt seems to be the enemy of faith.

This is false. Without doubt, faith is impossible.

Faith is required to believe in christianity.

Faith is in God. No one believes in Christianity.

So any seeds of doubt need to be addressed, if one truly wants answers, from all sides, not just the 'biblical side'.

Yes, that would be why a person needs to know the history and setting, and needs to read the entire book.

But not everyone who has doubt has the ability to thoroughly exercise their doubt by referencing other material, original texts, what-have-you.

Not everyone has those abilities, but especially in modern America virtually everyone has the option of asking someone who does have those abilities.

Seems that, while beneficial, other material shouldn't be necessary and the bible should suffice, no?

Personally, I am surprised how sufficient the Bible is. People who read with the goal of enlightenment and understanding rarely need more than the text itself, though study aides are certainly beneficial. The Bible is far more accessible than most books from antiquity.

When someone goes looking for “issues” then I would expect them to do research beyond just reading a select passages to fit their bias. I would expect that regardless of what book we are talking about.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #19]

This (Doubt seems to be the enemy of faith.) is false. Without doubt, faith is impossible.

I can't agree that it's false, in the context of usage. Faith is always possible as, like belief, it only requires one to have it for it to exist. You can have faith (belief) that god is real without any doubt. People do it all the time.

No one believes in Christianity.

How can you demonstrate this is true for every human in history?

Faith is in God.

It can be in anything, really. But yeah, it sure can be in god. But for some, they know about god through christianity and by this seemingly transient property, they believe in christianity.

Yes, that would be why a person needs to know the history and setting, and needs to read the entire book.

I'm not sure about this in total. A good writer, knowing the book will be read throughout history, would be able to write it well enough to avoid the need for reference materials.
We can't know all the history and setting. We can learn more and more about it, but never know it totally (unless someone invents a time machine and all that). I don't think anyone is saying knowing 'more' is a bad thing (though it might be - depending on what you learn) but is it necessary to understand enough?
I'm not sure how knowing the socioeconomic happenings at the time is necessary to understand enough to get to heaven. No one has demonstrated that to be the case.

Not everyone has those abilities, but especially in modern America virtually everyone has the option of asking someone who does have those abilities.

That's great for 'modern America', but there exists a world outside of that currently. And before as well https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christ ... dern-views

When someone goes looking for “issues” then I would expect them to do research beyond just reading a select passages to fit their bias. I would expect that regardless of what book we are talking about.

I would suspect, then, when someone reads the bible, they'd also read other religious books - particularly if they're looking for enlighten. Some may be 'better' and more 'enlightening'.

But when it comes to getting to heaven - which is the goal of every christian based on the belief system itself (saying otherwise is being less than truthful) - the bible itself, as it is today (as experts should have done their due diligence in making sure the translation and meaning is accurate enough) - if the word of god or inspired by god - should be enough for the basics of christianity. Yet, often times others act like there's more you need to read and understand than what you have in your hand.

If that was as important as some seem to believe, god would provide it to everyone equally. Seems that's where the 'faith filler' comes into play.