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?

[JehovahsWitness]

The basic message of the bible is as I see it very very simple: from paradise lost to paradise regained. Many of its basic concepts are very simple (a loving Creator, a hope for a better world, his son with a message of "good news" of an end to suffering ...) ... a child could understand it.

To please God, I believe, we do not have to be experts we just need to be humble, want to learn and be willing to put into practice what we do.

That said, this is a surprisingy big book with a lot of intertwined information. Indeed there are not a lot of books you can use both at " PhD level" and at kindergarden but the bible is I believe one of them. The problem is some I have spoken to seem to think what they learnt in Sunday school is all there is, in other words they are at kindergarden level but forge into discussions with those at "PhD level" and are shocked they cannot keep up.

Would you walk into an operating threatre, grab the scaple from the surgeon and pronounce: "How hard can this be?"just because you've watched a couple of episodes of "General Hospital"

The bible is a very deep book that exists on many levels. Like the illustrations of Jesus which on the surface were a series of pretty stories with a moral ("play nice"); it just didn't occur to his listeners that some of them were commentaries on their religious leaders, their system of worship, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies, the establishment of a New World Order, the end of the Judaic temple based system, the course of Christianity over the next 2,000 years, and much much more.

In short, I believe you get as much out of the bible as you believe is in there; and I believe it gives us tiny glance of the mind of God so it's depth for me is infinite.



JW




RELATED POSTS

Is the bible an incomprehensible mess?
viewtopic.php?p=1054980#p1054980

Is the bible "a mystery" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1095732#p1095732

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

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[nobspeople]

The basic message of the bible is as I see it very very simple: from paradise lost to paradise regained. Many of its basic concepts are very simple (a loving Creator, a hope for a better world, his son with a message of "good news" of an end to suffering ...) ... a child could understand it.

To please God, I believe, we do not have to be experts we just need to be humble, want to learn and be willing to put into practice what we do.

That said, this is a surprisingy big book with a lot of intertwined information. Indeed there are not a lot of books you can use both at " PhD level" and at kindergarden but the bible is I believe one of them. The problem is some I have spoken to seem to think what they learnt in Sunday school is all there is, in other words they are at kindergarden level but forge into discussions with those at "PhD level" and are shocked they cannot keep up.

Would you walk into an operating threatre, grab the scaple from the surgeon and pronounce: "How hard can this be?"just because you've watched a couple of episodes of "General Hospital"

The bible is a very deep book that exists on many levels. Like the illustrations of Jesus which on the surface were a series of pretty stories with a moral ("play nice"); it just didn't occur to his listeners that some of them were commentaries on their religious leaders, their system of worship, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies, the establishment of a New World Order, the end of the Judaic temple based system, the course of Christianity over the next 2,000 years, and much much more.

In short, I believe you get as much out of the bible as you believe is in there; and I believe it gives us tiny glance of the mind of God so it's depth for me is infinite.



JW

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

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

Thanks for the response. I get what you're saying and don't totally disagree (shocking, no?!?!).
Why do you think so many resort to things like:
"What god really meant was..."
"You have to look at the original language in order to understand what they were saying was..."
And the like.
Surely, the bible is all that's ultimately needed to understand, no?
Or should there be a secondary reference to go along with the bible?

[Miles]

The basic message of the bible is as I see it very very simple: from paradise lost to paradise regained. Many of its basic concepts are very simple (a loving Creator, a hope for a better world, his son with a message of "good news" of an end to suffering ...) ... a child could understand it.

A loving creator who would have people kill practicing male homosexuals.


......................................
...................................... source


. . . . . . . . . . Ah, what love

..................................

That said, this is a surprisingy big book with a lot of intertwined information.

And misinformation:

There's a mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world (Matt 4:8, Luke 4:5).

Earth is about 6000 years old, as calculated from the genealogies in Gen and Luke 3.

There were no rainbows before Noah's time (Gen 9:11-17)

Rainwater does not evaporate until it has soaked into the ground (Isaiah 55:10)

Birds were created before land animals (Gen 1:20, 24)

Indeed there are not a lot of books you can use both for a PhD and at kindergarden but the bible is I believe one of them.

A PhD level only created to serve the egos of aspiring apologists. "Hey guys, we need to have some way of telling people how much time and effort we've put into defending our Bible. Lets create Master and PhD levels to show how tricky we are in twisting Bible passages to suit our theologies. Okay?" And unlike all other PhD programs, each religion coming to conclusions no one else in the world agrees with.

The problem is some I have spoken to seem to THINK what they learnt in Sunday school is all there is, in other words they are at kindergarden level but forge into discussions with those at "PhD level" and are shocked they cannot keep up. Instead of fessing up they had never even heard of certain verses, concepts or ideas, they seem offended and accuse those that are used to such discussions of trying to overly complicate things.

Of course. Unless one knows how their religion's theology was concocted you can't mount a proper defense of it.

The bible is a very deep book'that exists on many levels.

Nah. The bible is a book people have cherry picked to death in order to make sense of it---their specific sense. For instance, the assertion of a " loving Creator" only works if you disregard all the unloving things he's done, OR claim that such unloving things are really loving because god did them. We humans are simply not intelligent enough to understand god's idea of "loving." Yeah, sure!

Like the illustrations of Jesus which on the surface were a series of pretty stories with a moral ("play nice"); it just didnt occur to his listeners that some of them were commentaries on their religious leaders, their system of worship, the fulfillment of messianic prophecies, the establishment of a New World Order, the end of the Judaic temple based system, the course of Christianity over the next 2,000 years, and much much more.

So why wouldn't god create a book wherein these "pretty stories" were clear enough they would need no explanation? Or could it be these "interpretations" are no more than explications concocted to back up one's theology? Given the ability of god to do whatever he wishes it would appear the second explanation is the most reasonable---of course this is assuming there is a god who had something to do with writing the bible.

In short, I believe you get as much out of the bible as you believe is in there; and I believe it gives us tiny example of the mind of God so it's depth for me is almost infinite.

And isn't it interesting that god seemingly doesn't care one wit that different people derive contradictory beliefs out of it. For instance:

"To understand what different Christian denominations believe, you can start with the ancient creeds and confessions, which spell out their major beliefs in a short summary. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed both date back to the fourth century.

Anglican/Episcopal: Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Assembly of God: Statement of Fundamental Truths.
Baptist: Generally avoid creeds or confessions that might compromise commitment to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith.
Lutheran: Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Augsburg Confession, Formula of Concord.
Methodist: Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed.
Presbyterian: Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Westminster Confession.
Roman Catholic: Many, yet focus on the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed.
source

He just lets them go on concocting various theologies willy-nilly as if none of it mattered, which could very well be the case.



.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to say I enjoyed that.

How much research? A lot. The Believers will love to insist that it's all simple. Have Faith, believe what you are told (or create your own Dogma - some do) and nothing more is needed.

But the debate goes on nevertheless, and on and on. The Nativity went into great apolgetics for the '2nd census' idea and (on my previous Forum) I spent many posts analysing Josephus on 5 B.C - 7 AD with particular reference to the High Priestships of Joazar and the missing Governorship of Syria ...which I think can be shown to be Varus serving a second term and certainly NOT a previous spell as Governor for Quirinus.

In the end I think it was done and dusted and well worth doing.

But simple it ain't, and much more research and discussion needs to happen.

[Diagoras]

In short, I believe you get as much out of the bible as you believe is in there;

<bolding mine>

Interesting phraseology there. Do you mean something like the book 'rewards efforts to understand it'? The more common phrase is "You get out what you put in."

The way you've written it doesn't really commend the bible as a 'deep and complex' work - it suggests anyone with lazy or muddled thinking could read it and 'believe' anything they like. I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to imply this.

[Bradskii]

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

For 'What God really meant...' simply substitute: 'How I interpretate what is written...'. Or even once removed: 'What God meant according to someone who interpretated what is written and then told me...'.

As to reading it in the original, there is some validity to that. Pick up a New English translation and you are reading a simplified form rewritten from 17th century English (which had a lot of Germanic influences) which was translated from the Greek which was translated from Aramaic...subtleties of meaning are lost. Let's face it, there are plenty of arguments about what was meant when the founding fathers wrote the American constitution and we have the original of that. Can you imagine the disagreements if it had been written 2,000 years ago and translated 3 or 4 times?

[JehovahsWitness]

In short, I believe you get as much out of the bible as you believe is in there;

<bolding mine>

Interesting phraseology there. Do you mean something like the book 'rewards efforts to understand it'? The more common phrase is "You get out what you put in."

Exactly.

MATTHEW 7: 7, 8

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;+keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you; for everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking, it will be opened.

[JehovahsWitness]

"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?








RELATED POSTS

Is the bible easy or difficult to understand?
viewtopic.php?p=1049513#p1049513

I want to understand the bible, what must I do?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p940714

Should I need other people to understand the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1049579#p1049579

Why doesn't God help people understand the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#p940370

If the bible is true, why are there so many disagreements as to its meaning?
viewtopic.php?p=1053514#p1053514

Why isn't the bible clearer so that everyone that reads it can come to the same understanding?
viewtopic.php?p=966727#p966727

Why does God not grant understanding to some people?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 02#p964402

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

THE BIBLE , BIBLE UNDERSTANDING and ... HERMENEUTICS*

* bible interpretation

[brunumb]

Do you mean something like the book 'rewards efforts to understand it'? The more common phrase is "You get out what you put in."

I was reminded more of the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out", although it is just a bit harsh.