What do you think about this quote

[apexcone]

"I dont believe the Bible is the word of God, I believe the word of God is what I hear through the words of the Bible"

This quote has been a real blessing to me since I rejected Evangelical
Fundamentalism some 20 years ago. I'm aware that its potentially a problem for those that believe the Bible is the word of God, as I once did, but for me I've found it very freeing and it's aloud me to embrace others in the spirit of Christ. During that time I've made some great Bahai & Muslim friends and become enriched in my faith as I've learned from them.

Terry

 

[Cino]

Words behind the words? That approach is actually older than the "sola scriptura" protestant literalism. What guides you as to what is the "true" word in a bible word, and what is (self-)deception?

(Whom are you quoting, btw?)

 

[wil]

Welcome to IO Terry! Boy you've jumped right in.

I like the quote,. With all the authors and over so many years and then the selection process to what made the grade and editing and translations...I think it obvious it ain't THE word! And also agree that there is lots of truth and value in what we read into it.

 

[apexcone]

Yes, it’s been quite a journey out of fundamentalism, but I’ve become more rounded, less judgmental and more peaceful.

Life is good..

 

[RJM]

Yup.
My wording would be:

"I dont believe every word of the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I believe the word of God is what I hear through the words of the Bible"

 

[apexcone]

Words behind the words? That approach is actually older than the "sola scriptura" protestant literalism. What guides you as to what is the "true" word in a bible word, and what is (self-)deception?

(Whom are you quoting, btw?)

Great question. I believe the Bible teaches that God is spirit and that in the last days God would write his laws in peoples hearts. Those that listen to the small still voice inside will know what is right. It is my conviction that the majority of truth is subjective. What may be right for you may not be right for me. If something is true for you then its true, it may not be true for me, and I'm totally fine with that.

One thing I've found being on forums is that most of the people we meet on line will have a different slant on what's true. I believe this is healthy.

Terry

 

[Cino]

Pilate's question is still a good one after all these years.

I still think there are indisputable truths, though, in mathematics for example. There are certainties, like death. The trick is to see the meaning in them.

What's the hallmark of the small still voice, in your experience? (Only if you are comfortable sharing, I appreciate it is a very personal thing)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Terry —

The idea that the Bible in inerrant came in with the Reformation as a means of breaking the authority of the Church of Rome. Up until then it had always been understood that the text was not self-explanatory (cf Acts 8).

Sola scriptura is the Reformers principle that the meaning of scripture is determined by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the individual. However, it does not mean the individual is free to interpret scripture as s/he wills. In reality, the Reformers replaced Rome as the authority over the laity.

American Evangelical and Baptist denominations tend to interpret the doctrine more literally – that scripture is self-authenticating, clear as a bell to the rational reader and is its own interpreter ('Scripture interprets Scripture'), which is patently a nonsense.

Anglicans and Methodists affirm the primacy of scripture, but leavened by tradition, reason and, in Methodism, experience.

The Orthodox Patriarchies hold that to "accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognises, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

The Catholic Church would say much the same, regarding Scripture and Tradition as equal.

My own (Catholic) view is that the Tradition produced the Scripture – not the other way round which is so often assumed.

Welcome to IO.

 

[Thomas]

It is my conviction that the majority of truth is subjective.

Big statement!

I'd not argue with it, but would say that the 'truths' – moral and mystical – contained/transmitted through the Traditions (and not just the Abrahamics) speak of the transcendent and the human condition and thus are universal.

 

[RJM]

Big statement!

I'd not argue with it, but would say that the 'truths' – moral and mystical – contained/transmitted through the Traditions (and not just the Abrahamics) speak of the transcendent and the human condition and thus are universal.

... I still think there are indisputable truths, though, in mathematics for example. There are certainties, like death ...

@apexcone
... the majority of truth is subjective ... If something is true for you then its true ...

I also shook my head a bit at that one. In fact truth by definition cannot be subjective. Are there steps on a ladder of truth, until the final truth is reached -- or never reached? Does truth always keep receding? As the seeker learns more, does he only learn how little he can ever really know?

... What may be right for you may not be right for me ...
Yes. The zebra and the lion will disagree about the dinner menu.

But perhaps it's more like: better believe me, or burn in hell ...

 

[apexcone]

It is clear that there are universal truths, denying that gravity doesn't exist whilst jumping off a building will end badly. To understand which part of the Bible is true requires a comprehensive study. To say its all true is in my opinion delusional on a grand scale.

Is it true/factual that Jesus was born a virgin, is it true / factual that He rose up into the atmosphere whilst still alive, (if it is the space station hasn't seen him) is it true / factual that the Red Sea was parted, these are all debatable issues and if one decides that they are true / factual then there true for you, just because I believe something doesn't make it factual.

Seems to me that many religious people are consumed with the word "true" Many time through out the Bible the word true means experience. So if I experience something does it make it true, or was it true before I experienced it. Mean while we all carry on our daily lives.

Enjoy your day
Terry

 

[RJM]

... Is it true/ factual that He rose up into the atmosphere whilst still alive ...

Or perhaps after his death by crucifixion, (the) Christ manifested a physical body which 'he' could cloak or reveal by choice until when his work with that body was done he just let it be reabsorbed back into the Spirit from which it came?

Something like that?

 

[apexcone]

Could be! Sounds a bit of a far out theory, for someone like myself who doesn't believe in the physical resurrection.

 

[Thomas]

To understand which part of the Bible is true requires a comprehensive study. To say its all true is in my opinion delusional on a grand scale.

Likewise, to say it is all myth or symbol is equally erroneous.

Is it true/factual that Jesus was born a virgin...

Well this is a question of faith, isn't it? I can no more prove He was than you can prove He wasn't.

is it true / factual that He rose up into the atmosphere whilst still alive...

Ditto.

is it true / factual that the Red Sea was parted... {/quote]
Ditto.

just because I believe something doesn't make it factual.

And, by the same token ...

Many time through out the Bible the word true means experience.

I would say that rule applies generally in life, not just in the Bible.

So if I experience something does it make it true, or was it true before I experienced it.

Good question. Depends on what you're experiencing.

A temporal event, obviously, was not 'true' before the event, but even then, a subjective experience might well be false to a greater or lesser degree.

For me, for example, the Incarnation was not true, and then I came to understand it within a greater mystical/metaphysical context (curiously, as I have rehearsed here before, my eyes were opened by a Tibetan Buddhist). It was he who opened my eyes to 'transcendent truth' which, by the very fact of being transcendent, does not conform to our day-to-day perception of the world and its truths.

 

[Cino]

Many time through out the Bible the word true means experience. So if I experience something does it make it true, or was it true before I experienced it.

The way I see it, it is true that I experienced something. The "content" of that experience, and the meaning assigned to the content, is another matter, subject to debate, belief, doubt, and so on.

 

[Thomas]

Or perhaps after his death by crucifixion, (the) Christ manifested a physical body which 'he' could cloak or reveal by choice ...

Makes sense to me. I constantly contemplate the fact that the Risen Christ is unrecognised until the moment he chooses to make Himself known.

until -- when his work with that body was done -- he just let it be reabsorbed back into the Spirit from which it came?

And which such a 'reabsorbing' would be seen as an ascent, a concept which is nigh-on universal.

It always amused me that critics tend to insist the text is talking symbolically when they can't wrap their heads around the mystical, and then dismiss a text on literal grounds when perhaps the scribe was employing a quite commonplace symbolic motif?