A Sacred View

[lunamoth]

With all of the discussion about the literal-factualness of the Bible I've been asking myself why I have no problem accepting the Bible as Truth while at the same time not worrying about whether the miracles of the OT and NT are 'real.' Of course they are real!

There are other members here who have greater knowledge about this particular topic, but I know that none of the Bible was written to be taken as an objective factual recording of events that happened. It was written to convey the experience and understandings of people interacting with God. I don't think it has ever been a Christian belief that the Bible dropped out of the sky fully formed by the Mouth of God as the Quran is viewed to be. I think it has until recently been understood as a sacred history, one in which we are meant to be drawn out of our 'literal' world in into a sacred world.

If you are asking the question 'did these fantastic things literally happen, and if so what might be a related scientific explanation,' you are in essence asking the wrong question. There will be no answer that does not trivialize and detract from the More-Than-Literalness that those events taught us.

So how does the human mind of the year 2006 interpret the events described in the Bible without engaging in magical thinking, without stretching for logical explanations, or without rejecting the whole Bible as untrustworthy?

I've found that my personal answer is to remember that the Bible is above all a sacred history and therefore completely trustworthy in the sacred sense. A sacred history is not meant to tell us literal 'facts' like a science text or a scholarly history. It is meant to convey the experience of humans walking with God, what He taught them by words and actions, and how they turned this into a way of life that elevates us beyond mere existence to life eternal. To accomplish I find that I must for the first level of understanding focus on my faith in God, rather than on the logic of the events. Sort of like viewing one of those three-dimensional drawings. If you look at the pattern and focus on the hard lines and solid colors, you will never see the picture. But if you relax your vision and let things go just a little out of focus, looking through the pattern, you see the image emerge.

Hold it like a living dove, firm enough to keep it, but not crushing the life out of it.

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[wil]

very nice...

 

[Prober]

I agree with the sentiment. I would add that one must be careful not to reject that which one considers "unreasonable" based upon one's own opinion. Remember, for instance, that not long ago, the concept of men being able to fly was considered "unreasonable".

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you Wil.

I agree with the sentiment. I would add that one must be careful not to reject that which one considers "unreasonable" based upon one's own opinion. Remember, for instance, that not long ago, the concept of men being able to fly was considered "unreasonable".

Thank you Prober. I think what you are describing here is related to humility.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Prober]

Yes, Luna. Because I believe that "with God, all things are possible"! I may not have all the answers, but I don't need them all. The rest, I'm content to leave to trust and faith.

 

[Aswan]

With all of the discussion about the literal-factualness of the Bible I've been asking myself why I have no problem accepting the Bible as Truth while at the same time not worrying about whether the miracles of the OT and NT are 'real.'

As a muslim I often wonder the same, why do the Christians hold the contents of a book that contains many, errors, contradictions and fallacies to be of divine nature and truth. Ofcourse this is not entirely the case as admittedly, Christians - such as yourself lunamoth - are steadily coming to the same conclusion that the bible when taken literally doesn’t seem to hold much accuracy. And even the divine nature of the books contained in the bible seem to be questioned indiscriminately by Christians and non-Christians alike.

As for the miracles in the Old Testament, and the New Testament you seem to make some type of distinction (in context?) when you put the word real in apostrophes, perhaps you can elaborate on that some more.

​

but I know that none of the Bible was written to be taken as an objective factual recording of events that happened.

I disagree on this in so much that those scriptures of divine nature (if they ever made it into bible) must have been written down as indisputable factual records. So those records were meant to be taken literally. Ofcourse I won’t dispute that what man holds in his hands today and preaches to be the word of God, is not a holy book. Since for it to be holy, it’s contents need to be a reflection of the perfect attribute of God. But it is my believe that there once was a time when those scriptures were not yet corrupted. Therefore rather then to label all the divine scriptures - as revealed to all the Prophets – as being a lie, or imperfect I actually claim those.. to be the truth. I just find it an abomination that man should change those revelations from the almighty God into the bible that we have.. now.

It was written to convey the experience and understandings of people interacting with God.

It would be a shame if you actually believed that God would reveal so many verses to His Prophets only to have people later on claim that it was just so that mankind could get some esoteric feel from it. The bible itself never claims such things, in fact the bible is a very detailed collection of books which suggests that there were not only key historical moments that needed to be preserved, (after all what is the need of recording history if you’re going to jot it down as a fictional novel) but that the intention was to warn people, to convey what God wishes for mankind and how we can live fruitful lives in contentment.

​

I don't think it has ever been a Christian belief that the Bible dropped out of the sky fully formed by the Mouth of God as the Quran is viewed to be.

Not Christian but still it is worth pondering that the Jews hold their portion of scriptures to be the words from God, the Catholics believe the bible to be the word of.. God, and the Muslims also believe that those scriptures were the words from God. Ofcourse it is the Christian believe that both Jews and Muslims are wrong. And in the context of what you said, it wouldn’t matter since Jews and Muslims are indeed not Christians. But to my knowledge it is also a Christian stance that Catholics are not Christians. However, concerning the Catholics, eventhough I hold their beliefs to be even farther away from the truth that Jesus Christ (PBUH) conveyed than Christians, I do wish to note that where I’m from these two groups of people still respect each other enough to at least refer to one another as Protestants.. Christians, and Catholic.. Christians.

(nevermind the sometimes bloody disputes between them, in 2006 there seems to be more words flying around than fists, knives and such. The few exceptions in the United Kingdom are just that exceptions to the rule that used to be.)


So even if you find it acceptable to say that it was never a Christian belief, you’re still excluding a lot of people, which if you can get away with it now you certainly would’ve had a harder time claiming such a thing during the time of Paul and later Constantine, since at least the Unitarian’s would have had you for breakfast, lunch and diner.

I think it has until recently been understood as a sacred history, one in which we are meant to be drawn out of our 'literal' world in into a sacred world.

Ofcourse, and I’m just waiting to see when this ‘recently’ understood theory becomes outdated and replaced by a new philosophy.

If you are asking the question 'did these fantastic things literally happen, and if so what might be a related scientific explanation,' you are in essence asking the wrong question.

The question for any human being who allows himself to have faith in God but at the same time accept that he/she has a brain with which the truth can be filtered from the fairytale is the right question. How absurd is it dear lunamoth to simply make it an issue of being dragged out of our literal world in to the sacred world? No Christian ever claimed such things in the past, and there are no biblical references that even comes close to having this philosophy take root in reality.

So how does the human mind of the year 2006 interpret the events described in the Bible without engaging in magical thinking, without stretching for logical explanations, or without rejecting the whole Bible as untrustworthy?

It should not be a matter of how to interpret the bible and how to find a way to not reject it. It is the matter of seeking the truth.

​

I've found that my personal answer is to remember that the Bible is above all a sacred history and therefore completely trustworthy in the sacred sense.

In the sacred sense, as a muslim what I read is believe that the scriptures once contained the truth and that we should remain content in that belief. And I have no trouble believing that, however the not so sacred reality of the literal content of the bible is what should worry every Christian for it is a temptation of distortions, and the only way to remain floating in the sacred world is to wrap the bible in a cloth, bind it firmly and put it away never to read it again.

​

 

[BlaznFattyz]

"why do the Christians hold the contents of a book that contains many, errors, contradictions and fallacies to be of divine nature and truth."

because the bible is a holy spirit inspired book written and witnessed by many of gods people and prophets and the teachings of jesus christ - the word of god himself. and because the good news of jesus christ, the son of god, has to be preached to the entire world, it must be translated so many different ways. as some languages are more or less advanced than others, perhaps there is something lost in the translation. however, the most important thing, is not the ark or flood itself, it is the good news that is the heart of the matter. believing in the flood or the ark saves no one, but believe in the son of god as the way, the truth, and the life, that is what saves, and bottom line - that is all that matters. and im personal belief is that all things in the bible were destined by god to be known and probably everything translated worked out just fine.

 

[Aswan]

BlaznFattyz]

[/FONT]
because the bible is a holy spirit inspired book written and witnessed by many of gods prophets and the teachings of jesus christ - the word of god himself.

Everything you know as a Christian you get from the bible. Surely you agree with lunamoth that eventhough the sacred scriptures existed once upon a time, and eventhough we should believe in them, they are not to be found anywhere now. All you have now is the bible and it does not tell the same truth the original scriptures told. Moreover the bible is not a holy book, and it is the obligation of every human being to seek out the truth rather than just simply believing whatever is served before you on a platter.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Everything you know as a Christian you get from the bible. Surely you agree with lunamoth that eventhough the sacred scriptures existed once upon a time, and eventhough we should believe in them, they are not to be found anywhere now. All you have now is the bible and it does not tell the same truth the original scriptures told. Moreover the bible is not a holy book, and it is the obligation of every human being to seek out the truth rather than just simply believing whatever is served before you on a platter.

that is very incorrect. as a christian, we are promised the indwelling of the holy spirit, and often times god walks with me. i know, not from just reading the bible, but from god himself that christ is lord. my belief is the bible is the only holy book in the world. inspired from gods spirit, it is basically gods words that he wants us to know. but we are not saved by just reading a book, and reciting things, and praying in public. god wants us to have a spiritual relationship with him through his son. i have read my fair share of the bible, and i could set it down and talk to god on my own, pray in private, and walk in the ways i know that is right as the holy spirit has guided me and continues to correct me and guide me, and i am better off then looking for the answer to an ark that saves no one.

 

[Aswan]

Sorry but this is even by Christian standards not an argument. According to you there is no need for the book. So God send all the scriptures for nothing then, you just read it without being critical of it and just prayed and decided oh well I feel that this must be the truth. Sounds to me like you're taking a huge gamble, betting everything on your spiritual experiences.

 

[Prober]

To Aswan: What are these "original scriptures" and where are they?

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Aswan,

First, welcome to CR! And welcome to the Christianity forum. Delighted to have you here for repsectful dialogue.

Second:

Everything you know as a Christian you get from the bible. Surely you agree with lunamoth that eventhough the sacred scriptures existed once upon a time, and eventhough we should believe in them, they are not to be found anywhere now. All you have now is the bible and it does not tell the same truth the original scriptures told. Moreover the bible is not a holy book, and it is the obligation of every human being to seek out the truth rather than just simply believing whatever is served before you on a platter.

Yikes! I never said that! And I totally disagree. I do not have time to reply to your post in detail right now, but I have a feeling that even when I do our very different outlooks on the Bible and Christianity will mean we may be talking past each other a bit. But, I'm sure that with patience and politeness we can have a great discussion.

cheers,
lunamoth

 

[Aswan]

Thank you Lunamoth!

I expected you to disagree, therefore it is just my conlusion after having read the things you said. But I look forward to your reply.

 

[Quahom1]

The Bible, leads us home...

that is all that matters. It is the absolute truth in that revelation. It shows Christians the way home.

It also tells us fear not, for if we believe, and accept, then we will not be judged at the end of time. Not concerning life or death...only what we have done with our life while here, and what reward (or lack of we shall see).

Unlike the message of the Qu'ran, we believe we have fault we cannot get washed away, unless the "Savior" washes it away for us. The Father cannot look upon us but through the Son.

Therein lies much of the confusion between the two faiths. Islam looks to the Father, and we look to the Son to intercede for us before the Father.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I agree with the sentiment. I would add that one must be careful not to reject that which one considers "unreasonable" based upon one's own opinion. Remember, for instance, that not long ago, the concept of men being able to fly was considered "unreasonable".

Huh? O.K., so long as we don't have to accept that which is unreasonable based on someone else's opinion.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

...I know that none of the Bible was written to be taken as an objective factual recording of events that happened. It was written to convey the experience and understandings of people interacting with God. I don't think it has ever been a Christian belief that the Bible dropped out of the sky fully formed by the Mouth of God as the Quran is viewed to be. I think it has until recently been understood as a sacred history, one in which we are meant to be drawn out of our 'literal' world in into a sacred world.

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

 

[lunamoth]

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

Hi Chris, Yes, you are correct about the OT--my focus was on the NT. Guess that's where most of my attention usually is, but I have studied the Pentatuech in a pretty intense Bible study, and also Isaiah. Not what you would call scholarly studies (more evangelical), but still pretty detailed. However, Kings etc, are still not something I am very familiar with. I am far far far from a Bible scholar, although the Episcopal Church offers a very good course called Education for Ministry that I hope I can do once my girls are a little older. It's a four year course.

I like Karen Armstrong, it is sad (to me) that she has lost her faith over the course of her life. I read her autobiography, Spiral Staircase, or at least most of it. For some reason I did not want to read the end. But I will. I've read the History of God and The Battle For God. Very interesting reading, those. Really explains how the Bible literalism we see today is really a new literalism, formed in reaction to the Enlightenment.

luna

 

[Quahom1]

I think that probably is true of the gospels, but the the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people. Not necessarily the foundational myths in Genesis, but from Abram on it's definately written to be a historical account. That said, though, I think that people of that era had an entirely different idea of what "history" was. I think they saw events as the playing out of larger, cosmic even, themes which were partly, or mostly beyond their comprehension, not as a record of exactly what happened and when. In that sense it's far more important to paint an accurate spiritual landscape and place the appropriate players within the story than to simply record events accurately and chronologically.

JMO

Chris

I like Karen Armtrong a lot too. Have you read Holy War?

I'm falling out of my chair...You're defending part of the BIBLE (OT), as being more or less literal?

Will wonders never cease...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm falling out of my chair...You're defending part of the BIBLE (OT), as being more or less literal?

Will wonders never cease...

Um...no.

This is what I said: "...the saga of the Hebrews in the OT, I think, was written to create a literal history of a people."

To qualify: I don't know for sure. I mean, I haven't gone and dug up the artifacts myself so I'm going by my sense of what's historically provable. I'm not a scientist, I'm not that well read. I accept my limitations.

If you look at a timeline of the events in the OT you'll see that they really start to bunch up around the time of the Babylonian exile. I think that it is from that perspective, and for that contemporary audience that the material in the OT was written/compiled. I doubt that the exodus or the conquest of Caanan are in any way historical. I doubt that there was ever a unified kingdom under David and/or Solomon. I think that the OT material is designed to support a monotheistic theocracy invented by a middle Iron Age Judahite monarchy. I think that regime invented a "Hebrew" identity to support its aim of unifying the southern kingdom of Judah with what remained of the then extinct Northern Kingdom if Israel. For a brief period of time this Judahite state, a vassal of Assyria, achieved its own mini golden age-only to be crushed by the Babylonian empire. That bitter defeat, the ensuing exile and return, and the question of how and why God would allow that to happen to his "elite" people are the basis for understanding the OT saga IMO.

What's utterly amazing is that the politics of that ancient time, preserved in the sacred scriptures of a unique group of people who never again achieved that level of sovereignty over their own affairs until the creation of the State of Israel some two millenia later, has had, and continues to have such a powerful affect on so much of the world. What an amazing achievement!

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What's utterly amazing is that the politics of that ancient time, preserved in the sacred scriptures of a unique group of people who never again achieved that level of sovereignty over their own affairs until the creation of the State of Israel some two millenia later, has had, and continues to have such a powerful affect on so much of the world. What an amazing achievement!

Make that nearly three millenia later.

Chris