RE: Why do Christians trust the Bible?
October 20, 2014 at 11:10 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2014 at 11:34 am by Vivalarevolution.)
(October 20, 2014 at 10:43 am)RobbyPants Wrote:(October 18, 2014 at 10:21 am)Vivalarevolution Wrote: Ps- I don't treat the bible as the word of god. Maybe exodus never happened and the hebrews just went to fight against their neighbours for petty reasons. I'm not going to imply anything affirmatively before the new testament
If you don't take the Old Testament seriously, why do you take the New Testament seriously? What makes them different, and more specifically, what makes the New Testament more reliable or accurate?
Also, if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, why were you citing prophesies in the Old Testament earlier?
I'll give you an answer in some time. If you really want to know, I posted something I meant to post here but accidently posted on another thread " honest review of Christianity". I'll copy it to here later, or check it out now
Oh yeah . . . here it is. It's copied
I do not feel that the bible is to be taken literally and as divinely inspired.
Moreover, I think it could be potentially dangerous if you're thoughts on the subjects in the bible are rigid. What good is a rigid mind not open to acceptance of change and constructive criticism?
And even as a faithful christian I am against telling children about 6 day creation and that they're going to hell for a sin someone in the past did ( I know your reaction . . . I'll explain what my denomination believes later.)
It was okay in the past to base your understanding of the world with what was written on papyrus. The world has changed and our worldviews also need to change with it. Believing something else than what was written in the bible doesn't mean you can't be Christian.
1) the first seven books- Genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy, Joshua, judges was a set of narratives composed over centuries. I and many others do not take this to be factual. Sure some parts may really have happened, but in my opinion it's just written to explain the glory of god and what he did do for Israel.
2) Ruth, samuels, kings, chronicles may or may not be factual, but I think they are generally considered historical right? I'm going to finish reading 1 Samuel now but I don't think I'm going to make a claim whether they really happened or not.
3) writings- I'll be honest I haven't reached here yet, but from what I've seen they just seem like pieces of literature about god (Don't mention song of Solomon)
4) haven't read latter books like Daniel yet so no clue
5) gospels are just narrations of the life of jesus by various authors intended for various recipients. Matthew is more understandable for jews while luke is more apt for gentiles. To explain why I believe the gospels, would take a whole other thread.
6) apart from pauls conversion, I don't see anything in acts which could be contradicted by known history. I could be wrong though. I'm open to correction.
7) last writings- revelations and the epistles are just basically letters that have been found and compiled. Their original existence is unquestionable. Whether their content speaks truth is another issue.
So no, I don't blindly believe the bible , nor do I hold it sacred. It just provides me with the authors' insights as how they viewed god in their time. It allows me to understand what they felt about the creator and how views changed over 1500 years. There are stories which aim to put god in a picture which is suitable for the people. Doesn't mean I think they're right though. It's just that through the writings I can see the "evolution of worship. "
You know how literature is like a window to a nation's culture. Similarly, the stories of how they comprehended god serves as an insight into the culture that jesus was born in (and how his inclusion changed all that)
But the difference between new testament and old is that there is no longer a need for writings of gods witness. Jesus served as proof to the character of god witnessed by hundreds. So authors couldn't interpret god as they wished (as they could in old testament). Here there was a definite picture which had little chance of being changed or corrupted. The letters and all just magnify the greater picture that's all.
Sorry if it's too long. I just keep writing and writing Big Grin