The Bible was written in Hebrew- a language with some 1300 words (at the time), that, when translated into other languages- like the 4 million-word English language of today- loses much of its original meaning. To take it literally is to not only ignore the problems associated with translation, but to also miss God’s intent: which was only to provide us with a spiritual guide explaining our relationship with Him. To use it as a scientific textbook or even historical work is taking it out of context. God gave us our own faculties in order to figure out the mechanics of the Universe, how the Earth got here, how we got here, and even what happened back in 2,000 B.C. You might even apply that to some of the stories of Jesus- was it really THAT important to believe that He walked on water- or more important to get the meaning of the story? Jesus talked in parables all the time, why couldn’t the disciples and apostles and other writers of the Gospels have done the same?
Questions for further thought:
- Assuming God is omnipotent (all-powerful), is it possible that He created the world both as current science theorizes it to have happened (over billions of years), AND in a way that would match what is described in scripture (original Hebrew with all its possible meanings)? If God can exist in a Trinity that is so mysterious and confusing as to seem paradoxical to humans, why couldn’t the Creation story be much more complex than the way it SEEMS to be described in Genesis?
- How literal should we take parts of the Bible- since the Hebrew of the time supposedly had only a few thousand words compared to our millions in modern English? Are principles that Jesus taught the more important parts, or does it take away from anything if we don't accept it all as precise facts?- What of the concept that the Bible was inspired by God to be an explanation of His relationship with us- and not as a Historical or Scientific Textbook? If possible- then it would follow that to use it in any manner other than as an explanation of our relationship with Him would be problematic- sort of like using a cookbook to understand lava flows. Or is it a "be-all, end-all" answer to everything and science is attempting the impossible and will always or usually be wrong?
- Do Christians "limit" God by trying to "box" Him into what it says in a literal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be more realistic to assume we cannot know the details of how He operates- to include the universe and the Earth- at least through only the Bible? Would it not make more sense to postulate that He provided the Bible as a spiritual guide, but gave us the tools to discover the answers to the rest of His creation on our own (or at least PART of the answers)? Or, at the least, should Christians couch everything we say in terms that recognize we might not understand God as much as we sound like we do? Or, alternatively, is the Bible all we need and everything else an illusion of our own pride? Can we not even trust our own senses and reason?
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
