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:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christians get into all kinds of trouble trying to literally interpret the Bible. Some want to make it a physics book, trying to counts the days from Creation to the present and claiming the earth is only 10,000 years old. Others want to turn it into a list of "thou shalt nots" rivaling the Pharisaic interpretation of the Torah. The Bible is a spiritual book - God's message to man about who God is and who man is.
ReplyDeleteDid Joshua literally stop the sun (or more properly, the earth's rotation)? Did Jesus literally walk on water, heal the blind and the lame, and most important, RISE FROM THE DEAD? I don't know, and by that I mean, I can't prove that any of those things happened. But if there is indeed life after death, and if God the Father is indeed the Creator of all that we can observe, even with our best science, then there must be things we don't see with our eyes. Those things, in my opinion, are seen with the heart. That is the real basis of faith.
Jesus said that the Law really boiled down to two things: Love God and Love your Fellow Man. Nitpicking over words and phrases written thousands of years ago and subject to multiple translations and interpretations misses the point of Christianity.
The scripture lesson today at church was from the Old Testament- Isaiah 40:22: "...It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
ReplyDeleteAnd its inhabitants are like grasshoppers..."
Don't know if I'm taking out of context, but everytime I read something like that it makes me think of those preachers who thunder about what God is and what God isn't on TV- as if they really have a clue- they've got God in all His mystery all figured out.
I just have to believe that the Pharisees and Sadduccees were also "sure" they knew the deal.
On the reverse side of your point that the English version of the Bible has much more words that there were in the Hebrew text is that for the word "love" there are many Aramaic (used in the New Testament) words for that one English word. Just a two cent'r.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that some languages have many, many words for different kinds of nouns we have in the English language. Wonder if that would make translation even more difficult- since the word used wasn't "love" in the English language sense- but maybe something different? Interesting either way. Wonder why we don't have lots of words for love...
ReplyDeleteWow, I'm not even sure where to begin, but the word thing is getting some type we can start there. Since there are people that still speak, read, and write hebrew I would find it hard that the English version is soo perverted that the meaning is lost. Of course, I'm not sure which English version you would be referring to because I own three different versions myself.
ReplyDeleteI do find it interesting that this site is willing to question (forgive the term) the holy grail of the christian religion. Actually, some of the Jewish and Muslim bases of religion as well. To quote my uncle (a federal court judge), "to find the answer to most questions about anything, one must look at the motivation for its existence."
In this particular instance I will not focus on why we need to have the discussion, but on the following.
Why was the bible created?
If you believe what I have been told from my history classes, the bible was put together starting with the Torah and adding more books from a large collection of works about Jesus. The finished bible was to detail the officially ackowledged "version" of christianity and dispell other "versions". Clearly, at this time in history there was a need to clarify who and what a christian was because something was happening to the religion that the "elders" did not like. I don't know what it was specifically, but I think that is a moot point at this time. The point is there were other versions or other images that were either true or false. One particular image that gets a lot of play is whether Jesus was a sexual being and fathered children. ALA the Devinci Code. I'm definitely not defending the Novel as fact, but there are many that do question if Jesus had/ has a blood line.
With all of this said, I feel the bible is tainted and skewed to represent the "image" of what the "elders" thought was important. However, the bible is still an important tool in any christian's life and should be used in every spiritual way that is possible. But a historical, literal, and defintive source it should not be.
I was having a discussion recently with someone who was very interested in the origins of the Bible and where it came from. The crux of the discussion centered around how seemingly arbitrary as to how some books were canonized and others thrown out. I'm not sure on the historical aspects of it all- but I wonder whether the church's official position is that the Council of Nicea was inspired by God to put the right books in?
ReplyDeleteWhich leads me to wonder if God doesn't inspire other writings today- and how we would know so. I wonder if it all doesn't boil down to "consensus"- that much-aligned ally of Global Warming...
By the way- the poll on the right asking about the symbol of the Facilitator has three right answers: it stands for the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, which was what the Swans a' Swimming stood for, and those gifts were: knowledge, wisdom, judgment, courage, understanding, piety, and fear.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that "fear" was a gift from the Holy Spirit. But- notice that knowledge, wisdom, courage, and understanding are gifts that rank up there with "piety". As I read that, the Holy Spirit gave us knowledge and courage and understanding so that we didn't have to be automotons bound by dogma.
Interesting discussion on suicide on the Combined Arms Commmand's Webblog site that turns into a religious discussion: http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/cgsc_student_blog/archive/2009/02/05/pardon-my-cancer-the-army-and-suicide.aspx
ReplyDelete