No theme for this thread other than the title. I just want to see where it goes…
So let it rip!
History Channel (I believe) is putting out a series on it. After being impressed with their “Mankind” series, I’m looking forward to the show.
[quote]pat wrote:
No theme for this thread other than the title. I just want to see where it goes…
So let it rip![/quote]
Only makes sense in its original language and coupled with the oral law also given Moses.
In fact, lacking vowels and punctuation in the original Hebrew, the Torah is highly abiguous without the oral law and traditions of interpretation.
The reliance on imperfect interpretations has given rise to many a strange and imperfect theology.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. 301 redirect
CHAPTER I.
Of the holy Scripture.
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Of the Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
I Chronicles
II Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Of the New Testament
The Gospels according to
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
The Acts of the Apostles
Paul’s Epistles to the:
Romans
Corinthians I
Corinthians II
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Thessalonians I
Thessalonians II
Timothy I
Timothy II
Philemon
The Epistle to the
Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The First and Second
Epistles of Peter
The First, Second, and
Third Epistles of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Revelation
All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
History Channel (I believe) is putting out a series on it. After being impressed with their “Mankind” series, I’m looking forward to the show.
[/quote]
I plan on recording it. I am looking forward to this.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).[/quote]
Well, I expected a little better from you smh. I know you have read at least some of it and have some understanding of it, but merely a collection of ‘fables’ it is not. There are allegorical stories, which are not based on historical fact, but to illustrate a point. But there is also fact based books, poetic, prophetic, liturgical, linguistic, numerelogical, and metaphysical sections and aspects to the Bible.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe what’s in it. But it’s richness and complexity, while intermingling a calming simplicity to it makes it, at the very lest one of the greatest writings in the history of man. It’s been studied in detail for hundreds of generations and it’s depth have still not yet fully been explored.
Forget about religion, just be fair to the book.
train wreck in 3, 2, 1…
…
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No theme for this thread other than the title. I just want to see where it goes…
So let it rip![/quote]
Only makes sense in its original language and coupled with the oral law also given Moses.
In fact, lacking vowels and punctuation in the original Hebrew, the Torah is highly abiguous without the oral law and traditions of interpretation.
The reliance on imperfect interpretations has given rise to many a strange and imperfect theology.[/quote]
Would you claim the Torah is an actual written history of the Jewish Nation, or more of a generalized story?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My bet is the History Channel which really is just the “Entertainment Channel With History as Its Theme” might not get it right. By “right” I mean a seriously, intellectually, historically and spiritually accurate piece. We’ll see.
Having said that, I do enjoy some of what the HC airs.[/quote]
We’ll see. They’ll either do an amazing job, or blow it big time. I am not unawares that some of the religious oriented programming isn’t always favorable.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No theme for this thread other than the title. I just want to see where it goes…
So let it rip![/quote]
Only makes sense in its original language and coupled with the oral law also given Moses.
In fact, lacking vowels and punctuation in the original Hebrew, the Torah is highly abiguous without the oral law and traditions of interpretation.
The reliance on imperfect interpretations has given rise to many a strange and imperfect theology.[/quote]
Would you claim the Torah is an actual written history of the Jewish Nation, or more of a generalized story?[/quote]
Your question presents a false dichotomy due to its breadth.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).[/quote]
Well, I expected a little better from you smh. I know you have read at least some of it and have some understanding of it, but merely a collection of ‘fables’ it is not. There are allegorical stories, which are not based on historical fact, but to illustrate a point. But there is also fact based books, poetic, prophetic, liturgical, linguistic, numerelogical, and metaphysical sections and aspects to the Bible.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe what’s in it. But it’s richness and complexity, while intermingling a calming simplicity to it makes it, at the very lest one of the greatest writings in the history of man. It’s been studied in detail for hundreds of generations and it’s depth have still not yet fully been explored.
Forget about religion, just be fair to the book. [/quote]
Fair enough, Pat. I presented an overly-simple definition because it was controversial.
The gist of my post I still stand by, but I don’t mean to imply that the Bible is not full of rich history and beauty, which it is.
I wrote out a long post in the “why is your religion better” thread that expresses my view of the Bible much better.
For the record, I’ve always enjoyed reading it and thinking about it. I just don’t believe the important parts of it.
As a historical document it is both fascinating and not well-enough understood.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).[/quote]
It’s just like what Jewbacca said. You’re trying to understand it in English (or any current language for that matter). To truly understand it you MUST look at the original language, historical settings, audience and yes…even faith.
With that said, not everybody has the time nor desire to learn the original languages. That’s why reading works from GENUINE scholars is very important.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).[/quote]
It’s just like what Jewbacca said. You’re trying to understand it in English (or any current language for that matter). To truly understand it you MUST look at the original language, historical settings, audience and yes…even faith.
With that said, not everybody has the time nor desire to learn the original languages. That’s why reading works from GENUINE scholars is very important. [/quote]
While I am certain beyond any kind of doubt that doing so would have literally no effect on my general opinion of the Bible, I would love to be able to read the OT and NT in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine. But it’s certainly not happening any time soon. Maybe one day when you can swallow a pill and instantly know a language.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No theme for this thread other than the title. I just want to see where it goes…
So let it rip![/quote]
Only makes sense in its original language and coupled with the oral law also given Moses.
In fact, lacking vowels and punctuation in the original Hebrew, the Torah is highly abiguous without the oral law and traditions of interpretation.
The reliance on imperfect interpretations has given rise to many a strange and imperfect theology.[/quote]
Would you claim the Torah is an actual written history of the Jewish Nation, or more of a generalized story?[/quote]
Your question presents a false dichotomy due to its breadth.[/quote]
Agree.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
My personal definition: a collection of primitive fables–some of them self-evidently nonsensical, many of them unoriginal, and most of them inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt in the era of the electron microscope and radiocarbon dating–which has nonetheless proven to be remarkably resilient and quite useful over the ages (for both good and ill).[/quote]
Well, I expected a little better from you smh. I know you have read at least some of it and have some understanding of it, but merely a collection of ‘fables’ it is not. There are allegorical stories, which are not based on historical fact, but to illustrate a point. But there is also fact based books, poetic, prophetic, liturgical, linguistic, numerelogical, and metaphysical sections and aspects to the Bible.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe what’s in it. But it’s richness and complexity, while intermingling a calming simplicity to it makes it, at the very lest one of the greatest writings in the history of man. It’s been studied in detail for hundreds of generations and it’s depth have still not yet fully been explored.
Forget about religion, just be fair to the book. [/quote]
Fair enough, Pat. I presented an overly-simple definition because it was controversial.
The gist of my post I still stand by, but I don’t mean to imply that the Bible is not full of rich history and beauty, which it is.
I wrote out a long post in the “why is your religion better” thread that expresses my view of the Bible much better.
For the record, I’ve always enjoyed reading it and thinking about it. I just don’t believe the important parts of it.[/quote]
I get it, you don’t believe in the divinity of the book, but do not deny that it’s nature, messaging and content is both elegant and deep. Whether you believe in it’s divinity or not, as literature, it’s an epic piece of work. And even if you don’t believe in it’s divinity, the truth spoken in say, Proverbs is useful in daily life.
I understand you to be a reasonable and thoughtful person which is why I took exception to the over simplification. Not in a bad way, but in the fact that I know you better than that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
[/quote]
No, simply a factor of not finding the original Hebrew for the texts led to a problem of potential mistranslation into Greek. It’s not a question of their divinity in as much as their language.
There is no perfect interpretation capable by man, but only by God himself. As long as man is a conduit, there will be no infallible interpretation. Only the author knows what he truly meant by every word.