I need a show of hands: who believes the Bible and to what extent?

by Terry 206 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DagothUr

  It has some accurate historical facts. It has some true statements which betray some knowledge of popular empirical psychology. The rest are legends and myths. I think it's the opera of some smart Jew compilers...any nation needs an ethno-genesis story in order to found it's claim as a people over a piece of territory. Some of the story is true, some is fictional. All nations have a legend that tells a story about how they came into being and about how their ancestors lived in their lands. The OT is an ethno-genetic myth of the Jewish people. Some is true, some is fictional.

  The fact is their ancestors came and conquered the territory of the ancient Israel from the native populace, which were mostly exterminated, and settled there. The OT says YHWH, the Creator, gave them those lands and the right to conquer and obliterate the native inhabitants. History is written by the victors.
• 

  tec

  I believe the Bible itself is only as inerrant as the men who compiled it.

  I believe most of the NT writings attributed to Christ - and most of the gospels are in agreement (I can't currently think of what is not about Him); without contradiction, when it comes to spiritual hope, love, forgiveness, mercy, Christ as the Son of God, etc. I do think much of it has been understood incorrectly though, and as such, taught incorrectly...as men twist things to suit their purposes or their personal values.

  I cannot seem to describe how I feel about some things being incorrect, except that the spirit within me does not agree with it.

  I believe in the OT in as much as what is written does not contradict anything Christ is to have taught. As for literal/figurative - sometimes I believe literal/sometimes figurative - but all the time I think it doesn't matter, because the moral or lesson of the story does not change whether it is literal or figurative.

  The bible itself does not have to be ALL right for a person to agree with some things and not others... after all, it was not written all by the same person, and neither were the later letters supposed to be scripture. Rather they give us clues as to what the writer (and those around him) believed.

  Tammy
• 

  sooner7nc

  I think it's neat-o! It can be a very interesting book to read and it has some fairly good ideas about morality and some absolutely horrible ones.
• 

  satinka

  Hi Terry,

  I don't believe anything is divine about bible writings. I believe there may be some marginal history although not much. I think alot of folk tales and regional myths are contained in the Old Testament.

  Well, since you asked, I don't believe the Bible in the same way that the JWs taught it. I bought the whole JW propaganda because I was "born in" but when I left via disfellowshipping in 2000, I began to re-educate myself.

  I visited many different kinds of churches...let's see if I can remember... I visited New Age, Unity and Unitarian. They were inclusive and helped me to a point. I could see by then that the JWs were out to lunch. I visited Baptist, Christian Alliance, but they were rigid and way too similar to the JWs. I have a friend who is First Nations (Shoshone) and I like the way they are in tune with nature.

  One may wish to examine how much "conditioning" goes on in a religion before rushing into becoming a member. Personally, I see over and over again how dangerously divisive so-called "moderate" religion can be.

  Most importantly, I do believe what the bible says about a time when people would not adhere to religion. Rather, each person would be a law to themselves. (Romans 2:14) By that, I mean their conscience would be their guide; not some priest, pastor, elder, imam, bishop, etc. No more religion running the show, asking for money, lobbying for more power, and demanding more freedom to frighten and enslave. Sounds healthy to me. I embrace this idealist concept. I believe in being true to myself.

  satinka
• 

  Giordano

  Not inspired, written by men........ many of whom had political agendas. The Jesus story didn't have historical meaning for the Jews but it really caught on when the oral accounts reached the Greek speaking world. Their Gods were long gone, myths that no longer gave comfort or generated fear. The Jesus story took hold as a simple narritive and inflamed the imagination. The Romans also got a kick out of it. A great story is always appealing.

  The neat thing about it was that the meanings were so vague. Heck we're still trying to figure out what most of it means 2000 years later. Perfect ..........everyone gets to make of it what they want.

  Anyway It's not that difficult to create a religion based on the bible or not based on the bible, ask Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy and that idiot L. Ron Hubbard.
• 

  cofty

  I agree broadly with your opening post Terry.

  I like Ecclesiastes and Job minus the intro and post-script which were tacked on later to cover the blushes of the pious.

  As for the central message of the NT I do not believe it to be fundamentally good. I think christians spend a lot of effort trying to put a positive spin on a thoroughly appalling concept.

  Original sin, compulsory love, eternal punishment, vicarious punishment, human sacrifice, division of mankind into god's buddies and god's enemies, a god who demands praise ad nauseum. I find it demeaning, divisive and obnoxious.
• 

  wasblind

  I was brought up to believe that Jesus was the only way for

  salvation, JW's taught that you have to go through their

  channels. The Bible teaches what I was taught to begin with

  yes I believe in Jesus christ, but what turns me off is when

  a person proclaim to be a christian,yet they show no

  attributes of a christian. Because of the colorful language that I

  use at times ( It relieves pressure, I could use prayer instead but I use my freewil to use colorful words ),

  I refrain from the word "christian" but I will say that

  I strive to treat people the way I think that Christ would have me to

  I make it a point to never use God's name in vain, and I don't use

  colorful langauge when I'm out in public, just thought I would clarify that

  I was taught to believe the Bible in its entirety
• 

  A.Fenderson

  I believe the message of the Bible to be inspired, namely, we are mortally flawed creatures who are desperately in need of a Savior.

  I believe the God of the Bible to be that Savior.

  I believe the Bible itself is only as inerrant as the men who compiled it.

  This isn't internally consistent--it's self-contradictory. How can you claim both to know the true message of the bible, and that it's divinely inspired, while admitting that the channel which has brought you the message is inherently flawed?
• 

  Terry

  I believe the Bible itself is only as inerrant as the men who compiled it.

  Are the men who compiled the Bible itself inerrant, in your opinion?

  The position of mainstream christianity is that the WERE--but only because they were in the thrall of holy spirit!

  1.If the Holy Spirit inspired, guided or preserved the Bible why is fragmented into chaotic debris in no way whole, unblemished and uncorrupt by human interventions??

  2. If it is merely human--how is it a guide in communicating facts about Jesus or reliable and exclusive data about our role in believing things about what he is supposed to have done?
• 

  Quentin

  I don't believe anything is divine about bible writings. I believe there may be some marginal history although not much....Terry

  Is the Bible inspired and inerrant? No. Can you read the Bible and be inspired by it's contents? Yes. There are many books and writings that inspire. The Bible is only one of many.

  An interesting thing one can do, if you haven't done so, is take a red letter edition of the NT and read that part only.