A) Do you think that your religion follows exactly what the Bible says? Word for word.
OR
B) Do you believe that, despite the fact you try your hardest, no religion can truly follow the Bible exactly because it can be interpreted in so many ways?
posted
To paraphrase Joseph Smith: "I believe the books of the Bible as they were written by their original authors."
In other words, I believe that there were prophets who were inspired by God, and that their holy records endured in one form or the other.
Unfortunately, while God is perfect, man is not. Over the ages, many changes have been made, and the Book of Mormon calls "plain and precious truths" have been lost.
Plus, there are a lot of misconceptions about the Bible. It wasn't originally one book, it was a latter compilation. Thus, it's difficult even for the most ardent bibilical literalist to locate a passage which states: "The Bible is complete, and should be followed exactly." Because there wasn't a Bible when these books were written. So there was never any claim made about the Bible being perfect and full until long, long after the original authors of the various books were gone.
I believe the Bible contains many vital truths about Christ, but they are best understood with the help of the Holy Ghost and with additional books of holy scripture.
But then, I'm a Mormon, so I'm biased.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
B. Setting aside the subjectivity of the volume it self due to translation, transcription and arbitrary editing; I believe it is self deception to not realise the subjectivity involved when considering doctrine that was extrapolated from the volume by a human, be it oneself or clergy.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
D.on't ever give only two options. If this were a real poll, you'd really need an "other" answer.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thread title sounds like a pamphlet...or an after-school special. "Well, Johnny. It's time you learned about your religion and you." *THE MORE YOU KNOW!*
posted
I hate "other" answers, and I usually advise people not to give that option when polling for a real reason. Because people ALWAYS like to think they're an exception, and will choose "other" even when the distinction would be meaningless to anyone else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify my “C,” I disagree with your phrase “despite the fact you try your hardest,” in option B. To try to “follow it exactly word for word” would require that our life circumstances exactly match those of the people writing/written about. So not only is it impossible, as in your option B, it’s not even desirable. Interpretation is both required and desirable.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by calaban: B. Setting aside the subjectivity of the volume it self due to translation, transcription and arbitrary editing...
Ah, but my people read it in the original, hand-copied by scribes on parchment, and read out loud three times/week before the congregation. If any scribal error is discovered in the reading (and the congregation is really listening!), the whole hand-written scroll is proclaimed to be invalid, and the entire scroll is sent off to the scribe so that he may re-write the entire parchment panel on which the error was discovered.
We Orthodox Jews take our scripture seriously!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish that you guys could explain this to this friend of mine. Because she just got baptized the other day, and she suddenly thinks she's some sort of an expert.
I've been trying to explain to her since late last night, that no religion does or can truthfully follow the Bible exactly. But she's just too stubborn.
And it's really sad because she doesn't even understand her own religion.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well firstly- my "religion" has very little to do with my daily living. My religiosity is quite strong- however in my day-to-day activities it is not so much about to which denominational sect I belong, but rather how I strive daily to follow God's will for me and my life.
Now that being said- I do not believe that our idea(s) of God can ever be perfect- since an infinite scope is not able to be conceived by a finite creature. I try and follow the Bible as much as I possibly can. I do not believe that anyone translation is completely correct- since the Word of God is greater than the language invented by man. Man can interpret it many different ways- however I believe there is only one correct interpretation and that is what God has meant for it to mean.
Therefore I find it important to not only just read it- but also to pray about it and ask God about its meaning.
I do not believe that anyone can ever achieve perfection, so in that aspect I would lean more towards Answer B. However I do find it important to note that although perfection cannot be achieved, we still must strive for it daily and that through the power of the Holy Spirit we can come closer every day. So I accept answer B intellectually, however I try to live out answer A with my life.
As to your friend Steve- just remind her that no one is an expert on the mind of God. That He is greater than any of our silly ideas. And that what gives us the best knowledge of God isn't sporadic reading of a book- but rather a life lived out for Him.
So- that was kind of long, didn't mean for it to be.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think incompatibilities between the bible and religions are not problems with the bible, but with the religions themselves. While the bible was inspired by God, who is perfect...religions are run by ordinary men and women who are not perfect.
Is it possible to live exactly like the bible teaches? It was possible for Jesus, since he lived a sinless life, but not for the rest of us. If it were, there would not have been a reason for him to come and die on the cross. That being said, we should of course try to live as closely to the example he set as possible.
As for translation inaccuracies, thats not really as much of an issue as people like to make it out to be. Prior to finding the dead sea scrolls the earliest copy of the old testament was from around 900 ad or so. After finding the dead sea scrolls, that put us somewhere btwn 100 bc and 100 ad (at least that is the last estimate I heard). The two sources ended up being nearly an exact match...and that is over about a 900 year period. As Tante said, scribes back then took their work seriously.
We have multiple copies of early new testament letters as well that match the later versions. Also, with the new testament there is not the worry that things changed before they were written down...since quite a bit of the new testament is made up of letters written to churches by they disciples.
Of course people still debate about what Jesus meant with some of his lessons, but then again we know from the bible that some of his lessons confused his disciples as well.
Overall, I think each Christian should do their best to live as much like Christ lived as possible, and pray for help in that task. None of us will be perfect, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, we should try. But that doesn't really answer my question at all.
My question being whether you believe any religion to truly follow the Bible. And the Bible alone, with no effect from writings of scholars of any sort.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
C. Same reasons as dkw. Also, scripture is not the only source of information on how to follow God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
so I agree that 'other' is a cop-out, but since the a and b options are only valid answers if you first start with accepting a literal interpretation of the bible, which is in no way the "standard" interpretation for Christians...
Given that, I'd have to answer C with the spirit of B. Being that all religions are going to be inherently flawed in that they contain and are created/run by human beings... (and don't try arguing that Jesus started our church so it's perfect...)
But it's C because I don't think the Bible can be literally interpreted in any number of cases.
On a similar note: I'm curious as to some of the board's Jews as to how literally you take the Torah? I know on some of the standard issues such as Kosher laws we'd probably have some differing opinions, but what about the Creation Myths etc? I'm just curious because I have heard the opinions of literalist Christians and non-literalist christians, but so far no Jews.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sense a whole lot of unspecified assumptions in the original question which do not apply to me. So I'm picking "mu".
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
C) I don't believe that the Bible IS God. I believe it is a book. So I only follow it insofar as I think it is correct, just like I do for every other fallible authority on earth.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr/Ms Grimace: As an Orthodox Jew i would truly love to answer your question but i don't completely understand it. Could you please clarify?
Tante Shvester: I don't understand... are you saying that Christians don't take their scripture seriously?
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plus, there are a lot of misconceptions about the Bible. It wasn't originally one book, it was a latter compilation. Thus, it's difficult even for the most ardent bibilical literalist to locate a passage which states: "The Bible is complete, and should be followed exactly." Because there wasn't a Bible when these books were written. So there was never any claim made about the Bible being perfect and full until long, long after the original authors of the various books were gone
If I believed in self evident and obvious truths, I would say these statements qualify. Not a single fundamentalist Christian - from Jerry Falwell to Kent Hovind - can dispute these statements, but they act as if they were not true.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: On a similar note: I'm curious as to some of the board's Jews as to how literally you take the Torah?
I look at context. That means that it depends what you're talking about; I find over 80% of the Oral Law in the form of Talmud to be nonsensical in practical terms, the stories and arguments are often ridiculous. But on the other hand, there is the matter of tradition and the well-known historic development of religious practice.
I'm not a Chassid. I enjoy some Chassidic music, and using it in services in shul is a very inspiring thing. But you've got to learn and study well and see it all in context. I know why the stories in the Talmud were put there, why the G'mara was assorted the way it was and I spent a year learning one basic Mitzvah through reading the text, understanding it in Biblical context, then moving on to the later developments of that law and see how things changed.
It's not a matter of literalism vs. interpretation. It's knowing the context and making judgement based upon that.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: Tante Shvester: I don't understand... are you saying that Christians don't take their scripture seriously?
Oh my! How in the world did you get THAT meaning out of what I wrote? I would never presume to say such a thing. My post was addressing the lengths that the traditional Jews go to to avoid mistakes in translation and transcription. We do not accept a translation of the original to be equivalent to the original and we have a system to detect and correct transcriptional errors. I said nothing about the seriousness of Christians and their version of the scriptures.
This is how rumors get started.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify my question of the board's Jews:
I am curious (especially with reference to differences between chassidic, reform, orthodox conservative etc..) as to whether you, or others take the Torah to be completely literal. i.e. everything written in what Christians consider the Old Testament is word-for-word true and completely factual.
Key examples that many think are points of conflict between Christians who do/don't have a completely literalist interpretation are:
1) The creation stories (i.e. was the world created in X days in human time or is it reasonable that X days is figurative and could equate to millions/billions of years etc...)
2) Certain laws that seem somewhat inappropriate in current society: Stoning people for sleeping with spouses, killing people for not obeying the sabbath, not planting different crops in the same fields, owning slaves, selling daughters to slavery etc...
i.e. do you think that portions of the scripture need to be taken in context to be appropriately interpreted?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and no. (How's THAT for a stereotypically Jewish answer!? )
The most important thing when examining traditional Jewish beliefs about the Written Law is that it can never be interpreted alone. One must always use the Oral Law as the lens through which the Written is viewed. Thus we know that some things are absolutely NOT literal, ever, ("Eye for an eye" comes to mind) while other things certainly are.
Two other points: One, some things, especially when it comes to those beliefs not clearly agreed upon as central and/or basic (for those which are, see Maimonedes' Thirteen Principles of Faith), there are often multiple accepted opinions. For example, the days of Creation may be literal, or they may be metaphorical, or one of a few other possibilities. What is basic is that God created the world, not how long He spent doing it (or the precise mechanism).
Two, as we are currently in exile, lacking a land that is under Torah law, a Bais haMikdash (Temple) and a Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court, if you will), some laws cannot be kept. No Bais haMikdash means no sacrifices can be brought, for example. Death penalty crimes cannot be judged, let alone punished, without a Sanhedrin. (Moreover, even when a Sanhedrin sat in judgement, the death penalty was almost never carried out. To qualify, the crime had to have been witnessed, the criminal warned by those witnesses, etc.)
You also are not making a distinction between that which is commanded and that which is permitted. Slavery was never the former, only the latter. And slaves had to be well treated -- a slave who was mistreated automatically went free! (Also, of the three categories of biblical "slavery," two are really indentured servitude, not slavery.) And some commandments only apply to Jews living in the land of Israel -- the hybridization laws, for example.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Karaaites (1000+ years ago) interpreted the Torah literally, word by word, and did not accept the Oral Law. They were ostracized by the mainstream Jewish community, because we do not read the Torah literally. We do not accept the concept of "eye for an eye". Even beyond the commandments, which are interpreted through the Oral Law (for example, the ban on eating milk and meat together, which is not written explicitly in the Torah), the Talmud Bavli (Oral Law) interprets Bible stories in ways which are not always clearly aligned with the text. From Samuel II Ch. 12, for example, it seems rather clear that David commited the sins of adultery and murder. The Talmud says, though, that "Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring" (Tractate Shabbat 56a). Regarding Creation: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past" (Psalms 90:4). Godly time is not the same as ours, but as rivka said, there are many different ways to interpret Creation. Regarding some of the permitted laws in the Torah, many have been forbidden. Rabbi Gershom Me'or Hagolah banned polygamy during the Middle Ages, and I'm sure the same has been done for other laws, but I'm not going to check... The greatness of Jewish law is that it can be interpreted and reinterpreted, and that it does not force us to behave according to standards which no longer exist in our time.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: On a similar note: I'm curious as to some of the board's Jews as to how literally you take the Torah? I know on some of the standard issues such as Kosher laws we'd probably have some differing opinions, but what about the Creation Myths etc? I'm just curious because I have heard the opinions of literalist Christians and non-literalist christians, but so far no Jews.
I answered some of this back in the Torah 101 thread. As far as the Creation story (calling it a myth, or "myths" in the plural, is sort of inserting an answer into the question) goes, we do think that it happened just as written. But how it is written isn't all that clear.
For example, were the days 24 hour days? Prior to day 4, when the sun was created, would the time it takes to orbit the sun mean anything?
Often, events can appear differently when seen from different perspectives. We know from relativity and related science that time is no different. So what it says it Genesis certainly happened that way, but it doesn't necessarily contradict evolution (of some sort) or the earth being measurably older than 5766 years. There was a rabbi who lived centuries ago (Isaac of Akko) who concluded, using Jewish sources, that the universe was approximately 15 billion years old.
We certainly don't see the first and second chapters of Genesis as being in any way contradictory. Here are a couple of books by Orthodox Jewish scientists on the issue of creation.
But no, we don't have a literalist reading of the Torah in the way other religions do. We do not think that "an eye for an eye" ever meant that literally, for example. The laws in the Torah are determined by the Oral Law, and not by the text. But yes, capital punishment for desecrating the Sabbath, or any of the other punishments mentioned in the Torah... all of those are for real. It's just that the requirements for carrying out such punishments are much, much more rigorous than proving guilt in the American judicial system (to use an example).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: From Samuel II Ch. 12, for example, it seems rather clear that David commited the sins of adultery and murder. The Talmud says, though, that "Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring" (Tractate Shabbat 56a).
That said, I don't think anyone disputes that David did something very, very wrong. All the Sages are saying there is that he didn't -- technically; as a matter of law -- commit adultery.
For those who don't get that, basically, it was Jewish practice for men to prepare a conditional, retroactive writ of divorce before going off to war. This was because if a man was lost in war and his body never recovered, there'd be no way to prove that he was dead, and his wife would never be able to remarry. In this way, if he never returned, the writ could be opened, and his wife would be divorced retroactive to the day he left.
Had Uriah returned to Bathsheba, the divorce would never have taken effect, and David and Bathsheba's act would, consequently, have been adultery. David urged Uriah to go to Bathsheba despite his knowledge that this would make him -- legally -- an adulteror, but it never happened.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the original question of the thread:
I've splintered away from Catholicism in many ways because of their adherence to what I'd consider outdated laws. But mostly because I dislike such a rigid, closeminded form of worship. There are so many great things to be had in religion, but I've yet to find one that has all of the love of God and yet the kind of all out acceptance that I think a good God would have.
I don't think the original Bible applies in every way to today. Sure, the basic morals, principles, and some stories of the Bible are very relevant to the world we live in. But the rules we follow, some seemingly so arbitrary, yet clung to as if God spoke them with more truth and vigor than any other really put me off. Especially off putting is the attitude of the holier than thou, burn in hell religious community. I don't want to at all be associated with those people.
After rereading this, I suppose it isn't an answer to your original question at all, sorry. But, I used to be a devout Catholic, now I'm just a wandering, spiritually devout...believer, with no religion to call a home. None of them really speak to me, but then, I don't think any that follow the Bible so stringently could be a religion that I'd follow very closely.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks Rivka, crescentsss and starLisa, that's pretty much exactly the set of answers I was looking for/expecting.
and sorry for the "myth" I was torn about it, but "creation story" seems too disrespectful and while "myth" shows some bias towards interpretation, it feels more professional/clinical in my mind.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
*wince* Aviezer's book is not too bad. But Schroeder's is both very bad science and not particularly consistent with Torah.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slightly off topic and about a week late, this is in response to Tomdavidons post on the 13th.
When polling, if a large number of respondents choose other, you know you have left a valid choice off of the questionairre.
It should almost always be included. But you should allow them to explain what it is, so that you can categorize/segment the responses.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
C. I don't believe that nobody can follow the Bible because of the possibilities of multiple interpretations. I can have multiple interpretations of stereo instructions, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to assemble a stereo. (It just seems that way.)
I wouldn't say that I -- I don't know about my religion -- follow the Bible perfectly, because I'm not perfect.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
