Thinking about belief

[Jstwebbrowsing]

It seems to me that either way it's translated it may be done to fit a preexisting doctrine.

[Airyaman]

And yet you won't extend the same notion to the bible itself...

[Shawna]

We are all fallible human beings.  All of our institutions are fallible too, as a result.  So is everything we've ever written.  Rather than irrationally hold on to a pretense that something we have created is infallible--like the bible or a religious institution--we would do better to remain aware that everything humans touch could turn out to be in error at some point.

You keep ignoring what I say and repeating your false accusation.  I have repeatedly said the Church is made up of fallible human beings and have repeated the Bible could contain factual errors or be mistranslated or misunderstood.  So please stop pretending I don't think that! 

But why mistrust Christ's words to us and why not believe Christ gave authority to His Church?

OK, you don't say the RCC is infallible.  You say it is free from error.  That's like saying "2x3 isn't 6, 3x2 is 6."

I believe that Jesus gave authority to his Church.  I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church, except where their membership happens to intersect.

[meAgain]

I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church . . .

There is Scriptural and Traditional evidence showing that Christ intended one, actual, visible, hierarchically organized Church.  It is also the only thing that makes sense when considered logically and with an open heart and mind. 


**and a little side note  -- I am still a bit confused if I am even allowed to post this in this thread.  You keep turning me in for violating the testimonial board rules and yet there are many others, yourself included, who continue to argue in this thread and yet you are giving yourself and all of them a pass.  What am I missing?   

[Shawna]

I don't believe that the institutional religions that call themselves churches are representatives of that Church . . .

There is Scriptural and Traditional evidence showing that Christ intended one, actual, visible, hierarchically organized Church.  It is also the only thing that makes sense when considered logically and with an open heart and mind. 


**and a little side note  -- I am still a bit confused if I am even allowed to post this in this thread.  You keep turning me in for violating the testimonial board rules and yet there are many others, yourself included, who continue to argue in this thread and yet you are giving yourself and all of them a pass.  What am I missing?   

Your church (lowercase "c") interprets the scripture to mean that.  Others interpret it to mean other things.

**** You are a very borderline contributor to this thread, because you still have no idea how to have a discussion without trying to "correct" what you view as someone's misguided ideas.  When a post contains laughter or derision about the topic, I report it.  You have done both.  When a post contains phrases like "Shawna is wrong/mistaken/misguided", I report it.  You have done so.  When a post contains phrases like "Shawna isn't thinking through the negative consequences of her ideas" I report it.  You have done so.

When people disagree with each other, without addressing me or referring to me in this thread, I ignore it.  It seems to me that the "no disagreements" rule is specific to the OP, not to all posts.  When people express ideas that are in disagreement with my own views, but use phrases like "It seems to me" or "in my experience", I do not report that, because the way they phrase their contribution allows others to hold differing views, without automatically declaring those differing views to be wrong.

You, Meagain, are so determined to prove me wrong, that you can't hold a conversation here, in Testimonials.  Testimonials was designed to allow people to share their ideas/beliefs/experiences without fear of having to leap up and defend themselves.  It is a safe corner for IGI, away from debate and fault-finding.  As such, the Testimonial threads tend to be short... composed mainly of a few "thank you for sharing" type posts.  Really, if you can't figure it out, don't post here. 

[meAgain]

When people express ideas that are in disagreement with my own views, but use phrases like "It seems to me" or "in my experience", I do not report that, because the way they phrase their contribution allows others to hold differing views, without automatically declaring those differing views to be wrong.

I do this and use these phrases just as often as others, but like I've said before, personally, I assume it is obvious and one shouldn't need to preface everything this way.  No kidding it is my experience, my opinion, seems to me, or what I think.  I think you still don't realize just how personal you seem to make it.  Well, for the record, it isn't personal for me and I will continue to try to understand your sensitivity, even though I am finding it very difficult.   

[Goombah]

No, the Bible is still the pole star.Why shouldn't I avail myself of Bible teachers if Christ placed them into His body?
I'm not a student of the languages which Scripture was written in -if I am to " study to show myself approved" as it were, I seek expert advice.That seems like a sensible approach.

i would agree with that. the problem, of course, is that the assertion is that the bible is unique and inspired, a document intended to guide disciples. yet it cannot be trusted to be clear without the help of paid professionals with lengthy resumes. personally i suspect such sources of universal insight.

The Bible is certainly clear enough regarding what is necessary for our salvation.I was just recently reading about the thousands of uneducated Indian dalits who have been born-again because they understood the plain teaching of Scripture.There were no professionals involved when I was saved...just the Book of Romans and myself.
If you suspect them then by all means don't use them.Personally I suspect the people who say God enlightened them on an individual basis when I have no means to 'fact check' their revelation.

Everybody has disagreed with other people since Cain and Abel....that doesn't render Scripture null and void.Quakers are divided yet you still seem to claim that you are one.

no, we don't.

Sorry for being unclear...I mean you personally are a Quaker even though Quakers are very much divided.

the witnesses believe that the bible points to the christ as the worldly incarnation of the archangel michael. do you agree?

they use the same pole star you do, pointing to jesus, as yours does.

No I don't agree.Again, in part because of the opinions of scholars regarding the witness' translation of John 1.Partly because what scriptures I read for myself also don't seem to agree with their views about Jesus.

of course you don't agree, goombah. the fact that you don't agree with the witnesses using the same book you do is my point. the guide is subjective, and subject to interpretation. john 1 can be correctly translated as the witnesses do, as i understand it. the problems with the NWT are significant, but elsewhere.

Again ,Kevin most of the scholars I read in no way possible allow for John 1: 1 to be taken as a proof text to be used to disallow Jesus' divinity.How many christian denominations use the NWT?Would you name a couple so I can do further study of them.
So, The problems with the NWT lie elsewhere?They are significant?You question my use of experts to bolster my understanding of Scripture.....how did you come to your conclusions about the NWT? Are you an expert? If its your opinion, what is it based on?

I'm not familiar with any other christian groups that use the same translation as they do.Do you know of any offhand?

their NWT is translated from the very famous greek new testament of westcott and hort. you can read other translations of that 19th century bible in other places. you do understand that your NT is a document put together by academicians who decide, as scholars, what passages in what form are going to compose your bible? not commentaries, but the base text?

Yes it is famous.Do you know why it became famous.....because of the expert scholars involved in it's formulation.
I have an understanding of the foundation of The NT, and, so what?

here is john 1:1, according to westcott and hort:

John 1:1
en archee een ho logos kai ho logos een pros
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD
1722 0746 1511_3 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 1511_3 4314
ton theon kai theos een ho logos
THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
3588 2316 2532 2316 1511_3 3588 3056

http://www.westcotthort.com/books/Westcott_Hort_Interlinear.pdf

Two questions:

1) Without consulting anything scholarly, how do I determine the meaning of the word 'toward' in that context and historical time frame?

2)How does that not claim Jesus ( the Word) is God?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Another thing for the record.  John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus being identified as Michael.

And here is a curious thing about that scripture.  The first reference to God is "the God" while the second only says "God".  That is true in the Greek also.  If I remember correctly "a" does not appear anywhere in Greek.  It is entirely up to the translator where to place an "a".

[kevin]

why are you guys so defensive about the bible?

i can't even mention that mine has black leather covers without somebody claiming that i'm defending some illogical and blasphemous theology or another.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I'm not being defensive.  I simply cleared up an error.

[urs]

Another thing for the record.  John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus being identified as Michael.

And here is a curious thing about that scripture.  The first reference to God is "the God" while the second only says "God".  That is true in the Greek also.  If I remember correctly "a" does not appear anywhere in Greek.  It is entirely up to the translator where to place an "a".

Not all languages utilize articles (a, an, or the). This leaves a certain amount of ambiguity regarding interpretation unless there is another means within the context, grammar, or syntax of communicating such specifics.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit". 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Spirit is a nebulous word.




There were many and diverse spirits at my cousins wedding this past Saturday. My spirit was uplifted.

[Airyaman]

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit".

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

[meAgain]

Not all languages utilize articles (a, an, or the). This leaves a certain amount of ambiguity regarding interpretation unless there is another means within the context, grammar, or syntax of communicating such specifics.

Another place I've noticed there is a difference in translation is at John 4:24.  Some say "God is a spirit" whereas others say, "God is spirit".

. . . Even more reason to recognize that if a Christian believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, it would be only logical to believe Christ left an authoritative Church to who we could turn to be sure we are getting His words right!  Nothing else makes sense. 

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused. 

[Airyaman]

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused.

Not being confused should not be mistaken for being right.

[meAgain]

You should ask God to clear it up for you.

Not all of us are confused.

Not being confused should not be mistaken for being right.

right back at ya 

[Airyaman]

Certainly. I know no more of the intentions of the various bible book writers than you  do. That is the entire point.

[QuestionMark]

And I think, just maybe......   that we would all be better off if the bible had been lost to the sands of time.  I think, maybe, if we were concentrating on our own story, instead of everyone else's.... that maybe we would have found a better path by now.

I know you all better than you know yourselves.

[davdi]

A thread about "poetry" turns into a thread about "prose". 

Thanks for your thoughtful OP Shawna. 

No wonder Eliot gives Kevin headaches. 

I have been very sympathetic to your "poetry" Shawna.  Now maybe I can go back to church. 

As for the discussions about the Bible, I am less puritanical about it.  The message is ..... Jesus.  My favorite SS ditty is "Jesus bids us shine with a pure clear light, like a little candle burning in the night ......  you in your small corner and I in mine." 

[kevin]

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

[Shawna]

A thread about "poetry" turns into a thread about "prose". 

Funny how that works, isn't it?   

It's ok.  I learned something important.  People don't even know that they have put the bible in the place where God should be.  It's been interesting.

"If the lost word is lost, if the spent word is spent
If the unheard, unspoken
Word is unspoken, unheard;
Still is the unspoken word, the Word unheard,
The Word without a word, the Word within
The world and for the world;
And the light shone in darkness and
Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the centre of the silent Word."

So someday we go back to church.

[kevin]

Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.

[Shawna]

"This is the time of tension between dying and birth
The place of solitude where three dreams cross
Between blue rocks
But when the voices shaken from the yew-tree drift away
Let the other yew be shaken and reply."

[davdi]

Polyphiloprogenitive
The sapient sutlers of the Lord
Drift across the window-panes.
In the beginning was the Word.

In the beginning was the Word.
Superfetation of [Greek text inserted here],
And at the mensual turn of time
Produced enervate Origen.

A painter of the Umbrian school
Designed upon a gesso ground
The nimbus of the Baptized God.
The wilderness is cracked and browned

But through the water pale and thin
Still shine the unoffending feet
And there above the painter set
The Father and the Paraclete.

The sable presbyters approach
The avenue of penitence;
The young are red and pustular
Clutching piaculative pence.



At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is,
But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity,
Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,
Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
I can only say, there we have been: but I cannot say where.
And I cannot say, how long, for that is to place it in time.
The inner freedom from the practical desire,
The release from action and suffering, release from the inner
And the outer compulsion, yet surrounded

[davdi]

I'm not sure whatnthevthunder says, Kevin.  To me it talks of cooling and refreshing, of Grace poured gently from heaven.  Of temporary loss and the disruptions that may our say more commonplace.

YOU?

[kevin]

the orthodox interpretation is that the thunder spoke to men, to the demons, and to god. ive not read the upanishads

they're on the list.