Wow,
Our peace agreement has set off quite a tempest in this teapot of ours. No wonder it's so hard to get people to come together when religion is involved. Suddenly we get a tiny glimpse into the complexities involved in Northern Ireland, the genocides in the Balkans, Israel vs Palestine and so many more of those conflicts that plague our earth like cancers.
In our little corner of the global confusion it seems to come down to the Literalists vs the Figuratives.
I'm trying to break this down to illustrate these opposing approaches to interpreting the Bible (see table below).
Brad, I have to say that both Passionate and Kate make a (sick) sense. They accept what the Bible says and don't judge it. You judge the Bible through the human lens. Atheists believe that your ability to judge the Bible is a kind of evidence pointing to the fallacy of God.
They don't twist the Bible through human interpretation to make it more of a palliative. They accept it at face value, mostly; even they resist when the Bible goes off the beam and exhorts humans to kill each other over the beliefs that separate them (at least I hope they do).
Can't you see this more clearly?
They accept the Bible for what it says as the very Word of God.
- They don't try to sand off all the rough parts. And, their beliefs lead them quite logically to the conclusions they shared on our blog.
- You've rejected these literal Biblical directives and instead have inserted human interpreters between you and your most holy book. You've said that humans (flawed as we are) are more correct than the clearest Biblical directive to the contrary.
Bradley, you got a lotta 'splaining to do!
| Belief | Literalists | Figuratives |
| Bible as word of God | The Bible IS the word of God. | The Bible was inspired by the word of God |
| Bible passage interpretation | There is no need for interpretation; the Bible is already plain and clear. | The Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally. Various humans over the course of history have spent ample time reviewing it and have determined that there are parts which offer literal doctrine and explicit instructions while most passages are figurative and suggestive of ways of being and acting. Plus, the books of the Bible were written for specific peoples with messages specifically for them and of their time |
| Rules of Thumb | When in doubt, do what the Bible says | When in doubt, defer to human interpretation |
| Doubt | Doubt comes from Satan | Doubt comes from God. (but why is it there when it comes to God's word?) |
| Passage Examples: 2 Corinthians 6 says, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." | This is clear, unambiguous and straight-forward. Brad is violating a direct command from the Bible by joining Jeff trying to improve the world. | This passage can't be taken literally. To understand the Bible you need human scholars. They say it was meant for a particular time and place and doesn't have literal credence in today's world. |
JEFF - ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!
There are LITERALLY HUNDREDS of direct references COMMANDING Christians to Love others and care for others. Every Gospel and pretty much EVERY letter in the New Testament COMMAND us to DO GOOD. (And there are MANY of these texts that DIRECTLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY state that our very salvation DEPENDS on our actions!)
LISTEN to Kate and Passion explain WHY Jesus didn't MEAN what he said in passages like Matthew 25. They absolutely ARE "sanding off the rough parts."
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 23, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I really hate to say anything at all, but Jeff, you've hit the nail on the head. If Christians don't accept the Bible (what it says) what is the whole point? If we as humans decide what we believe about the Bible (interpret it as we ourselves see fit) then why bother? Athiesm makes just as much sense then. Needless to say, I side wholeheartedly with passionate and Kate.
I can understand why you don't like a literal interpretation of the Bible and why you choose not to accept that vision of God. It's a hard thing to accept. That can be a very unlikeable God. I can also understand why you don't accept Brad's version. Brad's version is nothing more than your athiesm with God added. Brad has taken your humanistic worldview and put it in Biblical terms. So, what's the difference? Nothing that you (or any other human) needs. Your athiesm and Brad's christianity are no different. You both believe in being "nice". You both believe in good works. You both live in modern American suburbia. What is the difference between what you believe and what Brad believes? I can't see anything to choose between the two. If I had to decide based on the arguments both of you have made, I'd probably go with you. I see no reason to side with Brad. he hasn't made me want to be a christian with anything he has said. He's spent reams of type explaining why christianity is a good thing, but he hasn't done anything at all to explain why we should choose that path over athiesm or any other "ism".
Here's the thing: You have chosen to disbelieve in any God and apparently the Christian God, specifically. You have decided that man is all there is, and all there can be. That's up to you. However, plenty of people have and do believe in a God and plenty believe in the Christian God. Sadly, as you have pointed out, there is a huge difference in those beliefs. Even our "pastors" can't agree. So why should you believe in that? I don't blame you. But, I believe there will be an accounting to the one, true God at the time of our death. We all will be accountable for all we have done, said and thought. I know you don't believe that, but just hang on. The one true God of all creation will judge us and we will spend eternity in either paradise (Heaven) or Hell. God will not be judging us on our works, but on one thing-our perfection. Trouble is, no one is perfect. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Everyone who has ever lived is guilty before God (except Jesus). Does this mean no one can spend eternity in Heaven? Not at all. You know the story. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, the perfect Lamb of God, given as the perfect sacrifice for us. Jesus death paid the fine for our sins. Based on His sacrifice, we can be judged based on that, not on our own righteousness. The problem you have right now is that God has declared you-Jeff Reid-His enemy. You and all like you who have denied Him. You have chosen to deny Him. You have no excuse before God, you will be held more accountable than the poor (for instance) African bush man who never heard the truth. You have heard the truth and willfully deny it. God has warned Christians to have nothing to do with such as you (as in partnering in some scheme, no matter how good it may be). You are God's enemy. Now, this doesn't mean, not to associate with you, or to ignore you, or treat you with distain, or something. But we cannot partner with you. We can talk to you; hopefully, you will understand that we (Passionate, Kate, etc mean no ill will, or that we hate you. We wouldn't talk at all if we hated you or bore you some ill feelings. Instead, we are terribly concerned about your eternal soul. Again, I know you have chosen to disbelieve that, but that is how we see it. We talk to you, if you were here, we would welcome you into our homes for dinner, or whatever. If you needed something, we would try our best to get it to you. But because we care more about God than man, we continue to try to convince you of your need for a savior.That is the only thing that matters. We are not worried about whether you think some other way is "better" than christianity, we only care about your soul.
Posted by: Jim W | October 23, 2007 at 04:53 PM
I see HP has posted while I was compos(t)ing my response. As usual, he has added works to his salvation. Sorry, HP, please explain to us all how many good works will earn me my salvation? I may have missed one or two toady, and I want to be sure I can make those up before I face God. How many good works have you done, today? And how many more must you do to be saved? I'm truly curious. Please enlighten us all.
Posted by: Jim W | October 23, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Jim.
What did Jesus mean when he said this:
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
As you said - "If Christians don't accept the Bible (what it says) what is the whole point?
And Jeff...I think that you WANT to have this 'literalist' view of Christianity the CORRECT version - because it's easier for you to reject.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 23, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Humble
I don't want one view or the other. I simply recognize the mutual exclusion of these two sides: literalist and figuratives. It's a major flaw in your belief system that you let humans stand between you and your holy book. The literalists are truer to their beliefs; they don't judge the message or feel compelled to better understand it through interpretation. If you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God it's the height or arrogance to believe you have any business interpreting it. How could you? Why would you try? The figuratives adapt the Word to what they wish it to be. They don't face the hard choice of definitively stating whether the Bible is or is not the actual word of God. If, however, the Bible is inspired by God, then I think you are safe in your figurative interpretations (logically speaking); if it is not, then you are on as shaky ground as I am.
Does the literalist view make it easier for me to reject? Of course it does. The very fact that you and Jim are arguing is evidence of that. It reveals the inherent contradictions in this collection of ancient books you so rely on for wisdom and instruction. Hmmm: Jesus spoke in riddles and parables but said turn the other cheek, this other book from the Pentateuch just says kill 'em all; I wonder which one is correct?
Jim
Your comments are among the clearest I've heard on this blog. While I wholeheartedly reject your beliefs (as you do mine) I can only applaud their relative purity.
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 23, 2007 at 05:13 PM
I'm still waiting for Jim (or Kate or Passion) to explain - without SPIN - WHAT Jesus meant in Matthew Chapter 25.
It's simply TOO easy to say "I accept the Bible in Full and THAT GUY DOESN'T" when you can ignore direct passages that contradict your argument.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 23, 2007 at 05:21 PM
But Humble, their "argument" comes from another passage in the Bible....!
And, are they in contradiction, these two passages: you bet!
2 Corinthians 6 says: "touch no unclean thing"
Matthew 25 says you better touch unclean things, or else
Which one is right? Is it for us to decide? That's a pretty twisted and sinister God you have that will essentially slap you in one book for doing what He told you to do in another.
It is these kinds of obvious contradictions that so give the lie to Christianity.
.. my God is compassionate, my God is love, my God asks me to kill and then punishes me for same, my God lays down the law and then changes it, my God speaks clearly and simply and then in riddles and parables, my God offers me riddles and seems to expect me to use my intellect to resolve them, my God punishes me for using my intellect, my God tells me that life on earth is important, my God plans to lay waste to earth and all the people who couldn't find their way through my maze of confusion to the truth.
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 23, 2007 at 05:31 PM
While there MAY be contradictions in the Bible. I don't think the one you referenced is.
I actually agree with Jim's take that 2 Corinthians refers to a much deeper 'connection' then simply "Touching." I would argue with Jim that simply 'partnering' isn't "crossing this line." But there ABSOLUTELY is a line that SHOULDN'T be crossed - and I don't think "Caring For" anyone crosses this line.
If you want to know where MY line is - just ask my Non Christian friends. They'll tell you what I WON'T do because of my Faith.
Is there ONE Bible - Yes.
Is there ONE set of rules......NO.
Read what Paul writes in Romans 14:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
It's pretty clear (Unless someone wants to SPIN this one) that Paul is saying People have different views on their own religion....and that's ok.....and we SHOULDN'T JUDGE other folks views!!
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 23, 2007 at 05:50 PM
One more thing for Jim -
You said this to Jeff:
"You have no excuse before God, you will be held more accountable than the poor (for instance) African bush man who never heard the truth. You have heard the truth and willfully deny it."
What does that mean? In your world view you have Heaven and Hell. Where is the African Bush man going? If he's going to Hell is he going to a WORSE hell then Jeff?? And if he's NOT going to hell then he's going to heaven. And so you're argument is that the African Bush man goes to heaven....without "Believing" in Jesus. So WHAT allows HIM to go into heaven.
At some point in time here - even you Jim - HAVE to acknowledge that you don't have ALL the answers.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 23, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Jeff,
I have a question about your dream of sandbagging around a house during a storm. Was the house yours, Brad's, or somebody else's?
Posted by: Linda | October 23, 2007 at 07:32 PM
I wouldn't call it a dream. Brad and both went to Pepperdine University. In the late summer there would be fires (like there are now) but in the Winter there would be storms. Some storms caused lots of damage to coastal homes. Often, Pepperdine students would volunteer to go down and sandbag.
This is where the reference comes from
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 23, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Jeff,
I went to UC Santa Barbara as an undergraduate so I know what you're talking about. The year I got married 500 houses got burned in a "sun-downer" firestorm. BTW I spent a year in the California Conservation Corps when I was 18 so I got quite a lot of experience sandbagging. Its not fun. Once we helped out at a flood in the Bay Area (San Jose) and we had to build sandbag walls that were like 10-12 feet tall. We were walking on the top of the walls and we would have gotten hurt if we fell off. Then the bulldozers pushed dirt up to our sandbag walls to shore up our walls - to keep the sea water out of the city. We also got to help people carry their soggy furniture outside. We made minimum wage for our efforts but the city of San Jose fed us pretty good - sub sandwiches, Kentucky fried chicken, and candy bars mostly.
I'm always interested in images that people have in their minds - because I think they often are symbolic of things going on in our lives, minds, or of those we care about. I always pay close attention to the "theater" of my mind. I think these images come from my own unconscious or from the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Linda | October 23, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Jim,
Why are you being mean to Pastor Brad just because you have some different theological views? He's your brother.
Also, I really don't know who is right - the literalists or the figuratives. Does it really matter? During our Q and A sessions at Sanctuary, Pastor Brad often admits that he might be wrong. So why can't we leave it at that? None of us has a complete view of the truth anyway.
For what its worth, Pastor Brad did help me when I was wandering around lost. He helped me to find God. I didn't talk to him and let him teach me because I was convinced that he had all the right theological views. I talked to him because I knew that he wouldn't hurt me.
I told him when I was taking Alpha about some bad things I saw when I was little. I needed to be able to tell somebody about these things. If I couldn't tell somebody - I wouldn't have been able to see that my view of God was distorted based on what I had seen when I was little.
So Jim, I really wish you'd stop criticizing Pastor Brad, I'm happy that you're pleased with your church. But can you try to see that different people need different churches and pastors?
What's wrong with having variety in the Kingdom of God?
Posted by: Linda | October 23, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Humble -
Here's my spin on Matt 25:, no spin just good stuff about doing good. Doing good to others is obviously good to do & it reflects & pleases Jesus/God!
Now, how about your spin on the following:
Do you think I have a point AT ALL, regarding the Christian emphasis on charity/good works possibly missing the mark the same as morality/conservatism? I FIRMLY believe folks can make the same mistake only with a different twist.
You might argue; "the bible is all about good deeds & kindness to all". Others could argue; "the bible is all about righteousness, morality & the impending judgment of the unredeemed".
You however had much to say previously, opposing those who insisted that both points of consideration need to be taken together.
Please understand that this is the only point I was trying to make all along. The example of banding together for a good work & making a staunch atheist feel a part of the Christian community because of it, seemed to me to be an excellent opportunity to prove my point. Please consider objectively!
Thanks!
Posted by: passionate | October 24, 2007 at 08:05 AM
Passion - thanks for the attempt. I'm dissapointed that no one else even tried.
BUT
The Son of God - God HIMSELF - states clearly that those on his left that DID NOT DO GOOD would be sent to an eternity of Hell.
And your take on that is that it's good to do good deeds?
Yet Pastor Brad joining with Jeff is ushering in the end times?
Yes. EVERY ONE OF US chooses to emphasize some areas and deemphasize others based on our personal theology. (And none of us really knows if we're right.)
For me - I admit - my emphasis is squarely on the words of Jesus and by my internal leading of the Spirit.
In terms of Can others miss the mark by overemphasizing good deeds - I suppose that's possible. But it's not up to me to judge others intentions.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 24, 2007 at 02:10 PM
But Humble -
you did plenty of judging regarding conservatism!
sorry, i had to remind you.
Posted by: passionate | October 24, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Humble, here's my attempt to answer your question. This is a long post...
Okay, I sat down last night and looked at Matthew 25. But before you do that, you have to look at Matthew 24 to see what's going on. Remember, the Bible is it's own best interpreter.
When the disciples ask Jesus when "these things shall be and what shall be the signs of thy coming?”, Jesus tells them not to be deceived and goes into some other happenings. Then he goes into the parable of the fig tree, which tells us that while we cannot know the exact day and hour of his return, we can have an idea.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Then it talks about how two are in the field: one is taken, one is left; two women grinding at the mill: one is taken, one is left. I believe this to be the rapture because Jesus indicates elsewhere that we should be saved from that hour of tribulation (plus in Revelation, the church is no longer mentioned after chapter 4 when all the bowl judgments begin, etc., etc.) He tells us that if the watchman of the house knew when evil was going to come, he would be prepared.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth is always tied to the lake of fire (eternal separation from God). So, we can deduce that the servant who says in his heart, “My lord delayeth his coming” is someone who has not been saved by the blood of Jesus because he has been appointed his portion (lake of fire).
Then in chapter 25, we see three parables. This chapter really refers to judgment and how it's going to proceed when we stand before the Lord (Great White Throne judgment). The parable of the ten virgins shows: wise people always build their foundation on Jesus while foolish people do not. While the bridegroom (Jesus) tarried (waited before coming), they all slumber and slept. At midnight, the cry was made that the bridegroom cometh. The foolish virgins weren’t prepared to meet the bridegroom and didn’t have enough oil in their lamps, so they wanted some from the wise. The wise virgins refused, saying there wouldn’t be enough oil for both the wise and the foolish. They told them to get their own oil. So while the foolish virgins were going to buy more oil, the bridegroom came and they that were ready went in with him and the door was shut. When the foolish virgins returned, they knocked and asked to come in, but the bridegroom refused them saying “I know you not.” Therefore, we need to watch and be ready. This speaks to the fact that you can’t (as an unsaved person) ride the coattails of of a saved person—you must have your own testimony of Jesus Christ. Without it, we cannot inherit the kingdom.
The parable of the talents speaks also along the same lines—what do we do with Jesus? The servants in this story were given talents to manage while the master was gone. Some servants put their talents to good use and multiplied them, and the master was pleased when he returned to settle their accounts (foreshadowing of the Great White Throne judgment). But there was one servant who did nothing with his talent but bury it. We see when the master returned, the servant was fumbling for excuses when the master asked what he’d done with his talent (Jesus). There are no excuses. The scripture says:
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Then we see:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Here, the sheep (saved) are being separated from the goats (unsaved).
These scriptures parallel Revelation 20:
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Now returning back to Matthew, we see Jesus saying “Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” BECAUSE WE ACCEPTED JESUS, we were righteously able to the minister to him when we fed the hungry, gave the thirsty water, took in the stranger, etc. Christians further the cause of Christ.
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
When Jesus turns to the goats, we have to remember that because they did not accept Jesus that he can only judge them based on their works. This automatically disqualifies them from inheriting the kingdom. But Jesus goes through the same verbiage about feeing the poor, etc. as he did with the sheep. They are confused asking, when were you hungry, etc? Their works did not further the cause of Christ.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
It ALL revolves around “What did you do with the person Jesus Christ?”
Acts 9
1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
We see that in Acts, Saul who was tormenting the followers of Jesus, ultimately was tormenting Jesus--not just the disciples. We know that after his conversion, Saul became Paul.
So when non-Christians torment Christians or refuse to help needy individuals who are professing Christians, it's like they're tormenting and rejecting Jesus because we are “his brethren.”
Posted by: Kate | October 26, 2007 at 07:09 AM
Kate - Thank you for your interpretation.
Without even saying "you're right" or "you're wrong" I want to stress my BIGGEST point in all of this.
There is NO WAY that your interpretation (right or wrong) is the "Simple" interpretation. In other words - when YOU think something is 'simple' "Don't yoke with unbelievers" you rebuke others for 'interpreting' the statement.
But when you come across a passage - that CLEARLY doesn't (in its simplest form) match your beliefs, then YOU do the interpreting.
Your taking a statement that Jesus makes regarding caring for the needy - and turning it into:
"So when non-Christians torment Christians or refuse to help needy individuals who are professing Christians, it's like they're tormenting and rejecting Jesus because we are “his brethren.”
Again - I'm not even debating whether your interpretation is correct. But you can't POSSIBLY tell me that it is the 'simplest' interpretation.
And if YOU can take the long route - ie - interpreting simple words through a Theological filter - then how can YOU tell others they are wrong in doing so?
We ALL have the right to 'interpret' and EVERYONE does so!
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 26, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Humble:
Don't = DO NOT
Yoke = to be or become joined, linked, or united. in the case of oxen: a device for joining together a pair of draft animals, esp. oxen, usually consisting of a crosspiece with two bow-shaped pieces, each enclosing the head of an animal.
Unbelievers (in the case of Christianity): those who have not repented and received the free gift of salvation from Christ.
I'm really thinking there's not too many more ways this can be interpreted.
While we all may have the right to interpret, you cannot argue that when God inspired the book that he purposefully inferred more than one authorial intent. Why, that would just be unloving—for him to make us try and figure out which is right in order to please him or make sure that we’re obeying him.
I understand that it's not politically correct to correct someone else's interpretation. It really seems that you're pushing the idea that there can be no absolute truth (and I don't want to go down this road again)--that "what's right for me may not be right for you because I interpret the scriptures differently." Scripture tells us that the Bible CAN be rightly divided.
And why would we "interpret simple words" in the Bible through anything other than a theological (and by this I'm assuming you mean GODLY) lense?
Posted by: kate | October 26, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Kate:
Revalations 20:12b (Your text)
"...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
Judged by works??
Must be true. That's what it says. Why would God try to confuse us.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 26, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Humble -
You do understand the theory of 2 judgements, right?
You're referring to the white throne judgement, where the "dead were judged". Dead meaning unredeemed. They apparently will be judged by their works.
Those in Christ will face the judgement seat of Christ, where we'll be rewarded for our service.
Sorry if I presumed here. I just read your last post & jumped in.
Posted by: passionate | October 29, 2007 at 02:27 PM
I'm simply trying to point out the fallacy in thinking that Kate's Scriptural belief system is "Truer" to the text then mine.
When something 'fits' into her belief system she will state something like "I'm really thinking there's not too many more ways this can be interpreted."
Yet when something doesn't 'fit' so easily - we get a 2000+ word 'thorough interpretation' (to a text - Matthew 25 31-46 that contains ~400 words) ((I didn't count the words - I 'estimated' - please understand my point and don't judge my math.))
Kate allows herself to interpret (nothing wrong with this by the way - we all do this) but then she presents the case that HER interpretation is 100% correct and that ANY OTHER interpretation is simply wrong.
"Why, that would just be unloving—for him to make us try and figure out which is right in order to please him or make sure that we’re obeying him."
This statement can be reinterpreted as follows "Even though there have been debates for thousands of years on the meanings of these texts - I (Kate) have them figured out. And God is unloving if I (Kate) am not correct."
SOOOOOOO
If we ALLOW ourselves to accept that we are not all knowing - we can actually discuss the texts without the self righteous condemnation of those that disagree.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 29, 2007 at 03:19 PM
I understand and agree with you Humble!
In your opinion, are there any scriptures besides the ones dealing with love that we are to receive at face value?
Posted by: passionate | October 30, 2007 at 08:09 AM
It may be a mistake to take any Scripture at face value.
Consider the words of Martin Luther:
"We are now sweating over the translation of the Prophets into German. O God, what a great and hard toil it requires to compel the writers against their will to speak German! They do not want to give up their Hebrew and imitate the barbaric German. Just as though a nightingale should be compelled to imitate a cuckoo and give up her glorious melody, even though she hates a song in monotone. (quoted by E. G. Schwiebert in Luther and His Times, page 647.)"
God didn't speak English. Jesus didn't speak English. NONE of the authors of the Bible spoke (or wrote in) English. And - as EVERY linguist expert will tell you - it is IMPOSSIBLE to deliver a 'perfect' translation from one language to the next.
And, by the way, speaking Hebrew or Greek might help - but it doesn't make it PERFECT. There are literally thousands of pages of text from Hebrew speakers debating the meaning of the Hebrew word "Yom." Did it mean a 24 hour period or not?
The issue is that in Hebrew there are only around 8,700 words. And in English we have half a million words. SO the writer using Hebrew uses one word that can be interpreted in hundreds of ways! (And I am by no means introducing a debate on Genesis....PLEASE NO!!!!!!)
The bottom line for me is that the I can approach the text of the Bible with the attitude of "OK Lord - what are you saying - what do I need to learn here" or I can I approach the Bible with the attitude of "OK - how can I prove my point here."
Don't get me wrong - at times I do both. But I am at fault for the latter.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 30, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Well put my friend!
Is it possible that the general meaning could survive translation and that the Lord could clearly say ANYTHING that isn't directly associated to 'love' as we understand it?
Posted by: passionate | October 30, 2007 at 10:39 AM