1. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    14 Mar '14 05:55
    Why do we humans think that we can understand all about the God of the bible and what He has put in the bible.

    Why can't we have a starting point of thinking that the bible literally means what it says in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? Why complicate things or make up our own thinking that is not founded in the bible? No matter what, we don't need to deny that "God Can" do all He wants to do.

    King James Version
    ===============
    John 3: 12
    If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

    John 3: 3-8
    Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

    Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

    John 3: 9-10
    Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

    Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
  2. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    14 Mar '14 16:171 edit
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    Why can't we have a [b]starting point of thinking that the bible literally means what it says in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?[/b]
    Well, firstly, I don't read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Quite why God didn't make the Bible text instantly readable in all languages simultaneously is beyond me, but that question is for another day.)

    And even if I could, languages are constantly evolving, and what words literally meant then could change in important ways in only a few decades, let alone centuries.

    And even if we could pinpoint the literal meaning precisely, I couldn't be sure that I wasn't missing the nuances that make up such an important part of language.

    And even if I could, the Bible is simply too ambiguous to understand in many places.

    I mean, let us suppose the translation 'abstain from blood' is the very best English translation of Acts 15:29.

    What the hell does that mean? It could mean:

    1 Don't eat meat
    2 Don't kill people with a knife
    3 Avoid your wife when she is on her period.

    If there was a law in this country which made it a criminal offence not to 'abstain from blood', no-one would or could ever be prosecuted for it, as ambiguity in legislation is a defence.

    Of course, one might expect an omnipotent being would do a better job than a junior parliamentary draftsman, especially given the consequences of getting it wrong.

    But apparently not.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 Mar '14 16:29
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Well, firstly, I don't read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Quite why God didn't make the Bible text instantly readable in all languages simultaneously is beyond me, but that question is for another day.)

    And even if I could, languages are constantly evolving, and what words literally meant then could change in important ways in only a few decades, let ...[text shortened]... mentary draftsman, especially given the consequences of getting it wrong.

    But apparently not.
    You say... "I mean, let us suppose the translation 'abstain from blood' is the very best English translation of Acts 15:29."

    and http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Acts-15-29/ says

    "That ye abstaine from meates offered to idoles, and from blood, & from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keepe your selues, yee shall doe well. Fare ye well."

    and KingOP says, "Why can't we have a starting point of thinking that the bible literally means what it says in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?"

    The head spins.
  4. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    14 Mar '14 16:30
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    Why do we humans think that we can understand all about the God of the bible and what He has put in the bible.
    Why do you believe 'god' had anything to do with the bible?
  5. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 17:22
    JS357,
    You Typed:
    --------
    "That ye abstaine from meates offered to idoles, and from blood, & from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keepe your selues, yee shall doe well. Fare ye well."
    --------

    Why is that hard to take literally? Seems pretty easy to me to take it literally.
  6. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 17:27
    AvalanchetheCat
    The proper bible is ultimately a translation based on the original writings of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    God did not write the "bible." Man provided the translations and called it "the bible."
  7. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 17:33
    Rank Outsider,
    It is up to us to study what God meant in scripture. God did not teach all things Himself.

    Also, if we automatically think that our translated language in a bible has all the answers to our responsibilities toward God, then we can be misled.
  8. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Mar '14 18:36
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    AvalanchetheCat
    The proper bible is ultimately a translation based on the original writings of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    God did not write the "bible." Man provided the translations and called it "the bible."
    But in your OP you wonder "about the God of the bible and what He has put in the bible."

    Are you now saying that your god didn't put stuff in the bible?
  9. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    16 Mar '14 18:41
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    JS357,
    You Typed:
    --------
    "That ye abstaine from meates offered to idoles, and from blood, & from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keepe your selues, yee shall doe well. Fare ye well."
    --------

    Why is that hard to take literally? Seems pretty easy to me to take it literally.
    So what does 'abstain from blood' mean?

    What is definitely prohibited by this and what not?

    Do you think blood transfusions are prohibited by this?
  10. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 19:04
    AvalancheTheCat,
    Whatever is in the bible should be the original writings of scripture. When it comes to translation,the bible should not differ than the original writings. Otherwise, for sure, we don't have the meaning of the Word of God.
  11. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 19:46
    Rank Outsider,
    Without doing my own deeper studying, I would think that it may be based on what the Israelites were not supposed to do, according to God. They were not to drink the blood of sacrifices, and also animal's blood that were not sacrifices. In Acts 15, the Christian Gentiles were to be taught not to drink the blood of animals they wanted to eat either.

    Perhaps, the Israelites were already not doing that.

    For some reason, God did not want Israel to do that.

    King James Version
    ===============
    Acts 15: 19-21
    Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

    But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

    For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
    ---------------------

    Leviticus 3: 17
    It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
    -------------

    Leviticus 7: 26, 27
    Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

    Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
    ----------------

    Leviticus 17: 10-14
    And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

    For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

    Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

    And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

    For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
    ---------------

    Leviticus 19: 26
    --------------------
    Deuteronomy 12: 15, 16, 22-25
  12. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 19:59
    Rank Outsider,
    Blood transfusions are not the drinking of blood.

    I don't know of any reason biblically why a person should not have a blood transfusion even if it is a Christian using blood from a non-Christian.

    Both the body of the Christian and non-Christian are mortal and corruption. Christians who go on to eternal life will be given an incorruptible and immortal existence. However, while remaining a human, the Christian has the sin nature in his or her human existence.

    I am not saying 100% that is okay. Christians can be taught that even God doesn't want a man and woman to be married when one is not a Christian while the other one is BEFORE they get married. However, I am not sure that even a blood transfusion would make 2 people unequally yoked. For Christians sharing blood with other Christians in a blood transfusion, I can't fault that either because I don't know of any scripture that forbids it.

    King James Version
    ==============
    2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15
    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
  13. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 20:03
    Rank Outsider,
    Maybe God did not forbid blood transfusions in the Law of God for Israel because they would not be able to do such a thing before Christ died for us. That is just a thought. I am not saying that it is a scriptural teaching or principle.
  14. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 20:10
    JS357,
    You typed
    ---------------
    Quite why God didn't make the Bible text instantly readable in all languages simultaneously
    ---------------

    I don't know all about God, but perhaps, it had something to do with God wanting to have Israel to be given a chance to be His people and no one else. However, Israel rejected God's way of salvation in Christ.

    Also, if I am not wrong, the bible says something like "in thee shall all the peoples of the earth be blessed." This was given to Abraham. And the seed(1 seed) of Abraham ended up blessing the whole world.

    i.e. Christ
  15. Joined
    31 Jan '06
    Moves
    2597
    16 Mar '14 20:13
    JS357,
    The bible is based on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The original languages do not change over time. They are constant. Greek today will not change what the bible means. Nor does today's Hebrew or Aramaic.

    That is why sometimes we may need to look at the original languages to get the right understanding of God's intent.
Back to Top