[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Kevin Cullis]

Sean,

I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness in your postings, it's  
nice to have a meaningful discussion with you about these subjects.  
Thanks. Oh, my comments below.

On Sep 30, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> Assuming he was actually a historical Jesus, and what he said was  
> captured
> accurately (and not edited through the years), yeah, I think some  
> of what he
> did/said was great - the violent parts I could do without, but  
> maybe that's
> my Quaker imprinting speaking. I say "if" he was historical,  
> because of
> arguments like the one presented in "The God That Wasn't  
> There" (trailer):

One of the interesting facts about the Bible, or all of the letters  
that compose the Bible, is that we've got more numbers of manuscripts  
of the Bible numbering in the thousands and which are so close to the  
original date of authorship compared with Greek literature that is  
"accepted as fact" that it makes you wonder what people are thinking.  
i.e. most Biblical manuscripts are about 100-200 years away from the  
original date while the Greek manuscripts are hundreds more years  
away from the date of authorship.

 From my History degree the one thing that I remember is the concept  
of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are first hand  
accounts of something while secondary sources are writings about  
primary sources. All of the Bible manuscripts are primary sources,  
not secondary ones. The Bible has never been edited because we have  
nearly a complete record of the accuracy of the letters of the Bible,  
i.e. 1 out of 1000 words might be in error, but that one word does  
not affect the context at all. So based on this short description,  
let's trust the Bible's veracity, unless you want to delve more into  
these details, you can go here (
http://www.ankerberg.com/ ) for another source of information.

So, now the question becomes: what about translation and  
interpretation. While the source can be trusted, translation and  
interpretation are where things can diverge some into all sorts of  
directions. When translating and interpreting the Bible you come from  
four perspectives:

1. Historical context: what was going on during that day and time for  
the person to write what they've written
2. Categories: looking at each word throughout the Bible and seeing  
for convergent and divergent definitions and building doctrines based  
on careful analysis.
3. Exegesis: looking at the words to be as accurate with the text.
4. Character of God: God is both Love and Judgement as well as other  
aspects, all have to be in sync.

As #4 above, the one factor that comes into play the most is the  
aspect of God's Love and Judgment toward people. Most liberals talk  
only about God's love and rarely, if never, of His Judgment.  
Conservatives are on the other end of the spectrum and talk mostly of  
Judgment and rarely Love. To put this in perspective, if you have  
kids, at what point does your love of your kids stop, probably never,  
but at what point do you punish your kids for doing wrong? Same goes  
for the Christian's Father in Heaven, while most non-believers say we  
get away "with murder" do not realize that we don't and we're held to  
a higher standard with Love being the guiding force. What most non- 
believers and some believers don't realize is that God allows  
Christians to be punished by non-believers to keep us in line with  
what He wants, but only with God's permission for He controls it all.  
If you read Habakkuk chapters 1-2 you'll see that God allows the  
Chaldeans (in our present day the Taliban, to provide some  
perspective) to punish the wrong doings of the Jews, or today's  
Christians. If we are doing God's will things go better for us, see  
Proverbs 16:7 "When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his  
enemies to be at peace with him."

So with interpretation comes some errors, Some churches emphasize one  
doctrine over another without looking at all parts to come to a  
correct conclusion. Man either adds to or takes away from what God  
states, i.e. either extreme asceticism or lasciviousness. For  
instance, water baptism of a Christian is commanded by some  
denominations, but when you read the Bible there is no reference of  
the Apostles being baptized. Why? Because God is saying that it is a  
ritual and NOT necessary for salvation and getting into heaven. If  
you see the film "Luther" you get a good glimpse of what the  
Reformation is about and why rituals are not the issue and the Bible  
is the main point.

While you might abhor violence, I, too, don't want it around either,  
but then again, why is it here? Because there is evil in this world  
and good must triumph over it at some point.

Thanks for the ear.

Kevin


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20070930/d04ff637/attachment-0002.html