T
Truth_Seeker123
Guest
Do you (anyone) think that God would give us a book (Bible) that we (common people) could not understand?
- Status
W
Wesley7
Guest
By practice and diligent reading you can understand the Bible. In the Orthodox Church the Bible is placed within Tradition and is read on a daily and weekly basis in the liturgical year(s) of the Church. Patristically, the Scriptures were also read with commentary by orthodox saints.
R
ricmat
Guest
There are many interpretations to many verses in the Bible. So I guess the answer would be “yes.”
C
Catholic1954
Guest
The Bible is a collection of writings organized by the Catholic Church in one volume. True, the writings are inspired by God, and true the Church was led by the Holy Spirit in the selection process, but the Bible comes from the Catholic Church; it is a history of our salvation. St. Peter cautions us that it’s interpertation should not be made by individuals.
F
ferdie
Guest
God gave us the Church and the Church gave us the Bible. God knows that not all of us will have the knowledge to understand everything written down in the Bible, so He gave us the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to teach us.
I remember back in the 80’s, my fundamentalist pastor told me to pray to the Holy Spirit that I may understand the scriptures. I did that and I read the Bible in my native tongue and in English, from the Old to the New Testament. Some I understand and most I do not.
If your answer to your question is yes, then my question to you is why would God do that? And if your answer is no, why do we have so many different and sometimes competing churches?
T
Truth_Seeker123
Guest
Well I will answer your question honestly and to the best of my ability. I do not think that God would give us the Bible and could not understand it. Some things, I do not/did not understand but with a lot of studying I came into the knowledge of the truth. So some books do take more studying than others. Daniel and Revelation to be exact. But the Bible defines itself.
I think that there are competing churches because this is of satan. One of his greatest snares is confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. So for God to give us a book that we can’t understand will ultimately lead to confusion and misinterpretations.
Most of these competing churches claim to follow the Bible yet most of the things they preach are unbiblical.
The only people who can’t understand the Bible are the wicked.
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes. Fortunately he gave us the Church to guide us. Since for the first 1,400 or so years of Christianity it was not possible to produce large numbers of Bibles and most people couldnt read it if they could the idea that we are supposed to derive the Truth from our personal interpretation of a book is specious.
E
estesbob
Guest
So exactly how did the illeterate peasant in 8th century Britain find out the Truth?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Like any writing, the Bible must be read in context to be understandable, which is why doctrines such as Sola Scriptura make no sense.
Interestingly the wording of your question implies you recognise that the Church had the authority to assemble the Bible.
Interestingly the wording of your question implies you recognise that the Church had the authority to assemble the Bible.
F
ferdie
Guest
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think it is quite obvious by now that the Bible need to be taught and learned. You can open up the Book, do self-learning and sure there may be stories and sayings there that strike and inspire you, but to fully understand the message of the Bible you need to be taught.
The teachers therefore must come from the line of the authors of the Bible. Even though it is God’s word it was written by humans using their literary skill and referring their culture and practices of their times. There is no time gap and interruption in the history of Christianity and therefore you have to find teachers who understood the Bible through Biblical writers. In the Catholic Church this is guaranteed since it has apostolic succession and all the messages, understanding and traditions remain intact, kept and treasured by her in all the years of history without being changed.
The Biblical writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and so wrote the truth. The truth is already in the Bible. You only need to check with the writer what the truth is.
The Holy Spirit teaches us in so far the Bible is used to address and guide us in our daily life and direction. So yes, you can use the Bible and allows its wisdom to guide you according to your particular needs. But God has also given us the visible church as a guardian of his message so that it will never be changed.
God bless.
R
regression
Guest
What about an adult who is mentally retarded? Is he wicked?
I
izoid
Guest
Let me ask you a few questions.
Why do the leading minds in protestantism all disagree on the interpretation of the Bible?
Why are there so many sects of Christianity, all believing different things, that all adhere to sola scriptura as their authority?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Here’s a sentence for you, a pretty simple one.
I didn’t say that you stole the money.
Now, with just those words above (just as if you were reading them in the Bible) tell me which of the following is the correct interpretation of that sentence.
Is it:
**I **didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
Or
I didn’t say that you stole the **money?
**Please note that there is quite a bit of difference in what the sentence actually MEANS depending on which word is emphasized.
I didn’t say that you stole the money.
Now, with just those words above (just as if you were reading them in the Bible) tell me which of the following is the correct interpretation of that sentence.
Is it:
**I **didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
I didn’t say that you stole the money?
Or
I didn’t say that you stole the **money?
**Please note that there is quite a bit of difference in what the sentence actually MEANS depending on which word is emphasized.
W
Wesley7
Guest
The Truths of Christianity should be easily understandable to anyone.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, but those truths are not necessarily to be found only in reading the Bible.
the 8th century illiterate peasant would not have been able to read the Bible even if his thane, or his seigneur, or his parish priest, had possessed a copy. He might have been able to listen to it but while he was probably more fluent in Latin than most of us today, perhaps as fluent as most of us who took a foreign language in high school and could stumble through a few sentences if the other speaker went very slowly and with plenty of translating… .plus his life expectancy was at most about the age of 30, and he was far more prone to disease, war, and other ills at any given time, probably worked sun-up to sun-down and then some, and while there were many more Masses available, and probably a lot of ‘cultural knowledge’ that we have lost today, that 8th century peasant would not have the type of familiarity with ‘reading the Bible’ that even the poor have today.
Still, the Scripture he would listened to (if not ‘read’ from the Bible, accurately given from long-standing 'oral tradition), the cultural knowledge, and the perhaps simpler but deeper and unquestioning faith would have made the Christian truths he knew as ‘complete’ as could be for the times and for himself. . .
the 8th century illiterate peasant would not have been able to read the Bible even if his thane, or his seigneur, or his parish priest, had possessed a copy. He might have been able to listen to it but while he was probably more fluent in Latin than most of us today, perhaps as fluent as most of us who took a foreign language in high school and could stumble through a few sentences if the other speaker went very slowly and with plenty of translating… .plus his life expectancy was at most about the age of 30, and he was far more prone to disease, war, and other ills at any given time, probably worked sun-up to sun-down and then some, and while there were many more Masses available, and probably a lot of ‘cultural knowledge’ that we have lost today, that 8th century peasant would not have the type of familiarity with ‘reading the Bible’ that even the poor have today.
Still, the Scripture he would listened to (if not ‘read’ from the Bible, accurately given from long-standing 'oral tradition), the cultural knowledge, and the perhaps simpler but deeper and unquestioning faith would have made the Christian truths he knew as ‘complete’ as could be for the times and for himself. . .
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Ah, but we see many versions of that truth from people who called themselves Christians. As there cannot be many different truths but only one, you need something to make the call.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
But that was in response to a comment that if one can’t understand the bible, they must be wicked.
The variety of interpretations mean either almost everyone is wicked, or not understanding the bible does not make one wicked.
I
izoid
Guest
Bingo, I am glad my intent was not lost on everyone.But that was in response to a comment that if one can’t understand the bible, they must be wicked.
The variety of interpretations mean either almost everyone is wicked, or not understanding the bible does not make one wicked.
- Status