The Bible - truth or fiction (2)

So if I am correct and the Bible is not the whole, unadulterated, word of God, how much attention should you give to it's text?

This crops up, again, whenever there is a debate involving non believers. The argument is put that the Bible condones slavery; that the Bible bans the eating of certain foods; that the Bible is against homosexual relationships.

To address the question, I think we first need to consider why the Bible was written. God is our Heavenly Father. Any father is naturally concerned with the welfare of his children. He will set guidelines, provide advice, attempt to steer his children along the path he considers best for them. That applies to earthly fathers. I suggest it would apply even more so to God, whose love for us is unimaginably more than we could hope to devote to our children.

At the time the Bible was written, slavery was,virtually if not literally, universal.  Slaves had legal rights in the Roman Empire, for example.  How would one best protect a slave?  I suggest that the consequences of running when there is, in effect, nowhere to go, would outway the advantage.  A slave who obeyed his master had certain protections.  The Bible is not condoning slavery - I am aware of no passage stating that slavery is laudable or to be encouraged - it is suggesting how the slave might best survive the condition.  Today we squirm, but 2000 years ago it would have been looked at in a different light.

While certain foods are banned in the Old Testament.  Jesus said no food was unclean.  Again pork and shellfish, if not properly kept or prepared, can cause serious food poisoning.  The Bible is seeking to protect primitives from the consequence of their lack of knowledge.

As regards homosexuality, the Bible is uncompromising.  Jesus said we should love one another, and I believe the Bible is not stating that men should not love other men.  That would be nonsense.  The intention is to ban men from 'lying with another man as with a woman' - penatrive sex?

I believe the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin, but perhaps less clear as to what constitutes homosexuality.  I think the only course for a practicing Christian is not to become engaged in a sexually active relationship with a member of the same sex.

The Bible is, as I have said intended to provide us with an insight into how God would wish us to exercise our free will.  Those who seek to discredit religion by attacking any holy book, are at best seriously misguided and at worst simply evil. Returning to the original question, we should pay close attention to what the Bible says, but must allow our God given free will to interpret it. What we should not do, is simply ignore those parts of the Bible with which we disagree or which we find uncomfortable.
Thank you for reading

The Bible truth or fiction?

One of the arguments which comes up time after time when you talk religion is - do you believe the bible is literally true?

That is an important question, since it touches on the theory of evolution, and such matters as gay marriage.

I am not inclined to the belief that every word in the bible, as published today, is from God and the absolute truth - but I do believe that it could be.

In other words, I do not discount the idea that archaeological discoveries are tests placed for us by God.  It is remarkable to a non scientist such as myself that the number of finds appears to have ballooned in recent years, but in my heart of hearts, no I do not believe that God created the world in six days an rested on the seventh.

So how do we reconcile belief with disbelief in parts of the Good Book?  It comes down to a couple of points, namely:
1.  Once again man has had a hand in it, and that makes it susceptible to interference from the dark powers.  The bible as written today was put together by holy men who decided,by committee, what went in and what did not.  Did God have input?  Of course.  Did the devil deceive? Of course.
2.  Translation of original text is not always spot on.  For example, everyone has heard of the commandment thou shall jot kill, but should it not be thou shall not murder?  There is a difference.

Of course these problems do not address every issue.

It is remarkable, returning to Genesis, that the order of creation follows what is generally accepted by  science today.  Could primitives really have understood the concept of a time frame measured in billions of years?  I think not.  Possibly we should consider the time scale in terms of the lifespan of a human when compared to God.  Maybe we should be talking about God's days, a bit like the life of a dog - a dog year is supposed to be a seventh of a human year.  Time is after all relative.  Who has not felt time fly when spent in a lover's arms, or, conversely, drag during a particularly tedious lecture or sermon.

I will doubtless revert to this in future blogs.  Meantime, I would suggest that the bible was originally written to provide primitive man with a set of rules to help him explain the world round him an to help him live safely in accordance with God's will.  Is the bible literally true?  I think not.  Could it be?  Certainly.  Does it matter? Not so long as we use it as a guide to help us understand the will of God and to live our, very short, lives as He would want us to.

Homosexuality, what we should or should not eat and slavery will be blogged on next.  You have been warned gentle reader.  Thank you for reading.