Topic: Why do I need the Bible ?!

[Raylight]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

[xOrthodox4Christx]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

We don't need it. It's one of the most useful sources of faith, but it's existence isn't necessary for belief in Christ. Could we not believe in Christ without the Bible? (Lots of Roman Catholics during the Middle Ages sure did.) The inspiration part is on the theological and moral side, not on the historical and scientific side.

[Raylight]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

We don't need it. It's one of the most useful sources of faith, but it's existence isn't necessary for belief in Christ. Could we not believe in Christ without the Bible? (Lots of Roman Catholics during the Middle Ages sure did.) The inspiration part is on the theological and moral side, not on the historical and scientific side.

Oh my Lord!! Did you just say we don't need the Bible ?!?!

You said " the Middle Ages ". you mean the Dark Ages, right ?. I'm Catholic but I accept that in the past the Church kept the Bible away from people which make me understand what Luther did even though I disagree with him.

[Skydive]

To my knowledge and P.o.v there are a lot of harming things in the Bible. And I disrespect both.

[Raylight]

To my knowledge and P.o.v there are a lot of harming things in the Bible. And I disrespect both.

I hope you are an Atheist, because last thing I need is a Christian say that he/she disrespect the Bible.

Btw, welcome to the forum, I see you are new here

[Skydive]

To my knowledge and P.o.v there are a lot of harming things in the Bible. And I disrespect both.

I hope you are an Atheist, because last thing I need is a Christian say that he/she disrespect the Bible.

Btw, welcome to the forum, I see you are new here

You'll "need to" had your heart crushed if you are in this ride for the truth. And thanks.

[Jetavan]

If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

Please list a few moral and theological errors, if they exist.

[Jovan]

If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

Please list a few moral and theological errors, if they exist.

Would also appreciate that, especially some moral errors. Because then you´re making a statement against God and not man.

[Raylight]

I DID NOT say the Bible has moral errors, how dare I. I said that if the Bible contains historical errors, and it is man's word not God's word, then why should I trust it at all, because it could also contain moral errors. I actually don't believe that the Bible has historical errors nor theological or moral errors, and when it comes to science, I wouldn't call it errors, but just simply states the common knowledge they had at that time.

[Laird]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

We don't need it. It's one of the most useful sources of faith, but it's existence isn't necessary for belief in Christ. Could we not believe in Christ without the Bible? (Lots of Roman Catholics during the Middle Ages sure did.) The inspiration part is on the theological and moral side, not on the historical and scientific side.

Oh my Lord!! Did you just say we don't need the Bible ?!?!

I think what he's trying to say is that having a Bible is not absolutely necessary to believe in Christ or to be saved. The thief on the cross did not have a Bible and yet he was saved. And yet the Bible is essential to Christianity, for it tells us about Christ.

I am confused as to why you're so surprised that xOrthodox4Christx supposedly said we don't need the Bible. You're the one who asked whether we need the Bible.

[Rambam]

Keep it up Raylight. I agree with you -- and I bet others do, too. This whole idea of a 'squishy' Bible that's the work of man and full of errors is very problematic for me. If the Bible is squishy, we need to throw it out -- it'll do more harm than good.

Of course, it's not squishy. Or at least we shouldn't act like it is.

I DID NOT say the Bible has moral errors, how dare I. I said that if the Bible contains historical errors, and it is man's word not God's word, then why should I trust it at all, because it could also contain moral errors. I actually don't believe that the Bible has historical errors nor theological or moral errors, and when it comes to science, I wouldn't call it errors, but just simply states the common knowledge they had at that time.

[Raylight]

Keep it up Raylight. I agree with you -- and I bet others do, too. This whole idea of a 'squishy' Bible that's the work of man and full of errors is very problematic for me. If the Bible is squishy, we need to throw it out -- it'll do more harm than good.

Of course, it's not squishy. Or at least we shouldn't act like it is.

I DID NOT say the Bible has moral errors, how dare I. I said that if the Bible contains historical errors, and it is man's word not God's word, then why should I trust it at all, because it could also contain moral errors. I actually don't believe that the Bible has historical errors nor theological or moral errors, and when it comes to science, I wouldn't call it errors, but just simply states the common knowledge they had at that time.

Thank you. 

I will never disrespect the Bible the way these comments did. The Bible is not bunch of ancient works that we going to have it in golden cover and read it in tunes but in reality we don't even believe in it as respectful book.

I had big problem with Protestants disrespecting Saint Mary, but now I have a bigger problem with some of "Christians" disrespecting the Bible itself!!

 

[Skydive]

If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

Please list a few moral and theological errors, if they exist.

Would also appreciate that, especially some moral errors. Because then you´re making a statement against God and not man.

Only for those who associate God with the Bible.

[Jovan]

If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

Please list a few moral and theological errors, if they exist.

Would also appreciate that, especially some moral errors. Because then you´re making a statement against God and not man.

Only for those who associate God with the Bible.

That´s very true my friend, I would not ask him to state errors from the New York daily because I don´t believe that as the source for moral values in the first place.

[Asteriktos]

You just have to decide whether it's trustworthy, and something doesn't have to be error free or perfectly understandable to be trustworthy. And even if the Bible was perfect it wouldn't matter, because you and I aren't perfect. We could never be sure that our understanding exactly matched the infallible, inerrant, perfectly correct understanding. So what does that leave us with? Faith, hope, trust, love, etc. By all means study, discuss, ask, wrestle with this or that, but realize in the end that when there are mysteries and divine things involved here, and that any faith worth having is grounded in trust and vulnerability, not certainty.

[Skydive]

If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

Please list a few moral and theological errors, if they exist.

Would also appreciate that, especially some moral errors. Because then you´re making a statement against God and not man.

Only for those who associate God with the Bible.

That´s very true my friend, I would not ask him to state errors from the New York daily because I don´t believe that as the source for moral values in the first place.

There are people who believe in God outside the Bible.

[vamrat]

You don't really need to read the Bible, per se.  If you attend the liturgy and listen, you'll have it read to you.

Also, I would recommend reading St. John Chrysostom's homilies.  You'll get it there as well.

Now, if you don't read the Bible, you will miss out on some things.  For one, the Psalms are often very beautiful.  If you are going to pray to God with someone else's words, they contain some very nice things to say to God.  Also, if you skip on reading the Bible you will miss the story of Samson.  If you miss the story of Samson, you have my sympathy.  If you miss the story of Samson because you don't like the idea of killing hordes of Philistines (aka, Hipsters) then you aren't someone I want to associate with.

[katherineofdixie]

Raylight- take a look at this and see if it helps to clear up some things for you. It's Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) on reading the Bible.


http://www.antiochian.org/content/how-read-your-bible

“Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, writing in eighteenth-century Russia, has this to say about our Orthodox attitude towards the Holy Scriptures: “...Whenever you read the Gospel, Christ Himself is speaking to you. And while you read, you are praying and talking to Him.”
We are to see Scripture as a personal letter addressed specifically to each one of us by God. We are each of us to see Scripture reading as a direct, individual dialogue between Christ and ourselves.”

[yeshuaisiam]

Many religious leaders in history feared the bible.  In fact, they persecuted people who were translating the bible to other languages because it directly conflicted the "church tradition".  In essence, the bible truly is the greatest enemy to a church that disregards the scriptures.

As stated by Christ when tempted in the desert "Man can not live by bread alone, but by every word, that proceeds from the mouth of God".

"Every word" not "church tradition" or "holy church tradition".

People have been left naive to the scriptures for such a long time, and even worse, left naive to real parts of church history.  So many believe that prior to the reformation was all the "Catholic church".   It's just monstrous.   

Read documented history along with books about William Tyndale, and see how much he was persecuted for translating the bible.  If a church had real apologetics to the scriptures they would have nothing to fear from the scriptures.  They were trying to kill Tyndale and "shut him up" as the scriptures translated would have let any commoner see the corruption and evil "traditions" that formed in the church that defy god.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Thomas More burned Tyndale at the stake didn't he?

[Alveus Lacuna]

You don't really need to read the Bible, per se.  If you attend the liturgy and listen, you'll have it read to you.

Usually in an archaic, dead language which is impossible for the common person to understand.

[yeshuaisiam]

Thomas More burned Tyndale at the stake didn't he?

He absolutely had a dialog with Tyndale, arrested him, and burned him alive.

However, the king of England should have not of beheaded Thomas More as that is against the biblical values of our New Testament.

[Maximum Bob]

It seems to me that Raylight is objecting to viewpoints he has seen here(?) or elsewhere most likely from Orthodox arguing against Sola Scriptura Protestants by making the point that the Church existed for hundreds of years without the Bible guided only by tradition. So hes saying in essence how can you Orthodox(?) say the Bible isn't needed, to do so is to disrespect the Bible, and if you don't respect the Bible why do you need it at all.

So it's not about his attitude but what he perceives ours (or at least some of ours) to be.

Am I understanding you Raylight?

[Gunnarr]

I think it is important to remember for the vast majority of Church history most people could not read anyway.

I think it makes sense for the Church to have wanted to prevent laymen from reading the bible, that is so people could not interpret it for themselves, producing such things as the protestant reformation, or thinking up heresies from some kind of interpretation of some passage. In a controlled environment, it would only be read in the Church, and given interpretation by the Church, rather than in the mind of the reader. I think of it less as trying to protect people from the Church's faults , but rather to protect the laymen's souls! After all, someone with a heretical interpretation is not only a danger to himself, but to other people!

[scamandrius]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

Are you interested in facts or truth?  A science book will give you more facts on the biochemistry of humanity than the Scriptures.  Those books often answer the what questions or how questions about humanity.  Scriptures give you the answer to the question why.

[yeshuaisiam]

I think it is important to remember for the vast majority of Church history most people could not read anyway.

I think it makes sense for the Church to have wanted to prevent laymen from reading the bible, that is so people could not interpret it for themselves, producing such things as the protestant reformation, or thinking up heresies from some kind of interpretation of some passage. In a controlled environment, it would only be read in the Church, and given interpretation by the Church, rather than in the mind of the reader. I think of it less as trying to protect people from the Church's faults , but rather to protect the laymen's souls! After all, someone with a heretical interpretation is not only a danger to himself, but to other people!

I believe this is a great assumption.  There were many people who could read.  The reason they didn't want people like Tyndale to translate the bible is because the game would be up for the RC church.   They would see the heresies by the words of God, rather than just saying "the church said so".   Church "tradition" becomes an idol over the words of God, especially when one uses the excuse as "holy tradition" to directly dismiss God's words & commands.

[yeshuaisiam]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

People often need others to tell them what to do and how to believe.  It is too difficult to stand alone with the words of God.   They will allow others to convince them to violate the very words of God as recorded with the excuse of church tradition.

One must really as "what church tradition"?

The ones that actually followed the church established by the apostles or the one that was circumvented by powerful men, imported mysticism, and allowed defiance to the words of God.   Also destroying the history of others so that people will have difficulty knowing there were always those who read the word of God and followed it.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think it is important to remember for the vast majority of Church history most people could not read anyway.

I think it makes sense for the Church to have wanted to prevent laymen from reading the bible, that is so people could not interpret it for themselves, producing such things as the protestant reformation, or thinking up heresies from some kind of interpretation of some passage. In a controlled environment, it would only be read in the Church, and given interpretation by the Church, rather than in the mind of the reader. I think of it less as trying to protect people from the Church's faults , but rather to protect the laymen's souls! After all, someone with a heretical interpretation is not only a danger to himself, but to other people!

I believe this is a great assumption.  There were many people who could read.  The reason they didn't want people like Tyndale to translate the bible is because the game would be up for the RC church.   They would see the heresies by the words of God, rather than just saying "the church said so".   Church "tradition" becomes an idol over the words of God, especially when one uses the excuse as "holy tradition" to directly dismiss God's words & commands.

And how is this not an equally great assumption on your part, Yesh?

[yeshuaisiam]

I think it is important to remember for the vast majority of Church history most people could not read anyway.

I think it makes sense for the Church to have wanted to prevent laymen from reading the bible, that is so people could not interpret it for themselves, producing such things as the protestant reformation, or thinking up heresies from some kind of interpretation of some passage. In a controlled environment, it would only be read in the Church, and given interpretation by the Church, rather than in the mind of the reader. I think of it less as trying to protect people from the Church's faults , but rather to protect the laymen's souls! After all, someone with a heretical interpretation is not only a danger to himself, but to other people!

I believe this is a great assumption.  There were many people who could read.  The reason they didn't want people like Tyndale to translate the bible is because the game would be up for the RC church.   They would see the heresies by the words of God, rather than just saying "the church said so".   Church "tradition" becomes an idol over the words of God, especially when one uses the excuse as "holy tradition" to directly dismiss God's words & commands.

And how is this not an equally great assumption on your part, Yesh?

Because it wasn't the laymen killing the clergy for the scriptures.   It was the clergy killing the laymen so they could not have them.

But more directly, this is exactly in the writings of Tyndale and many others.

[katherineofdixie]

Yeah so "the church said so" was replaced by "I said so," which has its own problems.

[Jetavan]

Yeah so "the church said so" was replaced by "I said so," which has its own problems.

"I am the church!" -- Pope Pius IX (Roberto De Mattei (2004). Pius IX: 144.)

[Sinful Hypocrite]

This question might seem harsh but this is normal question got to my head after reading and seeing that some people respect Tradition more than they respect the Bible.

My question is, if the Bible is full of historical errors, if the Bible is man's word not God's word, if the Bible is not good enough, why do I need it ? Seriously, why do I need the Bible ? Why should I bother reading it if it is not good enough ? If the Bible is a book full of errors, then it could also be full of moral and theological errors, why would it have these errors and not the other ?

What do you think ?

Peace

Jesus only real  instruction for the disciples mission was to go and tell what they had seen him do, and heard him teach, and so the Bible is a tool that we use to that end.

The fact is that Jesus studied it too as far as what we now call the Old Testament.

What we do with that knowledge is open to interpretation, but there is hope when we have faith in Him, and not in men who are subject to errors. This is not to say we should not try to respect those Elders who have written and taught what they believed, but it is subject to errors, and everyone argues who is right and wrong among Christian faiths.
If we choose among them we must not puff ourselves up as better than others, have faith in Him and trust in his Judgement for all who are faithful in Him.

And do not fear men , only fear God. We should humble ourselves to his judgement and mercy.

◄ Matthew 10:28 ►

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

MHC:
Persecutors are worse than beasts, in that they prey upon those of their own kind. The strongest bonds of love and duty, have often been broken through from enmity against Christ. Sufferings from friends and relations are very grievous; nothing cuts more. It appears plainly, that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution; and we must expect to enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations. With these predictions of trouble, are counsels and comforts for a time of trial. The disciples of Christ are hated and persecuted as serpents, and their ruin is sought, and they need the serpent's wisdom. Be ye harmless as doves. Not only, do nobody any hurt, but bear nobody any ill-will.