Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    re: Basenote
    
    It's always good to question the understanding of a word, or moreso to
    explore it's meaning.  But it is never good to question the validity of
    it, or to seek to refute the bible.  The Bible is not to be questioned
    as to it's truth or validity, but questioned as to it's proper
    understanding and application to our lives....that's if we are
    Christians.
    
    For instance, we may find that Noah's Ark is not a REAL event, Noah
    never existed to build an Ark, in other words.  But the allegorical
    meaning of the story has import for us...
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe, I think the basenoter asks a perfectly resonable question.  If
    you want to explain Christianity to a non-Christian, how do you
    convince that person that the Bible is as valid as you believe?  You
    certainly wouldn't expect him to accept a "because I said so" answer,
    would you?  
    
    Mike

    Is the Bible the Inspired word of God or not? 
    This is the question you must answer.  And, if part of the bible is not 
    the inspired word of God then under whose influence was it written??
    
    If you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God then I
    suspect that your arms are too short to box with him.
    
    On the other hand if you believe that the bible is just a collection of
    prose and literature then what is the foundation for your faith??
    
    I believe that the bible was written by men under the inspiration of 
    the Holy Spirit.  To challenge the "WORD" of God like challenging God
    himself. 
             To borrow a quote from M.C. Hammer: 
    		   "You can't touch this"
    
    			Yours in Christ
    				Warren Johnson 

RE .0

	Richard,

	You asked

;Is the Bible exalted beyond the reach of scrutiny?

	Scrutiny means "close investigation", "examination into details" or
	"critical gaze". Are you using the meaning "critical gaze" ? 

	BTW The Bible certainly should not be exalted beyond "close 
	investigation" on an individual basis. In fact, Isaiah 48:17,18 NWT 
	reads "This is what Jehovah has said, your repurchaser, the Holy One 
	of Israel: I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit 
	[yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you 
	should walk. O if only you would actually pay attention to my 
	commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and 
	your righteousness like the waves of the sea." Eventhough, this was 
	addressed to the Israelite nation and Christians are not under the 
	Law covenant, the under lying Bible principles for those that wish 
	to benefit themselves can be found through "close investigation" or 
	"personal study" of the Bible. If one does not scrutinize the Bible 
	then how can one gain benefit from it? There is no point in letting
	it gather dust on the bookshelf. Those that find studying their own
	Bible difficult can always contact Jehovah's Witnesses who offer
	free Bible studies under no obligation.


;Is the Bible a "sacred cow" (in American sense of the term)?

	Seeing that this is an International Notes conference could you please
	explain.

	Phil.

    How do you KNOW, the Bible is the inspired word of God?  Is it
    something one just feels, or what?
    
    By the way, this is neither an idle question, nor is it intended to be
    a disrespectful one.  I hope that comes through.
    
    Mike

    RE: 2
    
    Well, I think it is always difficult, perhaps futile, to try and
    explain Christianity to a non-Christian.  However, to do so at all
    requires that one present biblical ideas in very earthly-real terms and
    examples.  In other words, one must explain the allegorical meanings,
    and not necessarily mention Noah or Adam and Eve, or the Tower of
    Babel.  One may debate the validity or truth of Noah's Ark, etc., but
    one cannot debate the import of the esoteric meaning of the same. 
    Either one sees it or one doesn't...
    
    Christianity, or God doesn't condemn those who cannot see or hear what
    the Spirit it saying, it teaches that they are condemned by their own
    disbelief.  So the idea is totally in the positive.
    
    I don't believe anything because "I/anybody said so", I test it by
    applying the methods or principles which are purported to substantiate
    the idea...affirmation.  As it is written, "We follow not after highly
    devised fables, but after what we have tasted and felt and known to be
    true of God's word" (something like that).  And then again, in more
    earthly terms, "If you believe in things you don't understand then
    you'll suffer...superstition ain't the way".
    
    

    re 3
    
    I too, believe that the Bible/Word of God is in fact inspired by God. 
    But, in its written form has been influenced by men and the times
    during which they lived.  So, I try to understand the gist or
    principles of the Word, or what it was that God was trying to inspire
    that man to say.  Which I believe is best accomplished by a comparative
    analysis of many books on the same subject...I'm speaking of books like
    the Apocrypha, the Quran, the Lost Books of the Bible/Forgotten Books
    of Eden, the Nag Hammadi, The Other Bible (a collection of old
    manuscripts) as well as various commentaries and historical works on
    biblical matters.  It's no simple task, I tell you.
    
    Playtoe

    Thank you, Playtoe.  A very clear statement which I understand.
    
    Mike

What an interesting variety of replies!

Playtoe, how to you handle the Christians that vehemently insist that
the story of Noah and the Ark is actual, not allegorical, and that it
is erroneous to believe that it is anything other than actual?

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 5
    
    >How do you KNOW, the Bible is the inspired word of God?  Is it
    >something one just feels, or what?
    
    This is indeed a valid question, from the non-believer perspective.  It
    is very close to the question "How do you KNOW God exists?  Is it
    something one just feels, or what?"  And it seems to me that the latter
    is primary to the former.  As it is written, "In order to come to God,
    one must FIRST believe that he is...", so it becomes necessary before
    explaining Christianity to explain how we know there is a God.  And
    that explanation is best traversed by the path of reasoning offered by
    John 1:1, to wit "God is WORD", or "intelligent and force", because
    Words have both these attributes, and are SPIRIT and the LIGHT OF MEN.  
    
    PLAYTOE

RE .4

>>Is the Bible a "sacred cow" (in American sense of the term)?

>	Seeing that this is an International Notes conference could you please
>	explain.

Phil,

	The term "sacred cow," in this instance, probably means much the
same thing in British culture.  It means that the Bible is thought to be
irreproachable or beyond discrediting.

	I basically put it this way due to my uncertainty of exactly what
the sacred cow means to Hindus!

Peace,
Richard

| I too, believe that the Bible/Word of God is in fact inspired by God.
| But, in its written form has been influenced by men and the times
| during which they lived.  So, I try to understand the gist or
| principles of the Word, or what it was that God was trying to inspire
| that man to say.  Which I believe is best accomplished by a comparative
| analysis of many books on the same subject...I'm speaking of books like
| the Apocrypha, the Quran, the Lost Books of the Bible/Forgotten Books
| of Eden, the Nag Hammadi, The Other Bible (a collection of old
| manuscripts) as well as various commentaries and historical works on
| biblical matters.  It's no simple task, I tell you.

	Playtoe, I'm sure you have been asked this before, and I hope I word it
so you will understand what I am trying to say. My question is if you feel the
Bible was influenced by men and the times during which they lived and not
believe the Bible was not influenced by anything earthly, how can you be sure
that the books you are reading to help explain things from the Bible are
painting an accurate picture? 



Glen-who-also-believes-men-influenced-the-Bible

re Note 402.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        I believe that the title of this topic ,"The Bible as Sacred
        Cow," could be doubly offensive.

        The term "sacred cow", as used in the U.S., is a term of
        derision.  In fact, it is doubly a term of derision -- it
        ridicules the thing to which it is applied, and it is based
        on an understood, commonly-held attitude of derision towards
        a certain perspective (correct me if I'm wrong here) of the
        Hindu religion.

        I also suspect that the term, even if derision is meant, is
        totally misapplied here.  The term is generally used to
        state that certain others, other than the speaker/writer,
        hold a certain thing to be "sacred," whereas that thing is
        patently, obviously not sacred at all.

        While I believe that the participants of this file have a
        very wide range of views on the nature of Scripture, most
        here (not all, I must add) would ascribe some degree of
        sacredness (perhaps non-exclusive) to the Bible.

        This is in sharp distinction to the prevalent attitude among
        most of the western world that cows aren't sacred at all (or,
        at least, no more sacred than any other creature).

        I think that there is a germ of a respectful topic here. 
        Perhaps the subject is the one often referred to as
        "bibliolatry" -- the reverence of the Bible to such an extent
        that it becomes a "god", and idol.

        If others agree, I think that a re-naming of the subject is
        in order.

        Bob

    .13
    
    I have changed the title of this string as Bob F suggested.  I
    thought of this title before, but was concerned that it would be
    less understood than the original title.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

The Bible is a book; a collection of writings (Scriptures) set forth by
Divinely inspired men (not one woman, that I know of) over a great expanse
of time, in some instances, after generations of the oral tradition, and
under widely varying cultural conditions.

Though the Scriptures are God-breathed, also into the Bible has been
incorporated the inescapable influence of human understandings, cultural
biases, and multiple other factors.  Some might consider these influences
to be a kind of contamination, making the Bible somehow less sacred, less
Holy.  I do not.

The Bible, to me, is like a map.  Like a map, it is a tool for guidance
and course correction.  And like a map, it is of no benefit unless it is
read and studied.  And like a map, one also needs a compass, the Holy Spirit,
to achieve any real sense of direction and understanding.

Granted, the simile is a less than perfect one.

Peace,
Richard

    I think that the fact that human/cultural influence is evident,
    supports the Holiness of the Bible. Sixtysix books, written by
    different authors, from different cultures, at different times.
    Yet they all convey God's truth. Sure there is differences in
    style, perspective, and understanding; but never in disagreement
    with each other. If you were to compare two different news paper
    articles reporting the same event, you would see much of the same
    differences. However, they don't always agree with each other.
    So, this in of itself is evidence that the authors were Spirit
    led. This is not to say, that we should worship, or idolize the
    Bible. We should read it, learn of our Lord from it, then worship
    Him. That is why He gave it to us, to draw us near Himself. When
    we do that, the Bible will speak for itself.
    
    			   Mel
    

    RE: 12
    
>	Playtoe, I'm sure you have been asked this before, and I hope I word it
>so you will understand what I am trying to say. My question is if you feel the
>Bible was influenced by men and the times during which they lived and not
>believe the Bible was not influenced by anything earthly, how can you be sure
>that the books you are reading to help explain things from the Bible are
>painting an accurate picture? 

    The best analogy I can offer is this.  The light of the Sun is bright
    and consists of all colors.  When that bright light shines through a
    prism you are able to see the separate colors of which it consists.  So
    it is with the inspiration/light from God.  As God's light shines on
    the Mind each Mind refracts that light into separate colors.  
    
    If one were to look at the colors as the emanate from the prism one
    would presume that light is perhaps green, and another might say it's
    blue, another red, and so on.  But unless you were aware that the
    bright light is shining through from the other side of the prism and
    that these separate colors really emanate from one light source, you
    might conclude that there are several separate truths.  Moreso, you may
    conclude that one of the truths must be the right one and the others
    wrong...when in fact the truth can only be found be considering the
    several truths and synthesizing them into one bright light...so I
    search for the gist of what this or that (color) version of truth.
    
    How can I/we be sure that what we read or hear is truth?  It's a good
    question, but the answer is quite simple.  It's not as if some alien
    knowledge is coming to us, on the contrary, the truth that we seek is
    already within us.  When a men speaks, inspired by God, I believe all
    that has happened is that God has provided such a man with a clear
    understanding of the common misunderstanding the masses have and seek. 
    So that when a person hears this inspired one speak they innately know
    it's right and true, because it strikes that cord inside us.  The
    wicked, however, are those who "kick against the pricks".
    
    Playtoe
    

RE: .17


| The best analogy I can offer is this.  The light of the Sun is bright
| and consists of all colors.  When that bright light shines through a
| prism you are able to see the separate colors of which it consists.  So
| it is with the inspiration/light from God.  As God's light shines on
| the Mind each Mind refracts that light into separate colors.
| If one were to look at the colors as the emanate from the prism one
| would presume that light is perhaps green, and another might say it's
| blue, another red, and so on.  But unless you were aware that the
| bright light is shining through from the other side of the prism and
| that these separate colors really emanate from one light source, you
| might conclude that there are several separate truths.  

	Playtoe, I have never heard it quite put that way before. It really
says a lot in that statement. I like that. :-) 

| How can I/we be sure that what we read or hear is truth?  It's a good
| question, but the answer is quite simple.  It's not as if some alien
| knowledge is coming to us, on the contrary, the truth that we seek is
| already within us.  When a men speaks, inspired by God, I believe all
| that has happened is that God has provided such a man with a clear
| understanding of the common misunderstanding the masses have and seek.

	But with people viewing things differently, such as the colors of a
prism, one could feel that someone you think is a man inspired by God is really
not and visa versa. So, like the people the books could come under the same
scruitiny. How do you deal with that? As some have put to me, how do you know
that you're not really listening to Satan? (BTW, i don't think you are
listening to Satan)

	I like this.... :-)


Glen

    Playtoe - 
    
    Your prism analogy is one of the clearest I've ever heard.  Thanks!
    
    Nanci

    Yes Playtoe, I liked it too!!!  ;')
    
    Ro
    

RE: .15  
    
    Richard,
    
> Though the Scriptures are God-breathed...
    
    Two questions:
    
    Richard, what do *you* mean when you say this?  
    
    I believe older translations said it was "inspired by" God.  
    How do our English *understandings* of "inspired by" and 
    "breathed by" differ?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

Note 402.21

>> Though the Scriptures are God-breathed...
    
>    Two questions:
    
>    Richard, what do *you* mean when you say this?  
    
>    I believe older translations said it was "inspired by" God.  
>    How do our English *understandings* of "inspired by" and 
>    "breathed by" differ?

What do *I* mean?  Hmmm....that's not entirely crystal clear in my own
mind.  Perhaps I should have phrased it: "Though it may very well be that
the Scriptures are God-breathed,..."

Actually, Nancy, the terms to me mean pretty much the same thing.
Since the origin of the word 'inspire' has to do with breath, I'd be
inclined to say that 'God-breathed' and 'inspired by God' are at least
analogous, if not synonymous.

As stated in 18.71 and 18.78, I personally find it more than a little
troublesome to believe that it was the future canon that Paul had in mind
when he made the assertion about Scripture being God-breathed in a personal
letter to Timothy.

I find it no less troublesome that nothing written by a woman is included
in that which is considered God-breathed.  I realize that women at the time
were not considered important enough to educate, and therefore, there was
probably very little at all which was written or read by women.  Thus, again,
here is evidence of the existence of strong cultural influences on the Bible.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
> Since the origin of the word 'inspire' has to do with breath, I'd be
> inclined to say that 'God-breathed' and 'inspired by God' are at least
> analogous, if not synonymous.
    
    Obviously, they are *supposed* to mean the same thing, since they
    are different translations of the same original word.  That's why
    I was wondering how our *understandings* of the two expressions may
    diff, which is a very subjective thing.  For me -- this is my
    subjective reaction -- for God to inspire the writers indicates that
    God filled them and they wrote, while for the Scripture to be
    "God-breathed" implies more a usage of the human beings rather than
    an interaction with them.  This of course reflects my encounters with
    the different English words and my own perspective on the Bible.  
    Those whom I have heard use "God-breathed" have, almost without
    exception, had a very different understanding of the nature of the
    Bible than I. 
    
    
> I find it no less troublesome that nothing written by a woman is included
> in that which is considered God-breathed.  I realize that women at the time
> were not considered important enough to educate, and therefore, there was
> probably very little at all which was written or read by women.  Thus, again,
> here is evidence of the existence of strong cultural influences on the Bible.
    
    It doesn't particularly bother me -- perhaps I'm used to it! ;}  But
    consider:  (1) since authorship of the different documents that make up
    the Bible is, in many cases, quite uncertain, it is quite possible that
    one or more women authored parts of it, (2) it is also possible that
    things attributed to a man were written by a women (as has often
    happened in our own Western history), (3) since the origins of so much
    of the Bible were oral long before they were written -- including many
    eye-witness accounts in the NT -- there is all kinds of room for the
    contribution of women to the Scriptures, and (4) a number of things,
    such as the song of Miriam and Mary's Magnificat are directly
    attributed to specific women.
    
    Kinda' reminds me of folks who seek to" pro" the "God-gigiven" authority 
    of men by pointing out that God sent His Son, not His Daughter -- perhaps 
    a Daughter *was* sent but totally rejected!!   (Before you jump on this
    "heresy," consider this:  I believe that God, in love and grace, would keep 
    on sending the Savior to us until someone finally accepted salvataion!)
    
    Excuse the digression and don't let it become a rathole.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    I like the question.  I stuggle to understand what the relevance of the
    Bible is.  Currently I am struggling specifically with Genesis and
    Exodus.   Why are these works considered Holy Scripture.  Are they
    breathed by Goddess/God. I cannot accept that.   I believe that these
    works are written by men to explain a History that is unexplainable.
    What I don't understand is why these writings rather than others are
    contained in what we consider holy scripture.
    
    The belief that these are holy scripture was part of my childhood and
    today I believe that the first step of being able to appreciate the
    Bible is to free myself from that childhood belief.  The bible
    particularly these books excludes half of humankind.  How can I 
    read the story of Eve, and Sara, and Lot's Wife and Lot's Daughters and
    not be appalled at the thought that these stories are divinely
    inspired.  And if they are not divinely inspired, then what do they
    mean.  What does it mean that Goddess/God would choose one tribe over
    all other tribes.  Why look to the Hebrew scriptures rather than the
    Greek, the Roman, the American Indian, the Chinese, the Pagan for the
    source of cultural beginnings.  What does it mean in Exodus when "God
    hardens the hearts of the Egyptians so they cannot respond to him
    through Moses and then punishes them savagely for not responding? 
    Punishes them to the extend of slaughtering all the first born sons?
    
    This is my religious heritage.  It is important for me to make some
    sense out of it.  I don't know what it all means.  I do not know why
    these books were chosen as the beginning of that religious heritage or
    why they have not been rejected.
    
    Pat
    
    

re Note 402.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> I find it no less troublesome that nothing written by a woman is included
> in that which is considered God-breathed.  I realize that women at the time
> were not considered important enough to educate, and therefore, there was
> probably very little at all which was written or read by women.  Thus, again,
> here is evidence of the existence of strong cultural influences on the Bible.
  
        This is indeed a problem, but it is (for me) a part of an
        even more troubling conclusion:  that NOTHING else that has
        ever been written or will be written is God-breathed, i.e.,
        inspired by God."

        This incredible conclusion appears to be part and parcel of
        the same conservative position that the entirety of
        canonical Scripture is God-authored.

        Bob

	I have been told that the Bible is God-breathed. I have been told ALL
of it is, and not one iota is by a human. I forget the exact passage, but I
remember reading one of the letters Paul wrote where he said the following
thing he was going to say was not from God, but it is his own opinion. Now, if
it isn't from God, if it is his own opinion, then that would be a contradiction
to the Bible being 100% God-breathed. With this in mind, wouldn't one have to
question the validity of the Bible being God-breathed? 

	Also, I have been told that the God let this stand because God agreed
with it. But if God had stated through the Holy Spirit to the authors that the
entire Bible is God breathed, then why is there that opinion? If God agreed
with the opinion, then why didn't He just breathe the words Himself to keep the
Scriptures entirely under the God-breathed statement? And lastly, if those
words were actually words from God, but Paul said they were his own opinion,
then wouldn't that show that the Bible has mans free will involved? Isn't that 
something the Bible isn't supposed to even have an inkling of?



Glen

Note 402.26

>        This is indeed a problem, but it is (for me) a part of an
>        even more troubling conclusion:  that NOTHING else that has
>        ever been written or will be written is God-breathed, i.e.,
>        inspired by God."

Interesting consideration, Bob.  You know, the Acts of the Apostles comes
to an abrupt stop, without a closing.  I've often wondered if the author had
in mind that the work should not be crystalized, but rather that it would have
additional Acts appended to it periodically.

Peace,
Richard

Note 402.27

Glen,

	What do you think some of the answers to your questions might be?


						Peace,
						Richard

| What do you think some of the answers to your questions might be?


	That the Bible isn't 100% God breathed. It was written with human free
will, the same human free will that God has given each and every one of us.




Glen

    RE: 18
    
>How do you deal with that? As some have put to me, how do you know
that you're not really listening to Satan?
    
    I would say that one should "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven"...in
    other words, go 100% after following and fellowshipping and emersing
    one's self in the Word and knowledge of God...giving yourself to a 100%
    diet of God's word, study and hearing ministries, until you become most
    acquainted with the feeling of things of the spirit of God.  Then when
    deceiving spirits come you at you they are immediately discerned, by
    their spirit...try the spirit by the spirit.
    
    Playtoe
    

    re 31 cont'd
    
    Let me keep in the analogy of the Bright Light through the Prism.  
    
    In other words, one should seek to know the understanding or message or
    the Spirit of the Bright Light FIRST, and then any secular or singular
    or particular colors of message are compared essentially to the Bright
    Light.  For instance, we can relate to the particular needs of a
    certain or specific people and they therefore will interpret the
    scriptures, or necessarily seek the scriptures which pertain to or
    address their specific needs.  We wouldn't call their interpretation
    false because our needs differ from their needs and we interpret or
    extract meanings differently...but we would compare any one's
    particular interpretation to the general message of the Bright
    Spirit/Light, and see if it is in agreement with it.  And this has much
    to do with our discussion of Hinduism vs Christianity.  Are Hindu's
    evil/wicked/misguided because they don't identify with "Christ
    crucified", though they agree with almost everything, and DO them? 
    Well, again, Jews and Gentiles, were in need of the "crucifiction"
    doctrine, and not the Hindu.  Consequently we find that essentially the
    devout Hindu and the devout Christian are both acceptable in the SAME
    God's sight; though they express God's will in different colors of the
    Light.  It's much like one saying I'm green and you are blue, God loves
    me and not you...when both of you are equal IF you LOVE one God and thy
    brother/sister...and that's the end of the law.  
    
    As it is written, "Do you hear what the SPIRIT is saying?", it doesn't
    say, "Do you hear what MAN is saying?"  Let God be the centrality of
    worship and inspiration, not Man...Let every man be a liar but God
    true.
    
    Playtoe

    
    Re 24
    
    I'd like to respond...
    
    Firstly, the bible is written allegorically, and I would suggest that
    one not consider the nationalities, the "vain" geneologies, etc, but
    seek to understand the general underlying principles the various
    stories are expressing.  Adam and Eve, are not just two people, but
    Adam, is ADAMIC MAN, or UNIVERSAL MAN, and represents MANKIND and not
    one individual...as it is written "Male and female created he THEM". 
    We read that it says "THEM" as in more than one, but only read of one
    man ADAM in the garden, and he is "androgynous"...when it really should
    suggest to us that there were many men, called ADAM as if a tribal
    name, or species title.  The Bible doesn't venture into the details and
    specifics of the many, but speaks generally of the many as if ONE, to
    simplify the matter.
    
    Genesis and Exodus present certain analogies of the general history of
    man in the form of a story about a one/few.  That the Jews were
    "chosen", that the Gentiles were secondarily "chosen", is perhaps due
    the idea that the JEWS "killed the prophets and were disobediant", and
    the Gentiles "knew not God/had no foreknowledge of God", and
    represented two groups of, or TYPES of people/mentalities in the
    greatest need of God's help...where God could accomplish, in the
    process of addressing their needs, the Salvation of all mankind.  And I
    think of Dr. Martin Luther Kings' statement, "When black people make
    strides in civil rights ALL minorities are benefited", eluded to the
    fact that blacks are the MOST discriminated against.  Which it is true
    if any other minority makes strides it may not necessarily effect the
    black man.  If they allowed hispanics to "ride the bus", it didn't mean
    blacks could, but if blacks gained the right to ride the bus, EVERYONE
    else can...can you agree with this basically?  It's not an issue of
    American practices, I'm using the analogy of this situation to
    illuminate the logic behind the "chosenness of Jews and Gentiles". 
    Another example would be that of the choosing of SAUL, renamed PAUL,
    and the word that went before him among the people, "we heard that he
    who killed and persecuted the Christian the MOST has now become one of
    them"...can you percieve the God inspired hope by all those between
    Saul and godliness who now believed they too could be saved?  If an
    "almost there" person was saved, those worse than him wouldn't
    necessarily be inspired to believe they could be saved, but if someone
    worse than they were saved then SURELY God could save them too...right!
    
    Technically, men put together the 66 books in the Bible, though many
    other manuscripts/books were in extent.  And they, basically, deemed
    books "holy" or "bibleworthy" or cananical(?), based upon whether or
    not they 1)mentioned "the coming of the messiah/saviour", 2)the author
    was known, and 3)were consistent and translatable.  You'll note in the
    books which were not included or excluded by King James (ie the
    Apocrypha) the don't know who the author was or they do not reference
    the messiah, or they are fragments/incomplete...this applies to the
    Lost Books of the Bible as well.  Also, there is something to do with
    Gnostic beliefs as opposed to Roman Catholic ideas/interests under the
    auspices of Ceasar (or the current King/Ruler).  The Roman Catholic
    executive order has always been under the influence of the State...I
    don't mean to be offensive, that's just history, which if one finds
    fault with this idea shouldn't "kill the messenger", but in truth,
    focus on the transgressor, if there be one.  
    
    You have raised a very good question and concern, that has troubled
    many, since days of old, "Why did God harden Pharoah's heart to not do
    that which he wanted him to do, only to punish him more and more each
    time he refused to do that which God hardened him against doing?"  Man
    that's a "dilly"!  But the fact is "God's judgement is righteous", and
    we have to meditate on that one and it'll come to you, and when it
    does the Will of God/the BRIGHT LIGHT will be known to you.  Ask
    around, seek the answer to this "like if for hidden treasure, and THEN
    you shall understand the knowledge of God", Proverbs 2:1-5.  Surely if
    he didn't put anything in the bible you would need to seek this
    statement in Proverbs would mean nothing.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 26
    
    I keep hearing this discussion of the "lack of women God-inspired
    writings", but I think you are mistaken.  First of all, when you
    consider that MOSES did not WRITE DOWN the five books but a Scribe
    wrote it down.  The Prophets didn't write their books either, they
    spoke and walked the earth and their personal scribes wrote their
    words and deeds as they spoke of them.  I don't read in the books of
    Moses where it ever mentions Moses taking the time to sit down and
    write these books.  
    
    On that note, you have Deborah the Prophetess, you have the books of
    Ruth, and Esther...so you guys are mistaken.
    
    Playtoe

      <<< Note 402.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Peace: the Final Frontier" >>>

> I find it no less troublesome that nothing written by a woman is included
> in that which is considered God-breathed.  ................................

     Well, Richard, I'm surprised no one has pointed out that there is some
     research  to  suggest  that  parts/passages  of  the  early books were
     written by an author identified as "J", and that J may, in fact,  have
     been a woman.  Two books published recently talk about this:

      o  _Who Wrote The Bible?_

         A review of all the books of  the  Bible  and  who  some  scholars
         currently think some of the authors are.

      o  _The Book of J_

         An attempt at reassembling the  original  work  that  J  may  have
         written  before  it  was disassembled into the Bible as we know it
         today.  Also includes a lot of background material.

     Sorry, I don't know the authors or publishers.  I'll include these  if
     anyone requests them.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

    .34 and .35
    
    Yes, those are indeed interesting speculations about the role and degree
    of involvement of women in the formation of the Holy Scriptures.  But,
    alas, they *are* speculations.
    
    In all fairness, Luke does point out in Luke 8.1-3 the importance of women
    in the ministry of Jesus.  And there exists more such light, but it's
    rare.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands for
 ever." Isaiah 40:8

Questioning whether or not the story of Noah's Ark is ture sounds like
New Age thinking!  There is archaeological evidence that Noah's Ark
came to rest on Mt Ararat as the bible says. Has anyone else seen the
military recon films of it...that I saw them on channel 2 some years ago?
As I recall a couple of groups have tried to get to it, but the Turkish
goverment and local authorities have not been helpful.

Prasie the lord!

Ralph 

    Hmmm, I've been called a 'new age' thinker, yet I also believe that the
    story of Noah's Ark is true or is at least based on truth.  I saw the
    program on channel 2 that you mentioned as well.
    
    Ro
    

    RE 37
    
    DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!  Believe me, my friend, Noah's Ark is NOT to be
    found on Mt. Ararat...it's irrelevent anyway...they seek a sign and a
    sign will not be given unto them!  If they didn't believe Moses, they
    won't believe in God because they found the Ark.  The rich man said,
    Send someone from the dead to my son so he'll believe," Jesus said,
    "that won't convince him".
    
    The bible is an allegory.  I think if we questioned into the scientific
    possibility of Noah's Ark sitting up on the mountain for 4000 or more
    years, and pieces of it still able to be found, I think we'd realize
    the impossibility of such a find...It'd take so extremely unusual
    circumstances, and I mean extreme (even miraculous) for this to be. 
    Study "fossilization".
    
    I'm not trying to destroy anyone's faith, but I'd caution anyone from
    basing their faith on such a thing.  
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 36
    
    I don't believe it is speculation to say that the prophets don't right
    their own prophecies, in those times, but that task was given to the
    scribes.  Also, "Deborah, the Prophetess," is clearly a female prophet.
    
    I think that it is such a demeaning perception of the contributions
    women DO make is the cause for the feminist reaction...I don't mean to
    offend you, but you've definitely offended women, and I think
    wrongfully so.  
    
    Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from...I'm merely urging
    the conversation into deeper evaluations of this matter.  If it offends
    you for me to question your position, then I'll drop it.
    
    Playtoe

Note 402.40

>    I don't believe it is speculation to say that the prophets don't right
>    their own prophecies, in those times, but that task was given to the
>    scribes.  Also, "Deborah, the Prophetess," is clearly a female prophet.

Granted, Playtoe, this part is not speculation.  It's when we imply that
women may have written part of the Bible that speculation enters in.

>    I think that it is such a demeaning perception of the contributions
>    women DO make is the cause for the feminist reaction...I don't mean to
>    offend you, but you've definitely offended women, and I think
>    wrongfully so.

I suspect you're mis-reading me, Playtoe.  Either that or I've not made myself
clear enough.

Peace,
Richard

    re: 41
    
>Granted, Playtoe, this part is not speculation.  It's when we imply that
>women may have written part of the Bible that speculation enters in.
    
    Ok, when you say "written", do you mean "scribe"?  Or, do you mean
    through whom God spoke, and the scribes wrote accordingly?  I don't
    know if women were allowed to be scribes, we really have little
    information regarding the gender of any scribe.  Did God ever speak
    through a women, or did a women ever prophecsy?  As I pointed out, you
    have a few examples in the Bible of such a thing.  
    
    My point is this.  In modern times, I've seen it where the slightest
    bit of evidence has been enough to convince the massess of this or
    that.  Great or little, the presence of women in the bible is a
    reality...to demean that presence to a "rarity" or to "insignificance"
    is not a godly thing, God cares for the least and the greatest.  It has
    be illustrated in several places the minuteness of God's focus; "Not
    one gnat can die without my knowing", "til every JOT and TITTLE be
    fullfilled", "if one sheep out of 100 goes astray, I will go find that
    one lost sheep"....do you see my point?
    
    I hope I'm misreading, I hope it's a matter of unclearness...perhaps
    God was wise enough to know that if he used more females his word would
    refected moreso than if he only gave them a small role?  Male
    chauvinism would have ignorred the female prophet.  
    
    Playtoe 

    Playtoe,
    
    You believe the Bible is Allegory.  so do I.
    
    What is the allegory of Lot's wife.  To be turned to a pillar of salt
    without ever having her name mentioned.  The ultimate position of
    nothingness.
    
    Pat
    

    re 43
    
    Ok so you pick out one example...would you propagate that for all
    womenhood?  What about Rahab?  The ultimate position of somethingness! 
    Inspite of her harlotdom she had faith and believed in God and was
    found in heavenly places and mentioned among the prophets of God, on a
    par with Abraham and Sarah.  Let's not search for the justifications to
    condemn, demean and belittle one another, but to uplift and commend one
    another...that's the brotherly love of Christianity.
    
    Of course, please don't take this personally...any intensity or
    unseeming animousity on my part is because I'm thinking of the general
    reality of this matter, and not just what you've personally stated. 
    I'm thinking historically of how these attitudes have played themselves
    out.
    
    I think there's a general concern the bible presents regarding certain
    characteristics of both the male and female.  The Male has many more
    apparently, but the female seems to have the problem of staying
    focused, and having "unwavering faith"...but that truly has not utterly
    excluded "womankind" from participating in the highest callings of God. 
    Woman who overcome that weakness, ultimately become some of the
    greatest saints and the epitome of strength and perfection in God.  In
    the New Testament, it's said somewhere, and I don't remember for sure,
    "and [these two women, Aquilla(?) was one maybe) explained it [the
    gospel] more perfectly."
    
    There's a certain benevolence that must be given females by the male,
    which is universal in nature.
    
    Playtoe

Note 402.42

>    Did God ever speak
>    through a women, or did a women ever prophecsy?  As I pointed out, you
>    have a few examples in the Bible of such a thing.

Please understand that my concern is not with the quality of the involvement
of those women who did have a part in the formation of the Bible, but rather
with the quantity [the percentage, the ratio of female to male] of women who
had a part in the formation of the Bible.

I suspect that many God-given talents in women never came to fruition due to
suppressive social norms.

I'm also concerned because the church tends to perpetuate this senseless
tradition.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: 45
    
    Yes, for whatever reason, perhaps the season, the quantity (not
    quality) of the contributions of women to the evolution/revelation of
    the bible in writing, is at a minimum.  To question assert that this is 
    a reflection on women, moreso than the design of God, is controversial.
    
    I can identify with you saying "talents in women never came to
    fruition", perhaps because of Solomon's statement about "in a thousand
    women I found none [righteous]....but I don't know that this is due to
    a lack of fruitful talents, because in reality it has been women, most
    often, who have inspired the man to draw nearer to God, or to seek God. 
    Eve, Dalilah, Jezebel, etc...and that could very well be their God
    given talent, as our "help mates", helping us to seek God!
    
    I think it really gets down to "Judge not...who are we to judge another
    man's servent, to his master alone he stands or falls."
    
    Playtoe

    Sunday we observed Anna Howard Shaw Sunday.  (I believe she was the
    first woman fully ordained in the United Methodist Church.)  My pastor
    said in his sermon that there was some speculation that Hebrews may
    have been written by a woman.  Granted this is speculation again, but
    I don't recall hearing it before and I have not yet had a chance to
    ask him more about it.
    
    Anyone here know of it?
    
    Nancy

	God doesn't point to the Bible.  The Bible points to God.

						Richard

    re .3
    
    AMEN and amen
    
    re .4
    
    I accept the position of numerous biblical scholars that the NWT is not
    a reliable translation in that several passages have apparently been
    corrupted to support the belief and teachings of the founder and its
    primary benefactor. The most notable of which is John 1:1 where a new
    classification of godhood is set up by making Jesus a lessor god.
    
    NIV "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
    Word was God."  All other accepted translations yield this same message.
    
    NWT "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
    Word was "A"  "g"od."
    
    In the love of Christ who I believe to be fully God,
    Dave Rubenking
    

                   RE: Note 402.49       SALISH::RUBENKIDA       
        
    Dave, 
    
   | re .4
   | 
   | I accept the position of numerous biblical scholars that the NWT is not
   | a reliable translation in that several passages have apparently been
   | corrupted to support the belief and teachings of the founder and its
   | primary benefactor. 
    
    Could you please reference these "numerous biblical scholors" that have
    stated that "several passages have apparently been corrupted..."etc?
      
   | NIV "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
   | Word was God."  All other accepted translations yield this same message.
                                 
    "All"... I doubt this.. but then it depends upon who is judging what is
    acceptable and what is not. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed in
    other notes. If I have a chance I'll find it I'll post it in a later reply.
     
    |NWT "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
    |Word was "A"  "g"od."
    
    If you notice in other "accepted" translations/versions such as the KJ
    and JB John 6:70 refers to Judas Iscariot as "a devil" and John 9:17
    describes Jesus as "a prophet". Why is the indefinite article not used
    consistantly? It's used in these two verses but not in John 1:1. How 
    does the NIV translate these two verses? In all these verses a singular 
    anarthrous predicate noun occurs before a verb. The NWT mearly translates 
    consistantly.
    
     Robin
    

Note 342.68

>God makes it very clear that I am not God nor am I a
>part of God.

True, but the Bible makes it clear that God is not apart from you either.
Moreover, the Bible is not God, nor a part of God.  I must concede
that there's a breed of Christian who treats it as if it were, but they
have no support for their claim (Biblical or historical).

>Given that this is the case, something that is external
>to me can be from God.  Something that is internal to me
>(such as my reasoning) is not God, but is me.

True, but the Holy Spirit, God in Christ, may work through you.  This
is internal.

>I fail to see why some believe that what is from God cannot
>be (or actually is not) superior to that which is from me.

Oh, but I do believe that what is from God is superior to that which is
from you.

>In fact, logic drives me to exactly the opposite conclusion -
>that it is indeed superior.

Well, don't rely on logic, Collis!  Your logic (reasoning) is from you
and not from God.  See your own statement above!

Richard

Re:  .52

It's true that the Bible is not God.  I'm not quite sure
what His words and pronouncements have to do with God
Himself (since they will last forever and the Bible is the
recording of them).  Anyway, it is not improper to respect,
obey and rely upon the infallible words of an infallible
God.

Collis

    You are not God.  The Bible is not God.  You haven't been around since
    the beginning of time.  The Bible hasn't been around since the
    beginning of time either.
    
    At the same time, I believe God's word (not the Bible) has been around
    since the beginning. (John 1:1)
    
    Richard