In my quest for TRUTH

I am always pondering and dwelling on what is truth, and the search for the truth.  Being a Christian, the truth is our Bible.  Truth is the word of God…..But what makes that truth.

Being a believer for the last eight years, I have always taken my Bible as truth.  Unquestionable absolute truth.  And this belief has only grown over time as I have studied and read my bible.  As I have grown from milk to meat and I have hungered for more.  If this is truth, were did it come from, and how did we get it?  I’ve studied & read the entire Bible, Biblical History, Early Church History, Textual Criticism, and even some secular history on how it has & been influenced by Christianity.

“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession  of the truth.”- John Locke

 To say something is perfect, is to say it is complete, inerrant, without error, consistent and free of all flaws.  If this is true, let’s put the bible to the test.  If this is true, why are there so many doctrines and so many different interpretations of the bible?  If this is truth which manuscript is the perfect one.  (i.e.  Critical text, Masoretic text, Byzantium text, Textus Receptus, and Alexandrian text.)  Even the manuscripts can’t even be classified as perfect, because they are not complete or whole.  They are scattered into pieces across the globe.

This is a very perplexing and thought provoking topic. 

It sometimes blows me away that other Christians don’t also bring up these things in scripture that make you wonder.  Why are dates and times different?  Why is Jesus quoting something not in the bible? One reason I am like this, because I do believe in being biblical and doctrinally sound.  And that is truth.  I believe all Christians should have a desire for Biblical truth.  This should be engrained into each one of us, because we each have the Holy Spirit, and the bible says “…. when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”- John 16:13

“Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.”- Ludwig Borne

Truth is not subjective, it’s open to interpretation.  It may be discussed and sometimes debated, but no matter how many times it is or how good the debater is, it is still the TRUTH.  I’m not doing this for the sake of just doing to get a rise out of other people, but because real truth is something I truly desire.

“Before I go through the solution to this problem I must state the one fact that underlies all supposed “Bible contradictions”: since the Bible proclaims itself to be inerrant, any supposed contradictions must lie in the mind of the reader. In other words, if something in Scripture appears to be a contradiction then I must be misunderstanding it. It is very easy to blow off these things by claiming they are translation errors or copyist mistakes, but those are just excuses. If I accept that the Bible is perfect and then study diligently, the Holy Spirit will guide me until I eventually find out where my understanding or perception is wrong. The contradiction will disappear as my understanding is cleared up, which is the case here”. – Matthew Gerwitz,

Advertisements

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in bible, bible contradictions, christian, confusion, god, matthew and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to In my quest for TRUTH

  1. “In other words, if something in Scripture appears to be a contradiction then I must be misunderstanding it.”
    🙂
    This is what i was taught in the Church. It all comes down to blind obedience without checking up on or verifying any support or proof.
    All churches should have the following sign posted at all of their entrances.
    “Welcome and be sure to check your brain in at the door!”

  2. portal001 says:

    These are important considerations,

    Have you considered studying Hebrew and Greek?

    I personally have lots of questions in regards to my own beliefs, and I think questions are important and should be addressed honestly.

    I still believe in the Bible (as in the 66 books) as the inspired Word of God.

    However, your post has encouraged me to consdier to take more time aside and study.

    Hope you are going well

  3. humblesmith says:

    Bible Reader: There are answers to all these questions. You are correct that Christians should think about them, but usually do not. I, too, share your frustration that more people are not concerned about these things. But I urge you to keep looking at scholarly sources, and you will find the answers to your questions.

    • But I urge you to keep looking at scholarly sources, and you will find the answers to your questions.
      You can’t call it THE answers, because not all answers are satisfying and not all answers are true. I have never come across satisfying answers to many questions Christianity brings up. And satisfying here doesn’t mean some arbitrary feeling in your heart, it means ‘sound’.

  4. unklee says:

    G’day, I have just come across your blog, and I appreciate what you are saying. I have asked a lot of the same questions, got some answers, got some more questions. I think we may be able to compare notes.

    “Being a Christian, the truth is our Bible. Truth is the word of God”

    I feel some of your “problems” arise from making assumptions that come from modern evangelical christianity, but not from God or the Bible. This is one of them, I believe.

    Ultimately, the truth isn’t the Bible, but the God who inspired it. Jesus said he was the truth, and that the Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 14: 6, 16:13). Some of the truth of Father, Son & Spirit is in the Bible, but there’s a lot more truth than that. And it appears that the Bible contains some things that are not truth in the way we see it today.

    And the Bible never calls itself the “word of God”. I checked out every reference to “word of God” in the New Testament and not one of them unambiguously referred to the Bible, sometimes the meaning was ambiguous, and often “word of God” meant something else than the Bible – God actually speaking, or the message about God.

    We can get an insight into how to understand the Bible by looking at how the New Testament writers referred to the Old Testament. It turns out they didn’t take it as literally as we often do – see Interpreting the Old Testament, so we need to be careful we are not being too pedantic.

    I conclude that we need to respect the Bible for what it is, but avoid inventing things that it isn’t – they only get us into deep water.

    “To say something is perfect, is to say it is complete, inerrant, without error, consistent and free of all flaws.”

    The word of the Lord is perfect, but the Bible may not be, as you point out. That doesn’t mean it isn’t from God or isn’t valuable, perhaps just that God works through human beings – like you and me and the church, none of which are perfect.

    “the Bible proclaims itself to be inerrant”

    I don’t know anywhere where it says that. What do you think the author of this quote meant?

    I have more to say on the Bible, and I will be blogging on it soon. Hopefully we can discuss some more then. Best wishes.

  5. I hope to here more about you have to say on the bible, (Keep me updated)

    {Ultimately, the truth isn’t the Bible, but the God who inspired it.} To be honest that’s a hard concept for me to grasp to say the bible is not truth. Now I’ve studied the history of the bible, and I know through history some errors were man-made because of errors from scribs copying the scriptures. However the majority of those errors have been caught because we can now compare manuscripts to each other to find the original words and intending meaning. And I know the bible was evenly called the “The Holy Bible” till about 1,000 AD. However it was the context of the words that I found to hold truth. That when reading the bible in context, Truth can be found. Amd I believe this because, I believe scripture backs this up. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” 2Timothy 3:16

    • unkleE says:

      Thanks TBR,

      “To be honest that’s a hard concept for me to grasp to say the bible is not truth.”

      But I didn’t say that, I said the ultimate truth is God, the Bible is a vehicle for some of that truth, not all of it. I was reacting to your comment saying truth is the Bible by saying that truth is more than the Bible. (I’m sorry if I said it unclearly, but if you’ll look back you’ll see I was arguing against automatic inerrancy, not against truth.)

      But of course the Bible is a means of God’s truth to us, but it is also written by people. So the question always is: how much of it is human and how much divine? But God can use the human as well as the divine to teach us stuff, through the Holy Spirit. And that is what you are saying here.

      My main reason for stressing these things is that too many people have a binary view of the Bible – either it’s inerrant or it’s nothing. But historians don’t treat it like that, as influential a christian as CS Lewis didn’t treat it as inerrant but still believed it was important, and I believe we can accept it’s truths without claiming inerrancy where it doesn’t claim it.

      I hope that’s clearer now. Thanks.

  6. Hello Unklee,

    It sounds like u may be implying that bible is infallible, not inerrant. Is that what you are implying? That sounds like another interesting blog post? infallible vs. inerrant

    * I think I might do a study ‘inerrancy theory of the bible’

    • unkleE says:

      I think “infallible” is a word with one meaning, which some theological systems give a different meaning to, so it has become unclear. It also isn’t Biblical, so I prefer not to use it. I think my view is that it is a vehicle the Holy Spirit uses to bring God’s truth to us, and if we allow him, will lead us to God and God’s guidance for us. But not all parts do that the same as others.

  7. Brenda says:

    One question I don’t hear discussed often is why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would use a method so prone to error and problems as a book written by humans to communicate with all of mankind? Something I’d love to discuss.

    • unkleE says:

      “One question I don’t hear discussed often is why an all-knowing, all-powerful God would use a method so prone to error and problems as a book written by humans to communicate with all of mankind? Something I’d love to discuss.”

      You need to understand that the Bible isn’t the only means God uses to communicate to humankind. God speaks through his creation (e.g. how did the universe arise out of nothing, and how did it get to be so amazingly well designed?), through other religions (most religions have some teachings in common with christianity, so these ones at least must be right), individually through appearances, dreams, communications, healings, etc, and through the revelation of the Holy Spirit in our minds and ‘hearts’.

      The bible gives a solid, normative, bedrock of history and teaching, but the other forms of revelation have an important place. In particular, the Bible seems to teach that the Holy Spirit leads each of us individually if we want to be led, so that the whole process of revelation is much more comprehensive than your question suggests.

      My hypothesis about why God does it this way is based on the fact that I think God has paid the human race the ultimate compliment of giving us life as close as possible to his – i.e. conscious, rational, ethical, freely choosing, spiritual, loving, appreciating beauty, etc. To give us this autonomy, he keeps his revelation subtle and tailored to what we choose. if we want to go our own way, he will mostly respect that choice, if we want to know him, he will be more likely to reveal himself. It makes sense to me.

      Hope that helps.

      • Brenda says:

        UnkleE

        Thank you for your replies (esp the most recent ones). They have given me a lot to mull over. I was a Christian for 20 years and then left after a lot of reading, research, and thought – so I have considered most of the issues that have come up on this site – but it’s good to revisit the reasons why I came to my conclusions.

        I thought over your replies as I’ve gone about my day and I was trying to get at the heart of why we’ve reached different conclusions. In regards to this particular topic (how god might reveal himself) I’ve realized that our standards for which type of revelations we will trust is very different. Once I had come to the conclusion that the Bible was not only not inerrant but it was a book written only by humans (with no divine inspiration whatsoever) then I looked at the other types of revelation you mentioned (creation, other religions, individual revelations, the Holy Spirit, etc.) and came to the conclusion that none of it was anything that I could trust as evidence for a god. It was all so vague, subtle, and unverifiable – it didn’t seem to be the way that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would communicate to us – especially with eternal souls on the line. I realized after I’d been out of Christianity for awhile that the problem of the hiddenness of god was the biggest issue that would likely keep me from every going to back to a belief in god.

        I hope that explains a bit where I’m coming from and thank you for your replies.

  8. To Brenda,

    I think that is an interesting topic, here is two links from a post/blog that talks about that topic:
    https://theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/can-god-be-all-powerful-and-all-knowing/
    and
    https://theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/do-atheists-believe-in-invisible-intrinsic-morals/

    I think this might be a forum for this topic.

    In addition I do plan to post to part series on : Is God Perfect? And Is God’s Law Perfect? cause I think relevant queistions that need to be answered; and I have found some questionable scripture on this topic. So maybe when that post comes out, you can bring it up in the comments.

  9. unkleE says:

    Brenda,

    “Thank you for your replies ….. I was trying to get at the heart of why we’ve reached different conclusions.”
    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss. And I too have spent a lot of time thinking about why, with similar information, people come to such different conclusions. I think it has to do with assumptions and the criteria we judge by.

    “I’ve realized that our standards for which type of revelations we will trust is very different. “
    I think this is true, and important.

    “the Bible was not only not inerrant but it was a book written only by humans (with no divine inspiration whatsoever)”
    I think that is a reasonable and good place to start. But I suggest (1) we need to start with the NT if we are interested in christianity, and (2) we need to start with the conclusions of the best secular scholars (they at least form a ‘lowest common denominator’ of what it is reasonable for both believers and unbelievers – though believers may go on further, that will have a faith element, whereas the conclusions of secular scholars is as close to fact as we can get). My assessment of what the scholars say is at Jesus in history.

    “I looked at the other types of revelation you mentioned (creation, other religions, individual revelations, the Holy Spirit, etc.) and came to the conclusion that none of it was anything that I could trust as evidence for a god. It was all so vague, subtle, and unverifiable – it didn’t seem to be the way that an all-knowing, all-powerful god would communicate to us – especially with eternal souls on the line. I realized after I’d been out of Christianity for awhile that the problem of the hiddenness of god was the biggest issue that would likely keep me from every going to back to a belief in god.”
    I think this is a reasonable and understandable way to look at things, though I think it is (ultimately) sadly mistaken. (1) It omits the historical evidence for Jesus, which is crucial. (2) It seems to me that it is an example of allowing assumptions to get in the way of evidence. It would be nice to have more evidence, but we don’t appear to. Deciding there and then that God couldn’t exist seems to me to be too precipitous – I would rather consider the evidence even though I think it is not as solid as I’d like, and approach it on its own terms. For example, the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, when properly presented (I have tried to do this in Philosophical arguments) lead me to the conclusion that God is a far more probable explanation than any other.

    “I hope that explains a bit where I’m coming from and thank you for your replies.”
    Yes, it does, and I really appreciate that you have done so. I can understand and identify, even though I have taken a different route. It isn’t my business to criticise your choices, but I am glad if discussion is challenging or helpful, or even just interesting. I hope we can discuss some more.

    Best wishes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s