an Island and a bible

[mman]

I'm not one for hypotheticals but I was wondering....if you had no prior knowledge about God, and were put on an island with a bible (without any outside influences)where you could study without interruptions or influences, would you come to the same conclusions that you currently hold?

I submit that in many cases, you might or maybe even could not come to the same conclusions.

You would have no "sacred cows" to protect and defend, you would simply accept God's word for what it says. No Greek, no study aids, only God's word.

After your lengthy stay on the island, where you did nothing but study God's word, you are then brought back to society and given the task of finding a "church" that best fit the New Testament pattern. Do you honestly think you would pick your current church?

 

[BobRyan]

I have heard stories about people who did just that!

I am always facinated by them.

Usually - They read the Ten Commandments and simply "Accept them".

They read Genesis 1:-6 and just "accept it".

They read the Gospels and "Accept them" finding no contradiction betweeen the Gospels and the Word of God leading up to the time of Christ.

The only thing they don't typically work out - is some of the prophetic timelines.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living_stone]

You would have no "sacred cows" to protect and defend, you would simply accept God's word for what it says. No Greek, no study aids, only God's word.

So no bible, just some particular man's interpretation of it...which version?

 

[Matt Black]

The answer to the OP would be 'it depends': it depends on the prejudices and presuppositions the individual brings to the reading of the text, what s/he understands to be the meaning of certain words etc. I guess that's why Jesus told us to preach the Good News and make disciples of everyone and why He didn't tell us just to give everyone Bibles and let them try and work it out for themselves...

[ETA:I for one would be put off God completely by the picture of Him portrayed in parts of the OT - you know, the "I'm a genocidal maniac who goes round ordering the slaughter of people-groups who annoy me" bits and would need instruction from someone else to properly contextualise this for me and give me some proper teaching about the true character of God]

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Living_stone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You would have no "sacred cows" to protect and defend, you would simply accept God's word for what it says. No Greek, no study aids, only God's word.

So no bible, just some particular man's interpretation of it...which version? </font>[/QUOTE]kjv, nkjv, nas, esv are all good literal translations.

These are not some "particular man's" interpretation, they are translations by groups of scholars. While the word's don't exactly match and some english words have changed since the time of translation, the truth can be easily seen from any of these version.

God's plan for man is consistent between these and I am convinced the truth can be known from any of them.

Jesus said, you shall know the truth and the truth will make you free (Jn 8:32). God's word is truth (Jn 17:17).

 

[Dustin]

I probably wouldn't go to the exact same church, but I'd still believe what I do. There really aren't any churches now that completely fit the NT pattern.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The answer to the OP would be 'it depends': it depends on the prejudices and presuppositions the individual brings to the reading of the text, what s/he understands to be the meaning of certain words etc. I guess that's why Jesus told us to preach the Good News and make disciples of everyone and why He didn't tell us just to give everyone Bibles and let them try and work it out for themselves...

Did God give us a bible we can understand? The Holy Spirit is much more capable than I am and even I can write you a letter that you can understand.

We can get in serious trouble by believing what someone says without looking it up for ourselves. The Bereans "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They did not blindly accept what the preacher says, but they SEARCHED the scriptures. Oh, that we had more "Bereans" among us today.

 

[Chemnitz]

All translations are an interpretation of the original languages. Word choice and phrasing all play an intrigal part in the translation process and will by nature reflect the theological/philosophical out look of the translator. Even the literal translations fall into this trap. I am not saying they are untrustworthy, most translators are making an honest attempt to be faithful to the originals but realize their biases will be reflected in the translation.

I would have to agree with Matt on this one. The person who comes about purely by studying the word is an extreme rarity. Generally, people come to the knowledge of truth through the witness of the community of believers.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by mman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
The answer to the OP would be 'it depends': it depends on the prejudices and presuppositions the individual brings to the reading of the text, what s/he understands to be the meaning of certain words etc. I guess that's why Jesus told us to preach the Good News and make disciples of everyone and why He didn't tell us just to give everyone Bibles and let them try and work it out for themselves...

Did God give us a bible we can understand? The Holy Spirit is much more capable than I am and even I can write you a letter that you can understand.

We can get in serious trouble by believing what someone says without looking it up for ourselves. The Bereans "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They did not blindly accept what the preacher says, but they SEARCHED the scriptures. Oh, that we had more "Bereans" among us today. </font>[/QUOTE]The Berans are a classic example of what I'm talking about: they had the Scriptures on their own but no saving faith as a result; they needed someone else versed in the faith ie: Paul, to explain it to them

 

[Dustin]

mman - "They did not blindly accept what the preacher says, but they SEARCHED the scriptures. Oh, that we had more "Bereans" among us today."

Reading the first chapter of Ephesians and Romans completely destroyed Arminianism for me, by God's grace.

Aye, that we DID have more "Bereans".

 

[Chemnitz]

The Berans are a classic example of what I'm talking about: they had the Scriptures on their own but no saving faith as a result; they needed someone else versed in the faith ie: Paul, to explain it to them

True I forgot about that, silly me; don't forget the Ethiopian eunich who needed somebody to explain the scriptures to him.

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed. I'd forgotten about him myself - silly me, too!

This is why we need the Church - only by operating together can we know the truth!

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I read it as they came to Faith because the Searched the Scriptures to confirm the Word Preached...

Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

 

[tamborine lady]

Back to the OP. There are people in Indonesia who did that.

Granted, an Evangelist came in and preached to them a few days, left them bibles in their own language, and left. They read the word and believed what the scripture said.

After that, they did the things the bible said.

Walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick, cast out demons, etc. The reason it worked is because there was nobody there to "explain" it to them.

They went on simple faith that the bible means what it says.

Oh that there were more of those kinds of people around today.

Peace,

Tam

 

[Matt Black]

They still needed the Scriptures expounded to them, then (Rom 10:13-15)

 

[tamborine lady]

My point is that there is no way they could have heard all the gospel preached in 2 or 3 days.

They accepted Jesus, then took the Word and followed it. By the leading of the Holy Ghost, the miracles were performed.

It could happen if somehow you had the bible and NO one to tell you about it,and had no preconceived ideas about it. The Holy Ghost could lead you to the same truth that others come to who have human teachers.

Peace,

Tam

 

[Chemnitz]

My point is that there is no way they could have heard all the gospel preached in 2 or 3 days.

Really? It doesn't take all that long to say "Because Jesus paid the price for your sins on the cross you no longer face condemnation." See, I managed to do it in less than five seconds.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Berans are a classic example of what I'm talking about: they had the Scriptures on their own but no saving faith as a result; they needed someone else versed in the faith ie: Paul, to explain it to them

True I forgot about that, silly me; don't forget the Ethiopian eunich who needed somebody to explain the scriptures to him. </font>[/QUOTE]The reason the Eunuch couldn't figure out what Isaiah was talking about is because he didn't know about Jesus.

Now that we have the completed word, what else do we need?

How can the scriptures truly "thoroughly furnish us" (II Tim 3:16-17) if we have to have help to understand them?

The scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.

The scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Of course, before they had the completed word, they had to have some help.

 

[Matt Black]

...and they still do now. JWs, Christadelphians and other non-trinitarian heretics have the same Scriptures yet come up with false doctrines. So they still need help.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and they still do now. JWs, Christadelphians and other non-trinitarian heretics have the same Scriptures yet come up with false doctrines. So they still need help.

True. Arians had (for the most part) the completed NT as well.