The Rapture - WTF?

[ms_gwyn]

I know I really shouldn't be jumping into this discussion, but here goes....

I have studied the Bible, more the Old Testament, than the New Testament admittedly

I have a deep respect for all religions and faiths (not the same to me).

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not, but as hard questions
But I have to ask this, if there is only 1 correct interpretation of the Bible...which is it? Are you or your pastor fluent in Aramaic? Because that is the original version of the Bible. The most “popular” bible, is I believe the King James version, which was translated from Latin version, which was translated from the Greek version, which was translated from the Aramaic, if my memory serves me correctly. Which logically leads to different interpretations of the words, because not all words in Aramaic translate to Greek and they have to use the closest substitute, etc, etc.

Of course there are going to be discrepancies because, if we view the same event happen, I can pretty much say that we are not going to see the same thing, because of our perspective.

These stories, scriptures, whatever you chose to believe were written during a time of great upheaval and political unrest and that will be reflected in the writings. All you would really have to do is do some research on your own of the social and political climate of the times and re-read the gospels and you would most likely come away with a better understanding AND a deeper faith.

ok off of my soapbox now

I really don’t care which religious doctrine you proscribe to, that is a deep and personal decision and it is really none of my business.

But to follow blindly, that is what I have a problem with (from ANYONE and I don’t me you, in general). Blind faith is what gets a lot of people in trouble. To question (anything, any matter, in this case religion), will ALWAYS lead a person to a greater understanding and deeper faith.

I will now go back to lurking on this thread.

[epchick]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
My opinion is certainly not the only opinion and as mentioned before I AM NOT vilifying the entire race for the actions of a few. I still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. I certainly respect your opinion and your right to voice it. I like differences in opinion, it helps me, believe it or not, strengthen my own faith. I didn't say you were stupid for doing something different from me, and I'm glad you are a Christian. You sound like a very intelligent woman and I highly respect your opinons.
I have answered all questions from a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, as RACooper was asking.

GeekyPenguin, as far as the discrepencies, I, again, do not believe that. My preacher regularly points out what many view to be discrpencies and shows us how they are not. But, I fall into the category of people who believe that there is one right translation of the bible, if that sheds more light on my strong opinions.

I agree with you also ADPiZXalum. I'm happy to see so many Christians, but I am also alarmed to see how many people are not being led by faith, but instead being led by the world.

Proverbs 30:5 says "Every word of God is tested; He is a sheild to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

I totally do not mean to offend anyone, so please don't get offended, this is just my opinion, but if you accept the idea that the bible has discrepancies then you are calling God a liar. The bible is his word....the Word of God...it doesn't matter the language, who wrote it, or what year it was written, God handed it down to us, as his Word...something every Christian should follow.

A discrepancy according to my dictionary is "a lack of agreement." If you are lacking to agree completely with something, then you are usually saying its a "lie" or it is "false" (as in true and false questions...if there is a discrepancy in a question...you usually put false right?) If you say that a part of the bible is "false" how can you really say you have Faith? Again, I dont mean it to sound rude, or harsh...it is just a fact.

One of my closest friends growing up said she believed in God, but she didn't like the bible, that is too full of contradictions. Well, have you all heard of C.S. Lewis? I think it was J.R.R. Tolkien who challened Lewis (then a non-believer) to find proof of the discrepancies in the bible, and he couldn't. Lewis found soo much proof of things stated in the bible that he became a christian himself.

There is NO discrepancies in the Word, the discrepancies come when people add on to the Word and make it seem as though it is saying something it is not. As in the discussion with the crucifixion. It is STATED that the people living there chose Jesus to die, rather than the other criminal (Barabbas). It is truth, but the bible doesn't EXPLICITLY state that the Jews are to blame. You can put blame on EVERYBODY (except Jesus). The discrepancy comes when people say "the jews are to blame" or "The romans are to blame because the bible says so." That is not necessarily true.

Orignally posted by ADPiZXalum
I dont' know if all Christians truly believe this. I think it's easy for people to say "Christ died for our sins" but it's hard for many to make that personal.

If a "Christian" cannot believe that Jesus Christ died for them, then again, how can someone have faith?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, so that whoever believes shall not perish but have eternal life"

If somone doesn't believe that Jesus died for THEM, it kinda leads to the question..."do they even believe in Jesus." Because some people think that if they believe in God that is FINE...but scripture says

"He who has the Son, has the father; but whoever does not acknowledge having the Son, does not have the father"
(My mom's bible says it a little differently : 1 John 5:12 "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Sonf of God does not have the life.")

Ok...this is long, so i'll quit. Again, I dont mean to offend anyone, i just feel like stating my opinion.

[Honeykiss1974]

Great post Epchick!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another note, I think some of you are confusing religion and the bible to be the same thing. And as an FYI....

Believing the Bible to be the infalluable word of God is not the same as religion. Religion were the laws that man created, believing that it would help people to follow and understand the Bible.

Believing the bible isn't "blind faith" - it's simply faith - for you must have faith in order to even become a believer (accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, etc.). Its the foundation.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:1-3

From jump, there is no expectation that the Word of God will automatically fit into the nice and neat molds that our worldly mind understands.

But again, I say simply this. Don't listen to anyone - their post (mine included ), their books on the bible, their lecture, etc. Just start out by reading the bible to see what it says (front to back) Even if you read it in a class, read it again, this time without the purpose of looking for this or that - just read it for understanding and go from there.

Originally posted by ms_gwyn
I know I really shouldn't be jumping into this discussion, but here goes....

I have studied the Bible, more the Old Testament, than the New Testament admittedly

I have a deep respect for all religions and faiths (not the same to me).

Please do not take this as an attack, it is not, but as hard questions
But I have to ask this, if there is only 1 correct interpretation of the Bible...which is it? Are you or your pastor fluent in Aramaic? Because that is the original version of the Bible. The most “popular” bible, is I believe the King James version, which was translated from Latin version, which was translated from the Greek version, which was translated from the Aramaic, if my memory serves me correctly. Which logically leads to different interpretations of the words, because not all words in Aramaic translate to Greek and they have to use the closest substitute, etc, etc.

Of course there are going to be discrepancies because, if we view the same event happen, I can pretty much say that we are not going to see the same thing, because of our perspective.

These stories, scriptures, whatever you chose to believe were written during a time of great upheaval and political unrest and that will be reflected in the writings. All you would really have to do is do some research on your own of the social and political climate of the times and re-read the gospels and you would most likely come away with a better understanding AND a deeper faith.

ok off of my soapbox now

I really don’t care which religious doctrine you proscribe to, that is a deep and personal decision and it is really none of my business.

But to follow blindly, that is what I have a problem with (from ANYONE and I don’t me you, in general). Blind faith is what gets a lot of people in trouble. To question (anything, any matter, in this case religion), will ALWAYS lead a person to a greater understanding and deeper faith.

I will now go back to lurking on this thread.

I am going to try to PM you a link that will hopefully explain some of my stance better. There is SOO much background and my view of the one translation is based on what I have been shown but it would be impossible for me to regurgitate all of it. Anyway, I understand what you mean about blind faith and I tried Cathoicism, Methodist, Church of Christ, and Episcopalian before I felt like I found something substantial, and what I feel like is the truth. I have peace for once in my life with my faith. I understand what people mean about not being close minded or just going with one thing, but if we chase after EVERY thing that comes our way or sounds kinda cool, or scholarly about the bible, what kind of faith is that? Faith is the subtance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) So, COMPLETELY no offense taken, but I dont' feel like my faith is blind. (ANd I know you wern't talking to me per se, but I"m just saying. )

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by ADPiZXalum
My opinion is certainly not the only opinion and as mentioned before I AM NOT vilifying the entire race for the actions of a few. I still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. I certainly respect your opinion and your right to voice it. I like differences in opinion, it helps me, believe it or not, strengthen my own faith. I didn't say you were stupid for doing something different from me, and I'm glad you are a Christian. You sound like a very intelligent woman and I highly respect your opinons.
I have answered all questions from a Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, as RACooper was asking.

GeekyPenguin, as far as the discrepencies, I, again, do not believe that. My preacher regularly points out what many view to be discrpencies and shows us how they are not. But, I fall into the category of people who believe that there is one right translation of the bible, if that sheds more light on my strong opinions.

Read a book like the one I suggested, which is used as a text in theology classes at most of the religious schools in Wisconsin of all sorts of flavors, and see if you still don't think there's any discrepancies. For example, where Mark has one, Matthew will have two or three.

And to whoever said that believing there can't be discrepancies in the Bible because that is akin to calling God a liar: Have you ever played telephone? What God told Christ who told Matthew who wrote it down 30 years later but also had it written down by Paul after that is not necessarily going to be the exact same thing. It's not calling God a liar - it's knowing that the human vessels of God are not perfect.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by epchick
I totally do not mean to offend anyone, so please don't get offended, this is just my opinion, but if you accept the idea that the bible has discrepancies then you are calling God a liar. The bible is his word....the Word of God...it doesn't matter the language, who wrote it, or what year it was written, God handed it down to us, as his Word...something every Christian should follow.

A discrepancy according to my dictionary is "a lack of agreement." If you are lacking to agree completely with something, then you are usually saying its a "lie" or it is "false" (as in true and false questions...if there is a discrepancy in a question...you usually put false right?) If you say that a part of the bible is "false" how can you really say you have Faith? Again, I dont mean it to sound rude, or harsh...it is just a fact.

You are right about a discrepancy being “a lack of agreement”, and in the case of the Bible it may refer to either a lack of agreement between Gospels, or in my particular case a lack of agreement in the actual language itself – problems with translation. Now stating that there are discrepancies in translations or versions of the Bible isn’t as you seem to think “calling God a liar” it is saying that a man made a human err; after all God didn’t personally write the Bible – it was recorded by humans directly inspired by God. As for calling parts of the Bible false – I have no problem doing that because they are; fables and parables technically aren’t true, but instead ‘fiction’ designed to impart a message – the message can be true even if the medium isn’t.

Now getting back to problems with translation… I’m sure most of you have (well in this thread) know some of the more memorable quotes from the Bible – and most likely the King James version is the one most on here use/know. So shall we look at Luke 2:14?

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men

Now the old/original Latin version (Vulgate) of this same line is this:
Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis
This translates as “Glory to God in[on] the highest and in[on] Earth peace to men[humans] of goodwill”

Now as you can see there is only a very minor variation between the KJV and the translation – but that very same minor variation alters the meaning or message. To me this is a discrepancy (in this case caused by a translation err – improper understanding/translation of the declensions) as the two verses have a “lack of agreement”.

So not only can a mistake in the translation be due to grammatical problems, it can also arise from contextual problems – either what role the word played originally, or what the various meanings of the word could be. A perfect example of this would be Romans 8:14:
For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
-or- in Latin:
quicumque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur hii filii sunt Dei

Yes “filii” means roughly “sons”, but it’s context within Roman culture and the Latin language is a little more complex – “filii” refers to mature sons (there is a different word for children or boy) and in Roman culture (and Greek for that matter) “filii” would refer to all of the grown children, male and female – female children would only be mentioned if it was important to emphasize them, otherwise it’s just understood, in the same way as “Man” can represent and include more than just males. So technically Romans 8:14 could also say “children of God” in translation, it is up to the translators to try and interpret the context that the author meant to convey.

The original topic of this thread (remember that  ) was basically me trying to understand the seemingly American fascination with “The Rapture”, as touched on in Revelations – I was trying to in all honesty try and understand the particulars of the Evangelical, Revival, Fundamentalist interpretation of Revelations, and how that related to “The Rapture”, and how that as a whole related to the actual language and context of the early versions of the Bible… I’m still looking for a scholar/scholars that have a firm understanding of the languages of the early scriptures, as well as a firm understanding of the history, culture, and symbolism of the people/period. I'am one of those people that firmly believes that blind faith is just that - blind; you miss out on the complexities and beauty of your faith if you do not fully look at it... or as the motto in the PIMS (Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies) Library states here at UofT "To Scorn Enlightment Is To Embrace Ignorance".

[Optimist Prime]

bumper sticker one:
WARNING: in the event of rapture, vehicle will be not be operated

bumper sticker two:
WARNING: in the event of rapture, I'm stealing your car

[Optimist Prime]

I wish the rapture would happen, so all the tolerant people I know will feel more comfortable without all those whackos around. killing for religion=/=buddhalicious. I've entered the blogosphere.

[Honeykiss1974]

Its apparent that we're not operating on the same definition of the word faith....To question someone's "faith" (in a biblical sense) is not the same as "enlightenment" - which is word of itself that is subjective and very debateble. You deem questioning the word as enlightment - others deem it as calling God a liar - so it depends upon the sense we're talking (worldly vs. biblcally).

Faith, in the biblical sense, is needed in order to EVEN believe the scriptures and what it says is true (hence an acceptance of Christ as your personal savior). You're basically asking me to explain a bibleical concept without using the bible which is not possible (or even wise), especially if you take away its definition of faith.

Well anyway, I answered the original question a while ago (or at least before it became a discussion on translation, etc.), so I'll let this thread be.

[AKA_Monet]

Epchick--

Beloved, although your point is well taken and understood by me, I think there is more to it than just mere words of men, then the WORD of God...

I am of the thought process that humans do not have the aural or logical capacity for the actual WORD and voice of God but through faith...

Does it not say that God is not interested in the World's logic?

So when God wants to reach one human being, He does so by means of words we are incapable of describing... But we "FEEL" the "righteousness" by it. That is the structure of the Holy Spirit...

If anything, God use to constantly speak to man, then during the last prophets times, He stopped.

Only twice in the New Testament aside from the Revelations, did God speak, but to Jesus Christ--and the folks around him somehow were "capable" of interpreting it--although they were unable as humans to hear it...

Which sends a powerful message to Christians, that when God wants to reach you, He will...

Believe me, I can be a witness to that testimony because I have had His communcations--or have been rocked by the Spirit on several occasions.

Although I did not actually hear God's voice, I listened and understood it for a direction and path He wanted me to go...

Then there are the gifts that many people have... The gift of knowledge, tongues, prophecy, etc...

I am in no way an expert of those gifts and even though I have some of them, I choose to suppress them because of my strong belief in the 1st Corinthians 13. My gifts to be a part of the body of Christ will be better served elsewhere as directed by the Holy Spirit... That is why, I strongly have faith in Roman 8:31-39. That is why I am unconcerned about the Rapture because if God wants me to be pulled up, guess what??? If I have to go "jump into the lake"--then guess what??? I have turned my life over to Christ awhile ago and that is why I don't dictate and demand folks to yield to my way... But respond in lovingkindness to ALL of His creations...

Most folks are not there with you on that. Most folks will deny it. Some folks are demons... Either way, it is our strength, TOGETHER that brings us to the WORD and voice of God...

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Its apparent that we're not operating on the same definition of the word faith....To question someone's "faith" (in a biblical sense) is not the same as "enlightenment" - which is word of itself that is subjective and very debateble. You deem questioning the word as enlightment - others deem it as calling God a liar - so it depends upon the sense we're talking (worldly vs. biblcally).

Trying to gain become knowledgable and educated in/about "The Word" is to me the essence of enlightenment - in effect allowing myself to feel and appreciate more of God's light.

Questioning is part of the process of education, because we have free will - and it's how we learn. I'm sure as a child you had questions about the Bible, and those questions led you to a greater understand of what the Bible meant - and allowed you to embrace and have faith - but why have you stopped questioning? Have you decided you don't want to learn more?

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by RACooper
Trying to gain become knowledgable and educated in/about "The Word" is to me the essence of enlightenment - in effect allowing myself to feel and appreciate more of God's light.

Questioning is part of the process of education, because we have free will - and it's how we learn. I'm sure as a child you had questions about the Bible, and those questions led you to a greater understand of what the Bible meant - and allowed you to embrace and have faith - but why have you stopped questioning? Have you decided you don't want to learn more?

RACooper, as I have said before, I have no need to question whether or not the bible nor its events are true (reasons stated in previous posts). My goal is digging deeper into fellowship/application/understanding of the Word(which may be what you consider "questioning",).

And on a final note, I especially wouldn't seek the counsel of non-christians or non-christian sources for clarification or for further understanding of His Word.


HTH

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
And on a final note, I especially wouldn't seek the counsel of non-christians or non-christian sources for clarification or for further understanding of His Word.

Hey no problem - I pretty much kept to that assumption here in the thread, and made sure that all my sources are essentially "Christian" - the latin is from the Vulgate Bible, while the english is from the King James... translations, well that'd been mostly myself with some help from Father Donovan in class (some are part of Wheelock's Latin textbook as well)... and finally I'd like to think of myself being a "Christian" source

[exlurker]

RACooper, your example of translation differences is interesting. One thing that should be pointed out, though, is that the "original" written language of the books of the New Testament was Greek, not Latin. (Some scholars do make the argument that a few of the New Testament books may have originally been written in Aramaic or possibly even Hebrew, but no such early manuscripts have actually been found, leaving us with the Greek.)

For the Jewish Scriptures (the "Old Testament" in Christians' usual terminology) the original language is Hebrew, with (according to what I've read on the subject) a few passages in Aramaic.

Interestingly enough, there are discrepancies / differences among the early manuscripts. Some are copyists' errors, but other differences are more substantial. There are instances where material that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts turns up in later manuscripts. A famous example is the story of "the woman taken in adultery" in John 7:53 - 8:11, which is omitted by the earliest manuscripts, and which some later manuscripts place either after John 7:36, after John 21:25, or after Luke 21:38, with some variations of the Greek text.

Best wishes to you as you do more research!

Originally posted by RACooper
. . . .
Now getting back to problems with translation… I’m sure most of you have (well in this thread) know some of the more memorable quotes from the Bible – and most likely the King James version is the one most on here use/know. So shall we look at Luke 2:14?

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men

Now the old/original Latin version (Vulgate) of this same line is this:
Gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis
This translates as “Glory to God in[on] the highest and in[on] Earth peace to men[humans] of goodwill”

Now as you can see there is only a very minor variation between the KJV and the translation – but that very same minor variation alters the meaning or message. To me this is a discrepancy (in this case caused by a translation err – improper understanding/translation of the declensions) as the two verses have a “lack of agreement”.

. . . The original topic of this thread (remember that  ) was basically me trying to understand the seemingly American fascination with “The Rapture”, as touched on in Revelations – I was trying to in all honesty try and understand the particulars of the Evangelical, Revival, Fundamentalist interpretation of Revelations, and how that related to “The Rapture”, and how that as a whole related to the actual language and context of the early versions of the Bible… I’m still looking for a scholar/scholars that have a firm understanding of the languages of the early scriptures, as well as a firm understanding of the history, culture, and symbolism of the people/period. . . .