Diferance between Truth and Belief when dealing with the Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theinfinitehope

Guest
#1
In dealing with the scriptures it is imporant to note that there will be disagrement about what verses meen or how they should be applyed. This is when I would like anyone to direct this post to the room so that people will hopefully read and understand the diferance between "truth" and a "belief"

when dealing with scirpture, we offen gain or are taugh something and belvie it to be true without checking the Bible at all.

Sometimes, upon checking the Bible we might find the passages to back up the ideas we were taught or belive in. Sometimes not.

If we are willing to look at the Bible in both the historical context and as a full picture, then we will be honest about it.

However, what is "truth" ?

Truth can be defined as something you know is right no matter what the context. God exists might be such a truth, you can know this apart from the sciptures as true.

Belife, however is something we mearly belive in, I might belive something that is not true, but for me that belif is imporant, thus I am serten of the belife.

Meny belivers and non-belivers share this in commen, we offen forget what the diferance between what is truth and what is belife.

We might belive that the Bible is perfect, so be it, this has nothing to do with the truth - that it is probley 90% well perserved historicaly speaking. We can contune to belive it is perfect, but that is not the truth.

If you are a truth seeker you will be frustrated that you can not pull just one idea out of scirpture and make it a teaching, you must be open to meny interpations of that scirpture, because there will be meny belives about it.

The main point is to seek the truth, but be in the end, satifyed with whatever truth you can gleem from it.

Therefor, in any debate let us never forget that truth can be known - but only to a point when dealing with scitprues, we have belifes and I'm sure God will correct us about our wrong belifes. Lets focus on the essentals where we can all agree on!

peace out
 
G

greatkraw

Guest
#2
In dealing with the scriptures it is imporant to note that there will be disagrement about what verses meen or how they should be applyed. This is when I would like anyone to direct this post to the room so that people will hopefully read and understand the diferance between "truth" and a "belief"

when dealing with scirpture, we offen gain or are taugh something and belvie it to be true without checking the Bible at all.

Sometimes, upon checking the Bible we might find the passages to back up the ideas we were taught or belive in. Sometimes not.

If we are willing to look at the Bible in both the historical context and as a full picture, then we will be honest about it.

However, what is "truth" ?

Truth can be defined as something you know is right no matter what the context. God exists might be such a truth, you can know this apart from the sciptures as true.

Belife, however is something we mearly belive in, I might belive something that is not true, but for me that belif is imporant, thus I am serten of the belife.

Meny belivers and non-belivers share this in commen, we offen forget what the diferance between what is truth and what is belife.

We might belive that the Bible is perfect, so be it, this has nothing to do with the truth - that it is probley 90% well perserved historicaly speaking. We can contune to belive it is perfect, but that is not the truth.

If you are a truth seeker you will be frustrated that you can not pull just one idea out of scirpture and make it a teaching, you must be open to meny interpations of that scirpture, because there will be meny belives about it.

The main point is to seek the truth, but be in the end, satifyed with whatever truth you can gleem from it.

Therefor, in any debate let us never forget that truth can be known - but only to a point when dealing with scitprues, we have belifes and I'm sure God will correct us about our wrong belifes. Lets focus on the essentals where we can all agree on!

peace out
if we focus only on the things we can agree on then we all attend the world parliament of faith in melbourne and accept everyone except those evil christians who want to make the Bible preeminent
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#3
In dealing with the scriptures it is imporant to note that there will be disagrement about what verses meen or how they should be applyed. This is when I would like anyone to direct this post to the room so that people will hopefully read and understand the diferance between "truth" and a "belief"

when dealing with scirpture, we offen gain or are taugh something and belvie it to be true without checking the Bible at all.

Sometimes, upon checking the Bible we might find the passages to back up the ideas we were taught or belive in. Sometimes not.

If we are willing to look at the Bible in both the historical context and as a full picture, then we will be honest about it.

However, what is "truth" ?

Truth can be defined as something you know is right no matter what the context. God exists might be such a truth, you can know this apart from the sciptures as true.

Belife, however is something we mearly belive in, I might belive something that is not true, but for me that belif is imporant, thus I am serten of the belife.

Meny belivers and non-belivers share this in commen, we offen forget what the diferance between what is truth and what is belife.

We might belive that the Bible is perfect, so be it, this has nothing to do with the truth - that it is probley 90% well perserved historicaly speaking. We can contune to belive it is perfect, but that is not the truth.

If you are a truth seeker you will be frustrated that you can not pull just one idea out of scirpture and make it a teaching, you must be open to meny interpations of that scirpture, because there will be meny belives about it.

The main point is to seek the truth, but be in the end, satifyed with whatever truth you can gleem from it.

Therefor, in any debate let us never forget that truth can be known - but only to a point when dealing with scitprues, we have belifes and I'm sure God will correct us about our wrong belifes. Lets focus on the essentals where we can all agree on!

peace out
Well, unfortunately htere is one big thing we don't agree on. You said that the Bible is "90% well preserved". I must say that if the inerrancy of scripture is questioned at all, we cease to be able to rely on it to guide us at all. There is significant, perhaps overwhelming, evidence to support that the Bible that we use today is trustworthy and that we have no need for concern in this regard (but always need for scholarship in that regard).
 
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#4
We might belive that the Bible is perfect, so be it, this has nothing to do with the truth - that it is probley 90% well perserved historicaly speaking. We can contune to belive it is perfect, but that is not the truth.
I was with you on the part that a lot of stuff is preached as Bible and believed as Bible but is not Bible, but I lost you here if we don't have the truth in the Bible than we can't know the truth spiritually, if God only gives us 90% of truth then how can He say that He will judge us with His Word, or even if you are saying that He will only hold us 100% to the 90% that he has gave us is not truth itself For God said if you break one you have broken them all, how can we know if we break one if it is in the 10% that He didn't give us. I believe you have been guilty of what you said the very problem was You heard that the HOLY WORD of GOD is only 90% truth and you bought into that lie without looking at what God said

2ti 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

to say the Bible is 90% truth then this is saying that God was only Holy 90 % of the time
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#5
......

Truth can be defined as something you know is right no matter what the context. ....
.
what about Muslims, Hindus etc...they "know" they are right, does that now make it truth because they "know"?
As for the 90% ....Thaddaeus has said it.
 
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#6
I’ve been wrong many times in my life, so I’ve learned not to say things are true. Instead I say I BEIEVE this is true or I THINK that is true.

I do know a few things, I guess. I know that Jesus is my savior, for instance.
 
May 21, 2009
3,955
25
0
#7
The word is truth and God is the word. Believe it.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#8
The bible interprets itself-

Comparing scripture with scripture that are related to eachother reveals the truth about doctrines, passages.. all in the bible. It does take a bit to figure it out.. but that is the way Jesus wants it to be for us to be like working soldiers for Him in studying the truth.

Exegesis.. Herminutics.. these are tools to use to study it out.

Like James saying 'faith without works is dead' and then Paul saying 'not by works...' they are not actually contradicting eachother when you study context but writing about different aspects of faith.

another example.. 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them'.. the context of this is resolving disputes between sinning brothers in a church family.
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#9
.....
another example.. 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them'.. the context of this is resolving disputes between sinning brothers in a church family.
I thought it meant just what is written..

Mat 18:19 "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#10
The bible interprets itself-

Comparing scripture with scripture that are related to eachother reveals the truth about doctrines, passages.. all in the bible. It does take a bit to figure it out.. but that is the way Jesus wants it to be for us to be like working soldiers for Him in studying the truth.

Exegesis.. Herminutics.. these are tools to use to study it out.

Like James saying 'faith without works is dead' and then Paul saying 'not by works...' they are not actually contradicting eachother when you study context but writing about different aspects of faith.

another example.. 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them'.. the context of this is resolving disputes between sinning brothers in a church family.
I agree. God does not contradict Himself. When passages seemingly contradict, it only means there is something else going on.

I thought it meant just what is written..

Mat 18:19 "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
But that's not what wattie is trying to illustrate. He's just saying that there can be more than one way of reading a passage depending on how you read it. For example, you can take "Yea, right" to mean "no way" or "impossible." But when read in another way, it is an agreement. Yea, right (as in Yea, I agree or Yea, that's right).
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#11
But that's not what wattie is trying to illustrate. He's just saying that there can be more than one way of reading a passage depending on how you read it. For example, you can take "Yea, right" to mean "no way" or "impossible." But when read in another way, it is an agreement. Yea, right (as in Yea, I agree or Yea, that's right).
No..he gave an example which I disagree with what the scripture was dealing with

another example.. 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them'.. the context of this is resolving disputes between sinning brothers in a church family.
 
N

NewJerusalem

Guest
#12
I thought it meant just what is written..

Mat 18:19 "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

Question.... if there is only "ONE" .....(in Christ and He in them) is Jesus Christ not in the midst?

:confused:
 
N

NewJerusalem

Guest
#14
Just quoting the Word friend.
I understand... just thought it would be an interesting question and something to ponder. :)

I believe when we are by ourselves, HE is also in the midst, because HE is IN you.
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#15
I understand... just thought it would be an interesting question and something to ponder. :)

I believe when we are by ourselves, HE is also in the midst, because HE is IN you.
Amen to that too!
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#16
No..he gave an example which I disagree with what the scripture was dealing with
Maybe his choice of Scripture as examples wasn't the best but that was the intent behind his statement. I just don't see any need to nick-pick on these things if the point was clearly made and understood. At least I understood it... :confused:
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#17
Maybe his choice of Scripture as examples wasn't the best but that was the intent behind his statement. I just don't see any need to nick-pick on these things if the point was clearly made and understood. At least I understood it... :confused:
Ok..let's please not get into a huge debate. I'm glad you understood it, I read it as being wrong and was just correcting what I saw as a wrong explanation with no malice intended. It is also good to clarify comments for the sake of those who may read it other that ourselves whether we know what was intended or not wouldn't you think?
 
O

oopsies

Guest
#18
Ok..let's please not get into a huge debate. I'm glad you understood it, I read it as being wrong and was just correcting what I saw as a wrong explanation with no malice intended. It is also good to clarify comments for the sake of those who may read it other that ourselves whether we know what was intended or not wouldn't you think?
I suppose but maybe an even more edifying way is to provide better verses to replace the ones that didn't quite work. So others can see the point behind the author's statement more clearly if they don't already see it.

I tend to take a "God will speak to the reader because it's His word" approach rather than be the one trying to correct everything and convince everyone that my view is correct because no matter how much I correct/argue/debate, even if the person is convinced, it's not of my doing anyway. That's why I get so upset when I see people slinging mud in these forums.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,987
1,014
113
New Zealand
#19
Ok... context of 'where two or three are gathered'..

(Mat 18:15) Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

(Mat 18:16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

(Mat 18:17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

(Mat 18:18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(Mat 18:19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

(Mat 18:20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


This passage also relates back to the Old Testament:

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

and there are further New Testament passages:

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

These are all about resolving sin issues..
 
T

theinfinitehope

Guest
#20
I'm studing the history of the scripture and how well preserved it is, the truth is that there are innerances, its not perfect, but enough of it is trustable.
I do not want to debate that, I'm just saying there are facts we know and somethings we must just belive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.