This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly AdultRandom
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Meaning of the Bible as I see it

What's the meaning of the Bible? What's it about? It can be summed up very simply as this: the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

I can explain this further with first a short answer. The tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam, Jehovah God's sovereignty. That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty. Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. The knowledge in this case is experience. Good and bad had been defined by Jehovah and at that point was very simple. Fill the earth and subdue it, that was good. Don't touch or eat the fruit of the tree, that was bad. The knowledge Adam and Eve had acquired was the decision to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. That's why they suddenly considered nudity to be bad. (Genesis 2:25; 3:6-11)

The footnote to Genesis 2:17 in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible explains it really well: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

The long answer explains it further by giving you a more accurate understanding of the Bible and so, hopefully, allowing you to more fully understand the meaning of the short answer.

God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:15-17; John 8:23; 17:5) The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. So, the holy spirit is God's active force, invisible to us. The first thing that Michael, through Jehovah's holy spirit, created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. (Job 38:4-7) Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon and finally everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential.

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this, we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's Day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period of creation, continues to this day. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)

This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured enough to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.

So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.

But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So, he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.

So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.

1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So, Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.

One final point of consideration regarding mankind. From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. You may recall that sacred means belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So, the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9)

Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Thank you for your succinct summary of your particular sect, whatever it is. All you mean really is "I believe in God via my own interpretation of the Bible."
This message was deleted by its author.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@AkioTsukino OK, I accept you I was wrong to assume you belong to some particular sect you had not named.

Your saying Christianity is a "cult" (??) is your opinion, but then your OP is only a long description of your interpretation of an edition of the Judaeo-Christian Bible, so is just a statement of your religious belief. The title alone - your words - says so!

If it works for you, fine. Doesn't mean everyone else need agree with you even if they believe in the same God as you.

Oh, and many Christians of any sect might object to being accused of being in a "cult" - your word, not mine. I had written "sect".
This message was deleted by its author.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@AkioTsukino Words are indeed "cool" but in religion "sect" is generally taken nowadays as a major, recognised division (in the constructive sense of the word) such as Roman Catholicism, Anglican, Methodist; while "cult" tends now to be reserved for what are really groups that might use religion as an excuse but really revolve around autocratic leaders.

A good definition I have heard of a cult, is one that which treats apostates very badly, such as by expelling them even from their own families.

Sects used to be treated badly - the Reformation led to some 300 hundred years of brutality between factions over what appeared merely how to pray to the same God but in reality involved a lot of very toxic politics.

In many "Western" countries now, the different sects not only agree to differ but on the whole respect each other and are even friends; the Christians at least sometimes holding ecumenical services. Moreover, many co-exist and co-operate on good terms with other faiths.
This message was deleted by its author.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@AkioTsukino You don't like being questioned, do you? Otherwise you'd not try merely to insult me.

I do agree with you though about the appalling behaviour of some cults - and even the major churches have grim histories only just now being addressed, of cruelty and oppression of women, children and religious rivals.

I don't blame religion itself for that. Either you believe in god or gods via one or another faith, or you are an agnostic or indeed atheist. That should be personal choice. (You have probably noticed some of the more fervent on SW cannot understand the world is not simply and solely hard-line Christianity and "atheism".)

The trouble comes when weak-minded people with too much authority, from State down to parental level, use their religious belief -of any faith - to excuse their basic inhumanity and selfishness.

Why though should it be wrong for people of one faith to respect or even be friends with those of others and none? It's not a "tactic" except in trying to live together in peace and harmony. Surely that is closer to God's way than assuming one's own way to worship Him/Her/It is the only "correct" way to do so?
@ArishMell
You don't like being questioned, do you?

I love being questioned. That's why I'm here. It has taught me more than study, though it really only compels me to study, so they are sort of the same.

I do agree with you though about the appalling behaviour of some cults - and even the major churches have grim histories only just now being addressed, of cruelty and oppression of women, children and religious rivals.

You can't make the distinction, at least without being unbiased. You can't say: "Well, this church isn't so bad, and that one isn't and you and I aren't so bad." The system is bad. The root of the problem is sin. We all sin. It all comes from the same place. It isn't like Adolf Hitler was bad, I'm not so bad. All of the bad comes from the same place. It's the same. Anyone can be a Hitler, Stalin, Fauci or Biden. If you start thinking you can't be as bad as that "think again, sunshine" as Peterson said. Really. You should watch this very short video. A little over a minute.

[media=https://youtu.be/s1SE35tHfVc]

I don't blame religion itself for that. Either you believe in god or gods via one or another faith, or you are an agnostic or indeed atheist. That should be personal choice. (You have probably noticed some of the more fervent on SW cannot understand the world is not simply and solely hard-line Christianity and "atheism".)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The trouble comes when weak-minded people with too much authority, from State down to parental level, use their religious belief -of any faith - to excuse their basic inhumanity and selfishness.

Exactly.

Why though should it be wrong for people of one faith to respect or even be friends with those of others and none? It's not a "tactic" except in trying to live together in peace and harmony. Surely that is closer to God's way than assuming one's own way to worship Him/Her/It is the only "correct" way to do so?

I have a deep respect for the beliefs of every individual. To do otherwise would make it foolish to ask the same for my own. The loathing I feel for organized religion comes first and foremost from the corruption of religion itself. No. Religion isn't a sentient entity. It isn't to blame. Unfortunately the original teachings are the first to go. I've studied briefly many religious as well as non-religious ideologies. I'm currently working on putting those up on my site.

https://semmelweisreflex.com/pneuma/religion.php

I think the tactic I was referring to, is the one in which organized religion has seen it's power and influence wane over the centuries and, having figured out they were partly to blame, decided it best to keep their money making scheme operating by playing nice. It brings mutual benefit. But that is only a façade for self preservation. Political, corporate and scientific forces are stepping up their own oppressive powers now, in place of religion. So, yeah, it isn't just religion. It's people. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. People with guns. And religion. And any of the aforementioned schemes.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@ArishMell It's unfortunately stronger than that. He believes that you and I belong to his god as well.
This message was deleted by its author.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@AkioTsukino As the remark was clearly addressed to @ArishMell and you are the only other person in the thread I think it's obvious that the he in my remark refers to you.