Using the Bible to back up arguments

TheFlyingPig

long time lurker looking for some clarification.

I frequently see posts which reference the Bible to provide back up for a particular viewpoint, which sems vaild in a discussion. However, some parts of the Bible (first epistle of Peter re:slavery) (1 Corinthians on women and veils) seem to be accepted by most Catholics as antiquated and "of their time". Is this statement accurate? If it is, who decides on the applicability of the Bible to today? The CDF?

Gumbi

TheFlyingPig wrote: »

long time lurker looking for some clarification.

I frequently see posts which reference the Bible to provide back up for a particular viewpoint, which sems vaild in a discussion. However, some parts of the Bible (first epistle of Peter re:slavery) (1 Corinthians on women and veils) seem to be accepted by most Catholics as antiquated and "of their time". Is this statement accurate? If it is, who decides on the applicability of the Bible to today? The CDF?

It's pretty much a free-for-all when it comes to Bilibal interpretation, despite it's so-called "infallibility".

philologos

TheFlyingPig wrote: »

long time lurker looking for some clarification.

I frequently see posts which reference the Bible to provide back up for a particular viewpoint, which sems vaild in a discussion. However, some parts of the Bible (first epistle of Peter re:slavery) (1 Corinthians on women and veils) seem to be accepted by most Catholics as antiquated and "of their time". Is this statement accurate? If it is, who decides on the applicability of the Bible to today? The CDF?

There are other Christians in this forum from a Reformed / Protestant / Evangelical point of view. According to this POV the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is the basis of Christian belief.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 says head covering is optional, and Peter doesn't advocate slavery but his letter is about how Christians should live in a pagan / non-Christian workd. It's abundantly useful today actually.

TheFlyingPig

Thanks Guys,
It does seem that sometimes people use biblical references to suit themselves (not just on here mind you) rather than concentrating on the meaning to be drawn from it.
This stems from a joke i had with a Charismatic friend of mine - i told him that according to 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 he should not be speaking tongues without an interpreter ha ha ha - not that funny, i know. It would be possible to form a more hardline approach on this though and say there is a scriptural basis for forbidding tongues during worship.

Philologos - i know theyre not great references but I wanted to make a point about interpretation without sparking a row about the actual passage I mentioned. The mix of people from different backgrouds here is what makes it interesting - even if people are often at each others throats. The prayer requests thread would give you hope though.

PDN

TheFlyingPig wrote: »

This stems from a joke i had with a Charismatic friend of mine - i told him that according to 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 he should not be speaking tongues without an interpreter ha ha ha - not that funny, i know. It would be possible to form a more hardline approach on this though and say there is a scriptural basis for forbidding tongues during worship.

Most Pentecostals and Charismatics congregations would insist that any utterances in tongues in a public worship service (which is the context that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to) should always be interpreted.

Anyone attempting to construct a basis for forbidding tongues altogether during worship would have a hard job getting round 1 Corinthians 14:39 where it specifically says, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues."

As always, context is key to interpreting the Bible (or any other communication).

Seaneh

PDN wrote: »

Most Pentecostals and Charismatics congregations would insist that any utterances in tongues in a public worship service (which is the context that 1 Corinthians 14 refers to) should always be interpreted.

While this is half true, I find it odd that in the majority of cases the person interpreting the tongue tends to be the same person who spoke it.

Which, imho, goes against what Paul states in 1 cor 26 - 28.

I also find it odd when, as happens in a some churches when several people do it, despite Paul saying that one or two and at the very most, three, people should talk if at all.



I've also be unfortunate enough to see people like Michael Hinds and Mike Pascal up close who seem to have a "whatever suits my agenda on the given day" view to the book of 1 cor, and will use it to justify their actions one day and then to condem anothers the next, for the very same thing.

santing

PDN wrote: »

"Do not forbid speaking in tongues." ... As always, context is key to interpreting the Bible (or any other communication).

As the word tongues is just an KJ inheritance for the word "Languages" this verse is easy to interpret ...