Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Define literal vs non-literal.
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 226 of 271 (551911)
03-25-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by killinghurts
03-25-2010 1:33 AM


Re: Morning and Evening
killinghurts writes:
Thus, based on your own logic, miracles are not a fact.
so now you determine facts only if there is physical evidence?
Sometimes the facts require no physical evidence. For instance, if I tell you I was born but do not have a birth certificate (evidence for my birth) Im sure you would believe that I was born wether i had the certificate or not.
so not all facts require evidence, right?
killinghurts writes:
I am interested in which miracle you are referring to here (and who the 3 million people were), it sounds fascinating.
the exodus from egypt. There were a minimum of 3 million isrealites who crossed the red sea.
killinghurts writes:
None the less can you elaborate on how you verify an eyewitness account? Surely it's not based purely on the mere number of people - if that were true we'd all declare Ghosts, UFO's, Demons, Santa Clause, etc as factual (no offence if you do believe in any or all of those things).
when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’
If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door.
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
killinghurts writes:
I seem to see a disconnect between your logic defining the 6 days as literal and the other 'miracles'. You define a rule in the first case (based on fact), and break it in the second (based on no facts and only eyewitness accounts).
you are talking about two completely different topics and trying to get one answer that fits both. It doest work like that.
Regarding the genesis day, you can simply look at the hebrew word to give you a clue as to what that 'day' meant in hebrew. And with regard to miracles, you cant reproduce it or see it yourself so you have to go for the eyewitness testimony from those who did see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by killinghurts, posted 03-25-2010 1:33 AM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 12:06 PM Peg has replied
 Message 229 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 12:26 PM Peg has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 227 of 271 (551939)
03-25-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by purpledawn
03-25-2010 7:06 AM


Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
It is the literal definition of the Hebrew word "yom", not the English word day. I can't do much about them being simplistic. If you have a better definition source, provide it.
See Message 200.
Here is the definition you provided:
Strong's writes:
a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next)
quote:
So explain how I disagree.
I've already explained this multiple times. I don't know why you're pretending not to understand it.
You disagree in that you insist:
quote:
The literal meaning of the word yom is used in the day phrases of creation,
Now look very carefully at the definition of "literal day" which you provided, above. Do you see that it says, "whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next)"? This definition requires a sunset. A sunset requires a sun. Days 1-3 had no sun. Thus Days 1-3 were not "literal days" per the definition above.
Your insistence on calling Days 1-3 "literal days" implies that you are NOT actually using the definition you have provided. Thats' why I said that "YOU are the one who seems to disagree with the definition of "literal day" that you yourself provided!" If you want to keep calling Days 1-3 "literal days," you should provide an alternative definition which actually fits (i.e. which does not require a sun as part of the definition).
quote:
quote:
I am criticizing attempts to force agreement on unclear terminology.
What terminology and what is unclear.
See Message 63. (Though my use of "metaphorical" was probably unclear, too.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2010 7:06 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2010 1:31 PM kbertsche has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 228 of 271 (551942)
03-25-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Peg
03-25-2010 7:16 AM


Re: Morning and Evening
the exodus from egypt. There were a minimum of 3 million isrealites who crossed the red sea.
As is being discussed in another thread, you can show no corroborating evidence for this. Therefore, I and others would question strongly whether this is literal.
I don't think you can effectively assert that this is literal without, some sort of corroboration. Can you give any reason why this should be accepted as literal other than the passages in the bible?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Peg, posted 03-25-2010 7:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Peg, posted 03-26-2010 5:01 AM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 229 of 271 (551944)
03-25-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Peg
03-25-2010 7:16 AM


Re: Morning and Evening
Sorry to respond twice to the same post, but something else caught my eye.
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible
The first gospel was written post 70 CE. The last probably ca 120 CE. Paul never met a physical Jesus, as a matter of fact he didn't write about a physical earthly Jesus. he wrote about a transcendent, nonphysical, non-earthly Jesus. We do not see a earthly Jesus or the 12 until a post gospel era.
There is no corroborating evidence for a literal interpretation.
Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it.
So the aliens and belief systems of the Heavens Gate people was true? Why else would they allow themselves to die in the name of their religion? Just because people are willing to die for something doesn't make it true or correct. I am sure we can come up with millions of people that died for things that were not true.
Also, just because people believe something is real does not make it real. Joan of Arc had visions that God wanted her to expel the English from France. She died convinced of the truth of he visions. Does anyone truly believe that God took sides in that conflict. Muhammad had visions from god too. Why are his beliefs less valid?
Finally, even if there were these apostles, we have no idea how they died.The only apostle deaths recounted in the New Testament are that of James, the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:0, Acts 1:18). There is a tradition that Peter died in Rome(no evidence), but there is nothing on the rest of the apostles except folklore.
Your beliefs on this are not based on anything literal.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Peg, posted 03-25-2010 7:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Peg, posted 03-26-2010 5:05 AM Theodoric has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 230 of 271 (551954)
03-25-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by kbertsche
03-25-2010 11:57 AM


Re: People are Imprecise
Honey, when I ask you to clarify something, it is because I'm obviously not getting your point as you are presenting it. Sending me back to a post with no more clarification doesn't help. Say it a different way.
What definition of yom do you feel is required in Genesis 1:5?
quote:
Now look very carefully at the definition of "literal day" which you provided, above. Do you see that it says, "whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next)"? This definition requires a sunset. A sunset requires a sun. Days 1-3 had no sun. Thus Days 1-3 were not "literal days" per the definition above.
Your insistence on calling Days 1-3 "literal days" implies that you are NOT actually using the definition you have provided. Thats' why I said that "YOU are the one who seems to disagree with the definition of "literal day" that you yourself provided!" If you want to keep calling Days 1-3 "literal days," you should provide an alternative definition which actually fits (i.e. which does not require a sun as part of the definition).
I didn't call the first three days, literal days. I said the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5. I contend that the story didn't literally happen. I've given you many links and examples to help you understand creative writing. I really don't know any other way to help you understand.
Please tell me what definition you prefer to use for the word yom on the first three days vs the last three days.
quote:
See Re: Was Evening and Was Morning (Message 63). (Though my use of "metaphorical" was probably unclear, too.)
Again, if I didn't understand you the first time, pointing me back there isn't going to tell me what I missed. Besides, you never did tell me what symbolism or metaphors you were talking about in that post.
Personally, I still feel you are confusing what definition is necessary for the word and the overall story. As I've said and shown before, literal meanings of words can be used within fictional stories. You're getting bogged down in the idea of literal. Oddly enough you're being too literal with the definition. IOW, the meaning of the word doesn't write the story.
It doesn't matter if I describe an elephant that is purple with pink dots and has big ears and flies. The common meaning of the word elephant is understood. Actually the common meaning of all the words in the sentence are used. But a purple flying elephant with pink dots doesn't literally exist. For the sake of the story we are to imagine a flying purple elephant with pink dots.
Same goes for Genesis 1:5. The common meaning of evening, morning, and day are used, but the story has the audience envision a day without a sun, moon, or stars. In a story we can have light with no sun, evening with no sunset, and morning with no sunrise. The point was that there was darkness (no moon or stars) and then there was light (no sun) for the length of the day known to the audience. Using the words evening and morning was how the author conveyed the length of the day to the audience. This isn't a scientific report. It is a story.
What English word do we have for a sunless, moonless, starless rotation of the planet?
We aren't trying to write a more accurate story. We are trying to understand what the author was telling his audience.
If you have a better definition, provide it with support.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2010 11:57 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by kbertsche, posted 03-26-2010 12:08 AM purpledawn has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 231 of 271 (552027)
03-26-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by purpledawn
03-25-2010 1:31 PM


Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
I didn't call the first three days, literal days.
You didn't?? Now I'm very confused!
quote:
I said the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5.
Isn't this tantamount to saying that this is a "literal day?"
At any rate, you claim "the common meaning (literal) of the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5." According to the Strong's definition that you presented, "yom" used in a literal sense means "from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next".
So I'll try to explain this again (though I don't know how I can be any more clear than I was).
1) According to the Strong's definition, does a "literal day" (i.e. the "literal" meaning of the word day) REQUIRE a sunset? Absolutely.
2) Does the Day in Genesis 1:5 have a sunset? Absolutely not. An evening, but no sun and no sunset.
3) Does the Day in Genesis 1:5 fit the Strong's definition for a "literal day" (i.e. "yom" used in a literal sense)? Absolutely not. The definition requires a sunset, but there is none in Gen 1:5.
I really don't know how to make this any clearer than I've said above, or in Message 227 or Message 220.
quote:
Please tell me what definition you prefer to use for the word yom on the first three days vs the last three days.
I think your phrase "normal days" isn't bad, so long as we understand that there are lots of unique, abnormal details on these days. "Normal days" is probably the best descriptive phrase I've seen so far in this thread.
quote:
It doesn't matter if I describe an elephant that is purple with pink dots and has big ears and flies. The common meaning of the word elephant is understood. Actually the common meaning of all the words in the sentence are used. But a purple flying elephant with pink dots doesn't literally exist. For the sake of the story we are to imagine a flying purple elephant with pink dots.
Same goes for Genesis 1:5. The common meaning of evening, morning, and day are used, but the story has the audience envision a day without a sun, moon, or stars. In a story we can have light with no sun, evening with no sunset, and morning with no sunrise.
Good analogy. I agree completely with what you said above. (Amazing!) Your analogy illustrates the problems that I see with the word "literal." Is the elephant story "literal?" No. Does the elephant literally exist? No. In the story, is the elephant literal? That depends on what one means; the word "literal" is ambiguous here. Yes, an elephant is being described, not a squirrel or a rabbit. But the elephant has non-physical features; it is an imaginary elephant. So I think "literal" is an unclear way to describe the elephant.
quote:
If you have a better definition, provide it with support.
As I've said a number of times, BDB is the standard Hebrew lexicon. I prefer the unabridged version, but it is MUCH too long to reproduce here, and contains numerous semitic language phrases. I'll try to reproduce "yom" from the abridged BDB, but it will still be a mess with all the Hebrew characters that don't transliterate very clearly. It's much clearer to look it up yourself in BDB.
BDB writes:
yom n.m. day
1. day, opp. night.
2. Day as division of time:
a. working-day.
b. derek≈ yoma day’s journey; without derek≈ etc., slset◊ ya—mm three days, etc.
c. to denote duration of various acts or states: seven days; forty days; 150 days.
d. day as defined by evening and morning.
e. day of month (c. num. ordin.).
f. yomdefined by subst., inf., or other cl.: cstr. yom haeleg≈ = the snowy day; so, = time yom sa—ra—t◊ d. of my distress; of day emphat. characterized by proph. and others; on the other hand ’yom ra—son ly a day of acceptableness to ’y; pl. sq. subst.
g. particular days defined by n.pr.loc.: yom yr{e}l i.e. of judgment, with implied restoration; yme haggib≈{a i.e. of the outrage at Gibeah.
h. c. sf., thy, his, or their day, in sense of
(1) day of disaster or death.
i. specif. a holy day: yom haabba—t◊ the sabbath day (v. also sabba—t◊); also of false gods, yme habb{a—lm.
3. ’yom y day of Yahweh, chiefly as time of his coming in judgment, involving often blessedness for righteous.
4. Pl. days of any one:
a. = his life, his age; ya—mm rabbm long life; ba—} bayya—mm advanced in days = of advanced age; rarely sg. e.g. qse-yom one hard of day, i.e. whose day (= life) was hard; of life as approaching its end.
b. (in) the days of (i.e. life-time, reign, or activity of).
5. Days:
a. indef.: ya—mm }∞sΩa—d≈msome days, a few days.
b. of a long time, zeh ya—mm }o zeh sa—nmthese days or these years; }o hΩo—d≈es }o ya—mm }o yo—mayimwhether two days or a month or days (an indefinitely long period); ya—mm rabbm many days.
c. days of old, former or ancient times (esp. of early period of Isr. hist.): ymot◊ {ola—m (poem); coming days hayya—mm habba—}mm; coming time yom }asΩ∞ron.
6. yom = time;
a. vividly in gen. sense (v. also 5 supr.): time of harvest; usu. yme; proper time for paying wages; time of parturition.
b. appos. to other expr. of time: hΩo—d≈es ya—mm a month of time (lit. a month, time).
c. pl. in specific sense, appar. = year, lit. ya—mmm; ma—mm ya—mma = from year to year, yearly; distrib.; wayh lya—mm ma—mm and it came to pass at days from days (= after some days).
Which definition is good for Genesis 1:5? Perhaps 2a "working-day" or 2d "day as defined by evening and morning."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by purpledawn, posted 03-25-2010 1:31 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2010 7:51 AM kbertsche has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 232 of 271 (552045)
03-26-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Theodoric
03-25-2010 12:06 PM


Re: Morning and Evening
if the account about the isrealites crossing the red sea is not literal, what is Yom Kippur
why do they have a jewish traditional holiday in commemoration of the event?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 12:06 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Theodoric, posted 03-26-2010 9:34 AM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 233 of 271 (552046)
03-26-2010 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Theodoric
03-25-2010 12:26 PM


Re: Morning and Evening
Theodoric writes:
The first gospel was written post 70 CE. The last probably ca 120 CE. Paul never met a physical Jesus, as a matter of fact he didn't write about a physical earthly Jesus. he wrote about a transcendent, nonphysical, non-earthly Jesus. We do not see a earthly Jesus or the 12 until a post gospel era.
There is no corroborating evidence for a literal interpretation.
I would have to disagree with you on the timing of the writing of the books of the NT.
I would also disagree with you on the point of Jesus not being spoken of as an earthly literal person.
the gospels are the account of his life and they certainly present a real person.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2010 12:26 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Theodoric, posted 03-26-2010 9:38 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 03-29-2010 9:56 AM Peg has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 234 of 271 (552055)
03-26-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by kbertsche
03-26-2010 12:08 AM


Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
I think your phrase "normal days" isn't bad, so long as we understand that there are lots of unique, abnormal details on these days. "Normal days" is probably the best descriptive phrase I've seen so far in this thread.
This is what the story is telling us and what I've been trying to tell you. Normal day, solar day, or 24-hour day are our adjectives today to basically say the audience was expected to envision the length of day to which they were accustomed, which we know is equal to one rotation of the planet. These adjectives weren't meant to be exact concerning this story. They were meant to get the gist across that yom as used in Genesis 1:5 wasn't referring to a longer or shorter amount of time than the audiences average day and differentiate the length from the name of the light.
IOW, you were taking my use of the terms too literally.
quote:
Good analogy. I agree completely with what you said above. (Amazing!) Your analogy illustrates the problems that I see with the word "literal." Is the elephant story "literal?" No. Does the elephant literally exist? No. In the story, is the elephant literal? That depends on what one means; the word "literal" is ambiguous here. Yes, an elephant is being described, not a squirrel or a rabbit. But the elephant has non-physical features; it is an imaginary elephant. So I think "literal" is an unclear way to describe the elephant.
Finally! The light is on!
The problem isn't with the word literal. The problem is that you're using the word literal in an ambiguous way. That's why I kept asking you what you felt it meant. (Which you never really said, as I recall.)
This analogy is what I've been trying to get you to understand. Message 210 Because we have the word evening and morning in the sentence, the definition from your list would be: d. day as defined by evening and morning. We start with a basic day and the author tells us how to view it differently. The author did not tell us to view a longer or shorter day. That's the amazing part of the story. Wow, God did that all in one day! We've heard it so many times we've lost the wow factor.
quote:
But the elephant has non-physical features; it is an imaginary elephant. So I think "literal" is an unclear way to describe the elephant.
Literal isn't unclear. You're using it in an unclear way. Literal doesn't describe the elephant.
Try to understand the difference between the common use of a word (literal meaning) and whether the character or story actually exists in real life (literally exists). You also have to understand that even though the literal meaning is used, the story may dictate that we imagine alterations to the common meaning.
That's why it is best sometimes to rephrase and not use the word causing the problems.
I'm glad you finally understand and we can put this behind us. On to the next!

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by kbertsche, posted 03-26-2010 12:08 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2010 1:06 PM purpledawn has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 235 of 271 (552067)
03-26-2010 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Peg
03-26-2010 5:01 AM


Traditional ≠ literal
Why do christians celebrate Christmas day as the birth of Jesus? Historical, if there was a Jesus Christ, we have no way of knowing his birthdate? It is solely a tradition. Why is this 2010? It is not based on any confirmed dating of anyone's birth.
quote:
The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus,
quote:
According to Doggett, "Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before AD 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating"[8]. According to Matthew 2:1[9] and Matthew 2:16[10], King Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born, and ordered the Massacre of the Innocents in response to his birth. Blackburn and Holford-Strevens fix King Herod's death shortly before Passover in 4 BC[2]:770, and say that those who accept the story of the Massacre of the Innocents sometimes associate the star that led the Biblical Magi with the planetary conjunction of 15 September 7 BC or Halley's comet of 12 BC (less likely since comets were usually considered bad omens); even historians who do not accept the Massacre accept the birth under Herod as a tradition older than the written gospels.[2]:776
The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born during the reign of the Emperor Augustus and while Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria (2:1—2). Blackburn and Holford-Strevens[2]:770 indicate Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, which is incompatible with conception in 4 BC, and say that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty ...Most critics therefore discard Luke". Some scholars rely on John 8:57[11]: "thou are not yet fifty years old", to place Christ's birth in circa 18 BC.[2]:776
Source
Pick a date, any date.
Your argument is ridiculous to an extreme. Just because people celebrate something does not make it true. People believe many false things. Do I need to list them. You need some sort of evidence that agrees with the myths and stories you mention. Without corroborating evidence they remain myths.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Peg, posted 03-26-2010 5:01 AM Peg has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 236 of 271 (552068)
03-26-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Peg
03-26-2010 5:05 AM


Traditional ≠ literal redux
I would have to disagree with you on the timing of the writing of the books of the NT.
I would also disagree with you on the point of Jesus not being spoken of as an earthly literal person.
the gospels are the account of his life and they certainly present a real person.
What do you have as evidence for any of these assertions? You have tradition and the bible itself. I venture to posit that you have nothing else. I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the gospels are literal and based on real verifiable events.
This is your faith, this is not evidence.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Peg, posted 03-26-2010 5:05 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by AdminPD, posted 03-26-2010 10:58 AM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 237 of 271 (552080)
03-26-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Theodoric
03-26-2010 9:38 AM


Topic Please
Theodoric,
OP writes:
There are many occasions when reading through the threads here that I come across this sentence:
"Well that's obviously not to be taken literally - it was just a dream/song/interpretation that had at the time"
When reading the bible, what are the rules around what is to be taken literally, and what is not?
Are there any rules?
You're demanding hard outside evidence that the written event literally happened. The thread is about how one determines what is to be taken literally and what isn't. Method, not proof.
This is a Bible Study thread and the path you're taking is more along the lines of Accuracy and Inerrancy and fits more with the Evidence for the Biblical Record Thread.
I feel your discussion with Peg is better served in that thread.
If killinghurts disagrees with me, he can let me know.
Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.
Thank you Purple
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Theodoric, posted 03-26-2010 9:38 AM Theodoric has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 238 of 271 (552219)
03-27-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
03-26-2010 7:51 AM


Re: People are Imprecise
quote:
Finally! The light is on!
I'm glad you finally understand and we can put this behind us. On to the next!
FYI, nothing in my position has changed. I've been trying to say the same thing throughout this thread (e.g. Message 93, Message 162, Message 187, Message 209).
If there is anything that I have "finally" understood, it is how to explain my position in a way that you understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2010 7:51 AM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 239 of 271 (552341)
03-28-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by killinghurts
03-25-2010 1:33 AM


Re: Morning and Evening
quote:
I seem to see a disconnect between your logic defining the 6 days as literal and the other 'miracles'. You define a rule in the first case (based on fact), and break it in the second (based on no facts and only eyewitness accounts).
I think that's part of the problem. The rules aren't consistently followed. When the interpretation conflicts with the groups doctrine or a personal belief, the supposed rules are ignored.
In Message 80, I provided the rules per apologetics. Rules 7 and 8 leave room to wiggle.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by killinghurts, posted 03-25-2010 1:33 AM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2010 10:22 AM purpledawn has not replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 240 of 271 (552421)
03-29-2010 2:05 AM


"Peg" writes:
so now you determine facts only if there is physical evidence?
Most of the time, yes.
"Peg" writes:
Sometimes the facts require no physical evidence.
For instance, if I tell you I was born but do not have a birth certificate (evidence for my birth) Im sure you would believe that I was born wether i had the certificate or not.
Very manipulative straw man argument you have there... let's pull it apart shall we?
Firstly - you have setup the easily shot down "birth certificate" evidence - evidence like that can be forged, faked, or as you have put it - missing.
Case closed, you weren't born?!
Don't be silly...
You forgot to mention one slightly more important piece of evidence: You are here - you must have been born to be here. Why do we know that? Because we witness people being born *every second* of *every day*, here in the *real* world. Therefore it is reasonable, beyond doubt, to assume that you were born.
We don't witness people walk on water, or turn water into wine, or part the red sea with a stick.
"Peg" writes:
when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’
If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door.
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
It's the same argument you have here, you simply don't address the disconnect between what we know about the physical world (facts) and the miracles in the bible.
All you have done is presented a story, a straw man of your own that can be shot down.
Let me show you (and I don't present my own beliefs here, so don't bother replying to the detail - it's just to show you that your argument can be shot down):
"Peg" writes:
when the writers of the NT wrote their accounts and their letters to fellow believers, they were writing to eyewitnesses. The apostles could preach confidently and appeal to the knowledge of the hearers and you can see it in their writings...they say things like ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ and also, ‘As you yourselves also know’
All you need is a few people in powerful positions to advocate a story, convincing the rest of the populace is easy. We see that happen every day - we see religions succeed on this principle.
"Peg" writes:
If the writers were making up false misleading stories, those readers would have known immediately and christianity would not have even got a foot in the door.
Religions get their feet in the door every day based on false and misleading stories. Take a look around.
"Peg" writes:
And with regard to those early diciples who did witness the events recorded in the bible, they were violently opposed for preaching and being diciples of Jesus. Their lives were on the line, yet they were prepared to die. No one would have been willing to do this if jesus was a fabrication...there was no benefit in it. So they must have had a rock solid conviction that what they were preaching was the truth.
It's not unusual for people to die for their beliefs, misguided as they may be.
See, we can argue hearsay all day, and that's exactly what it is, hearsay.
Now that we have cleared up the difference between hearsay and evidence, can we assume that the whole walk on water/ water into wine/part the red sea was meant to be literal?

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024