Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:25 PM
338 online now:
1.61803, Aussie, caffeine, Diomedes, edge, New Cat's Eye, ringo, Stile, Tangle (9 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,231 Year: 23,837/21,208 Month: 1,802/2,468 Week: 311/822 Day: 37/67 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 241 of 304 (656258)
03-17-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by GDR
03-16-2012 9:10 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Yes it is about the text. It is about how we understand about how the text is to be understood. In the end, regardless of our position it is an article of faith. Nothing can be proven by the text except for the fact that it exists. My approach is fairly straightforward.

Then it sounds like you are saying "This is just a book, it has no real meaning other than the fact that it is a book. You can ascribe meaning to it, but really, it's just a book."

That makes the Bible no more valid than Harry Potter or the Iliad.

That's a perfectly reasonable position to take.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 03-16-2012 9:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 5:49 PM Nuggin has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 242 of 304 (656329)
03-17-2012 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by purpledawn
03-17-2012 6:51 AM


Re: Eisegesis
purpledawn writes:

Literal (P'shat) interpretation of the Bible text doesn't mean the text was dictated by God or that there are no mistakes in the text or inconsistencies between manuscripts. It simply means we read the book the same way we do any other book in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the wordís being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.

I agree with that. That is the correct meaning for literal but it seems that not everyone agrees with that understanding. That is why I started using the term ďdictated by GodĒ as that seemed to be acceptable to some of the creationists/fundamentalists on this forum.

purpledawn writes:

The idea that the Bible is dictated is a tradition of mankind and not supported by the text.

Absolutely

purpledawn writes:

You seem to use eisegesis which means you're putting your own subjective interpretations into the text, but those interpretations aren't supported by the text itself.

We all come to our understanding of the Bible subjectively, however Iím inclined to think that I do read it literally in the way that you defined it above. When Hosea says that God wants to punish the house of Jehu I understand that is just what Hosea wanted to say and it is what he believed. Exegesis hardly plays into it as it is so straightforward. I then have to subjectively come to a conclusion about whether he was right or wrong.

It seems to me that there are two really all encompassing statements in the Bible. One in the OT and one in the NT. In the OT we have the statement by the prophet Micah that what God wants of us is that we be humble, loving kindness/mercy and act justly. In the NT we have Jesus saying that everything hangs on love, love of God and love of neighbour.

I agree that this is what God wants of us, but if we are Godís image bearing creatures then I think it is safe to conclude that these characteristics would be held by God, and that is what we see in Jesus.

purpledawn writes:

Basically, you're preaching your own version of your religion. IOW, your own brand of bias. You have nothing to support that your arguments are right or viable. You could be leading people down the wrong path.

But that is what everyone does. We donít have certainty. It is by faith.

purpledawn writes:

Maybe you need to explain what you understand a literal reading means to you. I've shown you several meanings.

I agree thatís a problem but weíll go with what you wrote above in which case the way I used it in my last post is not consistent with that definition. In other threads on this forum it seems to have been ok to use ďliteralí and ďGod dictatedĒ as synonymous.

purpledawn writes:

None of the New Testament writers were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus. Writing a story in the style of a journal doesn't make the information any more valid. You have no way of knowing whether any of the writers did or didn't have a reason to make stuff up. You're making stuff up by claiming bias for no other reason than it conflicts with your view of God. I know, you said it wasn't your view but that of Jesus. How do you know what Jesus' point of view is without reading the text? So you don't seem to mind the literal interpretation in some cases. You're being selective about what you accept as unbias.

Well we arenít actually sure that none of the gospel writers were eye-witnesses but it is quite likely. However there is consensus that the gospels are taking from earlier texts and from the oral tradition of those that were eye-witnesses. There are a number of reasons to be confident that the writers didnít just make it up. There is the style of writing which is obviously meant to be understood as written, there was no expectation that the Messiah would be resurrected except at the end of time and that wasnít consistent with all 1st century Jews, it used women as witnesses etc. Here is one site that does a pretty good job of going through the argument. The resurrection of Jesus

I have read and listened to debates between N T Wright and Marcus Borg and Dom Crossan, and have found the arguments of Wright to be compelling. Still, as I said, in the end it is about faith.

Yes I have my biases as do you and everyone else. It is faith. Yes I believe that the Bible is the inspired book of God working with the world and through his created beings. God informs us and teaches us using the Bible as a means to His ends. I know that on one level yet I donít know in the way that I know I have 5 fingers on each hand, or even in the way I know the sun will come up again tomorrow.

purpledawn writes:

If you love God, you love him warts and all.

We love our kids warts and all but that isnít the same as loving God. Why would I love an entity that justifies genocide, the stoning to death of someone who picked up firewood on the wrong day of the week, or an entity that would have the people that he loves stoning to death children with no thought of the damage that would do to their mental state, but then tells us that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves.

I donít choose to love a god like that. Why would I unless those attributes are something I look up to. I might worship a God like that out of fear but not out of love.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2012 6:51 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by purpledawn, posted 03-17-2012 8:14 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 243 of 304 (656330)
03-17-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Nuggin writes:

Then it sounds like you are saying "This is just a book, it has no real meaning other than the fact that it is a book. You can ascribe meaning to it, but really, it's just a book."

That makes the Bible no more valid than Harry Potter or the Iliad.

I can see why you say that but it doesn't represent what I believe. I believe that the writers were inspired by God to write what we see, but they would write it in their own words. Essentially it is a narrative beginning with creation and ending with re-creation.

I also believe God uses it as a medium of communication for us and it is authoritative in that it reflects God's authority. Here is an excellent talk on Biblical authority.

How Can the Bible be Authoritative


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 11:16 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 7:24 PM GDR has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 244 of 304 (656339)
03-17-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by GDR
03-17-2012 5:49 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
I believe that the writers were inspired by God to write what we see, but they would write it in their own words. Essentially it is a narrative beginning with creation and ending with re-creation.

I also believe God uses it as a medium of communication for us and it is authoritative in that it reflects God's authority. Here is an excellent talk on Biblical authority.

But couldn't you say the exact same thing about any character from any book.

Harry Potter inspired JK to write the Harry Potter series and while the events within are in her words, the meaning behind them should be used to control people's lives.

Jenny Bigbutt inspired the porn movie in which she stars and though the events within are not "real", the meaning behind the porn should be used to control people's lives.

Waldo inspired where's Waldo, and while the book contains drawing, not photos, the search for Waldo should be the central purpose of everyone's life.

I mean, it's all the same.

The only difference is that the people claiming your book are willing to murder people who disagree with them whereas no one claiming Waldo is the guiding influence in their life would murder anyone over it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 5:49 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 8:11 PM Nuggin has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 245 of 304 (656343)
03-17-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Well even in that Harry Potter was written as fiction, (really enjoyed them), whereas the Bible was written for the most part to tell a truth - either as a factual account, through metaphorical mythology, through actual accounts such as the gospels o,r as in the epistles, teaching that is based on the rest of the scriptures as well as the life, teaching and death of Jesus..

Here is what C S Lewis says in Chap 15 of his book miracles.

quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

I believe that my understanding of scripture is pretty much the same as Lewis and Wright, at least as I understand them. (I have read most of what either one has written.)


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 7:24 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 9:29 PM GDR has responded
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 6:49 AM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 246 of 304 (656344)
03-17-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by GDR
03-17-2012 5:39 PM


Re: Eisegesis
quote:
Yes I have my biases as do you and everyone else. It is faith. Yes I believe that the Bible is the inspired book of God working with the world and through his created beings. God informs us and teaches us using the Bible as a means to His ends. I know that on one level yet I donít know in the way that I know I have 5 fingers on each hand, or even in the way I know the sun will come up again tomorrow.
This thread is on the science side of the debate forum. Evidence and/or reasoned argumentation is required in this forum. Chalking claims up to faith and belief is not.

I can't add anymore to what I've already said; and since you aren't really debating or providing evidence or support for your claims, I can't move our discussion forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 5:39 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 247 of 304 (656354)
03-17-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by GDR
03-17-2012 8:11 PM


Re: Yizreel (yiz-reh-ale') or Yisrael (yis-raw-ale')
Well even in that Harry Potter was written as fiction, (really enjoyed them), whereas the Bible was written for the most part to tell a truth - either as a factual account, through metaphorical mythology, through actual accounts such as the gospels o,r as in the epistles, teaching that is based on the rest of the scriptures as well as the life, teaching and death of Jesus..

Well, that's a pretty big cop out.

"The Bible is real, and even if it isn't real, it's meant to be believed to be real".

Come on.

"the most part" to tell the truth?

This is a book the orders genocide. It condemns people to death for MINOR transgressions against an imaginary figure.

It better be the ABSOLUTE truth or it's the most evil bit of literature ever produced. People are making REAL LIFE decisions TODAY in the areas of politics based on the belief that this story is absolutely real and that the wizard it describes is literally in the process of destroying the world.

"It's the end of days, so why pass environmental protection legislation".

Seriously. If you don't believe 100% that it is the absolute truth, then you need to get your ass out there and start convincing the people who DO believe its the absolute truth that they are wrong. Otherwise, THEY are going to kill US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 8:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 3:28 PM Nuggin has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 248 of 304 (656391)
03-18-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by GDR
03-17-2012 8:11 PM


C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
believe that my understanding of scripture is pretty much the same as Lewis and Wright, at least as I understand them.
On this side of the forum, you need to provide evidence that their method of interpretation is sound. Whether the evidence is from inside the Bible or outside, you need to provide it in this thread.

The C.S. Lewis method of Bible interpretation. Supposedly C.S. Lewis argued for a reason-based Christianity rather than faith-based, but in looking at the quote you provided from his book "Miracles", I'm not seeing consistent reasoning. It explains your earlier vague arguments though.

Show evidence that C.s. Lewis' method of interpretation is credible. The problem with "his" method, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread, is that it arbitrarily decides what's true and what isn't. How can we say that the story of Jonah was a myth but the story of Jesus was not? This method leaves the door open for us to reject any part of the Bible that doesn't fit with our personal view.

Rationalizing is not reasoning. Lewis is a gifted writer and can easily make unreasonable things seem reasonable.

Lewis's Hermeneutic
It is necessary to begin an understanding of Lewis's hermeneutic with the realization that Lewis brought his rich legacy of literary criticism to all of his reading, including the Bible. As a foremost literary critic and expert in ancient and medieval-Renaissance literature, Lewis was well aware of the problems involved in the writing, translation and interpretation of literature. His hermeneutic, however, is not purely academic. The academic aspects are combined with some presuppositions of Christian faith (namely that there is a God and He has spoken and revealed himself and continues to speak and reveal), that somehow blend together to form a strange hybrid of biblical interpretation that satisfies hardly anybody. Richard Cunningham, in his book C.S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith, expands this point by saying that Lewis's, "...recognition of the absence of a theological system, of the mythological and metaphorical elements, and of error and inconsistency in the Bible causes uneasiness among fundamentalists and conservatives."{5} The marriage of biblical assumptions and literary criticism has created many critics of Lewis's hermeneutic view.

Since you agree with C.S. Lewis to some degree, let's try debating the credibility of Lewis' method vs the Literal Interpretation Method, not yours. Don't make this thread about you personally. You can pick and choose all you want, that's your choice.

Please provide evidence to support your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by GDR, posted 03-17-2012 8:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 4:54 PM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 249 of 304 (656412)
03-18-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nuggin
03-17-2012 9:29 PM


The Christian Message
Nuggin writes:

This is a book the orders genocide. It condemns people to death for MINOR transgressions against an imaginary figure.

It better be the ABSOLUTE truth or it's the most evil bit of literature ever produced. People are making REAL LIFE decisions TODAY in the areas of politics based on the belief that this story is absolutely real and that the wizard it describes is literally in the process of destroying the world.

Nonsense. It is the story of the Jewish people. There are many stories through the ages where horrible atrocities were committed in the name of one deity or another. A current story is the whole issue of the `Lords Resistance Army` in Uganda.

I`m fairly sure that those things the Bible talks about really happened, and the actions were justified by saying that God wanted them to do what they did. Whether or not they actually believed it or not is another matter.

Even fundamentalists find ways of rationalizing the OT in that we don`t see any churches that I know of that advocate stoning. (If there are they are rare and fringe.)

Nuggin writes:

"It's the end of days, so why pass environmental protection legislation".

Well IMHO that is as a result of a complete misreading of the Scriptures. In the first place the story of Genesis 1

quote:
(26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.")
is that we are to be stewards of all creation.

The Christian message for the future is best told in Ephesians Chap 1:

quote:
9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Taking care of planet and all life on it has eternal consequences in that all things on earth are to be part of God's recreated world at the end of time. Care of the environment is part of the mission that we have been given by God.

Nuggin writes:

Seriously. If you don't believe 100% that it is the absolute truth, then you need to get your ass out there and start convincing the people who DO believe its the absolute truth that they are wrong. Otherwise, THEY are going to kill US.

I think that is what I'm doing now isn't it?

Incidentally, I belief that the Christian church in the west is going through something of a reformation. Many of the former voices of Christianity such as Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson are being marginalized. People like Scot McKnight, Tim Keller, Rob Bell, N T Wright etc are coming more to the forefront of the faith.

In many ways the Evangelical church has become a religion that has been primarily about me and my salvation. I think the point of the gospels is that it isn't all about me. It's about God and what He is doing and what He wants of us. What He wants of us is that we sacrificially love all of creation, which of course includes our neighbour. By making it all about me many evangelicals have turned Christianity around by 180 degrees making it all about me as opposed to it being about God and neighbour.

When it comes to the Bible we are to read and understand it with hearts and minds that image God's unconditional love for us. The gospel message is that Christ is King of creation and that we are called to follow Him as King. To follow Him means that we are here to serve God's good creation in preparation for His return, whenever that is and whatever it will look like.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 03-17-2012 9:29 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 03-18-2012 4:11 PM GDR has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 22 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 250 of 304 (656416)
03-18-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by GDR
03-18-2012 3:28 PM


Re: The Christian Message
I`m fairly sure that those things the Bible talks about really happened, and the actions were justified by saying that God wanted them to do what they did. Whether or not they actually believed it or not is another matter.

I'm not talking about historical events. I'm talking about instructions.

I'm talking about a book that tells you that if you find a town where one person worships a different religion, it's your duty to kill every man, woman, child (even those of your same religion) and animal in that town, to burn the town and everything in it, and then to salt the earth so that nothing grows again.

That's not a historical account of some battle. That's a "DO THIS" instruction.

If the book which is ordering people to wipe out whole cities because ONE person there isn't their religion is not based on the 100% accurate word of God, then it is PROFOUNDLY evil in its intent.

Even fundamentalists find ways of rationalizing the OT in that we don`t see any churches that I know of that advocate stoning.

Then some rules are ignored. Okay, but then NO rule in the Bible should be enforced upon anyone simply because "The Bible says so".

Right now, the Bible is being used to justify homophobia. Why are those churches claiming that God says to kill fags but not saying that god says to kill sluts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 3:28 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 5:19 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 251 of 304 (656421)
03-18-2012 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
03-18-2012 6:49 AM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:

Since you agree with C.S. Lewis to some degree, let's try debating the credibility of Lewis' method vs the Literal Interpretation Method, not yours. Don't make this thread about you personally. You can pick and choose all you want, that's your choice.

Please provide evidence to support your arguments.

Well OK, but it does seem to be pretty one-sided. You ignore the questions I ask you and donít offer an opinion of your own in order to have a proper discussion. I agree that I have put forth a position to be defended, but it is a much better discussion if we actually discuss our two points of view as opposed to you taking pot shots at mine without having to contrast it with your own views.

Letís not worry about Jonah for the time being. Letsí look at what Jesus and Paul wrote about the OT.

The Jews at the time of Christ had numerous food laws, primarily as detailed in Leviticus 11. Both Jesus and Paul rejected them which of course put them on the wrong side of Jewish leadership at the time. Jesus says this in Matthew 15.

quote:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Jesus isnít just saying that the rules are changing; He is saying that the original food laws from the OT were rules taught by men and that they were wrong.

Paul in Romans 14 writes:

quote:
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

Another example. Deuteronomy 24 reads:

quote:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies.

I think that most everyone would agree that the most important sermon in the Bible is the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5-7) Jesus says in Matthew 6:

quote:
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

And again Ė Exodus 21 says:

quote:
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

But Jesus says in Matthew 5:
quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Deuteronomy 23.

quote:
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

Jesus repudiates that again in Matthew 5.

quote:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is clear that neither Jesus nor Paul viewed the Scriptures as something to be understood as being directly from God. One of the things that Jesus did was to bring fulfillment and clarity to the Scriptures.

AbE AbE I should add that if Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God, then when the Jewish people suggested that Yahweh promotes genocide and public stoning, (things that are in contradiction to what Jesus taught), and actually committed such acts we can safely conclude that that wasn't of God either.

Edited by GDR, : Afterthought


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 6:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 8:43 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 252 of 304 (656424)
03-18-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Nuggin
03-18-2012 4:11 PM


Re: The Christian Message
Nuggin writes:

Then some rules are ignored. Okay, but then NO rule in the Bible should be enforced upon anyone simply because "The Bible says so".

I don't see it quite that way. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians Chap 7:

quote:
12 "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

It isn't about a certain set of laws as such. It is about where are hearts are. If our hearts are focused on the love of God and the love of neighbour then we aren't going to be murdering them. stealing from them, running around with their wife/husband etc. Yes we have specifics laid out in the Bible but in the end it is about loving unselfishly and even sacrificially.

From Matthew 12:

quote:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." 32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

From Luke 6:

quote:
45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

From Romans 2:

quote:
29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

From Romans 10:

quote:
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

From 2 Corinthians 9:

quote:
7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

From Ephesians 1:

quote:
5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

There are of course other examples but that should be more than enough to get my point across. It isnít about a set of laws per se but about having a loving heart.

Edited by GDR, : last para as an afterthought

Edited by GDR, : Edited wrong message so I removed it


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 03-18-2012 4:11 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 253 of 304 (656451)
03-18-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by GDR
03-18-2012 4:54 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
Well OK, but it does seem to be pretty one-sided. You ignore the questions I ask you and donít offer an opinion of your own in order to have a proper discussion.
You've asked me one question:

GDR writes:

What is the justification for understanding the Bible to be dictated by God a valid method and what is it that makes my method invalid? Message 239

and I responded in Message 240. If I've missed a question, you'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not sure what you considered my posts to be if not my opinion on methods of Bible interpretation with evidence/support to back up my opinion.

Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1

Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.

Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. NIV

Basically, eat and don't worry about everyone elses rituals/beliefs or lack thereof. He isn't doing away with the food laws.

An eye for an eye deals with legal compensation. Jesus is teaching that it is better to go beyond the minimum requirements, raise the bar. That doesn't do away with the minimum requirements or say that the OT scriptures weren't from God.

Deuteronomy 23 doesn't say hate your enemy. It is a judgement by God on the Ammonites and Moabites. In Matthew 5, Jesus is talking to people in an occupied country. The enemy was all around them. They had to live among them. Different situations.

quote:
AbE AbE I should add that if Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God, then when the Jewish people suggested that Yahweh promotes genocide and public stoning, (things that are in contradiction to what Jesus taught), and actually committed such acts we can safely conclude that that wasn't of God either.
Please show me where Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God.

In the OT, God is laying down laws for a nation that will be governing itself and did govern itself. In the NT, the Jews were limited on governing themselves.

Jews in Jesus' Time
Despite these common practices, the Roman Empire overshadowed the Jews' daily lives, whether sophisticated urban dwellers or country peasants, from 63 B.C. through 70 A.D.

From 37 to 4 B.C., the region known as Judea was a vassal state of the Roman Empire ruled by Herod the Great. After Herod's death, the territory was divided among his sons as titular rulers, but was actually under Roman authority as the Iudaea Prefecture of Syria Province. This occupation led to waves of revolt, often led by two of the sects mentioned by Josephus: the Zealots who sought Jewish independence and the Sicarii (pronounced "sic-ar-ee-eye"), an extremist Zealot group whose name means assassin (from the Latin for "dagger" [sica]).

The Jews weren't in any place to make treaties with anyone.

The C.S. Lewis method seems to miss the point of a lesson just as letterism does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 4:54 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 11:50 PM purpledawn has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4279
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 254 of 304 (656465)
03-18-2012 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by purpledawn
03-18-2012 8:43 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
purpledawn writes:

If I've missed a question, you'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not sure what you considered my posts to be if not my opinion on methods of Bible interpretation with evidence/support to back up my opinion.

Granted I wasn't to clear on the question but you told me that the Bible is not to be read as dictated by God so how is it to be understood. Does God advocate genocide and stoning to death for minor offences? I also asked why it is that I should worship a God who advocates genocide and stoning.

purple dawn writes:

Jesus did not reject the food laws. In Matthew 15:1-20 as in Mark 7:1-23 Jesus was talking about hand washing before eating. It wasn't about what was being eaten. I don't think handing washing was in the laws given by God in the OT. Besides, the Book of Matthew may have been written as a satire. Message 1

Mark 7:

quote:
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
(Emphasis mine)
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.

purpledawn writes:

Paul did not reject the food laws. Romans 14 is more than likely dealing with meat offered to idols. Some Jews stayed away from all meats for fear that it might have been offered to an idol. The Fence around the Torah was a better safe than sorry approach. So they wouldn't accidentally break any of the laws. I haven't found a law from God in the OT that says his people couldn't eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He just didn't want them worshiping idols.

Here is more of Romans 14:

quote:
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Paulís letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.

This is from Matthew 12:

quote:
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." 3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Jesus is saying that not only that are His disciples justified in breaking the Sabbath laws but so was David. The fact that Jesus justified what David did indicates that it wasnít that Jesus had come with a different set of laws but that the laws werenít of God in the first place.

purpledawn writes:

An eye for an eye deals with legal compensation. Jesus is teaching that it is better to go beyond the minimum requirements, raise the bar. That doesn't do away with the minimum requirements or say that the OT scriptures weren't from God.

Iíll requote from Matthew 5:

quote:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus says that ďyou have heard that it was saidĒ which is an obvious reference to Exodus 21:3. He then carries on saying ďBUT I Tell you........Ē. It is a repudiation of what was written in Exodus. The Pharisees knew what He meant which is why they were so upset.

purpledawn writes:

Deuteronomy 23 doesn't say hate your enemy. It is a judgement by God on the Ammonites and Moabites. In Matthew 5, Jesus is talking to people in an occupied country. The enemy was all around them. They had to live among them. Different situations.

Again, in Matthew 5 Jesus says:

quote:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I suggest that when Jesus says ďyou have heard that it was saidĒ that he is referring to the passage in Deuteronomy but I agree that it isnít conclusive. However, the passage in Deuteronomy does go on to say:

quote:
6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
The idea of loving your enemy is in direct contradiction to how God is saying that the pagan neighbours of the Jews were to be treated.

purpledawn writes:

Please show me where Jesus tells us that the specific laws in the OT are not to be understood as being of God.

I have just given you several examples. I have also shown how both Paul and Jesus say that it isnít about set laws but about the heart in my reply to Nuggin.

purpledawn writes:

In the OT, God is laying down laws for a nation that will be governing itself and did govern itself. In the NT, the Jews were limited on governing themselves.

It is obvious in the teachings of Paul and Jesus that God does want us to be governed so that we would have order in our societies. He wants us to have laws that are consistent with His desires for us. The food laws, circumcision etc did serve a purpose in that they not only maintained order but also set the Jews apart from their pagan neighbours. That does not mean that God instituted the specific laws that they followed even though in some sense they were useful for His purposes.

purpledawn writes:

The Jews weren't in any place to make treaties with anyone.

The quote you used concerned the time of the Roman occupation centuries after the time that they were talking about in the Torah.

purpledawn writes:

The C.S. Lewis method seems to miss the point of a lesson just as letterism does.

Maybe you can explain this and tell me what you mean by lettertism. I googled it and came up with nothing. Also could you just explain what you mean by that sentence?

Thanks


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by purpledawn, posted 03-18-2012 8:43 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by purpledawn, posted 03-19-2012 7:51 AM GDR has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 987 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 255 of 304 (656479)
03-19-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by GDR
03-18-2012 11:50 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis - Rumpled Theology
quote:
Granted I wasn't to clear on the question but you told me that the Bible is not to be read as dictated by God so how is it to be understood. Does God advocate genocide and stoning to death for minor offences?
Actually in Message 240 I said:

PurpleDawn writes:

Literal (P'shat) interpretation of the Bible text doesn't mean the text was dictated by God or that there are no mistakes in the text or inconsistencies between manuscripts. It simply means we read the book the same way we do any other book in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the wordís being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.

The belief that the Bible was dictated by God, is just that, a belief. I don't know that it is part of any method of interpretation. One's beliefs will impact their understanding.

I explained letterism in Message 233. Here's another link for Letterism.

Letterism

"While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre, or types, in the Bible. The Hebrew poetry of the Psalms is not to be interpreted in the same way as is the logical discourse of Romans. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers."^[10]^

In Message 236, I addressed the issue of the death sentences and showed that the laws given weren't out of line with the times. I also showed information concerning Jews and stoning. If the text attributes the rules to God, then yes, according to the text God advocates what he supposedly said.

My problem with the Lewis method is that there isn't any consistent basis for declaring the OT written by men and not of God, but that the NT is of God even though it is also written by men. His system negates the parts he didn't believe or didn't match his view of God.

quote:
I also asked why it is that I should worship a God who advocates genocide and stoning.
Why should one worship any god at all today?

If one believes that Jesus is the God of Abraham in human form, I don't see that there is a choice. If one worships Jesus, then one is worshiping a god that advocates genocide.

So I guess one needs to decide who they believe Jesus to be, why they chose to worship Jesus, or why they are even worshiping a god.

quote:
Mark even clarifies it for us that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean.
Unfortunately, since we are working with translations, it is difficult to read the stories as we do any other book. The translations aren't all the same. That's why when there seems to be a difference of opinion concerning the understanding, I like to dig a bit deeper into the translation and see if I'm missing something. Interlinear and Parallel Bibles are handy. I use Biblos.com.

Mark 7:19 Interlinear
The interlinear doesn't copy well, so you have to go to the link. Notice the words "purifying all the foods". The verse doesn't say that Jesus declared all foods clean.

Mark 7:19 Parallel
You can read the rest at the link.

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

Young's Literal Translation goes along with the point of what Jesus is saying concerning hand washing. The body is going to get rid of anything it can't use for nutrition. IOW, dirt from your hands is not going to survive digestion.

In 1 Corinthians

The hand washing rituals were commanded by tradition, not the God of Abraham. What we see in the OT are more common sense cleanliness rules. (Leviticus 15)

Washing the Hands - Judaism
The rabbis of the Talmud derived the requirement of washing the hands as a consequence of the statement in Leviticus 15:11. The Talmud inferred the specific requirements of hand-washing from these passages.

The Jews seemed to have made excess rules out of fear as I mentioned in Message 253 concerning the "fence" around the Torah.

quote:
The question of food that has been offered to idols is dealt with separately in Paulís letter to the Corinthians to deal with a specific question in that church. In his letter to the Romans it is clear that he is dealing with all food.
But he isn't negating the food laws. Romans 14: Who Is The Weak Brother?

You're not showing me that my interpretation of passages is wrong. You're just repeating yourself. I'm not going to keep jumping through hoops as you add verses. You should have an understanding of how I read the Bible.

IMO, when one is bothered by inconsistencies or confronted with inconsistencies, then one needs to dig a bit deeper to see if one's interpretation is skewed by the translation, misunderstanding of ancient times, belief based on hear say, etc. Sometimes people never really read the text.

We're supposed to be discussing the Lewis interpretation method. I don't think we need to hit every verse you feel negates the OT. You need to explain why these verses mean the OT is not of God and the NT is. Both are written by men. What makes one of God and one not?

Edited by purpledawn, : Added letterism link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by GDR, posted 03-18-2012 11:50 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by GDR, posted 03-19-2012 2:39 PM purpledawn has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017