Why read the Bible literally?

I've given all the evidence I can think of. If it doesn't work for you sobeit. The more I understand the Bible the more I understand, period. It's no intellectual exercise by a long shot, though it certainly may be for some who don't read it in faith. I don't know. I think I've said my piece here so I'll just watch to see what others say.

Not so, I pointed out many evidences, from the statement that "ALL scripture is God-breathed" which you dismissed, to Jesus' quoting from the Old Testament to the Israelites literal belief in their own history as shown in psalms 105 and 106. There seem to be endless ways to discredit any of the traditional bases for trust in the Bible however, leaving one with the impression that one merely knows it, believes it, can't prove it apparently.{Edit: I would also like to add psalm 19:7-11, in which the law of God is extolled, even though I know someone will dispute that "the law" stands for all scripture, thus once again demonstrating the invincible will that seeks to deprive oneself of all the avenues of entrance into its riches.}I focused on the parts of the Bible that are usually the hardest for people to believe, as parts Jesus affirmed by quoting them, but the whole thing is "God-breathed." There are depths in the Bible nobody will ever grasp who treats it as a mere optional adjunct. It is the Bible that illuminates nature, nature does not illuminate the Bible, but again I am reduced to merely asserting this. How could there be evidence for something like this? The Bible asserts it is the case and those who believe it learn it to be the case "experimentally" as they used to say, and that IS evidence, but not the kind wanted apparently.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-16-2005 03:11 AM

Skimmed through the whole thing, and was very disappointed in all of it, especially in Mark Noll. Evolution DOES contradict Genesis, it's just self-deception that maintains it is possible to read it in a way that can accommodate the idea. Evolution is far from proven, it's just that it's difficult to think through the labyrinth of entrenched scientific work surrounding it and point out the flaws, especially in the atmosphere of hostility that attends it.But it's a lost cause to argue it. Even those who understand the science can't get anywhere with it. Best for literal Biblical creationists to withdraw from the debate altogether and even from the schools altogether -- not from engagement with the culture otherwise though, I hasten to add, just this one overheated arena.

But WHO CARES about what *ALL* the Israelites, the "whole nation" thought?? The Bible is CANON, it's the OFFICIAL belief of the Israelities -- they took their history literally, and that's what this topic IS, is it not? Today's Pharisees take it all that way. Many of the Israelites might as well have been pagans you know, but the "remnant" are always the literalists, the ones who take the Bible as fundie Christians do, as the inspired word of God, believing all or it. My question was really rhetorical, didn't expect an answer to it. No, there is no need to validate the Bible, it validates itself. For one thing the dating is the result of modernist revisionism and I reject it. For another the archaeological data is an absurd standard for anything as all you find is what you find, and what you haven't found is the majority of it.More later. Yes I can give you references that the Messiah was to be God but it may take a while finding them.

Perhaps it doesn't continue.

So am I frankly. Wish I could pin it down. The distinctions are obvious to me, but it's hard to get it into words. Maybe I'll just give up trying.

I'll try to think about it later. Busy for a while today.

That's exactly what I've been doing, trying to come up with principles. Good question. The fact is that I have been greatly influenced by the many books I've read on theology, the Bible and the Christian life over the years, by tapes of thousands* of sermons by preachers all over the country and other parts of the world, by Bible study classes, and of course by the preaching in my own church. In fact I don't think anyone can appreciate the Bible without good preaching and teaching on it. Trying to understand it completely on one's own is not a good idea. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are God's gifts to the church to help us understand, so says the Bible itself, whether we hear them in church or on tape or read their books. Spiritual influences like what? I revere and believe the word of God, that's the spiritual influence.From all this you'd think a few principles might be easily enough extracted but so far not.
_______________
{Edit: * Wondering if "thousands" is correct. Every day local Christian radio broadcasts two sermons as well as other Christian programs, and for some years I would have it on most of the day and tape any that were especially interesting. It adds up fast. Yes I think "thousands" is fair enough over, say, fifteen years or so.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-17-2005 04:15 AM

I don't know to what extent my pastor is a "literalist" but he is a Bible-believer. I suppose he takes Genesis "literally" but I don't recall its coming up in the few years I've been listening to him. And of course I read and listen mostly to those of my persuasion but I had to BE persuaded BY somebody TO that view at some point too, which was also through my reading and listening. Probably about the same percentage that do hold it that jar or arach or Brian or you ingest. I'm sure it counts for a great deal. Not mere lip service at all. We ARE supposed to read it on our own, daily as a matter of fact. But we are also getting good preaching so it isn't a cold reading. ???I haven't noticed any particular order of things. It's just that we are to read the Bible and we do hear preaching on it. I certainly encounter it but it doesn't attract me so I don't read much of it. It's hardly an unfamiliar view in today's world though, you know. Once you know that all the Bible is God's word you know when somebody is not using it rightly. Well not wanting to read it doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it. There's no ignorance involved, it is an intelligent understanding of where the truth lies. And I've had at least three "denominations" over the years since I became a believer, and read and listened to tapes by teachers in many others. I left one denomination because of its subtly unBiblical preaching. I could discern it but some of my friends couldn't at the time, so I left without them. Later they saw what I'd seen and also left.One chooses to read what one knows to be in the right direction. That's true for all the anti-literalists too you know. Still, you can't help encountering points of view you disagree with by otherwise good teachers. If you have discernment you simply take the good with the bad.

I see, well I guess you can make anything mean anything you want then. I didn't specify numbers, I always mean the Believing Remnant, not ALL. I would say that quoting psalms 105 and 106 is pretty specific about WHO since that is the canon of the official doctrine of the Israelites. Numbers aren't important though I'm sure the majority at the time certainly believed in its history if they were familiar with their scriptures. The Believing Remnant of Biblical times certainly take their history literally. And if you interview orthodox Jews today, you will find that they believe it all literally. I don't know what the Conservative Jews believe but I'm sure the Reform Jews don't take it literally. I would hardly claim that they read their scriptures the way Christians do. The point is that they accept them as true history though they may have some different interpretations of parts of them. For instance, they tend to downplay the sins of the people reported there. I found that interesting, so they are likely to whitewash some of the factors that point to the sins, blame the golden calf incident on the foreigners among the people for instance. Rahab wasn't really a harlot and didn't really lie for instance, or Moses didn't really defy God in striking the rock. But the overall account is accepted, as I understand it. The miracles are no problem. Well excuse me. I had no idea you meant ALL Jews. Since as they say there are at least three opinions for every two Jews that's an impossible requirement. The idea is that there IS an orthodox reading of the scriptures that is held by JEWS, how many is not the point. True Bible-believing Christians are a minority among Christians also. I get my views from talking to Jews and from participating on Jewish message boards. I suggest you learn some manners young man.And on that note I will leave your rude self and ignore you from now on.

I apologize for a false generalization about anti-literalists. Apparently there are more varieties of these than I've been aware of. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps you aren't willing to listen to anybody to learn about it either. I'm an adult who has long since made up my mind from much studying about many things and your attitude is rude in the extreme, just as Brian's is. I don't mind questioning for the sake of argument but the idea of trying to "get me to think" is impossibly rude. I can hardly believe the level of disrespect of others that is practiced here in the name of science and education. This is a fruitless discussion. You have your mind made up about all these things and are merely trying to catch me out in something. I know what I believe and why I believe it and have been arguing from that position but I see it is useless. Those teachers are not among my most admired, certainly not Copeland. As for trying to change anybody's mind, theirs or yours, I think after my experience here at EvC I'm giving that up. All minds here are made up just as mine is. Whoever's right will stay right, and whoever is wrong will stay wrong.

Yes, thanks for the explanation.

No, I'm here to debate. If it were possible to learn about some of the science without being rudely insulted that would be great, because I'm interested in some of it, but it isn't possible so I'm not interested. Christian faith is not blind faith, it is based on the testimony of God Himself, it is faith IN God, in His word. The idea about faith that is promoted here is not faith. No, I'm great with research and real science. The Bible does not contradict real science. Most biology and geology is true science, evolution isn't. Evolution is an untestable unfalsifiable theory the science is forced to fit. On faith in what, faith in whom? Faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, despite the popularity of that idea. You SHOULD take it on the word of God, on the testimony of Jesus Christ, on the word of His most credible believers through the centuries. The truth science can know is minuscule compared to the truth that is knowable. The testimony of faithful witnesses is a major way we know anything. I think you're wrong about what I'm trying to do. I started out believing in evolution and now I believe God. My faith is obviously much better grounded than yours is. You don't have any ground for your faith from the sound of it, you just believe it because why? Because you want to? To paraphrase yourself, What happens to your faith if someone is able to convince you that God couldn't become a man, or a man couldn't resurrect from death? Why believe anything at all since science constradicts it? Do you believe the virgin birth? Why not? Because science says it can't happen? Or Why do you? Don't you know that science says it can't happen? Jesus fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, he turned water into wine, he raised people from the dead. There is nothing in principle any more impossible for science but possible for God than those things. There is also nothing more impossible for science but possible for God in God's having a sea creature swallow a man and preserve him alive through the incident. Why do you pick and choose what to believe when what you do believe is no more possible to science than any of the rest of it? All those things happened and much more because God is God. Therefore the Flood happened because God said it happened whether science has the brain to figure out how or not. No it's a sad sad case of the arrogant claims of science being used to destroy a person's very shaky faith. Again, how can there be truth in it if science says Jesus wasn't God and a man can't come back to life? What makes any part of the Biblical record true if any of it is false? Either God is God or he's not and if he's not I guess I could go back to being an atheist where I started. Makes more sense to me than picking something to believe out of thin air with no basis whatever for it. Huh? Does this at least perhaps explain your belief? That is, your belief in the death and resurrection of Christ isn't a belief in anything real either, is it? One can't believe in a METAPHOR for heaven's sake. I didn't choose to believe in the truth of the Bible, I was persuaded to the truth of the Bible.

That's not what I said. I said it was impossible to learn it HERE, in THIS environment.

Did I say I didn't? I don't know if you have faith or not. I addressed only your definition which makes faith appear to be a blind leap without any rational support. Evolution contradicts the word of God. I don't have the knowledge to critique it either, but if you read through science reports, fossil discoveries for instance, genetic observations, natural selection (this occurs apart from evolution) you find that they are COUCHED in evolutionistic terms, discussed in evolutionistic terms, but that the terms are excess baggage and without those terms the phenomena under discussion emerge more clearly as what they are rather than what the evo story says they are. McGrath has a very good reputation. I just looked him up to see what he says about evolution, and it appears he accepts it while refusing to accept that it can define religion. I'm sure one can go in that direction and continue to hold on to the basics of the faith but I nevertheless find it sad, however understandable. Evolution has the intellectual edge at the moment, but I believe eventually it will be shown to be an illusion, and although it subjects a person to endless ridicule it's better to side with God than science in any contradiction, and evolution contradicts the word of God, in more ways than one. Many do. But it destroys the integrity of the Bible, and my position is if it's God's word, there's no choice -- it's God's word over WHATEVER science says. Eventually evolution will be shown to be wrong. I believe there's enough reason now to seriously doubt it but entrenched intellectual habits die hard. You used language that suggested a blind-leap-in-the-dark sort of faith and your attitude toward my beliefs was not exactly diplomatic either. Patronizing? Condescending? A couple of terms that come to mind. I hope I misread you on both counts. Perhaps I'm just extra touchy after many unpleasant encounters at EvC. You said you read C.S. Lewis as I recall. That's a good way to get to God. He's brought many to faith. Those things ARE part of the "literalist" position. But you attack other elements of Biblical belief as "literalist" just because science contradicts them, so the question is fair how you hold to *these* which science also contradicts. How DO you hold to them considering that you believe that science trumps other literal beliefs no more or less than these? It's a fair question. So why then do you doubt that God could preserve Jonah in the belly of a great "fish?" Or, since you believe He's powerful enough to bring about all those miracles, and that the Biblical report of them is faithful enough for you to believe they occurred, how is it that He suddenly appears to be unable to preserve the truth of His word against other challenges to it, such as against science's claims about the Flood? How is it that fallible man-made science gets the last word over God's word there? If it's inspired by God, that implies He oversees it, its writing and its preservation. If it's His word it's His word. Parts of it can't be true and other parts false if that's the case.