Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 33 of 306 (220959)
06-30-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
06-30-2005 9:43 AM


I thought that was what it was.
Percy writes:
...and I'd be interested in the responses of non-literalist Christians, particular concerning your points about Christian theology requiring a literal interpretation
Frankly, I thought the OP (Well, on the first one anyway)concerned itself solely with the Christian Theological perspective. I would have to say that only those type of arguements are on topic.
Using Jesus as an authority is fine with me, since I don't think that He overtly stated that the Noah story is literally true or that it is history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 06-30-2005 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 06-30-2005 3:32 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 53 of 306 (221108)
07-01-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-01-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Faith
Faith writes:
Here are some commentaries on the passage:
This is followed by blueletterbible commentaries that basically say the "kingdom of God come with power" is the establishment of the church.
Ok...since Jesus didn't come again in their lifetimes then there must be another explanation of what He meant. I can accept that because the wording of Jesus was ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Faith writes:
The one I would emphasize at the moment is that Jesus' work of redemption makes no sense without a literal Fall. His death in our place makes no sense except in the context of the literal entrance of death into the world as the consequence of sin, to restore us to the previous sinless condition.
This is where I start to lose understanding. Why must the Fall be literal?
Why couldn't the Fall have only ushered in the death of the soul rather than physical death? Maybe physical death has been around all along. I say this because Adam didn't physically die the day he ate the fruit.
quote:
Gen 2:17 (God is speaking) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (emphasis mine)
So what died that day? Or was God mistaken?
Moreover, why couldn't the story of the Fall merely be a metaphor for the fact that all humans are created with the capacity to sin based on the combination of free will and selfishness? In fact, couldn't the extension of the consequences of Adam's sin to us be an explanation of our inheritance of these traits that cause us all to sin and need Christ's redeaming power?
Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 2:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 11:51 AM LinearAq has replied
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 07-02-2005 4:38 AM LinearAq has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 108 of 306 (221336)
07-02-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-01-2005 11:51 AM


Logical Conclusions?
LA writes:
Why must the Fall be literal?
Faith then writes:
So that the redemption would be literal, so that there is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. Otherwise "redemption" loses its meaning.
There is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. It's called our selfish nature.
I don't see how you make the logical connection you do here. Please explain more clearly why the fact that we literally sin means that there must have literally been a guy that literally brought that sin into the world.
Also, what part of Christ's sacrifice is less effective if the Fall is not literal history?
Faith writes:
POint is he (Adam) wouldn't have died at all if he hadn't eaten the fruit and death is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice so that way it all hangs together. Of course if you want to deny any part of Christian theology then it doesn't hang together, it just falls into a heap of meaningless nothing.
I thought the sacrifice of Christ was to cover our sins and thus reconcile us with God the Father. That way we could be in heaven instead of Hell.
Which part of Christian theology am I denying by not taking the Fall literally as it is described in Genesis? Do all or the majority of Christian denominations ascribe to this part that I am denying?
Faith writes:
This (God saying Adam would die the day he ate of the tree) has been discussed to death elsewhere. The spirit died that day and actually so did the body begin to die but the death of the entire body did not occur for another 900 years or so.
I already said it meant the spirit died. You say that physical death was brought into the world that day but God didn't mean that Adam would physically die that day. How do we know what God meant? What part of Genesis states that Adam was physically immortal before he ate the fruit?
Why metaphorize what is better understood as literal? It simply reduces the impact. It has a lot less meaning if He died for a mere metaphor of a Fall, and to be the second Adam based on a mere metaphor of a first Adam as opposed to a reality.
It is not better understood as literal. A number of questions arise. These are off topic so don't respond to them unless answering them supports your position on reading the Bible "literally".
1. If Adam had never seen death, what meaning did God's proclaimation that Adam would die if he ate the fruit, have for Adam?
2. If death was not part of the world, what did Adam eat that would not die if you ate it? Tapeworms?
3. If Adam didn't know good from evil, how could he know his disobeying God was the wrong thing to do?
To name a few.
LA writes:
Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?
Faith writes:
Many things are not said but are logical inferences from other parts of the Bible or in context.
Suppose I am not very familiar with the Bible. Could you string together those logical inferences for me? I'd like to see how this all fits together. Verses with explanations on how they tie into the whole conclusion you have drawn should be enough. I may want to ask follow-on questions, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 11:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-02-2005 3:06 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 109 of 306 (221338)
07-02-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Phat
07-02-2005 4:38 AM


Today....tomorrow......whenever!!
Phatboy writes:
The Hebrew word for "day" can also be used to mean "age".
Except when talking about the creation of the universe, apparently. Seems that even words are the enemy of understanding when it comes to the Bible. Besides, why do all the Bible scholars translate that word into "day"? What, you know more than them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 07-02-2005 4:38 AM Phat has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024