Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 306 (220580)
06-28-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
06-28-2005 4:53 PM


namely that she's claiming she can advance objective arguments not based upon faith or belief for interpreting the Bible literally. The more times she provides answers along the lines of (paraphrasing), "You just believe and then you know," or "Jesus believed it, that's sufficient evidence," the more I'm forced to explore the vocabulary to clarify things for her.
I believe that I have made a pretty decent objective case on the other thread. I appealed to various extremely well qualified authorities who support the literal reading, Jesus the main one, and running through many Church Fathers, Calvin, Edwards, Henry etc, and now you want me to match them to the criteria for authentic appeal-to-authority to give support to my claim. That's just busywork. I looked at the criteria and figured someone might find one or two items to make an objection out of, and decided I don't feel like fighting you. The majority on the list are met by all the authorities I listed. But there is apparently no way you will ever recognize such a thing.
Brian claims Jesus didn't even support the literal reading, despite the fact that the other authorities I refer to say he did. There is no way to fight this kind of thing. These are objective evidences, however, whether anyone finds them to make the case or not, they are not subjective, they are not about some kind of nebulous belief or feeling, they deal with objective questions such as whether Jesus did or did not in fact objectively support the literal readings.
I also made a case from the internal consistency of the Bible, the fact that the major tenets of Christianity don't hold up unless the literal truth of the disputed early portions holds up. If you don't care whether it holds up or not, or can't appreciate the beauty of the OBJECTIVE interwoven character of the Bible, I can't prove it to you beyond what I've done, but again the point IS an objective point, it's not a matter of my feelings or beliefs.
You will continue to define my contributions as nonobjective and that just makes me tired. You misrepresent me that I make any part of my argument on the basis of "just knowing." I SAID IT ONCE as introductory remark, as a sort of caveat, because it's true, but I pointedly did not include it in my list of evidences because it's obviously not an objective evidence. You ought to have the sense of fairness to recognize that instead of browbeating me about something I did not do.
In this atmosphere in which nothing I say is given any weight whatever, that entire other thread is dismissed as contributing absolutely nothing to my claims in the dispute, and my RARE remarks about "just knowing" are taken out of context and made to misrepresent my overall objective attempts to demonstrate why the Bible should be taken literally, I really have no motivation to continue it onto this thread.
P.S. the commentaries I checked so far don't discuss the "talking serpent" element. They simply refer to the serpent as Satan, because Jesus in Revelation explained that he is Satan. That was the point of my last post on that other thread I believe.
But I guess you enjoy ridiculing it. So enjoy.
I too refer to evolutionism as a fairy tale, an amazing fantasy.
{EDIT: Matthew Henry says this about the serpent:
quote:
2. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Ex. 7:12), or whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain: by God’s permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent....
}
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 02:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 06-28-2005 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 10:07 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 306 (220634)
06-29-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brian
06-29-2005 7:36 AM


Off topic -- no it can't be falsified
Also, evolution can be falsified, so how come on one has been able to falsify it?
It can't be falsified. It is an INTERPRETATION. If one explanation for a given phenomenon doesn't work there are always others because it's all interpretation. You can't falsify interpretation. There is never any way to actually PROVE that one thing evolved from another, there simply is not. It is ALWAYS possible that what is called speciation is really only a variation, or a "breed" or a "race," the coming to the fore of potentials built into the genome which permit variation of the given species, and it is ALWAYS possible that similarities between species, either in observed features or genes, are simply similar design features used in a multiplicity of different ways but not genetically related to each other. There is NO way to *prove* descent except within a species. Yeah I know you think you've proved it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 08:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 06-29-2005 7:36 AM Brian has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 306 (220709)
06-29-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
06-29-2005 10:07 AM


Explain to us logically and rationally without any reference to Christian theology and belief why the Bible should be interpreted literally.
=======================
I've done so and quite well as far as it went, but as usual you have your own discrediting spin on it. If I get a second wind and pray a lot about it, who knows, I may have more to say. At the moment I just find your response unmotivating.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 10:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 3:08 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 306 (220811)
06-29-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
06-29-2005 3:08 PM


I think maybe I'm starting to understand the problem here. Apparently you read "intelligent" in terms of your criteria for science fora? The term was used to contrast with "literal," to demonstrate that the Bible has many elements to it, not just the historical which are to be read "literally." An "intelligent reading" does not require the meeting of such narrow criteria as you are insisting upon. It simply means knowing how to approach the varied kinds of literature represented in the Bible in a manner appropriate to their form and intent.
{edit:
You said that a literal interpretation was the intelligent choice,
Actually, I don't see how this is anything other than exactly the same claim that certain particular parts are to be read literally which is the subject of the previous thread and now this one, nothing new being added by the term "intelligent." However, again, as I say above, an "intelligent" reading is not always literal, depending on the part of the Bible being considered, that was the point of the choice of the term.
In my view, however, I've done quite a creditable job of giving intelligent reasons why the disputed parts of the Bible are to be read literally. Surely I can't be required to CONVINCE anyone in order to be given that much credit? Since when is being expected to make others agree with you the criterion for making a good argument?
The men I've quoted are eminently qualified to judge, and should in principle be recognized as such by anyone. And the internal consistency of the Bible is objective and should yield itself to the study of anyone whatever.
AND there's nothing "subjective" about the statement "If God is God then what's the problem anyway?" It's not subjective and in fact it's quite an intelligent basis for making a judgment about a writing that is about God.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 09:25 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 09:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 06-29-2005 3:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 06-30-2005 9:43 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 306 (220983)
06-30-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LinearAq
06-30-2005 1:50 PM


Re: I thought that was what it was.
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.
Can't resist commenting that of course if it were OBVIOUS that he regarded the Noah story as literally true, then using Him as an authority WOULDN'T be fine with you, right?
{It's just a point of logic, please don't make a big deal out of it}
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-30-2005 03:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 06-30-2005 1:50 PM LinearAq has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 306 (220986)
06-30-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
06-30-2005 9:43 AM


I keep reading your sentence about how I did an outstanding job and not believing my eyes, but I guess I'll give in and believe it until further notice and say thank you. It may even inspire me to try to meet some of your earlier requirements, despite their not really being necessary. MAY, I say. I have to take a break for a while in any case.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-30-2005 03:36 PM

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 37 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2005 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 306 (221048)
07-01-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by robinrohan
06-30-2005 11:48 PM


That occurred to me, which is why I said "until further notice." Too bad if so. It would be so nice to have a reasonable argument recognized for a change.
The fact that many recognized authorities (far from contemporary "fundies" too) have written literal interpretations of the passages in question, and the fact that a literal reading weaves together the whole fabric of scripture, while a metaphorical reading reduces it to something far less coherent, ought to be counted as decent arguments for the affirmative. Demanding more and more substantiation instead of acknowledging this much for the opposing team, seems to me to be playing an unfair game. Nothing new I have to admit, but it would be nice if it weren't so predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2005 11:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:07 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 306 (221051)
07-01-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
06-30-2005 11:47 PM


Re: Authority
{Percy} I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context).
{robinrohan) Oh, I don't know. I accept TOE on authority, which seems to me a very reasonable thing to do.
Good point. Most do. I always did when I accepted it, despite many doubts about it and attempts to grasp the evidence, which always eluded me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2005 11:47 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 306 (221052)
07-01-2005 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
06-30-2005 9:58 AM


Re: There is no reason to read the Bible literally.
The very first books of the Bible contain so many contradictory and mutually exclusive statements that a literal reading is impossible. Did GOD create man first and women later? Depends on which chapter of Genesis you're reading. Did GOD create the animals first and then man? Depends on which chapter of Genesis your reading.
Perhaps you missed the answer to this which has been given by others here besides me, but has certainly been given by me as well. Reading these as two separate chronological accounts is simply illiterate if you don't mind my saying so. The one account is chronological, the other is focused on specifics of the creation for a particular purpose.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 12:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 9:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 07-01-2005 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 306 (221054)
07-01-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 1:07 AM


Re: Faith
Yes, Faith, but you must understand that it is asking a lot to accept all the assumptions that you seem to be making, if we are to take the Bible "literally."
Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions.
What "assumptions" are you referring to? The task of the thread was to give evidence for reading certain parts of the Bible literally. I gave some good evidence. I gave some simple reasons for reading Genesis literally, pretty straightforward evidence, no hidden assumptions that I can see, pretty well supported and pretty well argued IMHO. It may not be enough for you or for Percy to "believe" in the literal reading, but it is logical, reasonable evidence, definitely "intelligent" reasons for a literal reading. To deny this is simply to deny reality. You don't have to consider it sufficient, but you do have to acknowledge that it is reasonable and "intelligent" unless YOU are unreasonable, IMHO.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 01:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:18 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 306 (221056)
07-01-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 1:18 AM


Re: Faith
It was one, and that reason was backed up by other authorities who claim the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:18 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 306 (221057)
07-01-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 1:07 AM


Re: Faith
Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions.
You say I MUST convince you of a ton of assumptions if I'm to "convince" you? Why am I required to "convince" you? Since when has that become the criterion for a well-argued point? That's setting the goalposts out in space somewhere.
At the same time you also say that I AM asking you to "accept" a bunch of assumptions. How so? Seems to me I stuck to two reasonable points of support for a literal reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:43 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 306 (221062)
07-01-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 1:43 AM


Re: Faith
I got it now. However, even from a Christian prospective, what about the time that Jesus said he would return within "our" lifetime? Obviously that was not meant literally.
So I guess some of what He said is literal and some not.
There seems to be a big confusion about what "literal" means. Some things may be difficult to understand as written, but that's just the ordinary difficulty with context or how things are expressed, and can be resolved with more study. It's just not a matter of his meaning something ELSE, or something nonliteral, it's a matter of OUR understanding what he meant in the idioms in which he spoke, which are often unfamiliar to us. This happened on part I of this discussion when GDR raised a similar question about a supposed "literal" reading but it was really a matter of interpretation or understanding in context, not a matter of a literal or nonliteral reading at all.
And the way we decide which is not literal is whether it is realistic or not (Jonah) or whether it came true or not.
Yes, that seems to be the case. The problem with that ought to be pretty obvious. You will never learn what the Bible has to teach if you insist that it confirm only what you already believe. The Bible is ABOUT things that most people reject as unrealistic. When you come to believe it true, then you find yourself believing things you formerly rejected as unrealistic or impossible in the natural realm. You learn that God is real. You learn that miracles are true. You learn that if God is real there is no problem with the miracles. You are a typical doubting Thomas. He refused to believe the reports that Jesus had risen from the dead. He would not believe unless he saw, so Jesus allowed him to see. The rest of us must believe that what they are telling us is true, because they are honest, certainly not because the reports in any way appeal to our preexisting expectations about what is possible. There's a ton of evidence but it isn't likely to be the kind you are insisting on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 1:43 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 2:08 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 306 (221079)
07-01-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 2:08 AM


Re: Faith
Indeed there is. But if Jesus says to his followers, "I will return in your lifetime," I suppose that is figurative, since He did not return in their lifetime.
OK I couldn't remember the exact passage you were referring to. You are referring to his saying that "some standing there would not see death until [they] saw him coming in his kingdom," right?
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
This is certainly not a matter of a literal-versus-figurative reading since what could it be figurative OF? Either they would see his kingdom come or they wouldn't, no? It does appear to be a matter of interpretation what it means, but there is some agreement that it means they would see the spread of the gospel into the world under God's power, the manifestation of that power being a big proof of the coming of the kingdom.
Some also refer to the very next scene, Jesus' appearance on the mount of transfiguration, attended by just a few of his disciples, which in a sense shows Jesus in His kingdom, with Moses and Elijah.
I think it also may imply a reference to those who saw his resurrection and his ascension, and saw the power of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Much later, John saw him as the ascended Lord which he reports at the beginning of Revelation.
Here are some commentaries on the passage:
28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here--"some of those standing here."
which shall not taste of death, fill they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom--or, as in Mark ( Mar 9:1 ), "till they see the kingdom of God come with power"; or, as in Luke ( Luk 9:27 ), more simply still, "till they see the kingdom of God." The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
2.) The near approach of his kingdom in this world, v. 28. It was so near, that there were some attending him who should live to see it. As Simeon was assured that he should not see death till he had seen the Lord’s Christ come in the flesh; so some here are assured that they shall not taste death (death is a sensible thing, its terrors are seen, its bitterness is tasted) till they had seen the Lord’s Christ coming in his kingdom. At the end of time, he shall come in his Father’s glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom. Some little specimen was given of his glory a few days after this, in his transfiguration (ch. 17:1); then he tried his robes. But this points at Christ’s coming by the pouring out of his Spirit, the planting of the gospel church, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews, who were the most bitter enemies to Christianity. Here was the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Many then present lived to see it, particularly John, who lived till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw Christianity planted in the world.
... It is spoken as a favour to those that should survive the present cloudy time, that they should see better days.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'Wait,' you say, 'the disciples are all dead and Jesus' Kingdom hasn't come yet. Did Jesus make a mistake?'Stay tuned.The answer lies in Chapter 17 . . .
And the same interpretations are given for the Luke 9:27 version of the same thing:
Lastly, To encourage them in suffering for him, he assures them that the kingdom of God would now shortly be set up, notwithstanding the great opposition that was made to it, v. 27. "Though the second coming of the Son of man is at a great distance, the kingdom of God shall come in its power in the present age, while some here present are alive.’’ They saw the kingdom of God when the Spirit was poured out, when the gospel was preached to all the world and nations were brought to Christ by it; they saw the kingdom of God triumph over the Gentile nations in their conversion, and over the Jewish nation in its destruction.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
27. not taste of death fill they see the kingdom of God--"see it come with power" ( Mar 9:1 ); or see "the Son of man coming in His kingdom" ( Mat 16:28 ). The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new Kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
But if he says something about the creation of the Earth according to Genesis, we are to suppose that is literal.
Any particular reason to say that the latter is literal, while the former is figurative? It is true of course that He did not return (literally), but on the other hand is there any reason to suppose that his idea of Genesis was not also figurative?
The former isn't figurative, it's a matter of interpretation concerning what Jesus meant, as shown above. He didn't refer to his return, He referred to the coming of His kingdom. Some also saw HIM ascended - Stephen, Paul, John.
About Genesis, all the evidences I've given are the reason. 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. The Fall makes no sense as a metaphor if the Good News of the gospel is that the effects of the Fall were paid for by the real death of the Son of God. There must also be a real original first couple from whom we all inherit the propensity to sin. Referring to Jesus as the "second Adam" is just sort of cutesy unless there was a real first Adam, and all the ways Jesus IS that second Adam are meaningless without the first; and what does it mean that Jesus' is the firstborn of the "New Creation" if there wasn't a literal Old Creation and what would be the point of giving us a figurative Old Creation if He literally died in order to bring in the New? And Jesus' fulfillment of the prediction of the Seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent likewise becomes meaningless unless the serpent is real and his seduction of Eve is real, which is the whole reason for the need for our redemption. Etc.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 03:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 2:08 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 53 by LinearAq, posted 07-01-2005 8:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 56 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 10:25 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 306 (221092)
07-01-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 3:32 AM


Re: Faith
That is a figurative interpretation.
I really do not see how you get that it is figurative. Seems to me that if you have a metaphor or a figure it has to be a metaphor or a figure OF something. Either the kingdom came or it didn't. I think what you mean is that it didn't come according to what you would expect it to mean, no? As written it does sort of sound like maybe it could refer to the second coming, but since the second coming didn't happen that soon, we know it has to refer to something else.
Also Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God as already present where He was:
"Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
So it's not as if it has to refer to the Second Coming. Wherever Jesus or the Holy Spirit was, the Kingdom of God was. And in fact the Kingdom did come in God's power after Jesus ascended, as clearly attested in the Book of Acts with the many signs and miracles, healings etc. It is here now among His believers.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 05:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:32 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 9:50 AM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024