Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:41 PM
45 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,100 Year: 9,136/19,786 Month: 1,558/2,119 Week: 318/576 Day: 121/98 Hour: 5/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 31 of 306 (220919)
06-30-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
06-29-2005 8:55 PM


Faith writes:

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.

You've done an outstanding job, in my opinion, and I'd be interested in the responses of non-literalist Christians, particular concerning your points about Christian theology requiring a literal interpretation (I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 8:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 9:58 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 06-30-2005 1:50 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-30-2005 3:35 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2005 11:47 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30984
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 32 of 306 (220929)
06-30-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
06-30-2005 9:43 AM


There is no reason to read the Bible literally.
The Bible is something more than a slim volume so almost any comments on its content will be simply an overview. But so far I and many other Christians have found no reason that a literal interpretation is necessary or even possible.

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.

My Christian faith does not rest on whether or not the Bible is lietrally true or whether much of it is symbolic in nature. The stories of the great fish, or Sodom, or the Exodus, or the Garden of Eden or the Flood seem pure allegory, folk tales, and certainly not likely to be historical.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 06-30-2005 9:43 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:53 AM jar has responded
 Message 52 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-01-2005 7:39 AM jar has responded

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2841 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 yet responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 06-30-2005 11:48 PM Faith has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 306 (221034)
06-30-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
06-30-2005 9:43 AM


Authority
(I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context).

Oh, I don't know. I accept TOE on authority, which seems to me a very reasonable thing to do.

Accepting some religious point on authority seems less reasonable.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-30-2005 11:09 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:47 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 306 (221035)
06-30-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
06-30-2005 3:35 PM


I keep reading your sentence about how I did an outstanding job and not believing my eyes

Perhaps he was engaging in irony.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-30-2005 3:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:42 AM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 306 (221053)
07-01-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
07-01-2005 12:42 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 12:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:14 AM robinrohan has responded
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:33 AM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 306 (221055)
07-01-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
07-01-2005 1:14 AM


Re: Faith
I gave some simple reasons for reading Genesis literally, pretty straightforward evidence, no hidden assumptions that I can see

Wasn't one of your reasons that Jesus believed in it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-01-2005 1:20 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31680
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019