Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:57 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,818 Year: 4,855/19,786 Month: 977/873 Week: 333/376 Day: 10/116 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 306 (242560)
09-12-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Nighttrain
09-12-2005 7:41 AM


Re: Quite possible?
There is plenty of evidence a Flood happened. Obviously not looking in the right places.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Nighttrain, posted 09-12-2005 7:41 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 1:01 PM Steve8 has responded
 Message 213 by kjsimons, posted 09-12-2005 1:03 PM Steve8 has responded
 Message 214 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:22 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 212 of 306 (242563)
09-12-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Steve8
09-12-2005 12:56 PM


Re: Quite possible?
See that's the sort of response that gives creationists a bad name - piss on the pot or get off it.

Pop over to the science forums and present some of this evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 12:56 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 2:31 PM CK has not yet responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 213 of 306 (242565)
09-12-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Steve8
09-12-2005 12:56 PM


Re: Quite possible?
There is plenty of evidence a Flood happened. Obviously not looking in the right places.

Well then why don't you be the first biblical literalist to present to us scientific evidence that shows that "The Flood" happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 12:56 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 2:37 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 214 of 306 (242576)
09-12-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Steve8
09-12-2005 12:56 PM


Re: Quite possible?
If you want to assert that, I suggest you head on over to the Geology and the Great Flood section, where the Flood has been debated repeatedly. So far it's been shown as bunk by the physical, observable evidence. If you would like to "prove" that the Global Flood happened, by all means, try your hand, and give us your evidence. I'd love to engage you in such a debate.

But note - "the Bible says so" does not trump physical observations there. The Bible is a book, nothing more in the Science forums. You'll have to back your claims up with some real evidence.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 12:56 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 306 (242607)
09-12-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by CK
09-12-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Will do, when I stop getting so many replies! "wink"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 1:01 PM CK has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 306 (242613)
09-12-2005 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by kjsimons
09-12-2005 1:03 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I think there are other threads for that, I may do that before the week's out, just got alot of replies here right now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by kjsimons, posted 09-12-2005 1:03 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 217 of 306 (242659)
09-12-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Steve8
09-12-2005 12:35 AM


Bump
Bump for response to Message 208.


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 12:35 AM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 7:37 PM purpledawn has responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 306 (242717)
09-12-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by purpledawn
09-12-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Bump
A close examination of Scripture reveals that the scientific (factual) and spiritual truths of Scripture are often inseparable. For example, one cannot separate the spiritual truth of Chrit's resurrection from the fact that his body permanently vacated the tomb and later physically appeared.
Likewise, if Jesus is not born of a physical virgin, then he is no different from the rest of the human race on whom the stigma of Adam's sin rests.
Likewise, the death of Christ for our sins cannot be detached from his shedding of literal blood on the cross, for 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission'.
And Adam's existence and fall cannot be a myth. If there were no literal Adam and no actual Fall, then the spiritual teaching about inherited sin and eventual/physical death are wrong.
You see, historical reality and theological doctrine stand or fall together in the Christian faith. However, that is not true for every religion. Some religions can have all the 'earhtly stuff' removed and what's left will still make sense. Which is why it's such a mistake to treat all religions the same, they simply aren't, no matter how hard you try to make them otherwise.
Like Jesus said to Nicodemus, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" (John 3:12). The two are intimately related.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2005 4:12 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2005 7:45 PM Steve8 has responded
 Message 220 by Nighttrain, posted 09-12-2005 7:49 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 219 of 306 (242721)
09-12-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Steve8
09-12-2005 7:37 PM


Reason for Literal Reading
So I was right, your reason for reading the Bible literally is because you are unable to accept its teachings otherwise.


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 7:37 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 9:21 PM purpledawn has responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2098 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 220 of 306 (242723)
09-12-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Steve8
09-12-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Bump
You see, historical reality and theological doctrine stand or fall together in the Christian faith

Couldn`t have put it better myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 7:37 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

  
Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 306 (242746)
09-12-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by purpledawn
09-12-2005 7:45 PM


Re: Reason for Literal Reading
And because the apostles felt the same way, at least I see no evidence to believe otherwise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2005 7:45 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2005 9:26 AM Steve8 has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 222 of 306 (242872)
09-13-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Steve8
09-12-2005 9:21 PM


Re: Reason for Literal Reading
But you don't know that they felt the same way because you can only read the Bible literally to maintain your faith.

And quite clearly by your lack of answers to my questions in Message 208 you are unable/unwilling to discuss possibilities to the contrary.

I assume that you don't take Matthew 7:3 literally.

Mt 7:3
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

From what I understand of your standpoint the Bible loses its authority if it cannot be taken literally and yet there are instances such as the verse above that cannot be taken literally.

What criteria do you use to discern which is literal and which is not?


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Steve8, posted 09-12-2005 9:21 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 12:51 PM purpledawn has responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 306 (242955)
09-13-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by purpledawn
09-13-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Reason for Literal Reading
My, my, you honestly think that I believe there are NO parables, figures of speech, metaphors and other things in the Bible that aren't meant to be taken literally. I use the same criteria to determine these things as anyone who has been taught in an English (or any language) class does. Sheesh, sorry but that's a straw man.
Like most kinds of writing, there can be things that can be taken literally, and things that aren't.
At least I don't take the view that NOTHING can be taken literally...where on earth do you get that idea from??? Can I take it then, that you believe that nothing YOU or anyone else says can be taken literally??? As per usual, you folks have one standard for the Bible and another for everything else...so let's not pretend this is about interpretation here, you folks have obviously got some heart issues.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2005 9:26 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2005 7:36 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1561 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 224 of 306 (243099)
09-13-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Steve8
09-13-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Reason for Literal Reading
quote:
My, my, you honestly think that I believe there are NO parables, figures of speech, metaphors and other things in the Bible that aren't meant to be taken literally. I use the same criteria to determine these things as anyone who has been taught in an English (or any language) class does. Sheesh, sorry but that's a straw man.
I don't know what a strawman is aside from a scarecrow and I know my questions in Message 208 have nothing to do with scarecrows.
quote:
Like most kinds of writing, there can be things that can be taken literally, and things that aren't.
At least I don't take the view that NOTHING can be taken literally...where on earth do you get that idea from??? Can I take it then, that you believe that nothing YOU or anyone else says can be taken literally???
What on earth are you talking about?

quote:
As per usual, you folks have one standard for the Bible and another for everything else...so let's not pretend this is about interpretation here, you folks have obviously got some heart issues.
I have no idea what "folks" you are talking about or are lumping me in with.

quote:
I use the same criteria to determine these things as anyone who has been taught in an English (or any language) class does.
So you don't read the Bible any more literally than any other book you read; but because of your faith you choose to read some parts as literal that others do not.

My original question in Message 194 was intended to understand how you discern what to take literally and what not to in those instances (such as Jesus talking about the flood) where opinion differs. I was sincerely trying to understand. I'm sorry you didn't feel inclined to answer kindly.

Good Day


"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 12:51 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 306 (243207)
09-14-2005 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
09-12-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Fact or Illustration
OK, Purp, sorry if I 'lumped' you in with everybody, but when you are all coming from the same direction, it's hard to see any differences in your assumptions.
You said,
"No it would not be a fraud as we think of it today. It was just the way things were done back then."
Yes, some people tried to do that...the fact is, however, that the Jews had a fanatically high regard for scripture. Copyists followed strict rules to reduce the chance of even slight errors in transmission. Scholars debated the meaning of every phrase...the idea that the Jews and the early Christians (many of whom had been Jewish originally, especially in the 1st century) would accept a fraud borders on the bizarre and at best must be considered irrational. The notion that all religions treated their religious texts the same way as each other is 'comparative religion' nonsense, that is why some religions are still around today and many are not.
Re. Jesus' Noah comment (Mt. 24:38), my rule of thumb is, if there is nothing in a passage that suggests it shouldn't be taken literally, I will take it literally...what is present in this passage that suggests to you that Jesus did not take the story of the Flood literally?
Re. Mt. 24:43, it is a parable Jesus shared in Luke 12:35-40. How do I know it's just a parable and not a historical occurence?? Luke 12:41 - "Peter said, 'Lord, do you intend this parable for us or is it for everyone?'" Of course, the stuff about Noah is not in the Luke passage, so Peter's words would not apply to that story.
Re. 2 Peter 3:3-7, how you can read that passage (beginning with scoffers and ending with judgment by fire) and argue the Flood was not considered God's judgment...why mention it in the passage then at all??...the rest of the passage is all about judgment!!!
Re 2 Peter's authorship, it has the weakest evidence of all the NT books, but has more than any of those books that were rejected. It's entirely possible it could have been written around 65-67 B.C.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 09-12-2005 8:11 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Nighttrain, posted 09-14-2005 2:01 AM Steve8 has not yet responded
 Message 228 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2005 10:15 AM Steve8 has responded

RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019