|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why read the Bible literally: take two | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
There is plenty of evidence a Flood happened. Obviously not looking in the right places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
Will do, when I stop getting so many replies! "wink"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
You see, historical reality and theological doctrine stand or fall together in the Christian faith Couldn`t have put it better myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
And because the apostles felt the same way, at least I see no evidence to believe otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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:What on earth are you talking about? quote:I have no idea what "folks" you are talking about or are lumping me in with. quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024