Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 96 (292842)
03-06-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
03-06-2006 9:01 PM


As you often do, you managed to say it the way I think it.
The problem with this kind of attack on literalism is it's way too literal-minded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 03-06-2006 9:01 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 03-06-2006 9:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 18 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 14 of 96 (292857)
03-06-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by robinrohan
03-06-2006 9:10 PM


Yes.
Thus endeth our agreement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by robinrohan, posted 03-06-2006 9:10 PM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 26 of 96 (293003)
03-07-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Heathen
03-07-2006 1:54 PM


at what point does a literalist cease to be a literalist? what 'level' of interpretation takes you beyond the bounds of literalism?
What is normally called a literalist is someone who reads the Bible as it presents itself, literal where it presents itself as literal, parable where it presents as parable, metaphor where metaphor and so on -- according to what its writers intended. There is really very little controversy about how the Bible presents itself. Most of the interpretations that insist that huge parts of the Bible are metaphors or parables -- or myth as you put it -- beyond how it presents itself, do so on the basis of their own prejudice against the supernatural -- or in the case of Genesis, against the view of creation it presents.
So for instance, the first chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah are treated as parables or metaphors, not because there is any clue in the Bible itself that anything other than literal history was intended, but just because the critic can't accept what it actually says.
And this does not deserve to be called interpretation -- it is revisionism.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 02:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 1:54 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-07-2006 2:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 29 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 2:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 2:51 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 45 of 96 (293266)
03-08-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
03-07-2006 2:17 PM


Re: Clues in the Bible?
But there are clues in the Bible, particularly in Genesis, that it is not to be taken as a literal history. For example, two entirely different mutually exclusive stories of Creation are presented. In one story, GOD creates male and female at the same time using the same methods. In the other story GOD creates Man first and then at a later time creates woman and not, as in the other tale by an act of creation, but by cloning woman from man.
The first story gives the chronology of the total Creation. The second is not another creation story but a focusing in on a particular aspect of the creation story in order to make a point about the particular creation of humanity. The first story does NOT say He made them "using the same methods." It doesn't say HOW at all. What it says is
quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Period.
So in the case of the Creation myths found in Genesis, if you accept what the Bible says, it is obvision that the Creation myths are meant to teach lessons about man's relationship with GOD, GOD's relationship with what is created, why snakes don't have legs, why women suffer during childbirth, why we have a seven day week with a day off and why man has to till the soil and work for a living.
Funny how the deep many-layered meanings of the literal text are always so disappointingly reduced to something trite and boring by the anti-literalist.
It is not preconcieved notions that are involved here but the content of the Bible itself that says the Creation stories are not meant as history but rather explanations of the world around the authors.
The preconceived notion is that it's not God's word, so therefore you don't have to take any pains to understand what He meant, you are free to believe it means something as boringly trite as you apparently believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-07-2006 2:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 03-08-2006 11:44 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 46 of 96 (293267)
03-08-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Heathen
03-07-2006 2:21 PM


Faith writes:
someone who reads the Bible as it presents itself, literal where it presents itself as literal, parable where it presents as parable, metaphor where metaphor and so on -- according to what its writers intended. There is really very little controversy about how the Bible presents itself.
quote:
Ok... So for instance.. why do so few (any?)christians live be levitican laws? these laws were given by God, no?
Because we understand the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, and the NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us. They served their purpose for the Israelites and all were representations of the Messiah Jesus, who has come.
For the rest of your post, I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart" but I think I'll leave that to you and robinrohan who is saying more or less what I would say anyway.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 11:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 2:21 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 11:44 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 47 of 96 (293271)
03-08-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
03-07-2006 2:51 PM


So for instance, the first chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah are treated as parables or metaphors, not because there is any clue in the Bible itself that anything other than literal history was intended, but just because the critic can't accept what it actually says.
No, that's absurd.
The Adam & Eve story, the Noah story, the Jonah story all read as fables. If there were neon lights saying "fable" it wouldn't any clearer than it already is. If they were to read such stories in anything other than the Bible, people would have no difficulty in recognizing these as fables.
On a plain straightforward reading of the Bible, these stories would be accepted as fables, not as literal history.
This merely proves what I said. It is because of the CONTENT of the stories that you reject them as literal historical accounts. You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, or a huge fish swallowing a man, or -- actually what's so fabulous about a man building a gigantic ship and taking animals aboard? Whatever, as I said, you just can't accept what it actually says and therefore to you it MUST be a fable.
In fact, most of us believers do read it as history. Once you accept that it is God's word, such things are no longer determined by our own limited imaginations but become keys to an entirely new world our imaginations can't encompass.
The reason that some people take these stories as literal, is that they have been indoctrinated into the non-biblical theology of original sin, and they find it difficult to make a case for original sin if the stories are fables.
Funny how willing people are to psychoanalyze people they don't understand. No, this is NOT the reason people take the stories as literal. And there are a lot of us. At the very least you have it backwards. You can't get to the idea of original sin UNLESS you take them as literal, but that just means that the people who don't take them as literal don't get to the idea of original sin.
No indoctrination in my case anyway. I got my beliefs from reading many books, before I belonged to any church. No, I believed the Bible was God's word early on because I believe in the supernatural power of God. That's how most of us believe in it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 11:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 03-07-2006 2:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 03-08-2006 5:02 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 51 of 96 (293293)
03-08-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Heathen
03-08-2006 11:44 AM


faith writes:
NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us.
======
Where does it say this?
Many places, mostly a cumulative understanding of the whole in context. It says it for one example where God shows Peter that the Old Testament food requirements no longer apply; it says it in all Paul's discussions of freedom from the Law; it says it wherever it discusses Old Testament "types" of the Messiah; it says it in Jesus' affirmation that He came to fulfill the Law, in the overall context.
faith writes:
I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart"
============
they didnt, it was in my opening post.
Well, you put it in your post to me where one would normally expect an answer to those remarks to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 11:44 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 53 of 96 (293323)
03-08-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Heathen
03-08-2006 1:25 PM


Paul is God's representative in the writing of what I believe to be God's inspired word. Nothing is overridden. It all has meaning in its proper place.
You can read the threads that have already dealt with the question you raise about the Law. There have been many.
The moral law (the ten commandments which include condemnation of sexual sin including homosexual sin) are not abrogated as the ceremonial laws are (the sacrifices, priestly conduct, food laws, feasts and fasts and other observances, etc), but they are also fulfilled in Christ, fulfilled so that all of our moral sins, including homosexual sin, are forgiven and not held against us at the Judgment, but ONLY if we have given ourselves to him. The moral law continues to judge those outside of Christ.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 1:25 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 61 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 5:21 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 63 of 96 (293427)
03-08-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Heathen
03-08-2006 3:36 PM


I'm not aware the ten commandments have anything to say about homosexuality
The Ten Commandments are to be taken as categories of sin, and Thou shalt not commit adultery includes all kinds of sexual sin. The more specific sins spelled out in the Pentateuch all can be subsumed under the Ten Commandments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:36 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 65 of 96 (293430)
03-08-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nwr
03-08-2006 5:02 PM


Re: Fable or history
This merely proves what I said. It is because of the CONTENT of the stories that you reject them as literal historical accounts.
Lets see:
magical trees;
it makes no sense for God to create the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if Adam was not supposed to eat of that tree;
the talking serpent;
God lied ("thou shalt surely die") and the serpent told the truth;
the flaming sword that turned every way - surely the creator could just have the tree of life die and its fruit shrivel up and become useless;
What's your point? OK by me if you continue to prove me right that you refuse to believe it because of the content.
You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, ...
======
As history, it makes no sense whatsoever. As a fable it makes perfect sense (a "Just So" story on the human condition and what distinguishes us from other animals).
Yes, you can't stand what it says, that's why you refuse to believe it. As I said.
Faith's idea of God: a liar and incompetent bungling fool.
Obviously this is your opinion of God and someday you'll get to tell him to his face.
My idea of God: one who gave us brains and intended us to use them.
And if he thinks the right use of them would be to trust his revelation to us you'll be in trouble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nwr, posted 03-08-2006 5:02 PM nwr has not replied

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


Message 66 of 96 (293431)
03-08-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:20 PM


If you want to send me a couple of bucks plus postage I'll send you a CD on the subject from my church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Heathen has not replied

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


Message 68 of 96 (293436)
03-08-2006 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ReverendDG
03-08-2006 5:21 PM


if you read more history faith you would know the early christians followed the laws of the jews, infact it was part of being a christian. That was till paul came along and wanted to include gentiles, guess what? the gentiles wouldn't follow the jewish laws so paul took the laws out. It was paul not god overwriting gods word
If you had more respect for orthodox theology you would know that the early Jews did continue to follow the laws of the Jews and that Paul himself supported them because their conscience was bound up in those laws, not because they were any longer necessary. When Paul preaches that we are not to stumble the weaker brother by insisting on Christian freedom from the law, that is what he meant -- we are to submit to one another's weaker conscience. If a person feels it is wrong to eat food sacrificed to idols, then we don't want to hurt their conscience and insist that they eat it, and should eat as they eat while with them, although we ourselves may be free of that superstition. This is brotherly love and this is what Paul preached.
And the understanding that the death of Christ paid every last jot and tittle of the Law Paul knew through knowing God, but only true believers are privileged to understand this. Obviously debunkers will never get it.
About homosexuality in the ten commandments see what I wrote to Creavolution above.
they are not 'ceremonial laws' faith ask any jewish person how important the laws are to them in thier knowlege of god, just because you do not follow them doesn't give you the right to call them ceremonial.
I don't think you have a clue what the term "ceremonial" even means. A Jew would be an idiot not to recognize that that term is descriptive.
I'm trying to think but i believe i read that only 7 matter i think the first three have to do with worshiping yehwah and have nothing to do with your moral law
Loving God and loving neighbor are the two tablets of the moral law, as Jesus said. You want to throw out the first tablet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 5:21 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 6:51 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 69 of 96 (293439)
03-08-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:20 PM


Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to Jesus and according to Genesis. If marrying a divorced person is adultery, as Jesus said, then certainly two gays marrying is adultery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:20 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:48 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 72 of 96 (293453)
03-08-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Heathen
03-08-2006 6:48 PM


You seem to be requiring the equivalent of a course or ten in the Bible. If you don't know the Bible well enough to know what Jesus said about adultery your question about where to draw the line on interpretation just requires way too much of your discussants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 6:48 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 7:13 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 73 of 96 (293454)
03-08-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ReverendDG
03-08-2006 6:51 PM


Christians obey all the ten commandments and loving God is the highest of them all.
Paul was God's instrument, as inspired by God as any of the OT prophets and no believer will ever pit Paul against God. All of Paul's teachings came from God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 6:51 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 77 by ReverendDG, posted 03-08-2006 9:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 79 by LinearAq, posted 03-09-2006 2:26 PM 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