Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:48 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
32NextFF
Author Topic:   'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 1 of 479 (530150)
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus says (ESV) :-

quote:

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus said this. Not only that, but if Jesus said this, it must be true, by the divine nature of Jesus.

This is impossible to reconcile with reality. If taken literally, the implication is that some of Jesus' audience are still alive today OR that Jesus has already come again, neither of which are true.

This is a challenge to a literal interpretation of the bible. How do those who believe the bible is inerrant respond to this?

Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Edited by Peepul, : to improve opening post


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 10-13-2009 9:52 AM Peepul has responded
 Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 9:55 AM Peepul has responded
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 3:44 AM Peepul has responded
 Message 34 by FullCircle, posted 11-27-2009 1:51 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 11-28-2009 4:20 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:53 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-11-2010 3:22 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 123 by DPowell, posted 04-27-2010 8:44 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 130 by BKE, posted 05-02-2010 1:34 AM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 256 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 9:32 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 286 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 6:07 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 479 (530160)
10-12-2009 2:42 PM


If you want this in the accuracy and inerrancy thread, please explain why you feel the quote cannot be literally true. Also provide what literalist views you feel this statement needs to be reconciled with.

If you want it in faith and belief, I still feel you need to flesh it out a bit with support for your position and not just fish.


  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 3 of 479 (530378)
10-13-2009 8:38 AM


amended - please review and let me have your feedback
    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 479 (530384)
10-13-2009 9:27 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the 'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 479 (530388)
10-13-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


How do you know that some of the 'some of you standing here' that Jesus was talking to are not dead?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:07 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 6 of 479 (530389)
10-13-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peepul
10-12-2009 1:29 PM


This is impossible to reconcile with reality. If taken literally, the implication is that some of Jesus' audience are still alive today OR that Jesus has already come again, neither of which are true.

It was fulfilled, in part, in the experience of the apostle John who saw the kingdom come in Revelation. Some of the other disciples got a glimpse of it also. Check out Pauls words in II Corinthians 12:2. The 'man in Christ above 14 years ago' was actually himself. But even if one doesn't take that as Paul himself, whoever it was saw the kingdom.

Best wishes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 1:29 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 10:46 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2009 10:53 AM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:22 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 55 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:47 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 121 by gragbarder, posted 03-21-2010 10:39 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 7 of 479 (530395)
10-13-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Calypsis4
10-13-2009 9:55 AM


..or it was a dream

2 corinthians 12:2 writes:

(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.)

The writer says basically he can't tell if it was a dream, only god knows. See 2 Corinthians 12:1

2 Corinthians 12:1 writes:

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

So there, he's talking about a vision.

or is this portion of the bible the parable part?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 9:55 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2352 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 479 (530397)
10-13-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Calypsis4
10-13-2009 9:55 AM


It was fulfilled, in part, in the experience of the apostle John who saw the kingdom come in Revelation.

So where is the evidence that John wrote revelation and that it wasn't written much later from compilations of earlier writings?

Edited by bluescat48, : typooo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 9:55 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 11:03 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 9 of 479 (530399)
10-13-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluescat48
10-13-2009 10:53 AM


So where is the evidence that John wrote revelation and that it wasn't written much later from compilations of earlier writings?

Why would it be in question to begin with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 10-13-2009 10:53 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:07 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 10 of 479 (530418)
10-13-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Larni
10-13-2009 9:52 AM


quote:
How do you know that some of the 'some of you standing here' that Jesus was talking to are not dead?

Well they haven't sold their story to Hello - that's pretty good evidence.

Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 10-13-2009 9:52 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 11 of 479 (530419)
10-13-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Calypsis4
10-13-2009 11:03 AM


Because people here put everything into question. Even the very existence of Jesus.

But anyhow, Bluescat, the original post wanted to disprove the bible by assuming it is true, nd then showing that it is inconsistent with itself. It is therefore completely adequate that calypsis shows that it is using oher parts of the bible as reference.

Wanting to descredit the Bible by taking Matheu 16:27-28 as the true words of Jesus, only to go around and doubt the biblical answer as genuine won't convince anyone about it but your own self.

It would be like saying: ''The bible says that John the Baptist would open the way to the messiah, but in fact he never did''. And when someone replied ''Well in christianity, Jesus is the messiah and so he did in fact open the way for him'' only for you to reply ''Oh, but I don't think Jesus is the messiah''. The conversation could even go on and yo ube asked ''why don't you believe that jesus is the messiah'' and you would answer ''Because the bible is inconsistent, as with my earlier example of John The Baptist''

The reality is, as to show a book is inconsistent, you have to assume all of it is true and show how it is, not take away the parts that would be the answers to the dilemnas.

It is the simplest and easiest thing to do to reveal inconsistencies in a book where you take away parts ... Hell, you can probably do it with every single book on earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 11:03 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 12:27 PM slevesque has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 12 of 479 (530422)
10-13-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Calypsis4
10-13-2009 9:55 AM


quote:
It was fulfilled, in part, in the experience of the apostle John who saw the kingdom come in Revelation. Some of the other disciples got a glimpse of it also. Check out Pauls words in II Corinthians 12:2. The 'man in Christ above 14 years ago' was actually himself. But even if one doesn't take that as Paul himself, whoever it was saw the kingdom.

Thanks Calypsis. I've read that passage and found it interesting.

It seems to me that John and Paul (or someone else) had a 'preview' of the kingdom, but that Jesus is talking about the arrival of the kingdom in real time, on earth, for everbody.

This is clear from the linking of the two sentences in the quote I gave above.

The first sentence is about the real arrival of the kingdom

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

For your interpretation to be true, the second sentence must then not be referring to this real arrival, but to the 'previews'.

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

But read the two together and it's clear that they are linked.

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 9:55 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Calypsis4, posted 10-13-2009 1:18 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 4:20 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 13 of 479 (530424)
10-13-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by slevesque
10-13-2009 12:07 PM


No. That's called circular reasoning. You can't prove your source...with your source. To prove ANYTHING in the bible is true, you need an outside, unbiased source, which has yet to be accomplished for all but the minor portions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:07 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 2:38 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2009 2:33 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 3376 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 14 of 479 (530433)
10-13-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peepul
10-13-2009 12:22 PM


the kingdom in real time

What, pray tell, is the 'kingdom in real time'?

Where did Jesus use that phrase?

Check out John 5:25, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, AND NOW IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

How can something be 'coming'(future) and yet be 'now is'(present)?

The concepts of past, present, and future, have a different meaning for those in eternity. God is a tripartite Being who exists in the past, present, and future all at once. And when we see Him we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.

Edited by Calypsis4, : enlargement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 10-13-2009 12:22 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 15 of 479 (530447)
10-13-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 12:27 PM


I know what circular reasoning is, but you will have to explain to me how presupposing the bible to be true only to show that it is inconsistent with itself is circular reasoning.

Because that is exactly what the OP is doing, and it then becomes perfectly legitimate to defend a given worldview from aspects within that worldview, as to show that it is consistent with itself.

This would be circular reasoning if it was to show that it is true. This is not the case here, since all calypsis was doing was showing that it was consistent. These are vastly different concepts, and atheists usually mix them up quite easily when biblical innerancy, presuppositions, biblical axioms, etc. are being discussed. I hope my little explanation has helped you to grasp the difference between truthfulness and self-consistency, as this is very elementary philosophy.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 12:27 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by greyseal, posted 10-14-2009 1:49 AM slevesque has responded

  
1
23456
...
32NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019