|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Show ONE place where I've given an interpretation of a Koranic passage except to show where they've falsified the Bible. lol...so its ok for non-Christians to point out where Bible clashes against common sense and reality? Backtrack noted. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3802 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
It always means what it says, but you have to take it in context and you can't assume you can tell what it means unless you know the context. Believers are a varied bunch with different levels of knowledge, that's all. And we are all to assume that you are the one who has the knowledge to understand the perfect contextual meaning? I mean, believers all have varied levels of knowledge but you and your group has perfect understanding? I mean...after all you have your own dictionary defining "Literal" as ..."whatever the heck we think it means based on our perfect contextual knowledge..oh yeh and all those centuries of know-it-alls before us who passed down their knowledge perfectly to only us." Forgive me if I (to borrow a phrase)..think thats a load of Bollocks. Forgive me if I'm mistaken but doesn't taking something literally mean taking it "word for word"? As in Verbatim? As in the "exact meaning"? As in NOT a metaphor? oh yeh...but only if I understand the perfect contextual meaning passed down through the generations perfectly to me and my group. Sounds like the beginnings of a mystery novel. Is it me or does the level of arrogance displayed seem overwhelming?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
And we are all to assume that you are the one who has the knowledge to understand the perfect contextual meaning? I mean, believers all have varied levels of knowledge but you and your group has perfect understanding? she is basically right, though. sometimes, the bible uses idioms, and poetic language. sometimes there are parables. but generally the bible means more or less exactly what it says, and is not some kind of coded message or extended metaphor. (except maybe revelation, i'm not sure one way or the other) however, the context often indicates a less than perfectly literal reading would be appropriate. for instance, the verse in question is not talking about stuff you should do to test your faith or the faith of another, it's talking about signs. some bits of context indicate that even while the stories are to be read literally, the stuff that happens in them is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of what happened, per se, but is far a less important concern than preserving tradition or meaning or message. basically "our stories go like this" instead of "this is what happened." but overall, the bible does say what it means literally. and i've annoyed more than one literalist on this board for the simple reason that i read it far more literally than they do. they're more concerned with it being literally TRUE than literally read. and so they justify it out of context, and bend to match some distortion of reality. but here, a literalist is arguing FOR context. that's a BIG step. (oh, and faith, i'll get back to you on our debate a little later. i think i'm gonna take a bit of a hiatus from this board...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Except that God didn't say "go ahead and swim out into the ocean; I'll pull you back." actually, i think he said something to effect of "walk on it, don't swim"
I see no reason or logic in drinking poison. It will convert Schraf, thereby saving her soul. if she turns it into the water of life, it mean the shai-hulud approve, and she can become a reverend mother.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Faith
The whole report ought to get across what the Mark passage referred to: not ALL but SOME, according to the Holy Spirit, had SOME gifts. Their purpose was to establish the divine source of the Church in the pagan world. The "gift of miracles" should cover surviving poison. "Tongues" and "healings" are also specifically listed as gifts of the Holy Spirit. But that is just the point.The passage in Mark is supposedly by Jesus after he is risen and spoke to the eleven disciples about their unbelief.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; Christ is saying to the disciples,without reference to ny passage in acts or otherwise,that if they believe and be baptised then there will be signs to prove such. He then states the signs will be as follows
In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. If they believe and are baptised.Jesus said nothing further. He did not mention any other qualification.It is available to all who believe and are baptised. We can also see the similar attribute further expressed here.Again it is a admonishment of the disciples unbelief.
Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. This is it my dear friends.I do not give a rat's butt about your claim to "knowing" the real meaning of the scripture.Your own central figure in your spiritual exploration has stated that "nothing shall be impossible to you". It is available to all who believe and who are baptised.What the blue bloody blazes is preventing you from doing so? You are admonished by your god to believe and you still cannot. You can end world hunger with but asking for it and you will not.You can prevent the death of innocents with a word.Nothing shall be impossible to you. Please do us all a favour here and believe.Then every single person here will be a convert without fail I am sure.Either do not state that it is not what it means or please quit saying that you believe. And since you know you cannot see yourself, so well as by reflection, I, your glass, will modestly discover to yourself, that of yourself which you yet know not of
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Oh, I see. Perhaps I've been mistaken. But, just to be clear, could you please indicate if I am clear on your position as I state it below, as I did in my previous post to you:
So, am I correct in assuming that your definition of taking the bible "literally" means that sometimes you take it at face value, such as with the creation stories, but sometimes you do some interpretation and adding to the text? quote: So, if I were to ask you about the creation story, (the 6 days and all), would you say that taking such a story "in context" would mean that it is meant to be taken as allegory rather than as an actual account of how the Earth, sun, and moon, etc., came about? Considering the pre-scientific, primitive nomadic tribal "context" in which the people who conceived the Genesis creation story lived, wouldn't it be more appropriate to also consider this "context" when deciding if the Bible is "literally", factually accurate WRT how and when the Earth was created?
quote: There are "reports" of many things, including fire the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.
quote: The Bible doesn't say that these signs would follow only those who go out into remote parts of the world to preach the gospel. You are rationalizing why we don't see such signs all the time, everywhere, and you are doing this by adding a qualifier to what the chapter says. Or, are these fantastic abilities only displayed when nobody is watching, and so independent verification is never possible? Is that why it only happens in "remote" areas? I would think that missionaries in densely-populated areas would be the best to give such powers to, because it would reach the most people and convert many more people at once.
quote: Are the ones that can do it true believers and the ones that can't, not? Or, are they all wrong, just like Mark, for tempting God?
quote: I told you specifically that I did not say "all". I said:
The Bible makes it sound as though the believers would be generally known to do these things. That's how people would know that the Lord was with them. In my message to mike the wiz, I conceded that since the passage speaks of people who go out ans spread the Word, that perhaps only preachers and priests would have such abilities. I also conceded that not every single one would, but surely it is reasonable to think that clergy, as a group, would have been generally known all over the world to be able to do these things.
quote: Are all of these churches identical in what they accept as "orthodox" interpretation of the bible?
quote: And no religious book, including the Bible, stands by itself apart from the culture and previous religions it came from. Indeed, neither does it stand apart from the level of knowledge of the natural world of it's writers. All of these things must be taken into context when interpreting the Bible correctly, would you agree? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 09:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm not, and have never been, talking about the "correct" interpretation of Mark 16. There are those who take it as written (literally). If you are not one of them, then OK. However, then we come to the problem of why it is that you interpret some passages and use the context of modern knowledge and history such as with Mark 16, but hold rigidly to the face-value, as-written, literal meaning of others, such as the creation accounts in Genesis. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 10:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You mean like the creation stories in Genesis need to be taken in context, and not as literally how things happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible is always to be read with reference to the rest of it. That's context. If something isn't clear in one place, another place may illuminate it. Parts of Genesis ARE illuminated by later passages. Jesus' referring to the book gives it extra validity; the Book of Revelation tells us who the snake in Eden really was for instance; Jesus' death on the cross brings home the meaning of the promise of the Seed who would crush the head of the serpent; it also gives meaning to Abraham's being called to sacrifice Isaac and then being freed from having to.
You read the idea of "all" into the Mark passage that is not there, and reading the passages I just quoted shows that it was not intended -- the signs will follow them, but one here, one there as God decrees, not all having all for all time. And it is further emphasized in the later passages that the signs are for the unbelievers, certainly the entire pagan world of the time. In a formerly Christian nation why should God see the need for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Great post, Faith.
The single non-substantive sentence in DBlevins' post is the one you respond to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6899 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
Except that it's not simply drinking poison. It's reading God's word, in which it is stated that God will protect you, and trusting God to keep him promise.
Is that trust idiotic?>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thought I might share the following with you, before I boogie again. Drinking poison, throwing yourself off the temple, etc., comes under the same heading as tempting God. As for the poison drinking suggestion? Many disciplines use illustrations, if taken literally would cause enormous confusion, etc. Here is Christ's response to the temptor who tempts him to tempt God.You notice who the instigator of this temptation is, and so it is with all temptation, you notice that he knows only too well what is written and uses the written word against its author. Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Pascal's Wager......nice try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, the cultural and political contexts preceeding and during the time it was written are to be ignored? If so, why? Also, do I have your meaning of the word "literal" WRT Biblical interpretation correct or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2791 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Has anyone considered how odd it is that humans can detect poisons by means of smell and taste and even visual cues? Given that we were supposedly created for a perfect world, there should be no need for us to be able to detect toxic substances in what should be wholesome food plants. Yet we have the innate ability to detect many hazardous substances.
Do you know how neurologically sophisticated these detection and warning systems are? So, why do we have them, and how did we get them. YEC's tell us that Adam and Eve were perfect, and that humanity has 'devolved,' become simpler and more primitive and less fit ever since. So how did these sophisticated physical systems and abilities arise? And if they were present in Adam and Eve, then were there poisonous plants in 'paradise.' If so, then what does that say about God's plan for life, the universe and everything? (Thank you Douglas Adams) db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This could be funny I guess, but it isn't. Look, just read it your own way and we'll leave it that you're right and all believers are wrong. All of you here are right and the believers are wrong. OK?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024