Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible is literally true, but each detail is not.
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4484 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 15 of 88 (472623)
06-23-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


I agree with what Catholic Scientist said.
Taz writes:
It helps to think of it this way. Every once in a while, you'd read a headline in the sports section that says something like Team A Gets Annihilated by Team B. No one actually believes there was some kind of social sanctioned mass murder. And yet, it is literally true that one team got pounced by another.
I disagree. I'd say that it's literally true that one team beat another, not literally true that one team "pounced" another.
Taz writes:
Case in point. Perhaps the same thinking should be brought to claims such as that there was a global flood that covered the highest peaks of mountains and wiped out living creature on Earth except those that survived on Noah's Ark. It could have been literally true that there was a flood that, to the people living at the time, wiped out what they knew of the world, but the details about covering the highest peaks and wiping out all but a few creatures saved on the ark could be less than literally true.
It sounds to me like you are trying to say that the Bible is metaphorically true, or symbollically true. But you claim to be saying that it is literally true at the same time. It really does sound like a contradiction to me. If some parts are indeed "less than literally true", then the Bible can't be said to be entirely literally true.
I agree with dbs944's comments. If some parts get to be less than literally true, while the Bible as a whole is still considered to be literally true, who gets to decide which parts can be totally true and which can by symbollically true, without negating the Bible's literal truth in whole? Wouldn't it all be pretty arbitrary?
And how can you make claims about the truth of anything in the Bible that haven't been independently confimred anyway? Isn't that also arbitrary? Isn't deciding to view the Bible the way you've outlined in this thread arbitrary? How could you know it's correct? Is it logical, or is it just an attempt to reconcile religious beliefs that are less than completely logical?
*Note - This post is literally true, but all the points made in it aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024