Why read the Bible literally?

No I'm not, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying those who think unbelievers can be saved are judging the heart -- because they postulate the possibility of a good heart, but scripture denies such a possibility. It's always implied that they think somehow you can tell if people live according to the principles or Christ or not. No, one cannot tell that. Only God can see the heart. As you say. Scripture however says ALL HAVE SINNED. So the idea that anyone lives with a heart right to God without knowing Christ is unscriptural anyway. I did lay my view of this out on the other thread, including some efforts to compromise on some points, and really don't want to argue it again here. That is true about those who claim belief in Christ, but the opposite is not true, that those who do not claim belief in Christ can be saved by apparently "doing the will of God" -- as this is not possible without the Holy Spirit. Mr. Ex Nihilo, however, claims I am wrong and you would most likely agree with him. That is correct, but salvation centers on Christ and Christ alone and I don't see how these other considerations are going to change that. You are right in tune with Mr. Ex Nihilo. There were two threads on this if you would like to think about our arguments, and in fact the second one is very short and unfinished and you might want to join it:http://EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? -->EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?http://EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II -->EvC Forum: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II You can't have a right heart without at least rudimentary right theology.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 02:24 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 02:28 AM

This post is off-topic. Please, no replies. --AdminC'mon Faith. Drop the act. We both know nothing I could say would mollify you, you'd simply feign offense to that, too.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-23-2005 08:43 AM

The following is the Word of the LORD according to Moses (emphasis mine)

quote:

---

(Exodus 31:12-17, NIV) Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. [a]
14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

---

quote:

---

(Exodus 31:12-17, KJV)
12And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

---

quote:

---

(Lev 23:3) {God speaking to Moses} 3 " 'There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.

---

quote:

---

(Deut 5:12-15){Moses quoting the Lord's words of the 10 commandments} 12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

---

It seems that Jesus didn't agree with "the LORD" about the Sabbath. Perhaps it was the definition of what work was? Maybe gathering grain (Matt 12:1, Mark 2:23, Luke 6:1) and healing people (Matt 12, Mark 3, Luke 6) were not really work whereas gathering firewood (Num 15:32-36) and making a fire (Ex 35:3) were work.Oops! Apparently gathering food is not allowed either:

quote:

---

(Ex 16:22-31)22 On the sixth day, they gathered twice as muchtwo omers for each personand the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses.
23 He said to them, "This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.' "
24 So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. 25 "Eat it today," Moses said, "because today is a Sabbath to the LORD. You will not find any of it on the ground today. 26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any."
27 Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. 28 Then the LORD said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? 29 Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
31 The people of Israel called the bread manna.

---

Looks like the LORD got a mite upset over the attempt to gather food during the Sabbath. It sure seems that the LORD classified "gathering food" as a form of work. Yet Jesus claimed that no wrong was done by His disciples. I guess Jesus didn't read the scriptures literally where it said not to do "any work".Why, then, can you assume that He read any of the other scriptures literally in the manner that literalists define it today?

Could you please stay on topic?Brian.

I followed this thread and I mentioned have posted that I agreed very much with the theology of Mr. Ex Nihilo. The only difference between him and me is that he writes a lot better.This is going over old ground from the other threads but for the sake of this one I'll repost it here. This has been orthodoxy for the Christian church since the time of Paul. Certainly not the whole church, as there has always been factions that have gone off in different directions.There is only one way to take that literally. It is clear teaching and if there is any book in scripture that we should take our theology from it is Romans. It is a letter written to an entire society of mostly well educated people explaining the Christian faith to them. Other letters of Paul were written to specific churches or individuals often dealing with situations that applied specifically to them.For emphasis I'll repeat again. The truth is there in both the words of Jesus and the words of Paul and both from the Holy Bible. God didn't just create Christians. Every man, woman and child is part of his creation and he loves them all. Unfortunately from God's perspective not everyone will follow that "small still voice" that God has put in the hearts of all of us but his wish is that we would.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-23-2005 07:22 AM

Picking grains to eat while walking through a field, as opposed to picking enough to take home for the whole family, is not work. Acts of mercy are necessary at all times. Jesus is defining what work is. He's the God of the Old Testament and as He says, "Lord of the Sabbath", which He also says was "made for man" and not intended to make man's life more difficult. His definition should be the one that counts, but if you prefer the Pharisees' over His that's your choice.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 10:51 AM

Your interpretation is definitely not orthodoxy, it is a very new revisionist reading of scripture. If it were orthodoxy it would have been embraced by the Roman Church before Vatican II but it was common knowledge that before that time they taught that all but Roman Catholics were damned. Likewise, Protestants up until Liberal Theology, which now rules certain denominations, have always believed that only those who know Christ are saved. You would be hard put to show that your view and Mr. Ex Nihilo's are orthodox. In any case, my arguments are on the other threads.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 10:52 AM

You're right this has been done before but I would be interested in how you as a literalist would interpret those 2 texts from my last post. They seem pretty straight forward to me.

I'm sure I've already commented on them on the other thread somewhere (and in fact outlined my answer here too) but if you would like to take them to that other thread I'll think about them later. I have work to get done today and still some vague idea of collecting all my thoughts about reading the Bible literally into one post if this thread survives that long.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 11:58 AM

Too bad the LORD didn't bother defining it. That poor guy who just wanted to be warm probably wouldn't have had to be stoned to death. At least he won't need firewood anymore since he is in the hot place for breaking the Law.Work is defined by how much you do rather than what you do? By what scriptural basis did Jesus make this distinction?Or is this one of those "because he is Jesus, whatever he does is right"...as in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger"?For the moment, let's assume that Jesus is right. Does this make Moses' quote from the LORD incorrect? Is there some nuance to Moses' Law that I am missing by using my critical eye? Is something in scripture defining what the phrase "any work" means?

We are getting down to the end of this thread, but before it is closed I'd like to take a moment to address the question of how the jews regarded the Sabbath laws.This is important and IMHO relevant to this thread because it demonstrates that neither the Pharisees (who were strict interpretationists) or Jesus ever interpreted the Bible (Torah and Tanaka) literally.The subject of what work entailed was an ongoing discussion with as many variations, limitations, exclusions, interpretations and analogies as one could possibly imagine. There was NO literal point of view.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would add that none of the Church Fathers took the Bible literlly either.Brian.

God doesn't DISCUSS his Law, He explains it. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. He condemned the Pharisees' interpretation of the Law and taught its true meaning Himself. If you are with Jesus you are against the Pharisees.

I posted plenty of proof that you are wrong. See my Message 109 for a list of CHURCH FATHERS (from the Religious Tolerance website) who read Genesis literally, among many others.

No you didn't.I even gave you the example of Origen in another post and you included him in your list!Here it is again:Origen:Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him (Conybeare Frederick, C. and Bible (1910) History of New Testament Criticism, Watts & Co., London. 14-15).How can Origen belong on that list when he says "Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of...Do I need to post more quotes from Origen or will this be enough?Brian.