|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
To any and all Biblical literalists here (especially Faith):
Should the following verses be taken literally, especially the bolded bit?
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; 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. It very clearly says that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah will be able to drink any deadly thing without coming to any harm. It also very clearly says that believers will be able to heal sick people simply by touching them. If we are to take these statements literally, then why isn't it common knowledge that Christians are immune to poison? Also, why don't we see real, undeniable faith healing by believers instead of that fraudulent huxster stuff? I've asked this question a bunc of times and have been completely ignored. I thought it might finally get some attention if it had it's own thread. Faith and Belief, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, right, I can accept that interpretation easily.
I want to hear from the people who say that they take the Bible as 100% literally true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, Deuteronomy in the OT and the passage I am quoting is from the NT.
Wouldn't most Christian Biblical Literalists give more weight to the NT?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I was actually most interested in the ability to drink any deadly thing without harm.
quote: Well, why not both?
quote: I don't know.
quote: But all you need, according to the Bible, is belief that Jesus is the Messiah to be able to lay hands on people to heal them, and also to drink poison without harm.
quote: I don't know, it's your Bible, not mine. Anyway, I thought you didn't take the Bible as literally true.
quote: Well, clearly, if the passage is to be taken as literally true, believers should be able to do all of these things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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. Mike, what does this passage say that believers will be able to do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, that passage refers only to the drinking of deadly things and the laying on of hands to cure the ill.
quote: It says that these kinds of acts are how people will be able to identify people as Christians. Proof, as it were.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. This seems to say to me that at least some of the Christian preachers and priests should be able to drink poison without any harm, even if the followers are exempted. Of course, Mark 16 is pretty clear that these signs would follow those who believe, not just preachers.
quote: No, but they are supposed to be able to be done by believers. Surely, we should see some centuries-long tradition of "deadly thing-drinking" among believers, continuing up to the present, if this was something that was literally true. Same for the laying on of hands to heal illness. Surely, you wouldn't not cure someone simply because an unbeliever asked you to. Anyway, these were supposed to be proofs:
...and confirming the word with signs following. I hardly think that these abilities were meant to be hidden. They were meant to impress non-believers and convert them to this new religion. I would convert right now if I saw a couple of Christians drink bleach or drain cleaner and walk away uninjured.
quote: Yeah, yeah, more "I heard it someplace that X really happened". I want to see it for myself, not be assured that it happened but can't be shown now. So, mike, you basically dodged the question. What does the passage say that believers can do? I see three things. What are they?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What should believers be able to do according to that passage, mike?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What does the passage say that believers should be able to do, mike?
What does the bible say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, no, actually I don't have a specific way of understanding the passage in question at all. I am more than willing to take the passage as allegory or metaphor or symbolism, rather than as a literal truth. However, the OP specifically requests comment from those, like you, who have stated that they believe the entire Bible to be literally true. A straight reading of those passages is quite clear to me. If you have to "interpret" the passages, then you are not taking them at face value. You are not taking them as literally true.
quote: No, I'm clearly not. I am simply taking the Bible at it's face value where it says:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; and
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. 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.
quote: It isn't false if you don't take it literally.
quote: I think the meaning of it is very, very straightforward if one takes the passage at face value and considers it literally true. If one needs to "explain the meaning" of the passage, is one really taking the Bible as literally true anymore? Isn't that commonly known as "interpreting", not "taking as literally true?"
quote: Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. The above passage says that the signs are meant to confirm the word of the Lord to the people the believers are preaching to. The signs are meant to be proof that the Lord is with them. A literal reading of the passage clearly says this, and there are sects of Christians in the Southers US who also take it quite literally because they actually do pick up poisonous snakes because of the very passage in question.
[quote]
Nowhere does the passage exclude any believer from these abilities:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; However, I am willing to concede that only some believers, such as those who actually preach the Gospel to others, will be able to show these signs to show that the Lord is with them. But we don't see this in real life. Either none of them are real believers, or this part of the Bible cannot be taken as literally true and needs to be taken as metaphor.
quote: That's not what the Bible says. You are adding to it instead of taking it as literally true. This is called "interpretation". I have no problem with interpretation of the Bible, but then again, I do not claim to take it literally like you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I'm doing well, PG, thank you for asking. How about yourself?
quote: I think it works well as metaphor, although I think the writers of the passage thought it was litterally the case that believers would be able to drink any deadly thing without harm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm sorry. I thought that a "literal" reading of the Bible was one in which it's words are taken at face value, that the facts, people, places, events, etc. all actually existed or happened. For instance, a "literal" reading of one of the creation stories requires (as I understand the term) that we literally accept that Adam was the first human and was created by God out of dust, that Eve was really created from one of his ribs, etc. I look at the passage from Mark 16 about what believers will be able to do, and if I read it the same way I read the creation story, I should think that believers will be able to drink any deadly thing without harm, should be able to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, etc., and that these signs are meant to be evidence to unbelievers that the Lord is with them. 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: What's "orthodiox Christianity?" Which bible does it use? Who's interpretation does it follow?
quote: Show me how I am deviating from the text of Mark 16. Show me how I am adding to or taking away from the words of the Bible.
quote: No, no, no. This has nothing to do with if the interpretation of Mark 16 is "correct" or not. The issue is if a straightforward reading of Mark 16, without adding or subtracting anything to the text, means what it says. Furthermore, do those who claim to take every word of the Bible at face value, or as "literally" correct and true, believe a straightforward reading of Mark 16, without "explaining" anything afterwords about "what the passage really means".
quote: Look, Mark 16 says that believers will be able to do these things, and the reason is to show unbelievers that the Lord is with them. If it's wrong to "tempt the lord", then Mark was wrong to say that believers should do such things, right?
quote: Well, there's a difference between not arguing with me and not being able to adequately address my points, isn't there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 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 2200 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 2200 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Great post, Faith.
The single non-substantive sentence in DBlevins' post is the one you respond to.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024