|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why read the Bible literally: take two | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: In my view, however, I've done quite a creditable job of giving intelligent reasons why the disputed parts of the Bible are to be read literally. You've done an outstanding job, in my opinion, and I'd be interested in the responses of non-literalist Christians, particular concerning your points about Christian theology requiring a literal interpretation (I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Bible is something more than a slim volume so almost any comments on its content will be simply an overview. But so far I and many other Christians have found no reason that a literal interpretation is necessary or even possible.
The very first books of the Bible contain so many contradictory and mutually exclusive statements that a literal reading is impossible. Did GOD create man first and women later? Depends on which chapter of Genesis you're reading. Did GOD create the animals first and then man? Depends on which chapter of Genesis your reading. My Christian faith does not rest on whether or not the Bible is lietrally true or whether much of it is symbolic in nature. The stories of the great fish, or Sodom, or the Exodus, or the Garden of Eden or the Flood seem pure allegory, folk tales, and certainly not likely to be historical. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Percy writes: ...and I'd be interested in the responses of non-literalist Christians, particular concerning your points about Christian theology requiring a literal interpretation Frankly, I thought the OP (Well, on the first one anyway)concerned itself solely with the Christian Theological perspective. I would have to say that only those type of arguements are on topic. Using Jesus as an authority is fine with me, since I don't think that He overtly stated that the Noah story is literally true or that it is history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Using Jesus as an authority is fine with me, since I don't think that He overtly stated that the Noah story is literally true or that it is history. Can't resist commenting that of course if it were OBVIOUS that he regarded the Noah story as literally true, then using Him as an authority WOULDN'T be fine with you, right? {It's just a point of logic, please don't make a big deal out of it} This message has been edited by Faith, 06-30-2005 03:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I keep reading your sentence about how I did an outstanding job and not believing my eyes, but I guess I'll give in and believe it until further notice and say thank you. It may even inspire me to try to meet some of your earlier requirements, despite their not really being necessary. MAY, I say. I have to take a break for a while in any case.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-30-2005 03:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
(I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context). Oh, I don't know. I accept TOE on authority, which seems to me a very reasonable thing to do. Accepting some religious point on authority seems less reasonable. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-30-2005 11:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I keep reading your sentence about how I did an outstanding job and not believing my eyes Perhaps he was engaging in irony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That occurred to me, which is why I said "until further notice." Too bad if so. It would be so nice to have a reasonable argument recognized for a change.
The fact that many recognized authorities (far from contemporary "fundies" too) have written literal interpretations of the passages in question, and the fact that a literal reading weaves together the whole fabric of scripture, while a metaphorical reading reduces it to something far less coherent, ought to be counted as decent arguments for the affirmative. Demanding more and more substantiation instead of acknowledging this much for the opposing team, seems to me to be playing an unfair game. Nothing new I have to admit, but it would be nice if it weren't so predictable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
{Percy} I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context). {robinrohan) Oh, I don't know. I accept TOE on authority, which seems to me a very reasonable thing to do. Good point. Most do. I always did when I accepted it, despite many doubts about it and attempts to grasp the evidence, which always eluded me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The very first books of the Bible contain so many contradictory and mutually exclusive statements that a literal reading is impossible. Did GOD create man first and women later? Depends on which chapter of Genesis you're reading. Did GOD create the animals first and then man? Depends on which chapter of Genesis your reading. Perhaps you missed the answer to this which has been given by others here besides me, but has certainly been given by me as well. Reading these as two separate chronological accounts is simply illiterate if you don't mind my saying so. The one account is chronological, the other is focused on specifics of the creation for a particular purpose. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 12:53 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yes, Faith, but you must understand that it is asking a lot to accept all the assumptions that you seem to be making, if we are to take the Bible "literally."
Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, Faith, but you must understand that it is asking a lot to accept all the assumptions that you seem to be making, if we are to take the Bible "literally." Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions. What "assumptions" are you referring to? The task of the thread was to give evidence for reading certain parts of the Bible literally. I gave some good evidence. I gave some simple reasons for reading Genesis literally, pretty straightforward evidence, no hidden assumptions that I can see, pretty well supported and pretty well argued IMHO. It may not be enough for you or for Percy to "believe" in the literal reading, but it is logical, reasonable evidence, definitely "intelligent" reasons for a literal reading. To deny this is simply to deny reality. You don't have to consider it sufficient, but you do have to acknowledge that it is reasonable and "intelligent" unless YOU are unreasonable, IMHO. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-01-2005 01:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I gave some simple reasons for reading Genesis literally, pretty straightforward evidence, no hidden assumptions that I can see Wasn't one of your reasons that Jesus believed in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It was one, and that reason was backed up by other authorities who claim the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Take me, for instance. I don't believe much of anything. And if somebody wants to convince me that I must take the Bible literally, they are going to have to convince me to accept a ton of assumptions. You say I MUST convince you of a ton of assumptions if I'm to "convince" you? Why am I required to "convince" you? Since when has that become the criterion for a well-argued point? That's setting the goalposts out in space somewhere. At the same time you also say that I AM asking you to "accept" a bunch of assumptions. How so? Seems to me I stuck to two reasonable points of support for a literal reading.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024