Is a literal reading of the Bible an insult to its authors?

=====================================
I think you missed the point Jaywill. You had brouht up that one reason you accept the fallidity of the bible is prophecy. To which I responded that any prophecies mentioned in the bible and belief in the bible because of such is circxular reasoning .
==============================================I don't think I understand you.In the example I used the Bible did not contain the book of Matthew yet because it had not been written. The Jews had the Old Testament. Now in the Scriptures that they had there were prophecies.One was this:"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, So little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you there will come forth to Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel; And His goings forth are from ancient times, Form the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2)Now Jesus born in Bethlehem may not have yet manifested all of these characteristics in full yet. But He certainly gave us reason to believe we are on the right track to consider Him as the recipient of the prophecy.He spoke of His pre-existence before His birth and acted like it too.Perhaps you are thinking about "proof" in some kind of mathematical certainty. Your appeal to logical fallacy like circular reasoning sounds like you are in the realm of seeking proof with rigorous mathematical precision that Jesus is Lord.I think I have evidence to convince me that I am on the right track. And I don't yet see the problem with circular reasoning.Then again some philosophers say that any world view of any type involves circular reasoning. I suppose if true that would inclide a Christian world view as well as an agnostic or atheist one. As stated the Bible part of Matthew had not yet been written when the prophecy was at least appearing to have a solid candidate for its fulfullment.And since the theme of the prophecies is related to God's operation why should they not be kept track of in the book of God?Also Jesus of Nazareth belongs to history not just the Bible. I don't see why David traveling all over the countryside should prevent David from having a decendent through someone in his lineage, born in Bethlehem. I don't think a comparison between a Nancy Drew novel and the 66 books of the Bible covering a span of production of some 1,600 years and authored by 40 different and diverse authors compiled into a library, the Bible, is a good comparison. I don't think that Jesus is a religion at all. I think Jesus is a living Person.When I read something written in the Bible and I can identify with that in my subjective exprience I am encouraged that God of the Bible must be timeless and relevant to right now as well as to then.I don't no any Moslems who say they have met Mohammed. I don't think that Mohammed taught that they would. I don't even know many practitioners of Judaism who will confess that they know God in a personal way. Both Moslems and Orthodox Jews are likely to say that they know ABOUT God. But knowing about God and knowing God in a personal way are different.When I read this from John's gospel I can say "I have experienced that. I believe that I have experienced just this thing that is being described. I know that it is not from me. " I can identify with that very strongly. Now you may call it circular reasoning or hardly reliable or something else. But I can identify with being loved by God the Father and having Christ and God come into my being and making an abode with me.I certainly will have no regrets should I turn out to be wrong at the end of my life. It is the best possible life I could have lived believing in Christ.And if I had 100 lives to live I would not waste one of them as a non-believer in Christ. If you turn out to be right and Jesus is not the resurrected Son of God and Lord and Savior - I'll will have no regrets. I'd do it all over again without a second thought. It is the best possible life I could have lived believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior.However, I think you are not right and the Bible is trustworthy. There may be something in the Bagavadgita which is an element of truth. The Quran says that there is only one God. That much is true. And a Moslem may be overwhelmed by that portion of the truth, that there is one God.To the degree that there may be something of truth in other sacred writings I can understand that for others that portion has them captivated. I think unbelievers "gloss over" a lot of the Bible too. Sometimes the less they read it the more they consider themselves an expert on it.You have not presented to me a known fact yet that leads me to believe that the Bible is in error. I read some suspicious objections about the travels of David. I read some reasoning that this or that was hardly reliable. Those are your opinions. I don't think you have pointed to a known FACT which discourages me from believing I am on the right track.Of course some alledged "facts" are offered by skeptics. They are usually disputed and revealed to be opinions of things not undisputedly accepted as facts.And sometimes if they are agreed upon as facts they do not effect the major themes of the Bible and God's salvation.What is your strongest FACT to prove that I should not trust the Bible? You'll have to provide something more than skepticism about David's travels around the countryside making it impossible for Micah 5:2 to refer to Jesus. I already indicated that copyist errors are in the Bible.I think these copyist mistakes effect less than one or two percent of the overall message. The people who really care keep track of the variant readings of the thousands of extant copies of the New Testament. They have the discrepancies all arranged in tables and catalogued. I think it is a skeptics daydream that any one of these textural problems effects any major oft repeated tenet of the Christian faith. What are your most impressive FACTS which should lead me to not believe that Christ is the Son of God and Savior ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The chief priests and scribes in Herod's service seemed to have understood the significance of the phrase Bethlehem Ephrathah.Bethlehem was the answer they gave to Herod in response to these questions:"Where is He who has been born King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:2)and " .. where the Christ was to be born." (v. 4)

So if you use one of your posts to justify another then that is circular reasoning too? I think you're grasping at straws. I think you are imagining an elaborate conspiracy theory. Above I listed many candid points recorded in the New Testament which we well would expect the evangelists to avoid for a smoother propoganda. This list could be enlarged. It included:1.) Potentially embaressing rumors about Jesus.2.) Difficult sayings of Jesus3.) Events which put the disciples in a bad light4.) Sayings of Jesus which seem to contradict the main themes of
the writers.I don't buy your suspicion of conspiracy. This criticism is nullified above where I included statements of Jesus which seem to contradict the major thesis of the gospel writers. The fact that they were included rather than hidden or excluded is evidence of candor and objective faithfulness to the facts even though they be problematic.For example. John says that the Word was God (John 1:1). John, however, does not exclude the potentially contradictory statement of Jesus that the disciples would know the Father - "the only true God" and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent.John therefore faithfully recorded problematic sayings of Jesus. This is evidence of his candidness and tends to falsify charges of false propoganda and conspiracy.And I gave many other examples and can provide more. You've probably been given other examples in the past. I know you have your ready made replies for them.Sometimes we posters don't like to go around in circles all the time. Perhaps you care to explain why Western histories calander is divided into BC and AD.Please don't tell me it is because some fishermen from Galilee all simultaneously had some hullucination.Have to go now. Will continue latterEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You know I never thought of that but it is a possibility. In Daniel God had a huge hand write on a wall.And do we know if Jonah was actually alive all that time while he was in the fish for three days?Aren't there some opinions that Jonah died and was brought back to life?

Disbelief of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disbelief is always "literary genre".Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same.I read your attempts to still salvage some grand artistic importance from what you read as perhaps just a way to bribe your conscience by getting something else, just not God's speaking.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

As I understand the expression "cheap grace" please quote me where I refered to a concept of "cheap grace". I do not force it to read as a newspaper under all circumstances. However even a newspaper may have some poetry in it. I recognize that Job is poetry and that Psalms and Proverbs are like poetry.Take Job for example. I believe that the events took place. Whether the speakers spoke originally in such a poetic fashion may not have been the case. Perhaps not. However, I have no choice but to allow the writer to report the events in the form in which he did, somewhat like a poetic drama.This does not require me to state that the events of Job never occured. I allow the history to be told to me as the writer was inspired by the Spirit of God to do so. I think I am more bothered by the contradictions of your godlessness.Contradictions in the Bible I usually regard as paradoxes. Most of the ones which skeptics point out can be shown not really to be contradictions.Some notable American author said "Consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds."It doesn't bother me that there are some "apparent" contradictions in a profoundly deep book like the Bible written covering over 1600 years of human life.God's eternal love and God's eternal righteousness two aspects of His being. How He coordinates these two attributes in ways which may seem "contradictory" to us sometimes.If you don't have an example of one of these apparent contradictions that I stated, propose one if you have one. That is if you are interested in how I would view your problem. I think there may be a political forum somewhere at this site. This is Bible Study.By the way, just for the record I tend to vote left leaning on a number of issues for what it is worth to you. Right Wing Authoritarianism I will let you hash out on some poitical forum.I still await, if you have not yet done so, give me examples of where I talked about cheap grace. You need to have a specimen from me before you start debating on it. Where is your example? Huh? What does this mean?The Bible is about God dispensing His life and His Spirit into man that man and God might unite to be one organic incorporated expression. God in man and man in God - is the goal of the Bible's teaching.In other words God wants to mass produce God-men like Jesus. That is that Jesus Christ (God incarnate as a man) might be the Firstborn among many brothers.The main obstacles to God accomplishing this is the death that is in man and the sin that is in man. Both of these problems Christ is more than able to overcome. He conquers death of all kinds and imparts Himself as eternal life. And abolishes sin and sins completely.I don't know what you mean by turning a moral book into a doctrine of amorality. I don't think God is absent. I expressed my opinion.I think the poster has a refined and cultured way of dismissing parts of the Bible. Now if that makes me a Republican I don't know how that works. I am not looking for Congress to establish the Sermon on the Mount as an amendment to the Constitution.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

While this above sentence may be objectionable, you or someone will have to show me its connection to "cheap grace". I understand the expression "cheap grace" essentially to mean, a person is saved eternally only to have license to live the rest of their life in sins. As if they are secure because they have their "ticket" as it were. How they live does not matter anymore because they have their "ticket" to Paradise or Heaven in the future.Now to make a long story short, the poster put forth the Gospels as fictional.I don't have to accept that. I reject it. He can "question" it all day long. I don't accept it and think the evidence does not argue in his or her favor.While the poster is busy teaching people how to disbelieve the Gospels I am into teaching people how to believe the Gospels. In my opinion the poster wants to cloak his or her rejection of that Gospel with a device of assigning it into a "liturary genre" in which it is pre-determined that fiction is being put forth.If refusing that sounds arrogant or authoritative than I'll just have to sound arrogant and authoritative. Is his grande pronouncment less so ? I believe the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus is truth and fact. If that makes me an arbiter I'll just have to be an arbiter.I have my reasons. I think they are better reasons for belief than the poster's grandstanding that the Gospels are fiction.How come my belief is arrogant but the other posters are not? We both have a right to say the other doesn't have the truth on thier side. Does that poster NOT claim to be an authority ? I don't claim to have infallity in myself.I make plenty of bloopers. That does not mean I am going to swallow hook, line, and sinker someone's grandiose pronoucement that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is "useful" fiction.If I drive down highway at 100 miles an hour and ignore the sign that says "Speed Limit 65" will the state police giving me a ticket accept this excuse? "Well officer, I took that sign to be a attractive piece of poetry or maybe some nice neighberhood artwork."Likewise, taking the Gospels as some useful fictional genre is likewise a clever excuse to not repent for the kingdom of God. Well, sometimes theological jargan is not my strong suite. I would have to see what those definitions mean.By literalist I do not mean that in the book of Revelation the Lamb of God means that Jesus is a little four legged creature. Nor do I "liturally" think that Godzilla will arise out of the mediteranian sea in the end times.Symbol, allegory, poetry have thier place in the Bible. I think that on a case by case basis one determmines what is to be taken as literal and what is to be taken as allegorical or symbolic and what has a little bit of each at play.I also think this takes time. I mean it could take years. And it helps to have fellowship with those of some more advanced spiritual maturity.Someone with ancient language skills may be very helpful. But this may also not be the case. Someone may be versitle in ancient Hebrew and Greek but have basically hostile intentions towards the message of God.I have said it before. Some people go to theological seminary to find God. Others go to seminary to get away from God. I think they reason that if they can get away from God in Theology School or Bible College then they can get away from God anywhere.Likewise, some people study the Bible to find God.Some other people study the Bible in order to lose God and get away from God.Boy does that sound arrogant. Could be true just the same.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Anglagard,Catholic Scientist did a good attempt of answering on your behalf.Are you going to just go along with what CS wrote or do you have your own ideas of where I displayed "cheap grace"?If so, please show me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

testEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.

S/he did not say the NT was fiction where I thought it was said.In this particular discussion the post that influenced me to state that s/he regarded the Gospels as fiction was misread by me. I looked at it again and saw that I made a mistake.I have had long exchanges with the poster previously, and I would have to research where I could find such an explicit quote.The shortcut way would be to simply ask him/her is s/he beleives that Jesus was God incarnate, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and can be known today as Lord and Savior and is exalted at the right hand of God and/or heaven. All these things are what the New Testament teach and record as actual facts to be believed.If Opterix says something like "Oh yes! I believe that" then I stand corrected in saying s/he regarded the NT as fiction.If s/he begins to do the liturary genra dance, it is probably safe to assume that s/he regards the Gospel as fiction or whatever other fine tuned designation s/he would like to apply meaning that an essentially non-factual document is telling untrue things about what Jesus was and did.But you are right. My misread of the post in this particular discussion cannot prove s/he said the NT was fiction.Sorry for that mistake.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How does that work?I mean every word would include these words:"And the angel answered and said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised, even as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying." (Matt. 28:5,6)How does one accept "every word" of that passage as histrical fact, (among others), and not believe any of it"Or how does one accept every word of this as historical fact:"And He said to them, Thus it is written, that Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentence and forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the mations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of My Father upon you; but as for you, stay in the city until you put on power from on high." (Luke 24:49)How does it work that one accepts this as historical fact yet does not believe any of it? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If I take for example the epistles of Paul I would have to include them as the Gospel also.That is because he said that he preached "the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel.""To me less than the least of all saints was this grace given to announce to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel" (Eph. 3:8) This would mean all the riches of wisdom and blessing which he elaborated on in each of his epistles he would count as the gospel. Based on this priniciple, the riches of Christ taught in all the epistles could be considered with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as the gospel.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

First concerning "godless". If you are sensative that people would insinuate that you are godless then you might be careful about despitefully using the phrase "your god" as you did on me.You must realize that I am not talking about my private God but the one God. So if you want to sling around contemptuous phrases saying "your god" did this and "your god" did that and "I'm bothered by your god for thus and such", then don't be upset if you get a reation that implies that you are godless.There is only one God, not my private custom made one in the contemptuous sense that you wrote.Now about me dying on the cross 2,000 years ago.In the Holy Spirit is the effectiveness of Christ's death and resurrection. That is why Paul could say that he was crucified with Christ.This means that when He partakes of the Spirit of Christ the mysteriously all the attainments and obtainments of Christ are included in that Spirit. This is why he spoke of "the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" in Philippians 1:19.Just like the rich ingredients to an all-inclusive drink so is the Spirit of Christ. His death is in the Spirit in a mysterious way. His resurrection is in the Spirit also. His human living,His humility, His fine humanity, His divinity, His ascending, His exaltation, and all the things He has accomplished are in the Spirit for man to apply his own being and situation. That is vague. But each sunday morning I enjoy the Lord's Supper with Korean speaking, Chinese speaking, English speaking, Spanish speaking, Farsi speaking brothers and sisters.They come from Korea, Africa, China, the US, and various South American countries. So the unity and oneness which we enjoy has indeed impressed me that Christ is all-inclusive and expansive.No they do not all agree on everything. But we do all agree on the essential thing - that Jesus is Lord.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have never seen anyone come up with a more broad and inclusive way of salvation than "whosoever believes"Invariably upon examining skeptic's objections to the New Testament they arrive at a more elitist and restrictive way for the world's people to come to know truth.Sometimes you have to be totally conversant on quantum physics or have a Phd. in cosmology to know the truth.Or you have to be thoroughly versed in some amino acid or know all the ins and outs of Evolution Theory.Skeptics of the Bible usually have a much more restrictive means for everyone to come to the knowledge of the most vital truths of human life.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's your opinion. And it is rather vague to me exactly what you are refering to. I don't think that all my interpretations are infallible by a long shot.However, if you have an interpretation of Scripture, I have every right to examine it to ascertain if it seems valid or not. There is such a thing as a poor interpretation or even an incorrect one.With application rather than interpretation I think there is more flexibility. That's right. Jesus must not be finished with me yet. I think tolerance is best demimstrated when someone has something first. A sloppy person who is apathetic about truth is not truly tolerant.I think first you have to have something valuable and precious. Then how they react to others views may reveal true tolerance. Many people who are clueless as to why they are here and where they came from display a "tolerance" which I don't think is genuine.Show me someone who feels that they know the truth about human existence and then we can decide if he is tolerant toward others with a different viewpoint.But if you're clueless don't boast about how tolerant you are. So I will look forward to you changing your attitude a little then. Maybe you'll stop glaring down your spectacles with an accusatory talk about "your god" this and "your god" that. I have, in terms of not yielding to some of the attempts on this forum to make the Bible out to be fantasy in places where it says that it is not.That's exactly how I would want someone to have the courage to stand up for what the Bible says about itself.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.