Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 268 of 304 (656791)
03-22-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by GDR
03-21-2012 10:57 PM


Still Inconsistent
quote:
That’s a cop out. You continually tell me that my understanding of the Scriptures is flawed but you aren’t prepared to tell me how it should be done.
This discussion isn't about me or belief. This discussion is about methods of Bible interpretation. I have provided links to methods of Bible interpretation. Message 233, Message 236, and Message 255
More specifically this thread is about the problem with literal interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately, I think you considered literal to mean dictated by God, which it doesn't as the links will show you. Then there are those who believe that all that is written in the Bible happened exactly as written. Those are beliefs and not methods of interpretation (Message 240) and you agreed in Message 242.
Even though this thread is not a step by step instruction manual, you can see the process I use in interpretation by the links I provide to support my arguments. Food Laws Message 253 Message 255
quote:
Just because you make these broad statements doesn’t make them correct. Everyone interprets the texts through a lens of belief. However it should be that the text forms our belief and not the other way around, before going back and interpreting the text. In addition as we gain information and knowledge we should be prepared to adjust our understanding as none of us understand perfectly. I am also a great believer in reading what others who have spent life times studying the Bible and the context in which it was written as well as to whom the message was intended.
That's why we are to provide support for our arguments. It shows where one is pulling their info from.
In Message 254, you bring up the issue of Jesus eating in the grain fields, and claim that the laws in the OT aren't from God. You're using the NT to say that the laws aren't from God, but you provide no support for that. Given that his disciples continued to follow the laws in real life, would go against your conclusion. Message 259
You haven't shown evidence that the NT is from God any more than the OT. You're the one saying that the OT is not of God, but the NT is.
quote:
I would view them as biographical in narrative form. I did not say that makes them true. My point is that the authors wrote them in a form that is meant what they had written to be taken to be as close as possible to what we would see if the whole thing had been recorded. However, just because that is there intent does not prove that they are true. They could be making it up for some unknown reason or they might just have gotten it wrong. Possibly their sources had it wrong.
You keep talking as though you understand the fallibility of humans but the only justification you've given for claiming that the NT is of God and the OT is not is faith and belief. Your fruit doesn't match the tree.
quote:
I disagree. I form my interpretations from the text taken in context and then apply that understanding. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a theological scholar but I have spent considerable time reading what those who are have to say.
But you aren't showing your work. I'm not a scholar either, but I can provide links that at least show why I have my opinion.
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
Now if we look at the Bible (old and new) as a compilation of human writings inspired by their times and the needs of their people, we see a god that changes as the situation of his chosen people changes.
What is your evidence for that? What you are saying is that God is a god that engages in situational ethics. You are saying that because His people were barbaric that it was ok for Him to justify their barbaric acts. By your logic what the west should now do is to nuke every Islamic nation. This would be your god acting with the times and needs of his people in our current situation just as when the text tells us that he did with the worshippers of Baal. How does that fit with loving your enemy and turning the other cheek?
Wait a minute! You want evidence? Wow, what a concept. You yourself say that the God of the OT is different than Jesus who you say is the embodiment of God. Remember, mankind did all the writing. That's your whole issue in this discussion! They're different. You answer is that the writers of the OT were "incorrect", mine is that God changed. Mankind changes, why wouldn't the God they write about? Show me that he hasn't changed from the OT to the NT to today. You do some homework this time.
quote:
Your belief then is that the Christian God who is outside of time as we know it and has existed since the world began is evolving, and that he was a god who advocated genocide and stoning 3000 years ago but has since changed his ways.
I suggest that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Show me that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
You can't use the OT to make your point, you've already said it isn't of God.
quote:
Are you saying that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the Israel story?
How can he be the fulfillment if the OT isn't of God? It's a made up story.
You really don't get it. When you negate the OT, there's no reason for the NT.
Inconsistent interpretation causes problems.
Edited by purpledawn, : Fix link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by GDR, posted 03-21-2012 10:57 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 03-22-2012 2:15 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 270 of 304 (656878)
03-22-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
03-22-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Understanding the Scriptures
quote:
Yes, we are discussing our methods of Bible interpretations and as you have outlined your method leaves us with a god that 3000 or so years ago advocated genocide and death by stoning for minor offences and now requires forgiveness for that, in light of the fact that 2000 years ago God as you understand Him gave all of that up and became merciful, loving and forgiving. That of course leaves open the question of what God is like today.
That's what the text says. We have to look at reality to see if it really happened. The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies
As I keep saying, there is a difference between understanding what the text is saying and believing that the events actually happened as written. That goes for the NT also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 03-22-2012 2:15 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 03-22-2012 8:20 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 272 of 304 (656918)
03-23-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
03-22-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Understanding the Scriptures
quote:
Well of course, but what is your point? Are you saying they disobeyed God because they didn't kill everyone, are you saying that God didn't actually tell them to do it or what.
Sigh...There's nothing difficult about what I said. It's very straightforward. Understanding what the text is saying is different than believing that the events actually happened as written. If the text said God told them to do something, then that is what the text says. Understanding the reality behind the writings takes more research outside the Bible.
quote:
The point you make just confirms my view that the historical writers didn't record events exactly as they happened. If they say that everyone man, woman, child and beast were killed only to find that they weren't, then why should we believe that they got it right when they say that Yahweh told them to do it.
Sigh...just go the next step and ask why should we believe a supreme being inspired or told them anything? You keep saying you understand that the Bible writings contain various styles, but you seem to have issues with exaggeration. You should be happy. Odds are not as much genocide took place as it sounds. More bark than bite.
Do you really think that Jesus meant that his disciples had to hate their families? Doesn't sound loving.
Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
quote:
In the NT we can see minor differences in the stories in the Gospels but on the important points there is agreement. It is similar to people witnessing a car accident. They will disagree on some details but they all agree that the accident happened.
The accident analogy doesn't apply since the gospel writers weren't eyewitnesses. Even Paul wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus.
Scholars agree that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They can also see where Matthew and Luke altered some of the stories found in Mark. Markan Priority
If you're going to be critical, at least be consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 03-22-2012 8:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 3:34 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 274 of 304 (656970)
03-23-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by GDR
03-23-2012 3:34 PM


Religious Tradition
quote:
We have long ago agreed with all that and I have shown you how I conclude what I do. You make all these statements but I still have no idea what you would decide. Did God approve of the massacre that was committed by Jehu? How about a simple yes or no answer. My answer is no.
God didn't give approval to any of mankind's endeavors.
(Warning: the following is opinion and the upcoming "you's" are universal)
One author says yes according to the book and one author says no according to your understanding of the book. Both books were probably written after the House of Jehu was gone. Supposedly Hosea didn't write Hosea and Kings was probably written after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. Based on reality, I would say both authors attributed events to God that had nothing to do with God. Odds are the events were just the cycle of invasion and destruction prevalent in the area. King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality
The OT is useless to most Christians. Christianity went to the Gentiles and became a new religion that assimilated pagan religions. Stop trying to tie the two together. Just go with Christ, because that's your story and you're sticking to it.
There are some good life lessons in the NT when understood through Judaism. Learn the lessons of the book and graduate. Move on to practical application. Stop whining about being a work in progress. Doesn't take that long to get through school.
The OT and NT writers used creative license when it suited their purposes. It's a religious tradition. If you don't like the way the book is written, go write your own version; but at least admit it's your own concoction.
God is that which sustains us. God does not order mankind to destroy, but God does cause deaths through natural avenues. God doesn't love or play favorites. God doesn't get sad or angry. God doesn't need love or worship. God did not give mankind dominion over anything. If mankind destroys themselves, God won't miss us. (The other residents on the planet would probably appreciate it though.)
Sorry I can't make a post with just the word "no" in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 3:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 9:32 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 276 of 304 (656978)
03-24-2012 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by GDR
03-23-2012 9:32 PM


Re: Religious Tradition
quote:
My contention is God always disapproves of genocide.
Whatever helps you hang on.
quote:
Virtually all of the first Jesus' followers were Christians and it was those Jews that took the Jesus message to the gentiles.
Christianity still went to the Gentiles.
A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, 1953.
Christianity quickly moved out of the Jewish community and became prevailingly non-Jewish. As early as the time that Paul wrote his letter to it, a generation or less after the resurrection, the church in Rome was predominantly Gentile. This in itself was highly significant: Christianity had cease to be a Jewish sect and, while having roots in Judaism, was clearly new and different from that faith. In becoming non-Jewish in its following, Christianity was entering into the Hellenistic world. In becoming non-Jewish in its following, Christianity was entering into the Hellenistic world. (Page 75)
As the separation between Judaism and Christianity became more obvious and as the majority of Christian converts began to be drawn from the Gentiles, while antagonism between Jews and Christians did not decline, persecution of Christians by Jews was less frequent. (Page 81)
Few of the second and third century apologists devoted much attention to the Jews and Judaism. By the time that they wrote, the separation of the Christian community from Judaism was almost complete and Christians were being drawn primarily from paganism. (Page 83)
quote:
Frankly the gospels only make sense when told within their Jewish context. As I said earlier just about everything Jesus talked about referred back to the then Hebrew Scriptures.
You mean Jewish context that supports one's Christian belief. I showed you Jewish context concerning the hand washing and you don't even consider it, IMO, because it conflicts with your beliefs.
quote:
Jesus’ own method of explaining Himself was to refer them back to their Scriptures. Yes, the Gospels bring clarity to the OT concerning the nature of God and how to understand it, but the OT brings understanding of who Jesus is and what He was about. The OT contains the opening chapters for Jesus who draws the Israel story to its conclusion.
No the authors' method of explaining Jesus refers back to the Scriptures and most are incorrect. Notice the author didn't list anything. There's nothing about Jesus in the OT. Luke 24:46-47 is not in the OT. Wouldn't that be evidence that the author made it up?
quote:
Do you really think that the use of condescending language strengthens your argument?
It has nothing to do with my argument. You wanted opinion. I gave it to you.
You're interpreting the Bible to fit your beliefs and as I've said before that's your prerogative, but it's rather useless in a debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by GDR, posted 03-23-2012 9:32 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-24-2012 8:50 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 278 of 304 (657042)
03-25-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by GDR
03-24-2012 8:50 PM


Re: A Jewish Jesus
quote:
And what keeps you hanging on is to construct a god whose morality changes over time. Your god approves of having His chosen people commit genocide and these same chosen people he wants to be involved in the stoning to death of, amongst others, difficult children, those who pick up firewood on the Sabbath. However you then have him changing his mind 2000 years ago and not believing in that anymore and that he wants people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. Can you tell us where your god stands on these issues today?
You really need to be more consistent. You contend that the Bible is written by men and filled with their biases and not dictated by God; but the minute I address the book as if it is written by men you want to know how I could have such a god. You yourself say that the God of the OT is different than Jesus who you say is the embodiment of God. I don't contend that Jesus is the embodiment of God. (Love Enemies, Turn the other Cheek Message 75)
I didn't write the Bible and a religion that follows the Bible is worshiping that God. As I mentioned before, the OT is a national view and the NT is an individual view. Even though you feel the morality of a nation should be the same as an individual, they aren't necessarily.
Institutional Morality
However, it would also be a mistake to pretend that individual moral standards directly translate into institutional ones. Obviously, the two categories are governed by different standards. Institutions are different because they are comprised of a diverse group of individuals and because they exist for specific purposes. For a micro example, legal ethics requires individual attorneys acting as a part of the judicial system to behave in ways that may seem contradictory to some basic moral standards for individuals. The system exists to provide justice, which can best be insured when all the individual agents in that system act in prescribed ways according to their roles. As cogs in the system operating under an altered view of morality, individual attorneys help insure the best possible justice system. Another major example deals with domestic governmental policy; some argue that the government should act under the same moral framework as individuals, but this is not possible or advisable.
What Does It Mean To Fulfill?
Fulfill has several meanings in English, but it is the meanings in Greek (pleroo) that are important to understanding scripture. We also have to use the meaning that fits the sentence not our beliefs.
The NT doesn't show Jesus doing away with any of the laws of the OT if you understand it within Jewish context. As you pointed out in Matthew 5:17, Jesus did not come to do away with the law. The next line tells us that until heaven and earth disappear, none of the law will end.
Matthew 5:18
Solemnly I tell you that until Heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the Law until all has taken place.
Then we have the warning in Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Fulfill (pleroo) doesn't mean completed as in put an end to. Look at Paul's usage of the word.
Romans 13:8
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
Galations 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Same word. When we love one another we aren't doing away with the command we are following the command. Our own laws can be summarized that way, but that doesn't do away with the laws.
To answer your next question. "So you're saying that Christians today are supposed to be following the Laws of Moses?" No
Christians today aren't Jews. As I showed you earlier, Christianity split from Judaism and became a new religion.
Those following the physical Jesus were Jewish and were to follow the Torah. The Disciples followed the Torah even after Jesus left. Paul followed the Torah. Gentiles are not Jewish. You already know what James passed down for the Gentiles, so don't ask me about that one either.
quote:
As I said it is utterly ridiculous to try and understand Jesus by disregarding His Jewish context. Jesus was a Jew preaching to fellow Jews.
You say Jesus only makes sense within the Jewish context, but what you glean from the writings doesn't reflect that understanding.
quote:
I have no problem with it. The hand washing was a law born out of Jewish tradition and not the Torah to the best of my knowledge. I agree that Jesus fulfilled that as well. So what?
Your last statement doesn't make any sense. Go to Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean? for further discussion.
If you want to discuss what prophesies Jesus fulfilled I suggest you go to Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah:.
quote:
No, I’m using the Bible to form my beliefs. In this discussion frankly it is using who is creating a god to fit your beliefs which is neither consistent with the Bible nor with reason.
But you aren't showing me that my facts or logic concerning the understanding of the scripture as understood in Jewish context is incorrect. You've shown me that my position conflicts with what you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by GDR, posted 03-24-2012 8:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-26-2012 2:10 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 280 of 304 (657122)
03-26-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by GDR
03-26-2012 2:10 AM


Interpretation is the Topic
quote:
Look, the scriptures can be used to make God out to be just about whatever you like. Sure you can use them to depict a god who was evil but then became good if that floats your boat. I am contending that the proper way to understand the nature of God is through what we see in the life and words of Jesus, and Paul for that matter, and through that we gain understanding of what is written in the OT.
The life and words of Jesus and Paul are part of a compilation of writings written in a very very very old language and translated for our benefit. We can't understand the nature of God if we don't understand what is actually being said. As you just said, we can use the scriptures to make any type of God we want. That means you need to show evidence that your interpretation is reasonable or logical. You haven't done that yet.
I've provided plenty of links for you to counter and alternate threads to debate specific subjects. Until you counter with some evidence and reasoning, there nothing more I can add. That one has to believe or have faith is not a counter argument accepted on the science side.
Enjoyed the discourse.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Following message 281 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 03-26-2012 2:10 AM GDR 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