Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally?

lol...so its ok for non-Christians to point out where Bible clashes against common sense and reality? Backtrack noted.PE

And we are all to assume that you are the one who has the knowledge to understand the perfect contextual meaning? I mean, believers all have varied levels of knowledge but you and your group has perfect understanding? I mean...after all you have your own dictionary defining "Literal" as ..."whatever the heck we think it means based on our perfect contextual knowledge..oh yeh and all those centuries of know-it-alls before us who passed down their knowledge perfectly to only us."Forgive me if I (to borrow a phrase)..think thats a load of Bollocks.Forgive me if I'm mistaken but doesn't taking something literally mean taking it "word for word"? As in Verbatim? As in the "exact meaning"? As in NOT a metaphor?oh yeh...but only if I understand the perfect contextual meaning passed down through the generations perfectly to me and my group. Sounds like the beginnings of a mystery novel.Is it me or does the level of arrogance displayed seem overwhelming?

she is basically right, though. sometimes, the bible uses idioms, and poetic language. sometimes there are parables. but generally the bible means more or less exactly what it says, and is not some kind of coded message or extended metaphor. (except maybe revelation, i'm not sure one way or the other)however, the context often indicates a less than perfectly literal reading would be appropriate. for instance, the verse in question is not talking about stuff you should do to test your faith or the faith of another, it's talking about signs. some bits of context indicate that even while the stories are to be read literally, the stuff that happens in them is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of what happened, per se, but is far a less important concern than preserving tradition or meaning or message. basically "our stories go like this" instead of "this is what happened."but overall, the bible does say what it means literally. and i've annoyed more than one literalist on this board for the simple reason that i read it far more literally than they do. they're more concerned with it being literally TRUE than literally read. and so they justify it out of context, and bend to match some distortion of reality.but here, a literalist is arguing FOR context. that's a BIG step.(oh, and faith, i'll get back to you on our debate a little later. i think i'm gonna take a bit of a hiatus from this board...)

---

אָרַח

actually, i think he said something to effect of "walk on it, don't swim" if she turns it into the water of life, it mean the shai-hulud approve, and she can become a reverend mother.

---

אָרַח

Faith But that is just the point.The passage in Mark is supposedly by Jesus after he is risen and spoke to the eleven disciples about their unbelief. Christ is saying to the disciples,without reference to ny passage in acts or otherwise,that if they believe and be baptised then there will be signs to prove such.He then states the signs will be as follows If they believe and are baptised.Jesus said nothing further. He did not mention any other qualification.It is available to all who believe and are baptised.We can also see the similar attribute further expressed here.Again it is a admonishment of the disciples unbelief. This is it my dear friends.I do not give a rat's butt about your claim to "knowing" the real meaning of the scripture.Your own central figure in your spiritual exploration has stated that "nothing shall be impossible to you". It is available to all who believe and who are baptised.What the blue bloody blazes is preventing you from doing so? You are admonished by your god to believe and you still cannot. You can end world hunger with but asking for it and you will not.You can prevent the death of innocents with a word.Please do us all a favour here and believe.Then every single person here will be a convert without fail I am sure.Either do not state that it is not what it means or please quit saying that you believe.

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

quote:

---

I've never said a word about taking the Bible "literally." That's completely your notion.

---

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:

quote:

---

It's to be read in context comparing each part with each other part. You are ignoring the context.

---

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:

---

The context is the spreading of the gospel, "Go ye into all the world..." Historically the first evangelists DID experience the powers predicted as Matthew Henry noted.

---

There are "reports" of many things, including fire the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.

quote:

---

There are reports that they STILL do as a matter of fact in some remote parts of the world where missionaries have taken the gospel, but no longer in the "civilized" world any more as the gospel has been preached here

---

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:

---

-- although the Charismatics claim it's still going on here. However, I've been in their groups and it seems to me there's very little of it that is even possibly authentic.

---

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:

---

Speaking of adding to the text, it is you who have added the idea of "all" believers.

---

I told you specifically that I did not say "all".I said: 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:

---

"Orthodox" means "correct," or "authorized." The churches I'm referring to embrace most of all the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms back to the early Church. Most orthodox/traditional/Bible-believing churches compare many versions of the Bible to get at the best rendering of any passage, though some prefer the KJV or NKJV and some prefer the NASB as a rule I've personally observed.

---

Are all of these churches identical in what they accept as "orthodox" interpretation of the bible?

quote:

---

NO verse in the Bible stands by itself apart from the rest of the Bible.

---

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

quote:

---

Yeah it IS extremely silly of you to think you can decide the meaning of a text that you don't believe in or care a fig about, same as Ms. Schrafinator, against the understanding of centuries of believers in it.

---

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

quote:

---

It always means what it says, but you have to take it in context and you can't assume you can tell what it means unless you know the context.

---

You mean like the creation stories in Genesis need to be taken in context, and not as literally how things happened?

It's you.

The Bible is always to be read with reference to the rest of it. That's context. If something isn't clear in one place, another place may illuminate it. Parts of Genesis ARE illuminated by later passages. Jesus' referring to the book gives it extra validity; the Book of Revelation tells us who the snake in Eden really was for instance; Jesus' death on the cross brings home the meaning of the promise of the Seed who would crush the head of the serpent; it also gives meaning to Abraham's being called to sacrifice Isaac and then being freed from having to.You read the idea of "all" into the Mark passage that is not there, and reading the passages I just quoted shows that it was not intended -- the signs will follow them, but one here, one there as God decrees, not all having all for all time. And it is further emphasized in the later passages that the signs are for the unbelievers, certainly the entire pagan world of the time. In a formerly Christian nation why should God see the need for them?

Great post, Faith.The single non-substantive sentence in DBlevins' post is the one you respond to.

Except that it's not simply drinking poison. It's reading God's word, in which it is stated that God will protect you, and trusting God to keep him promise.Is that trust idiotic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thought I might share the following with you, before I boogie again. Drinking poison, throwing yourself off the temple, etc., comes under the same heading as tempting God. As for the poison drinking suggestion? Many disciplines use illustrations, if taken literally would cause enormous confusion, etc.Here is Christ's response to the temptor who tempts him to tempt God.
You notice who the instigator of this temptation is, and so it is with all temptation, you notice that he knows only too well what is written and uses the written word against its author.Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

The Bible is always to be read with reference to the rest of it. That's context.

---

So, the cultural and political contexts preceeding and during the time it was written are to be ignored?If so, why?Also, do I have your meaning of the word "literal" WRT Biblical interpretation correct or not?

Has anyone considered how odd it is that humans can detect poisons by means of smell and taste and even visual cues? Given that we were supposedly created for a perfect world, there should be no need for us to be able to detect toxic substances in what should be wholesome food plants. Yet we have the innate ability to detect many hazardous substances.Do you know how neurologically sophisticated these detection and warning systems are? So, why do we have them, and how did we get them. YEC's tell us that Adam and Eve were perfect, and that humanity has 'devolved,' become simpler and more primitive and less fit ever since.So how did these sophisticated physical systems and abilities arise? And if they were present in Adam and Eve, then were there poisonous plants in 'paradise.' If so, then what does that say about God's plan for life, the universe and everything? (Thank you Douglas Adams)db

This could be funny I guess, but it isn't. Look, just read it your own way and we'll leave it that you're right and all believers are wrong. All of you here are right and the believers are wrong. OK?