Why Literal?

Hi TL I just wanted to give a few thoughts on your reference to Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. Grab your Bible I'm really quite surprised that Martin Luther would have had difficulty with this as there is a clear direction in both passages. It is EXTREMELY important that when reading the Bible the individual know both the theme of the book itself and especially the context of the chapter in which a passage is being refered to.Here in Romans Ch.3 the Apostle Paul is in a direct dialogue with the Jews and has been proving throughout the chapter that the Jews are as guilty and condemned as the Gentiles and that both must be saved by the redemption in Christ. Paul was trying to help them understand that the Law could only condemn , not justify, and that justification by Faith in Christ was the only remedy for sin, not by boasting in their religion, works, or law keeping(v27). Therefore the gist of this chapter including v28 is " Grace through Faith, not Law, Justifies".In James Ch.2 we have both Faith and Works being refered to in the theme of Christian Living, Brotherly Love and the testing of our Faith. James is making it quite clear that there are those in life that "say" they have faith and that works are not neccessary in Christian living(v14). He asks,is there any "profit" in having Faith alone and not Works? Can Faith alone save ? It must be totally clear hear that James is NOT referring to "initial" justifying Faith here, but to the demonstration of Christian faith through acts of kindness towards people and obedience to God. Christianity demands of its followers good works to all mankind(Mt.5:16, Eph.2:10, 1Tim.6:18 etc.) As we have seen, one is not justified by Works(Rom. 3:25-31, 9:11, Gal.2:16, Tit3:5), but justified ones must do them to prove their Christian Consecration(Jam.2:14-18, 20-26). Therefore the Gist of this chapter including v24 is that Faith, with Works done in humility, shows that Faith, and more importantly their Love and Consecration to God and mankind.Hope This Helps Paul

Have you never seen a compass? It's a flat circle with North, South, East, and West printed right one it. It's not a sphere.And those directions aren't corners. A corner is an intersection of two vertices. A sphere has no corners.But it doesn't matter. "Four corners of the Earth" is just a metaphor, which you would be able to accept if you didn't insist on total biblical literalism. But you unfortunately have to invent radical new geometries to support biblical literalism, which just gets weaker and weaker...Have you considered the possibility that a story could be false, and yet express a truth? This is what is meant by "mythically true". I can make up a story on the spot that could express a truth, but wasn't an account of actual events. Does that invalidate the lerger truth of my story? I don't think so. Why does the bible have to be literally true in every sense to contain truth? Did not Jesus teach in parables?By the way, dissecting your comments doesn't make me feel good. What would make me feel good would be for people like you to open their minds to the truth that exists all around us, even in things that are myths (yes, like your bible).

I'm ranting now? Oh, I'm sorry, I should have known that I was the ONLY person doing that. You have done nothing but rant against me, at least within the posts I have seen.Also, it is not anyone's back against the wall. I'm just upset that evolutionists here are quite arrogant. You say you want good evidence for creation. Guess What? The evidence for ceation is just as sound as the evidence for evolution (that should tell you something about your logic). I could spend a few minutes picking apart your so-called reliable tests.
Also, the LIVING snails that were dated 2200 years old had nothing to do with seawater. Besides, if seawater changes the reliability of carbon-14, how do you know that dirt in the ground DOESnt?

quote:

---

Trust me, evolution is built on weaker foundations

---

So far I see no reason to trust you on any issue whatsoever. Almost every substantial point you have made has been in error and every argument clumsily constructed.

quote:

---

I could go for days on the scientific, legitimate, perfectly-sound evidence that seems to conflict with your theory.

---

Please do - that is the purpose of this forum, which has been going on for years. Just ensure your assertions are supported, your facts are correct and your logic sound.

quote:

---

C-14 is based on many assumptions, and doesn't work. K-ar dating is based on similar assumptions,

---

So, once you have dealt with many outstanding issues you still have to deal with, take this issue to the Dates and Dating forum and discuss it in detail.

quote:

---

Also, if you think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle, look again!!! ... (yet again you ignorrance to the Bible scairs me).

---

I do not think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle. I have not discussed this issue with you on any post, so I am at a loss as to why you accuse me of being ignorant. I think that is what you were doing, wasn't it? It's difficult to tell as your parenthetical clause does not appear to be in English, but some sort of pidgin or idiolect.

Um, does anybody have a reply to my question? Just out of curiosity? Booboo came the closest, although his answer seemed to boil down to, "we know the Bible is intended literally because of these passages, which I am taking literally."Booboo: Something to muse on. The Iliad contains numerous references to gods, gives instructions on how to get into heaven, and is written as first-hand, eyewitness acount. Should we literally believe that Aphrodite stole Helen away and gave her to Paris?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Booboo is the only literalist posting on this topic, sorry. Only he is in a position to answer your original questions. Good luck with him.

I've found the snail study: Page not found | PhysicsAnd what do you know? Same reason it doesn't work for aquatic organisms - limestone.Can I point you to the salient sentence? [url]No webpage found at provided URL: This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. []This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified. This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified.

quote:

---

Hope This Helps

---

Well, really it doesn't. Your post was way off topic. I guess mine was a little bit, too, but at least it had some relation to the topic, which was Biblical literalism. Booboo said literalism is undermined by translation, and I disagreed, and used James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 as an example. I didn't ask for an interpretation of it, nor am I struggling with it. I'll bet everyone on the board knows that Biblical literalists, and certainly everyone who believes faith only, thinks that James 2:24 means "faith alone" when it says "not faith alone." We probably all also think that's as bizarre as the rejection of the evidence for evolution.So, no, it didn't help, and I wasn't looking for help, anyway, and I assure you it's been offered six or seven thousand times by those who wouldn't pay a lick of attention to anything I said in return. Now it's happened once more.I may seem irritated. Sorry, I am. After several hundred close-minded people tell me that "not faith alone" means "faith alone," all without me asking, I'm pretty tired of it. Thank you.

OK guys - the dating of shells is interesting but belongs in the Dates and Dating forum. Take it there by all means; please, no more posts on this issue in this topic.Thanks

quote:

---

Also, if you think the Bible says the earth was a flat circle, look again!!! Read revelation: the Hebrew word used for 'circle' simply means "round object" While it also says that "the angels traveled to the four corners..." How could a circle have four corners? Simple: North, South, East, And West. If a "round object" has those four dimensions, then it is OBVIOUSLY not a flat circle. (yet again you ignorrance to the Bible scairs me).

---

1) Hebrew had and has perfectly good words for 'sphere'. These words were not used. ( Isaiah himself used such a word in Isaiah 22:18. ) Tell me, have you looked up the word? I see nothing spherical.

quote:

---

If a "round object" has those four dimensions, then it is OBVIOUSLY not a flat circle.

---

North, South, East, and West are only two dimensions. What you have indicated is a plane. Planes can have absolute directions like this. Sphere's can't. So if you are going to take it literally it damn sure is not a sphere. But I doubt Isaiah was so mathematically inclined and just chose a word indicating what he saw-- the world extending to the horizon in all directions. He may not have even been trying to indicate the shape of the world, but he certainly didn't inply a globe with his choice of words.

quote:

---

If a "round object" has those four dimensions, then it is OBVIOUSLY not a flat circle.

---

Your ignorance of geometry scares me.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Booboo,Please don't take ths the wrong way, but I am shocked that you know so little about the Bible and its development, I am truly amazed that you know so little about it! Let me let you in on a secret Booboo, these names were simply given to ANONYMOUS documents by the church fathers!No one knows who wrote ANY of the gospels, and very very few scholars would agree that the Matthew we have was written by Matthew Levi.You do know that Mark was the earliest gospel and whoever wrote Matthew simply reproduced 90% of Mark? The author of Matthew is famous for trawling through the Hebrew Bible and inventing stories to make Jesus look like the Messiah, Matthew 'Fictional Prophecies' have been an embarrassment to Christian scholars for centuries.Matthew 1:23 'The Virgin Birth'
Matthew 2:17-18 'Slaughter of the Innocents'
Matthew 2:15 'Out of Egypt I have called my son'
Matthew 2:23 He will be called a Nazarene
Matthew 12:15 Not in the Old Testament
Matthew 27:9 Misquotes a prophet,Matthew is a terrible mess of a book, his invention of a guard at Jesus' tomb is an explicit lie. Today it is known that the KJV of 1611 was the most erroneous translation of all time!If the 1611 was so perfect why are there so many subsequent editions ?I find it particularly amusing that the 1611 version gave Tiglath-Pileser as two different people!You seem to have difficulty in understanding that the original KJV would have to be based on texts available in 1611, and that the modern versions have access to many more documents that the KJV compilers did.Remember that we do not have ANY original texts, so we CANNOT know for certain what they contained.Here's a poser for you: Should Mark's gospel finish at chapter 16 verse 8?

Hi TL I just wanted to point out that there was no reconciliation needed between these two passages.My apologies if I've offended you Respectfully, Paul

Apology accepted. Thank you. My apologies, too, that you had to be the one to get the complaint. If you were the first or even just the 40th to try to reconcile those two passages to me, I'd have said thank you and let it slide, so it's not you, anyway, it's the accumulation.

Hi Dan Good Question. It's very evident that the Bible contains some "unique" books, chapters, and passages that are quite amazing and sometimes mind boggling. After 30 yrs. of research though I've come to belive it to be the literal, inspired, written word of God. Given to us as a revelation of the origin and destiny of all things, through many different authors in their own unique styles and languages, with the Divine inspiration guarenteeing unity of truth throughout its wholeness. God is truth and therefore his inspiration is true. Titus 1:2 tells us that God cannot lie, therefore if God cannot lie his inspiration cannot lie.One thing I've always tried to do is to "literalize" instead of "spiritualize". My Approach Is: Take the Bible Literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then search for the literal truth it intends to convey.As a literary composition it's unrivaled with 66 books, over 40 authors and over a period of 1800 years. It contains various literary forms-- history, biography, poetry, proverbial sayings, hymns, letters, laws, parables, riddles, allegories, prophecy and other forms of human expression all testifying to the same thing. That is to reveal the mind of God, the state of humanity, the way of salvation, the penalty for sin, and the happiness for believers. Because it's inspired 2Tim.3:16..and God cannot lie Titus 1:2Paul

But again... isn't this using passages from the Bible to show that the Bible is truthful?Why couldn't 2Tim.3:16 and Titus 1:2 be lies, or at least metaphors, as well?------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll