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

quote:

---

So if he is not real, does not exist in real life, he can only exist in a person's mind or the portrayal of a person's mind in picture or words.

---

Isn't this exactly what we see time and again in both the OT and the NT? Jesus uses words to portay an idea. There are plenty of examples where Jesus uses parables to portay a central idea. If you just focus on trying to force every word into the bible to agree with history or with observed evidence to the contrary, you lose site of the original meaning. The important part is the idea being portrayed and not the legitamicy of the components of that idea. I don't believe that the concept of metaphores would be beyond people of Jesus' era, even if it appears to be beyond the ability of some in this day and age.

Another option is that Jesus could have believed in the falidity of the story of Jonah and portrayed it as an accurate event, even if it is not true. There is nowhere that suggests that Jesus would have had reason to question the accuratness of the OT. IMO people would have been far less likely to question the validity of their religion given that daily life, knowledge and availability of resources would have been much diminished two thousand years ago, and would not have allowed for people to examine religion with as critical of a mind as we are able to do today. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think that covers it all.

---

Hello ICANT. I know that you believe in the 100% truthiness of the bible, but how exactly is referencing the bible proof for the bible? If they had 3 million pairs of shoes and clothing that never would were out why do we not see a collection of five thousand year old shoes and garments that look like they are brand new?

quote:

---

Things changed when they reached their destination.

---

To borrow your statement just six posts previous. Evidence please.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Unless you can demonstrate that Jesus was getting His information from somewhere else besides the book of Jonah, we have to conclude that He regarded the book of Jonah as something that actually happened.

---

We may be able to conclude that he believed in the story of Jonah. That does not mean however that we can conclude that the story of Jonah is 100% factual. Theists believe in the story because the bible says it happened, theists believe the bible says it is in fallible because the bible says it is infallible.There is no reasoning there. Anyone can take in information than spit it out verbadem. A true test I believe would be to take in the information, examine it from all angles and then reach your conclusion based on reason. There have been many who have believed in storys throughout the ages. Just because of their beliefs we can not say that all these stories are true, nor can we say that an openminded and critical examination of these stories would not lead to a better concept of the messages portrayed.

quote:

---

I suspect that this reply may annoy you.

---

Trust me you would have to work real hard to annoy me. I am here to engage in discussion. If I thought the subject matter was annoying, I wouldn't be here in the first place.

quote:

---

I just demonstrated to you some of the reasoning for believing the claims of infallibility.

---

quote:

---

But not simply or solely because it states it so in the Bible. But rather the supporting evidence of fulfilled prophecy of the long period of its composition lends credence to its claims to be of God.

---

Seems to me that this is, in itself another form of circular reasoning. The only prophecies that can be pointed to and said to have been fulfilled are either 1.fulfilled in the bible itself 2.we are still waiting on 3. require some extrodinary suspension of reason and logic.
I don't say this to down play your personal relationship with God. I think that is one of the best things a person can have. (please note I mean any God, not just the God of Abraham) I just believe in taking what you read and what you are told with a grain of salt. The truth is never packaged up in a nice neat bow. Often it requires study, reflection and a critical mind. You have stated that through this process you have determined that you can stop re-examing your spiritual guide and take everything contained within it to be true. This is contrary to my nature however. There is always more that can be learned and many times you can learn more through disbelief than you can through the suspension of the same.

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 . The fact that all prophecys from the bible that can be said to have been fullfilled are fullfilled in the bible itself. You confirmed this with the prophecy of the messiah's lineage, being confirmed by an unsupported claim that he is from the house of David. This is hardly substantiated, the author has Joseph traveling all over the country side for a census that there is no record of. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning that I was talking about. If I read a book where a character has a vision of Nancy Drew solving a mystery and then 10 chapters later she solves the mystery. That is hardly proof that the book is accurate and historically reliable. I won't reitterate the other to points on prophecy since you ellected to just hand wave them away.

quote:

---

Now I think that aside from believing in the fulfillment of certain prophesies there is this transformation. Noticing this inner transformation into His image and knowing that it is not from ourselves that this transformation coming, this further convinces the reader that she is on the right track to believe the Bible.

---

Hardly evidence for accepting what you read from the bible as truth since the same attitude permeates throughout all religion. People who read the Bagavadgita experience the same transformation and enlightenment that readers of the bible experience.
The original point was that most followers of the bible gloss over parts that do not make since or obscure their definition of reality so that the bible can fit even if it is in stark contrast with facts. I believe that they do this because of a deap seated fear that if the bible is not accurate in every detail than it can not be accurate in any way, which to me is rediculous. Every religion contains grains of truth to them. Subjects that speak to the heart and humanity of it's followers. I believe that one of the original points in the OP was that, by structuring your cognetive skills and interpretation so that any examination of the bible is never in contrast with the bible itself. The readers misses out on ques from the author that lead us to a better understanding of the content of the message as opposed to the strict vallidity of the same. From reading through the posts in response on this thread from those who do interpret with a strict literal approach, it seems that this view is very much sopported. Edited by rueh, : Wrong name

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that you are using one part of the bible to support another part is exactlty the circular reasoning that I am talking about. Just because Micha is written before Luke does not mean that credence can be lent to the vallidity of Luke. If the authors of the NT want to make sure that Jesus is preceived as the messiah, of course they are going to make sure that he fullfills OT prophecies.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because any evidence to the contrary is going to be excluded from the same book.

quote:

---

Also Jesus of Nazareth belongs to history not just the Bible.

---

Care to provide some evidence other than the bible that jesus was or did what the bible claims.

quote:

---

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'm sorry that should read Joseph making a fake trip to Bethleham not David. My fault.

All bread no meat.

quote:

---

Potentially embaressing rumors about Jesus.

​

2.) Difficult sayings of Jesus

​

3.) Events which put the disciples in a bad light

​

4.) Sayings of Jesus which seem to contradict the main themes of
the writers.

---

I am sorry but I will try to address your previous posts later when I have more time.I am not trying to ignore your points but I do have to make this quick.

quote:

---

So if you use one of your posts to justify another then that is circular reasoning too?

---

there is quite a bit difference from circular logic and re-itteration.

quote:

---

think you're grasping at straws. I think you are imagining an elaborate conspiracy theory

---

No straws just illustrating that there is wiggel room in the texts.

quote:

---

You've probably been given other examples in the past. I know you have your ready made replies for them.

---

Don't assume so much. You know what can happen then.

quote:

---

Perhaps you care to explain why Western histories calander is divided into BC and AD.

---

Do I need really need to explain why that is a ridiculous statement? The appearence of a comet in the sky is hardly proof of anything. Care to explain, why is it that our calender probably is not accurate on exactly where the dividing line between 1B.C. and 1A.D is than?
You seem to infer the reasons to my posts without an real thought as to any point raised in the thread. That's ok, but just know I am not here to try and waylay you in any way I am just interested in honest conversation. Sorry to make a reply without actualy addressing anything I will post later when I have more time.

How is that not a parable? Every resource I have lists this among one of his parables.
John the Babtist is also mentioned through parables in both Luke and Matthew. Abraham,Isaac and Jacob in LukeEdited by rueh, : No reason given.

No just correcting you.

So let me make sure I understand exactly where you are coming from. You can use any type of imagination/fantasy that your mind can conceive in order to shape the world around you to line up with the bible. Regardless of realized physical aspects of the world.
ex: But reexaming scripture to try and put it in perspective and world view of a culture three thousand years old, is right out?
It seems like you are much more eager to argue semantics and your preferred and acceptable scriptures in order to shift the conversation.Ex: Than you are to be able to talk about ideas, that everything in the bible may not be taken as literal truth. If you would like to believe that everything in the bible is 100% accurate, great your mind is made up. If you want to try and convey ideas to others why you believe this to be true. Circular reasoning, semantics and fantasy may not be the route you need to take. Edited by rueh, : spellingEdited by rueh, : No reason given.

So to reiterate my question. You can use any type of imagination/fantasy that your mind can conceive in order to shape the world around you to line up with the bible. Regardless of realized physical aspects of the world. But reexaming scripture to try and put it in perspective and world view of a culture three thousand years old, is right out? Is that correct?