Originally posted by LemonJello [b]There's no such thing as reading without interpreting.
i would argue that this statement is simply not true. but, moreover, it is beside the point. i think the point AThousandYoung was trying to make is that by "interpret" he meant that DJ2 is drawing conclusions from the bible's passages that do not necessarily follow from strictly a lite ...[text shortened]... s, then there is no need to draw other outside conclusions, or to "interpret" as it was meant.[/b]
There is still a difference between a literal reading and saying that it is literally true. When Christ said "I am the bread" he was not speaking literally - but he was speaking a literal truth.
I'll have to see what DJ was interpreting. But interpreting does not mean "reading into something" what is not there. It means discerning the meaning.
Originally posted by Coletti There is still a difference between a literal reading and saying that it is literally true. When Christ said "I am the bread" he was not speaking literally - but he was speaking a literal truth.
I'll have to see what DJ was interpreting. But interpreting does not mean "reading into something" what is not there. It means discerning the meaning.
A "literal truth"? Please, Col. Just call it a "truth" and be done with this bit of semantic prestidigitation.
Originally posted by johnsteele57368 Actually, the Biblical tradition is along the lines that no one can see the face of God and live. See, e.g., Exodus 33:17-23.
Yes, that implies to sinful man in this world. But you don't need to see God's face only. You can see his handiwork in his creation.
Originally posted by telerion A "literal truth"? Please, Col. Just call it a "truth" and be done with this bit of semantic prestidigitation.
I will if you will, or anyone else who is confused about the difference between a literally reading the Scripture and believing the Scripture is literally true. Not all the texts of Scriptures literal, some are analogical, metaphorical, etc. They are all literally true.
Originally posted by Coletti I will if you will, or anyone else who is confused about the difference between a literally reading the Scripture and believing the Scripture is literally true. Not all the texts of Scriptures literal, some are analogical, metaphorical, etc. They are all literally true.
Well, then are they literally literally literally true as well?
Originally posted by Coletti I will if you will, or anyone else who is confused about the difference between a literally reading the Scripture and believing the Scripture is literally true. Not all the texts of Scriptures literal, some are analogical, metaphorical, etc. They are all literally true.
Well, then are they literally literally literally true as well?
Parsimony, please.
edit: I was going to delete this accidental double post, but the irony is just too funny. 🙂
Originally posted by Coletti I will if you will, or anyone else who is confused about the difference between a literally reading the Scripture and believing the Scripture is literally true. Not all the texts of Scriptures literal, some are analogical, metaphorical, etc. They are all literally true.
I have no clue what makes something 'literally true' to you. Can you elaborate?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I have no clue what makes something 'literally true' to you. Can you elaborate?
I mean that the as someone who believes the Bible is inerrant in it's original writings, that literally all of the propositions of the Bible are true, not just some of them. It is really redundant to say literally true, but I am emphasizing that I do not mean sort of true, or almost true. Technically "almost true" is false, but in a none-technical sense it means probably true.
Originally posted by Coletti God is a God of wisdom, not confusion. I think that the Bible is literally true, not that all the Bible is to be understood as literal. The story of Elisha and the killing of 42 young conveys an event that truly happened. It is a report of something that literally happened.
What do you mean by the "not accurately reported circumstances"? I think the report is true, and accurate. I don't know what the circumstances were (the Bible does not tell us), but what the Bible says is reported correctly. I think maybe we assume the circumstance to easily and come to wrong conclusions. For instance - I doubt calling him "baldy" is a simple insult as it is today. And the there are many interesting details before and after that event.
Can you please elaborate? Are you insinuating that calling someone 'baldy' is worthy of the
death penalty? Are you suggesting that the Bible omitted salient details but included relatively
unimportant ones?
Originally posted by Coletti I mean that the as someone who believes the Bible is inerrant in it's original writings, that literally all of the propositions of the Bible are true, not just some of them. It is really redundant to say literally true, but I am emphasizing that I do not mean sort of true, or almost true. Technically "almost true" is false, but in a none-technical sense it means probably true.
So the Bible is inerrant in it's original writings; however, what those writings mean exactly is up to the reader to determine, aided by a sensation that the reader believes is the Holy Spirit. Once the correct meaning is determined, that meaning cannot be in error, but what that meaning is is not obvious to all people who are capable of reading standard Hebrew (or whatever language the original writings were in), much less those who are reading a translation.
Can we see God?
16 May '05 15:52
Back to Top