1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    11 Apr '05 19:401 edit
    If God truly did author the Bible, do you think He meant it to be read following literalism? Would a spiritual being trying to establish a spiritual relationship want you to find premises and use deductive reasoning while reading about Jonah in the belly of a whale?

    And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

    Now, when Jesus said that, do you honestly think He was going to let Peter put literal hooks in the mouths of men?

    My main query is if you all give the Bible a fair chance of imparting a spiritual message to you. Perhaps Jesus meant He would make Peter a man to spread His truth? Hmm.
  2. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    11 Apr '05 19:511 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    If God truly did author the Bible, do you think He meant it to be read following logic? Would a spiritual being trying to establish a spiritual relationship want you to find premises and use deductive reasoning while reading about Jonah in ...[text shortened]... sus meant He would make Peter a man to spread His truth? Hmm.[/b]
    You are confusing logic with literalism. Some things in the Bible are not literal, but the Bible is literally true. But we can not even begin to understand one word of Scripture without being able to reason. And logic is just that, reasoning.

    And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

    This can only be understood by reasoning. There are two propositions. One is Jesus said (the following). This is true. The other is the statement Jesus made. "I will make you to become fishers of men."

    Logic does not demand this to be a literal. Logic demands that we reason what Jesus meant by the statement. For that we need to see how is compares to other scriptures. Why? because it must not contradict any other true statements in scripture.
  3. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    11 Apr '05 19:55
    Originally posted by Coletti
    You are confusing logic with literalism. Some things in the Bible are not literal, but the Bible is literally true. But we can not even begin to understand one word of Scripture without being able to reason. And logic is just that, reasoning.

    [b]And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.


    This can ...[text shortened]... er scriptures. Why? because it must not contradict any other true statements in scripture.
    [/b]
    Thanks for havin' my back. 😉
  4. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    11 Apr '05 20:25
    Originally posted by Coletti
    You are confusing logic with literalism. Some things in the Bible are not literal, but the Bible is literally true. But we can not even begin to understand one word of Scripture without being able to reason. And logic is just that, reasoning.

    [b]And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.


    This can ...[text shortened]... er scriptures. Why? because it must not contradict any other true statements in scripture.
    [/b]
    Why, then, can we not apply this very reasoning to the passage
    where Jesus says 'call no one father?' Darfius insists on a literal
    reading of this passage (despite Jesus's own use of the term father
    in the Prodigal Son passage) and the use of Father Abraham and
    Father Isaac (obviously 'spiritual fathers'😉 in other NT passages
    by 'inspired authors,' not to mention St John's references to 'fathers'
    in his first letter to one of his congregations. Would you say that this
    brand of literalism should be subject to a figurative interpretation?

    Nemesio
  5. Joined
    30 Dec '04
    Moves
    118400
    11 Apr '05 20:281 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    If God truly did author the Bible, do you think He meant it to be read following literalism?

    ...

    My main query is if you all give the Bible a fair chance of imparting a spiritual message to you. Perhaps Jesus meant He would make Peter a man to spread His truth? Hmm.
    Well I don't know which definition of a heathen you're using, but I'll answer the question in the spirit it was asked.

    If God truly did author the Bible, do you think He meant it to be read following literalism?

    I don't believe he did, but on the assumption that he did author the Bible, I've no doubt much of it was NOT meant to be taken literally. Some parts are very specific, which I assume were meant to be taken literally.

    Some Christians, of course, insist that the entire Bible should be read and interpreted literally, otherwise it would be open to mis-interpretation.

    My main query is if you all give the Bible a fair chance of imparting a spiritual message to you.

    Well, I've read the Bible once and although it has a strong spiritual message behind it, IMHO it's flawed in other aspects (eg I like eating prawns too much!!!). Haven't read the Koran or many other religious texts, so I might give them a go one day for completeness sake.

  6. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41172
    11 Apr '05 20:39
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Why, then, can we not apply this very reasoning to the passage
    where Jesus says 'call no one father?' Darfius insists on a literal
    reading of this passage (despite Jesus's own use of the term father
    in the Prodigal Son passage) and the use of Father Abraham and
    Father Isaac (obviously 'spiritual fathers'😉 in other NT passages
    by 'inspired autho ...[text shortened]... say that this
    brand of literalism should be subject to a figurative interpretation?

    Nemesio
    Abraham and Isaac weren't their 'spiritual fathers'. They were their descendants.
  7. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    11 Apr '05 20:431 edit
    If God truly did author the Bible, do you think He meant it to be read following literalism?

    I couldn't even begin to speculate how a Creator God would want you to interpret its text. I could speculate as to how an anthropomorphized god would want you to read the text: Literally where it seems sensible to read it literally. Figuratively when a literal interpretation appears misplaced or absurd.

    Would a spiritual being trying to establish a spiritual relationship want you to find premises and use deductive reasoning while reading about Jonah in the belly of a whale?

    I don't have any clue what a spiritual being is, much less how its thoughts and motives would differ from those of humans. If this being was trying to establish communication with a "great fish" story, then I am completely baffled as to how I am supposed to receive the message.

    Now, when Jesus said that, do you honestly think He was going to let Peter put literal hooks in the mouths of men?

    Nope. I think it is clearly an analogy to fishing. Evangelism : Converts :: Fishing : Fish. Of course, they were using nets, not hooks; but I don't think that he intended for Simon to cast nets upon people either.

    My main query is if you all give the Bible a fair chance of imparting a spiritual message to you.

    I think so. I read it several times. When I read it, it was often with the express purpose of receiving a spiritual message from God.

    Perhaps Jesus meant He would make Peter a man to spread His truth? Hmm.

    Yeah, that's what I get from the passage as well.
  8. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Apr '05 21:12
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Some things in the Bible are not literal, but the Bible is literally true.
    What does is mean for a collection of writings to be "true"?
  9. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    11 Apr '05 21:14
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What does is mean for a collection of writings to be "true"?
    Minimally, that the propositions expressed by the declarative sentences in the text are true (i.e., that they correspond to the facts, or to states of affairs that obtain).
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Apr '05 21:23
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Minimally, that the propositions expressed by the declarative sentences in the text are true (i.e., that they correspond to the facts, or to states of affairs that obtain).
    I assume your criterion requires all such propositions to be be true. That is, if one declaration expresses a falsehood, then the entirety of the collection of writings cannot be said to be "true".

    For example, any book that contains logically inconsistent declarations could not be said to be "true."

    Under this definition, I think it is trivial to demonstrate that the Bible is not "true."
  11. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    11 Apr '05 21:26
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Abraham and Isaac weren't their 'spiritual fathers'. They were their descendants.
    Not of the Gentiles, in any event. And, of course you neglected
    to mention the references to 'fathers' in St John when he is addressing
    a congregation of faithful.

    Nemesio
  12. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    11 Apr '05 21:26
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What does is mean for a collection of writings to be "true"?
    What I mean by the Bible is true means that it is reliable and profitable for the purpose God intended.

    All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    (2Ti 3:16 NASB)


    Some parts have more specific purposes - some for history, some for law, some for meditation, ( maybe some to argue about).
  13. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    11 Apr '05 21:301 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I assume your criterion requires all such propositions to be be true. That is, if one declaration expresses a falsehood, then the entirety of the collection of writings cannot be said to be "true".

    For example, any book ...[text shortened]... think it is trivial to demonstrate that the Bible is not "true."
    If you assume first that it is merely a collection of the writings of men, you are correct. If you believe it is what it claims to be, it is not. If it is God's Word, then it would be not be reasonable to assume it would be self contradicting.

    And in reality, most apparent contradictions are easily resolved by careful reading and reasoning. Other may be difficult, but most have been resolved. But not all of Scripture is clear in it's meaning.
  14. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    11 Apr '05 21:37
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Under this definition, I think it is trivial to demonstrate that the Bible is not "true."
    Well, there is a difference between 'inerrant' literalism and 'infallible'
    literalism.

    In the first, people who subscribe to this belief claim that there is
    no error in the Bible of any sort, be it historicaly or spiritual. Obviously,
    this claim is absurd, as there are all manner of historical errors in the
    Bible, as I have pointed out many times.

    The other only means the the Spiritual truths contained in the Bible
    are without error; so, whether two angels or one angel or no angels
    appeared to Mary (and whoever else, if anyone else) at the tomb is
    correct, that there was a Resurrection is the main Spiritual truth.

    Of course, a person (like #1marauder) could turn to the OT and ask
    what the 'Spiritual truth' of the Midianite massacre was, to which I have
    no answer and no answer has been even remotely satisfactory on this
    site.

    However, a claim that the Bible is 'infallibly' true is considerably harder
    to demonstrate.

    Nemesio
  15. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Apr '05 21:39
    Originally posted by Coletti

    All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
    (2Ti 3:16 NASB)

    This sentence is true.
Back to Top