2 edits
Originally posted by Colettiif you take the verse at face value and interpret it strictly literally, then the verse is making the same fallacious argument as the rock question. which just means that the verse is literal nonsense. and yes, as you say, if one were to claim that the verse is literally correct, then his claim would likewise be nonsense.
To asse(r)t that the verse means that to God all things are possible including the impossible is to make the same fallacious argument as the rock question.
i think this does not necessarily invalidate the bible or the message it is trying to get across -- as you say, the verse arguably makes sense if we relax our interpretation. but it shows that any person who claims that the bible is literally inerrant is wrong.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSee my post above. The verse denies the concept of impossibilty as it pertains to God. The verse is attributed to Jesus i.e. God himself. I see no contradiction in an omnipotent God saying nothing is impossible to it; that would seem to be the meaning of omnipotent. There are many reasons to believe Biblical inerrancy is not a viable doctrine based on the words of the Bible (which have express contradictions) but this verse isn't one of them.
if you take the verse at face value and interpret it strictly literally, then the verse is making the same fallacious argument as the rock question. which just means that the verse is literal nonsense. and yes, as you say, if one were to claim that the verse is literally correct, then his claim would likewise be nonsense.
i think this does n ...[text shortened]... ation. but it shows that any person who claims that the bible is literally inerrant is wrong.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblestoo true...
So, are you saying that the verse is a tautology, since it is refering to only possible things and calling them possible?
Are you saying the verse really means, "With God, all possible things are possible?"
It may as well read, "With Dr. Scribbles, all possible things are possible," under your interpretation. Either one makes the same emp ...[text shortened]... possible."
Surely the Bible offers more substance than mere formal truths, doesn't it?
it's actually difficult, i think, to get around the tautology argument and still maintain that the verse makes a true claim. after all, for the verse to be true, 'things' can only be referring to things which are possible, and the 'all' part can only be referring to, er...well, all of them. so that leaves us with 'all possible things' or some equivalent variation. and that then leaves us with 'all possible things are possible' or some equivalent variation. such insight...
Originally posted by LemonJellothe verse is "Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." "
if you take the verse at face value and interpret it strictly literally, then the verse is making the same fallacious argument as the rock question. which just means that the verse is literal nonsense. and yes, as you say, if one were to claim that the verse is literally correct, then his claim would likewise be nonsense.
i think this does n ...[text shortened]... ation. but it shows that any person who claims that the bible is literally inerrant is wrong.
For this to be nonsense, just say all things are possible includes the impossible. All things is all things. The impossible thing is nothing. To include the impossible in the definition of all things is a logical contradiction.
God can do all things simply means that all things that can be done, can be done by God. The literal interpretation is actually correct.
Read the verse. What falls under the category "all things" and what does not. Can an impossible thing be included? No. The impossible thing is not a thing. And "all things" can only contain "things." So the literal interpretation is the only rational interpretation.
If you disagree, do more than make an assertion - show why you disagree.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderi did see your above post, and i am not sure what point you are trying to make. scribs' post about tautology was not suggesting that the verse is tautological -- only that if we interpret it as coletti seemed to be suggesting, then it becomes tautological.
See my post above. The verse denies the concept of impossibilty as it pertains to God. The verse is attributed to Jesus i.e. God himself. I see no contradiction in an omnipotent God saying nothing is impossible to it; tha ...[text shortened]... ch have express contradictions) but this verse isn't one of them.
There are many reasons to believe Biblical inerrancy is not a viable doctrine
i agree.
but this verse isn't one of them.
i disagree. 'all things' encompasses all possible things and all impossible things. the statement 'with god, all possible things and all impossible things are possible' is literally false, regardless of who says it.
Originally posted by Colettii think that all things, interpreted literally, means just that -- all things. since every thing is either logically possible or logically impossible, then all things literally means all possible things and all impossible things.
the verse is "Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." "
For this to be nonsense, just say all things are possible includes the impossible. All things is all things. The impossible thing is nothing. To include the impossible in the definition of all things is a logical contr ...[text shortened]... interpretation.
If you disagree, do more than make an assertion - show why you disagree.
i am not sure why you say 'the impossible thing is nothing'. there are things which are logically impossible. these things are not nothing, and they do not form a null set.
therefore, when it states 'all things are possible', this is literally false, just as the equivalent 'all things that are possible and all things that are impossible are possible' is literally false.
that is why i think the literal interpretation is not correct. the passage may, however, make sense if you relax the interpretation.
Originally posted by LemonJelloA lot of people on this site get tied up in semantics and what they perceive as "formal" logic and believe that their interpretation is the only "logical" one possible. The verse only becomes tautological if you accept the limiting proposition that because Man perceives some things as "logically impossible" they must be so and for someone(thing) to assert otherwise is "literally false". I do not think Jesus as God felt himself bound by what Man thought was "logically impossible" and therefore I think the statement is literally true if you accept that Jesus was God and that God is omnipotent.
i did see your above post, and i am not sure what point you are trying to make. scribs' post about tautology was not suggesting that the verse is tautological -- only that if we interpret it as coletti seemed to be suggesting, then it becomes tautological.
[b]There are many reasons to believe Biblical inerrancy is not a viable doctrine
i agree ...[text shortened]... things and all impossible things are possible' is literally false, regardless of who says it. [/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderi think i see what you are saying.
A lot of people on this site get tied up in semantics and what they perceive as "formal" logic and believe that their interpretation is the only "logical" one possible. The verse only becomes tautological if you accept the limiting proposition that because Man perceives some things as "logically impossible" they must be so and for someone(th ...[text shortened]... ink the statement is literally true if you accept that Jesus was God and that God is omnipotent.
i am working under a proposition that if a claim leads to logical contradiction, then that claim is literally false. i am also working under the usual definition of 'omnipotence' as the ability to do anything that is logically possible -- even an omnipotent being is constrained by logic and cannot do things that are logically impossible. i do not see any reason why god, if he exists, should not be constrained by logic. any omnipotent being, under the usual definition of omnipotent, is constrained by logic by definition.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou asset that all things includes impossible things. This may be true by your personal definition, but we are trying to understand what the verse is saying. The verse say that "all things" are "possible things." It does not say "all things" are possible and impossible things. So your reading is not the literal reading, it is your adding more to the verse than what it says.
i think that all things, interpreted literally, means just that -- all things. since every thing is either logically possible or logically impossible, then all things literally means all possible things and all impossible things.
i am not sure why you say 'the impossible thing is nothing'. there are things which are logically impossible. these t ...[text shortened]... pretation is not correct. the passage may, however, make sense if you relax the interpretation.
Now you will say this is a tautology. Well it would be if that was all the verse said, but it says more. Logically (literally) it says:
(all things) are (possible things) with God.
In other words God can do all possible things. (Not - God can do all possible and impossible things.) The point Christ is making is some things which man can not do, God can do, because God can do all possible things. This is the whole argument as it is taken by a literally interpretation without adding illogical additions.
1 edit
Originally posted by Colettigood post. i think i see exactly where you are coming from now. i still disagree with you.
You asset that all things includes impossible things. This may be true by your personal definition, but we are trying to understand what the verse is saying. The verse say that "all things" are "possible things." It does not sa ...[text shortened]... rally interpretation without adding illogical additions.
Logically (literally) it says:
(all things) are (possible things) with God.
i agree with this.
In other words God can do all possible things.
no. this is where i still disagree. the verse literally does not translate into this statement. i would go further and say that taken literally, the verse does not state anything about god's ability to do anything. all it says is that with god, all things are possible (things). this is literally false because it would entail that all impossible things are also possible.
i hope you don't think i am trying to be stubborn here. i think your interpretation of the verse makes a lot of sense; i just don't think it is a literal interpretation.
Originally posted by ColettiA typically absurd post from Coletti; he adds words to the verse and then accuses someone else of "adding more to the verse than it says"! The verse says:
You asset that all things includes impossible things. This may be true by your personal definition, but we are trying to understand what the verse is saying. The verse say that "all things" are "possible things." It does not say "all things" are possible and impossible things. So your reading is not the literal reading, it is your adding more ...[text shortened]... ment as it is taken by a literally interpretation without adding illogical additions.
With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Unless the word "all" is given a non-standard meaning as in "not all", the verse obviously means what it says. It doesn't say as Coletti ridiculously asserts "God can do all possible things" it says, literally "with God all things are possible". These sentences are NOT equivalent and Coletti needs a reading comprehension course.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " .... it says, literally "with God all things are possible".
A typically absurd post from Coletti; he adds words to the verse and then accuses someone else of "adding more to the verse than it says"! The verse says:
With men this is impossible; but with God all things are pos ...[text shortened]... NOT equivalent and Coletti needs a reading comprehension course.
...... literally ....... No1 is teaching how a literalist should read the Bible ..... lol ......
Coletti, give'm hell ....... you're clearly not a literalist.