Jump to content


Photo

Why A Literal Interpretation?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 20 January 2007 - 07:35 AM

Why must the bible be taken literally? Is a literal acceptance of genesis necessary for salvation?

#2 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 20 January 2007 - 08:12 AM

Why must the bible be taken literally? 

View Post

The Bible is written plainly and straight forward. It’s not written as a book of riddles to be guessed at, nor is it a book of mysteries requiring mystical divinations to gain understanding. The Bible even directs taking a plain, straight forward interpretation.

--- 2 Peter 1:20-21 -- (20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

--- 2 Cor 4:2 -- But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

--- Proverbs 8:8-9 -- (8) All the word of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing forward or perverse in them. (9) They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.



God does not change over time or generations, so why should the interpretation of His words change over time or generations?

--- Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

--- Malachi 3:6 -- For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

--- Hebrews 13:8 -- Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and for ever.

Is a literal acceptance of genesis necessary for salvation?

View Post

I leave your second question for others to address.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 20 January 2007 - 12:16 PM

Why must the bible be taken literally?  Is a literal acceptance of genesis necessary for salvation?

View Post


Why must Darwin's book be taken literally to accept that everything evolved?

For either you believe or you don't.

Can you have evolution without natural selection?
Can you have evolution without survival of the fittest?

It's the same reason you can't believe God without God's creation.

Example: God's says He is the Alpha and the Omega. Creation is considered His Alpha. Can God only be the Omega?

So if you deny God's beginning, you also deny His ending. Which also means you deny all that's in between. Which by the way includes salvation. Why? If you deny creation, you also deny who committed the first sin. Which also denies why Christ had to come.

Did you know that Christ shed His blood in the same order of what happened with the first sin?

1) Where was the first sin committed? In the Garden. Where did Jesus first shed blood? In the Garden as He prayed.
2) What was the first curse? That the ground would be cursed with thorns, and that man would have to work by the sweat of his brow. Jesus again shed His blood when a crown was made from the same type of thorns, and the blood ran down over His brow.
3) The first Sin also brought the curse of death. Jesus shed His blood to bring us eternal life. When He rose from the dead (he had to experience death to do it).

So deny creation, and you deny all the reason Christ had to come to earth and do what He did to save us.

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 January 2007 - 04:05 PM

Why must the bible be taken literally?


Because the purpose in writing is to communicate. If you write some information down for someone, just how do expect them to interpret it?

Is a literal acceptance of genesis necessary for salvation?


No, but as any person who is born-again grows in Christ, they will probably understand the necessity for it.

Terry

#5 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 20 January 2007 - 09:15 PM

While I am mostly addressing Ikester in this post, I want you to know that I have read all the other posts on this thread carefully.

Why must Darwin's book be taken literally to accept that everything evolved?

For either you believe or you don't.

Can you have evolution without natural selection?
Can you have evolution without survival of the fittest?

View Post


Darwin's book is a work of science, and is a literal observation of the natural world.

You can have evolution without natural selection and survivall of the fittest, farmers have been selectively breeding cattle for certain traits for eons.


It's the same reason you can't believe God without God's creation.

Example: God's says He is the Alpha and the Omega. Creation is considered His Alpha. Can God only be the Omega?

So if you deny God's beginning, you also deny His ending. Which also means you deny all that's in between. Which by the way includes salvation. Why? If you deny creation, you also deny who committed the first sin. Which also denies why Christ had to come.

Did you know that Christ shed His blood in the same order of what happened with the first sin?

1) Where was the first sin committed? In the Garden. Where did Jesus first shed blood? In the Garden as He prayed.
2) What was the first curse? That the ground would be cursed with thorns, and that man would have to work by the sweat of his brow. Jesus again shed His blood when a crown was made from the same type of thorns, and the blood ran down over His brow.
3) The first Sin also brought the curse of death. Jesus shed His blood to bring us eternal life. When He rose from the dead (he had to experience death to do it).

So deny creation, and you deny all the reason Christ had to come to earth and do what He did to save us.

View Post


A lot of that is open to interpretation, or is doctrine made by men, not the pure words of the bible though. Reading the same text without that doctrine colouring your thinking you could come to a different conclusion.

While the bible may be plainly written, it is difficult for some people to read the old testament and accept everything in there as literal fact.

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:26 AM

While the bible may be plainly written, it is difficult for some people to read the old testament and accept everything in there as literal fact.


That's simply a matter of Faith. People hve been brainwashed that science has proven the Old Testament wrong, and that's simply not true.

Terry

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:28 AM

While I am mostly addressing Ikester in this post, I want you to know that I have read all the other posts on this thread carefully.
Darwin's book is a work of science, and is a literal observation of the natural world.

You can have evolution without natural selection and survival of the fittest, farmers have been selectively breeding cattle for certain traits for eons.
A lot of that is open to interpretation, or is doctrine made by men, not the pure words of the bible though.  Reading the same text without that doctrine colouring your thinking you could come to a different conclusion.


The bible:
1) The bible is God inspired.
2) For some people, it is still up for grabs whether the creation part was written by God, or inspired by God. Me? I really don't know. I never really studied that part of it enough to give an opinion on the matter. I just stick with it all being inspired. Maybe one day I get enough info to give an opinion

Evolution:
1) Can you have evolution without micro, and macro evolution? nope.
2) Without natural selection, and survival of the fittest. The in between missing links would be alive today. And we would not need fossils.

While the bible may be plainly written, it is difficult for some people to read the old testament and accept everything in there as literal fact.

View Post


Yep, and every Christian has the same problem. But that is where faith is involved. And that is why a lot of Christians can't grow in Christ to gain the gifts Christ has to give. Faith sets the foundation so that the gift will not corrupt. Many Christians fall away because they only want to believe what they can see, or feasibly comprehend.

This is why Christ even referred to two types of faith.
1) Ye of little faith.
2) Great faith.

One of the best illustrations of faith is where the disciples saw Jesus walking on water. And one ask Jesus if he could do the same-thing. He did until his mind started to question what was happening. And he began to sink.

He sank in the water because he allowed his mind to question what he could not comprehend. His faith went from being great for stepping out of the boat, to little faith as he question what he was actually doing.

As for the ones in the boat who would not try it also, they are a representation of the Christian faith today. No one is willing to step out of their boat (security blanket) and test their faith in order to strengthen it. And is the reason why the Christian faith looks so weak. The body of Christ is full of people with little faith.

This is also what causes conflict within the body of Christ. As one group gets jealous of another who steps out and shows what great faith will do. To them it's a reminder of their inability to commit to Christ enough, to gain enough faith. to achieve what that level of faith will do.

So they make excuses like:
1) Healing does not happen anymore.
2) God does not do miracles anymore.
3) God does not intervene anymore.
4) God basically does nothing.

This doctrine gets them off the hook as to why they cannot achieve such power through faith. And those who are suck into this, are put in the same boat that the disciples stayed in. If someone challenges their faith to step out of the boat (security blanket). They give one or several of the excuses above. And the rest of the world sees the Christian faith as a bunch of people who won't get out of the boat and show what real faith is.

God's word even warns of this type of thinking:

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

But people like the boat, so they stay in it. And with every generation. The body of Christ looks weaker, and weaker as more take a ride in the boat, and won't step out. And the world sees this, and is why The body of Christ has the problem it does with those who do not understand what kind of faith it takes. And is why faith has become a word of weakness to those who do not believe, nor understand. For they look at the body of Christ and see no one stepping out of the boat. And the ones who do step out, have to understand that in order to stay out of the boat. You have to leave the ones who refuse to get out of the boat behind. And you can't let the words of their little faith affect where you are trying to go.

It works the same way in a secular world as far as success goes. Stick your head above the normal crowd, and someone will take a pot shot at you to try and knock you back down to their level. That's when you learn who your true friends are. For a true friend will push you in the direction you want to go. Whether he goes with you or not.

#8 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 21 January 2007 - 11:45 AM

Darwin's book is a work of science, and is a literal observation of the natural world.

View Post


I must disagree. At the most, Darwin's book is a journal of his observations and speculation as to how things came to be. He had no means to scientifically test anything he had observed.

Likewise Darwin certainly did not see evolution occuring before him. He simply saw a variation between (among other things) finches. To this day, the differences in these finches continues to fluctuate back and forth ( which has been scientifically observed).

Darwin claimed them to be separate species because he didn’t observe them interbreeding. However, that is now known to not be true as there has been observation of limited interbreeding.

http://www.carlzimme...2002_Finch.html

“Cactus finch beaks have been getting significantly blunter year after year, even though selection pressures from the birds' food source have diminished

The reason, the Grants found, is that cactus finches have been fraternizing with ground finches--and the latter's genes are shaping the former's beak.”


http://eebweb.arizon.....rant 2005.pdf

“Speciation is the divergence of two populations of a single species to the point at which they are incapable of exchanging genes and producing fertile offspring…… Darwin’s finches have not reached that point as several of them are capable of exchanging genes even though they do so rarely.”

--- (You can also find the same quote at: http://scienceweek.c.../sw050930-1.htm. I don’t know who copied whom.)

http://www.apologeti...g/articles/3017

The question of whether Darwin’s finches can breed between species has been extensively studied (see Grant, et al., 2003; Grant and Grant, 1996), and it has been shown that it does occur.

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 21 January 2007 - 02:32 PM

I must disagree.  At the most, Darwin's book is a journal of his observations and speculation as to how things came to be.  He had no means to scientifically test anything he had observed.

View Post


Accurate observations are the start of good science. How can we start theorising without good observations?

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 January 2007 - 04:31 PM

Accurate observations are the start of good science.  How can we start theorising without good observations?

View Post


How do you tell, and confirm that such observation are accurate? When absolutes are not a part of science?

Accurate: In science, engineering, industry and statistics, accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual, nominal, absolute, or some other reference, value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurate

Absolute: expressing finality with no implication of possible change.

And even though science teaches no absolutes, they act as if they are full of them. Even in their definitions, and theories. So the word absolute is not applicable to science in any way shape or form. Unless you would like to start claiming that science has crossed that threshold?

#11 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 January 2007 - 03:52 PM

And even though science teaches no absolutes, they act as if they are full of them. Even in their definitions, and theories. So the word absolute is not applicable to science in any way shape or form. Unless you would like to start claiming that science has crossed that threshold?

View Post


The gravitational constant is an absolute figure. It has been measured fairly precisely, but is still open to measurements of greater precision.

Pi is an absolute discrete value. It is the result you will always get if you divide a circle's circumference by its radius. It too is being calculated to an ever finer precision.

Where is your reference for the fact that science contains no absolutes?

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 January 2007 - 08:48 PM

Why must the bible be taken literally?  Is a literal acceptance of genesis necessary for salvation?

View Post


I think everyone has done a good job of answering both questions, but what I would add to the second question is this – while belief in a young earth is not a salvation issue (the thief on the cross had no time to learn about origins), it is a slippery slope issue that can lead to apostasy and loss of salvation (note: many Christians believe salvation cannot be lost, but that is an in-house theological debate for another thread). We have overwhelming evidence of this slippery slope. Churches that are either liberal or completely apostate have one thing in common – virtually without exception, their journey down the slippery slope began with a compromise of Genesis. Find me a liberal church and I'll show you a church that compromosied on Genesis, guaranteed. Tear away the foundation of the Bible and the historical accounts in Genesis, and in the rubble you find people questioning the historical accuracy of the resurrection and water down or ignore other doctrines/laws in the Bible such as abortion (though shalt not murder), H*m*s*xuality, adultery, etc. Unfortunately atheists understand this battle over the Bible's foundations better than most Christians, and they have been very successful at drawing many to their side.

If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do? - Ps 11:3

BTW, Jesus Christ was a Young Earth creationist (see John 5:46, Matt 24:39, etc).

Fred
PS. For an outstanding paper on the scriptural & scientific evidence for creation, please visit this page.

#13 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2007 - 08:17 PM

The gravitational constant is an absolute figure. It has been measured fairly precisely, but is still open to measurements of greater precision.

Pi is an absolute discrete value.  It is the result you will always get if you divide a circle's circumference by its radius.  It too is being calculated to an ever finer precision.

Where is your reference for the fact that science contains no absolutes?

View Post


Jason,

You raise an important point.


I want to pursue your scientific question in the Miscellaneous forum section as it is worth a thread of its own..


http://www.evolution...st=0#entry11370




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users