Jump to content


Photo

Why Not Take The Bible Literally?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 January 2007 - 04:14 AM

Let's see the other side defend why the bible "should not" be taken literally. With evidence to why as well.

#2 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2007 - 06:02 PM

Well, I can take a stab at an answer just to keep things moving along.

Some people see more than just the 2 camps: literalist and liberal.

I see room for more than 2 camps.

For instance, Some God-fearing born-again evangelicals take the Bible very very seriously and believe that it is 100% divinely inspired and is the word of God (in that sense it is literal at least).

But they aren't afraid to say that some imagery exists in the Bible either.

They see images in statements for example ... that God breathes fire or that he is a door.


In fact, mainly because the Bible must tell us limited humans about the knowledge and power of the infinite ... and convery important and wonderous messages ... it must serve God's purposeful inspiration to speak once in a while in images that we can better understand.


Such Evangelicals are not afraid of the slippery slope ... that they risk going liberal just because they ask how hell can be both a great fire and a great darkness .. maybe there could be some imagery there too. the point is that it is a bad place that God does not want us to choose and His word warns us repeatedly that our choice of acceptance and our faith in Jesus is so important to lead us away from Hell.

That's not to say that imagery where it is seen is not God-inspired imagery...

In some cases it may not be entirely certain what is imagery such that all faithful agree on it. That to me is secondary to God's message and the message conveyed by the Word of God.

... the point is these people are not on an dangerous hunt for imagery to undercut the message ... a hunt so that they can backslide and print a get-out-of-orthodoxy-free card ..

... the point is ... they see imagery as part of the true message and ambiguity a relic of our limited ability to fully comprehend the actual divine message.

I am a "big-tent literalist" and ... as long as the full message is intact ... that dilemma of man's sin and the offer of salvation is not impaired, and God's plan is not held back ...

I can sit in a pew along with an less literal Evangelical who doesn't accept that a snake walked while I do see it more literally .. as long as they see the inspired message that man fell from a God-intended wonderful life to his own sinful selfish life and we are condemned by our sinful nature and our built-in desire to accept Satan's way. Redemption by faith and not by merit of our own... is the one wonderful way out through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If we agree on essentials that's the point ... we all know that in spite of big emotion and attachment to sect, really little hangs on items such as forms of church governance and itemized questions of which verse is in some inessential way changes some liturgical point.

If an evangelical is less literal than me ... I can accept that and not feel "I am right and he is wrong" or less of a purist.

In no way would I call that person a liberal. Less literal than me does not mean less faithful or a seeker of false redemption. Just that she or he is reacting honestly to God's Word differently than I happen to do ... in some particular small matter. Not worth arguing over between believers.

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:11 AM

How about Mark 4:3-8? This is clearly not intended to be taken literally, but to express how people accept an idea or story.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:09 PM

How about Mark 4:3-8?  This is clearly not intended to be taken literally, but to express how people accept an idea or story.

View Post


3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:

4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:

6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.


The "sower" is the representation of the Christian.

Types of ground:

1) Way side (not planted in the word, the fowls are a representation of non- believers who can take your faith (the seeds of the word) away because there were not planted at all).
2) Stony ground (not allowing the word to take root).
3) Ground full of thorns (wanting to have sin with the word, not wanting to change).
4) Good ground (allowing the word to take root, and trying to change as the word tell us to).

The seeds the sower plants can also apply to how the sower plants the seeds of the word in others.

Example: If I try to force religion down your throat, and you don't want it. As the sower I have tried to force the word of God to grow on stony ground. The stone is the representation of your heart that is hardened to the word, therefore it cannot take root.

The message of the example is that the Christian is supposed to test the heart of a person to see where the heart is. If it is stony (hardened), then they will not receive therefore it's not good to try and force it.

Also that only God can prepare the ground for such things when the ground (heart) is not ready (hardened). So prayer is better than force. Because force can separate the person from God further, as is what happens because a lot of Christians do not understand this principle. Because when a person is direct enough to say: I'm not interested, they are actually telling you the condition of their heart. The Christian (sower) can ask one or two more questions to be sure. And if they get the same type of response, leave it alone.

So on the other hand for the non-believer. they should understand that not every Christian understands this princible. And the only reason they push so is because they are truly worried about your spiritual well being. But no one has taught them those verses so they don't know when to quit pushing because it's a waste of time.

This is why you won't see me pushing salvation on every non-believer that comes in here. Through debate I can determine what kind of ground (condition of the heart) the person has, and if it is warranted. Or not.

Side note: This is also another reason Evolution is a religion. It condition the heart to become hard (reject) against the word of God. Anything that can condition the heart is a tool being used for that purpose. Because religion deals with faith. And faith requires your heart. And is the reason when someone is saved, Christ lives in your heart because that's where all faith is based.

Anything that can replace one faith for another is a religion. This is why evolution works so well in making one lose their faith in Christ. Because they are replacing one faith for another. The heart can only have faith in one thing at a time. This is why the word of God gives this warning:

mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Notice the word hate, and the word love. The heart also deals in both. Faith is what you have decided to give your heart to. And faith is also a part of love (am emotion of the heart). So if you decide to have faith in one thing, but not the other. You will also hate the one thing that comes against the thing you have decided to have faith in (God, or Evolution). And because both require faith, which requires a heart felt commitment (because faith always deals with the heart). Love for the one starts to dominate the other. And the one you allow to become your master determines which one you will also grow to hate.

This is why no one seems to understand why the evolution vs creation debates can become so heated. It's not always a clash of truth, but a clash of faith. It's a fight for what will become the master of your heart..

Example:
A person becomes saved. But is not well rooted in the word. After many weeks of debating on forums, they start to question their faith in God and creation (the begining of trading one faith for another). So if they lose faith in God, then this heart felt faith has to be replaced with another faith (a trade off for who will be the master of that faith, which also will be the master of you love for it).

Anytime the love of your heart has been changed, you heart feels betrayed (broken). This is why the conversion from believing in God, to believing evolution, becomes hateful and personal. And is why some are driven to get back at the other, and all that is connected to it (the driving force).

You will find that the ones who harbor the most hate for God and all that is connected to God. Are the ones who knew God at one time. And because they allowed what used to be the love of their heart, which requires faith. To be replaced by something else. They get the feeling of betrayal, resentment, and all that goes along with the love of a broken heart.

Faith of the heart that is broken, is love that is broken. So now read this verse again and see if it does not make more since:

mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Your heart can only have one true faith, and one true love.

#5 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 February 2007 - 05:02 PM

My point was there are lots of passages in the bible that are not under any circumstances to be taken literally.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked. I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

#6 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

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

Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:43 PM

My point was there are lots of passages in the bible that are not under any circumstances to be taken literally.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked.  I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

View Post


The Bible is meant to be taken in the context in which it was written (the inspired word of God).

When you take anything out of context, you change what it means. In order to answer the question at the start of this thread, you will need to keep your Biblical references and quotes within the context of the Bible, otherwise it will become a red herring or a smokescreen.

#7 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

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

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:28 AM

How about Mark 4:3-8?  This is clearly not intended to be taken literally, but to express how people accept an idea or story.

View Post


As I gave more thought to what you said here, it dawned on me, you’re very choice of verses (which you later claim you merely selected at random – quoted below) strongly supports the notion the Bible should be taken literally.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked.  I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

View Post


You cited Mark 4:3-8, the Parable of the Soils. The interesting part comes a few verses later – Mark 4:10-12:

(10) And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. (11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: (12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins forgiven them.

(see also Math 13:10-13 and Luke 8: 9-10.)

So what exactly is Jesus saying here? Contrary to what many think, the messages in the parables are not parables to help all listeners to understand. Those who are disinclined to believe, will not understand. The “mysteries of the Kingdom” are couched in parables so those with “spiritual ears” (Math 4:9, Mark 13:9, Luke 8:9) will comprehend.

I find it a little more than co-incidental, the verse you believe you randomly selected and your question/comment actually lends support to why the Bible should be taken literally.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 February 2007 - 02:27 AM

My point was there are lots of passages in the bible that are not under any circumstances to be taken literally.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked.  I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

View Post


Well when you are not a child of God, you can't see beyond the words. Knowing the meanings of the words beside what they stand for in a natural sense. Gives a person spiritual insight. It's kinda like being able to apply quamtum meachanics to something, and the other person cannot. It's a type of knowledge you have to have, but without the wisdom to understand, it does you no good.

Example: You probably just saw the sower (the planter, or farmer) and his seed (plant seed). And how where the seed went affected how a plant survives and how it grows. That would be a natural interpretation of the word.

Me knowing that the sower is the representation of a Christian who decides to spread God's word (the seed). Can take the meaning to a whole new level because I see what you cannot. It does not mean you are stupid, or ignorant. It means without the understanding of the word on more than one meaning (both temporal and spiritual), you will never see what I see. So your response about me reading more into it than was there, is a expected one.

This is also why God's word says: They thought themselves wise and became fools. You might think that is a mockery, it is more of a warning than anything else.

A fool when God refers to one. Is someone who had a choice to miss hell, but ended up there anyway.

Just like the word reprobate. Would you say that is a slur? Or what?

#9 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 10:31 AM

My point was there are lots of passages in the bible that are not under any circumstances to be taken literally.

View Post


On this point, you are absolutely correct. In some parts of scripture, let’s say the parables of Jesus for instance, they are intended as metaphors. He clearly stated so many times, and explained why He was speaking in parables.

Where you are incorrect is in the fact that, when Jesus used a parable as a teaching device, He intended the outcome to be literal! For instance, your example of Mark 4:3-8. Jesus used this metaphor to show the many ways a message is received. But, he intended the message to be taken literally when He followed it up with "He who has ears to hear, let him hear". Especially His emphasis on the correct way to receive the word! If you remember right, He went on to explain it in more detail in verses 13 through 20.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked.  I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

View Post


Choose any one you like, they are all intended to be lessons taken literally.

#10 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 11:51 AM

For instance: In Matthew 16, the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus to test Him. And, as usual, Jesus used a metaphor with obvious ramifications to set them straight. It was an allegory, but the meaning was quite literal. Then, when He left them, He used a colloquialism to warn His disciples against the deceit of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This was basically a simplistic allegory, but they didn’t get it. So, He had to go into a plainer (or simpler) explanation when He said “How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

But, when Jesus also references Deut. 8:3 in Luke 4:4, or Deut. 6:13 in Luke 4:8, or Psalm 91:11,12 in Luke 4:11, He didn’t utilize metaphor’s at all. He quoted these Old Testament verses literally and He did so regularly. And it is the same when he referenced Exodus 20:13 from Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:14 from Matthew 5:27, Hosea 6:6 from Matthew 9:13, or Micah 7:6 from Matthew 10:36 (etcetera, etcetera…) I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

This whole “Allegorical vs. Literal” interpretation argument is easily refutable because Jesus is the “Literal” Interpretation of the “Living God”! There are absolutely no references by Jesus, of the old testament, that cannot be taken literally!

#11 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:44 AM

My point was there are lots of passages in the bible that are not under any circumstances to be taken literally.

Also I think you read way to much into the passage I picked.  I just plucked one at random, I could have chosen many more.

View Post


Do you have better examples?

#12 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2009 - 03:53 AM

There is one major reason in my opinion why the Bible should not be taken literally, and others which branch off.

That is; the Bible was written by man, regardless of theological belief, that is a fact.

As the Bible was written by man, it was open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

Also, on the same train of thought, the 'official' writings of the Bible have been translated from Aramaic, through Greek to Latin, and later the Modern Languages.

Things get lost in transcribed translation.

For example; I speak fluent French and passable German.

Despite this, I can't translate directly from French to German, I have to translate French-English and THEN to German or vice-versa. quite often this process changes subtle meanings in words and phrases.

As I understand it, this is how the Bible was written.

This is one reason why I believe the Bible should not be taken literally.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:20 AM

There is one major reason in my opinion why the Bible should not be taken literally, and others which branch off.

That is; the Bible was written by man, regardless of theological belief, that is a fact.

As the Bible was written by man, it was open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

Also, on the same train of thought, the 'official' writings of the Bible have been translated from Aramaic, through Greek to Latin, and later the Modern Languages.

Things get lost in transcribed translation.

For example; I speak fluent French and passable German.

Despite this, I can't translate directly from French to German, I have to translate French-English and THEN to German or vice-versa. quite often this process changes subtle meanings in words and phrases.

As I understand it, this is how the Bible was written.

This is one reason why I believe the Bible should not be taken literally.

View Post


Be that as it may, Let's put to the test if the the God of the Bible actually inspired man to write it.

I will use the subject of creation since it is what most atheist-evolutionist and agnostics have a problem with.

1) Science knows that to create a universe that three things are needed. Time, space, and matter. Without time when would you create it? Without space where would you put it? And without matter what would you create?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

a) Beginning = time existing.
b) Heaven = space to put the creation.
c) Earth = matter to create.

Man not knowing the laws of physics, nor peered into space could some how know all of these? No. Only if they were inspired by one who did. But let's take his a little deeper and see if God's math is also in the first verse. God likes to work in trinities with things that concern life. So let's see.

Time has there parts:
a) Past.
b) Present.
c) Future.

Space has 3 dimensions:
a) Breadth.
b) Width.
c) Height.

Matter comes in three forms:
a) Solid.
b) Liquid.
c) Gas.

And the earth is the third planet from the sun.
And water takes 3 molecules to create.

So we have the knowledge of God given unto man to write that which he knows not of. And then we have the math of God worked out in trinities. So we now have the basics to make a universe.

2) Order of things. You have to have light before you can create life.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

To put God's signature on His creation, what should God do during His creation to show He created it? Make light with no sun. Out of the two things present (earth and God), which can emit light that could sustain life?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

And can the light of God's glory sustain life?

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

3) Why does the first light need to be separated to create darkness?

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Revelation 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

God's light has no darkness so darkness has to be created.

4) But why use God's light during creation when the sun would have been just as good?

This is because the 3 heavens (3 realms or parallel universes) were being created.

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, such an one caught up to the third heaven.

In the spiritual realm, light an darkness have different meanings.

a) Light = good.
b) darkness = evil.

So we have realms being created.

a) Spiritual darkness = Hell.
b) Physical and spiritual light and darkness = Where we are.
c) Spiritual light only = Where God is.

In fact all through Genesis 1, heaven remains singular. It does not become plural until Genesis 2:1.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

a) Heavens = plural meaning more than one.
b) Host of them = each one was filled. Which also tells us when the angels were created, and when hell was created. And that Lucifer's fall was during the creation which puts him on this planet in time to tempt Eve.

5) But what about some of the geological stuff that there is evidence of like Pangaea?

In Genesis 1:2, it is made clear that the whole earth is covered in water. Which means the earth during creation was one a solid mass.

In Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The water was to recede underground so that land could appear. What happens to the earth's crust when that much water goes under it? It expands. This is the first expansion which made the super continent.

And because the flood consists of more water condensed out of our atmosphere due to a barometric drop. The earth had to expand again to receive it. Which made what we now see.

6) More advanced knowledge.

How would man, back when the God's word was written, know things about space when man had not even peered into it yet?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Here we see God assigning movement to things in order to keep time (day, night, seasons, and years). How would such things be known when no one has seen this?

7) But what about the light that was to far away to give light upon the earth?

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Making something so means it was not so. So light was "made" to shine upon the earth by all objects created. Doing this shows that God knew this would be a problem, so He solved it. Besides, why create things in the heavens no one can see?

Etc....

So if the Bible is so far off, explain all these things?

#14 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:33 AM

So if the Bible is so far off, explain all these things?

View Post


I never said the Bible was off, nor do I claim to be an expert in astro-physics, geology, paleantology, or theology.

All I was saying in my post is that the Bible was written by man, and even the most conservtive Christian, Jew, or Muslim must agree that man is a being of faults, ergo a book which was written by MAN was open to mis-representation and manipulation, as well as mis-translation, regardless of whether it was divinly inpired or not.

Men decided what was and was not included in the NT.

With those potential flaws, in my opinion the Bible should be treated as a guide and not a literal interpretation.

#15 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:34 AM

There is one major reason in my opinion why the Bible should not be taken literally, and others which branch off.

That is; the Bible was written by man, regardless of theological belief, that is a fact.

View Post

Your post was written by man, so we shouldn't take any of it literally, huh?

You seem to be off-target. Man can and frequently does write and speak literally. You have simply listed "reasons" you'd like folks to think they shouldn't trust the Bible. These belong in another thread. None of them are valid here.

As the Bible was written by man, it was open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

Also, on the same train of thought, the 'official' writings of the Bible have been translated from Aramaic, through Greek to Latin, and later the Modern Languages.

Things get lost in transcribed translation.

For example; I speak fluent French and passable German.

Despite this, I can't translate directly from French to German, I have to translate French-English and THEN to German or vice-versa. quite often this process changes subtle meanings in words and phrases.

As I understand it, this is how the Bible was written.

This is one reason why I believe the Bible should not be taken literally.

View Post

That's more than one reason, but as I said, they're all off-target and off-topic.

#16 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:43 AM

Your post was written by man, so we shouldn't take any of it literally, huh?


I don't claim that my post is divine.

That's more than one reason, but as I said, they're all off-target and off-topic.


The title of this thread is 'Why Not Take The Bible Literally?'

I was responding to the question with my reasons as to why I think that the Bible should not be taken literally.

How is that 'off-target', and 'off-topic'?

:blink: :huh:

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 06:00 AM

I was responding to the question with my reasons as to why I think that the Bible should not be taken literally.

How is that 'off-target', and 'off-topic'?

:blink:   :huh:

View Post

Hi John,

I think what these guys are getting after is whether the fact that men writing scripture has the intellectual stopping power to convince people not to take it literally. Do you know what I mean?

While it is true that in simplest terms the Bible was written down by people, is this a clincher? Are there other factors that could render this aspect irrelevant? If so, why should it be a dominant factor in the first place?

Adam

#18 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2009 - 06:46 AM

While it is true that in simplest terms the Bible was written down by people, is this a clincher? Are there other factors that could render this aspect irrelevant? If so, why should it be a dominant factor in the first place?


I believe strongly that, as far as I am concerned, this is a clincher.

If one looks at the First Council of Nicaea, there were clear 'political' schisms when deciding which writings were canon and which were heresy.

Men made those decisions based on what they believed were in the best interests of the people at that time.

How do we KNOW that what was decided to be canon was legititmatly canon, and what was decreed to be heresy was not infact, at least potentially canon?

For this simple reason, I stand by my assertation that we cannot take the Bible literally based on the principle that it may have been manipulated, mis-represented, or (the lesser of three 'evils') mis-translated.

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 June 2009 - 06:55 AM

How do we KNOW that what was decided to be canon was legititmatly canon, and what was decreed to be heresy was not infact, at least potentially canon?

View Post

Your use of the word 'know' above peaks my curiosity. What do you mean by 'know'. Is this coming from someone who has a relativistic mindset or do you have actual epistemological criteria that are reasonable for finding truth? Do you even believe in things being objectively true or do you believe truth is an illusory thing conjured by the mind?

#20 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 June 2009 - 07:09 AM

Your use of the word 'know' above peaks my curiosity. What do you mean by 'know'. Is this coming from someone who has a relativistic mindset or do you have actual epistemological criteria that are reasonable for finding truth? Do you even believe in things being objectively true or do you believe truth is an illusory thing conjured by the mind?

View Post


My usage of the word KNOW has no hidden agenda. I'm simply asking a question.

How do we know whether what was decreed to be heresy was not infact canon or vice-versa?

The answer is, we don't.

Therefore the potential for manipulation is present, ergo so are potential flaws or even untruths.

If that possibilty exists, then how can one take the writing literally.

Is there not even the potential that the writings could have been mis-represented or tampered with?

I'm sure you would have to agree that the potential is there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users