Jump to content


Literal Biblical Reading.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2009 - 06:59 AM

I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, Creationists are also Biblical literalists.

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, I would like to ask a couple of (rhetorical) questions.

If answered the way I expect (and hope), then that should show that a literal reading (let alone interpretation) of the Bible may be flawed and as such casts a doubt of Creationism.

1. Does Exodus 35:2-3 not state that if one works on the Sabbath they should be put to death.

I'm pretty sure that we're not going to kill someone for trying to earn an extra crust to pay the bills.

2. Exodus 21:15, without any cavaet states that if a child strikes his parents, he shall be put to death.

What if the child has emotional or mental problems. A tad Dracionian methinks even outwith the cavaet I have included.

Now if we are not to take these parts of the Bible literally (and I hope that no-one would advocate killing someone for the 'offences' above), then why does that same logic not follow through.

I'm a bit bored (holed up and waiting for a flight to Kabul tomorrow), and I decided to read through the Bible in my hotel room to try and look at the Bible through a literal reading and interpretation, and I was barely a quarter of the way through the OT when I started jotting down 'contradictions' as to what we know to be right and proper now, and what the Bible actually advocates.

#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:24 AM

I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, Creationists are also Biblical literalists.


As a side note, that's not true by a long shot. I'd need to write a long essay to define what proper biblical interpretation actually comprises ... but suffice to say that there is as much variance in biblical interpretation among creationists as there is among believers in general ... and that's saying a lot.

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, I would like to ask a couple of (rhetorical) questions.


There's nothing wrong with the questions that you have asked.

First, the short answer is that in order to truly understand the Bible you need to take it as a whole. It is, after all, 66 books, penned by 40 authors, spanning thousands of years.

Also, just as an example, couldn't one quote mine "Origin of the Species" and come up with a solid refutation of evolution?

Second, only those who have received the Holy Spirit following an acceptance of Christ by faith can truly understand all of the nuances and meanings of God's word. It just simply is not possible for a non-believer to intellectually understand God's word.

Third, good for you, reading God's word in your spare time. There are certainly a lot worse things you could have been doing by yourself in a hotel room.

Dave

#3 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:32 AM

Third, good for you, reading God's word in your spare time. There are certainly a lot worse things you could have been doing by yourself in a hotel room.


Yea, such as cleaning my Sig and Heckler like I'm supposed to be doing, and stowing my PR-24, Hiatts and other tools of the trade into my luggage.

#4 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 06 October 2009 - 08:59 AM

I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, Creationists are also Biblical literalists.

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, I would like to ask a couple of (rhetorical) questions.

If answered the way I expect (and hope), then that should show that a literal reading (let alone interpretation) of the Bible may be flawed and as such casts a doubt of Creationism.

1. Does Exodus 35:2-3 not state that if one works on the Sabbath they should be put to death.

I'm pretty sure that we're not going to kill someone for trying to earn an extra crust to pay the bills.

2. Exodus 21:15, without any cavaet states that if a child strikes his parents, he shall be put to death.

What if the child has emotional or mental problems. A tad Dracionian methinks even outwith the cavaet I have included.

Now if we are not to take these parts of the Bible literally (and I hope that no-one would advocate killing someone for the 'offences' above), then why does that same logic not follow through.

I'm a bit bored (holed up and waiting for a flight to Kabul tomorrow), and I decided to read through the Bible in my hotel room to try and look at the Bible through a literal reading and interpretation, and I was barely a quarter of the way through the OT when I started jotting down 'contradictions' as to what we know to be right and proper now, and what the Bible actually advocates.

View Post

*
You sure had better not break any laws in Kabul ho ho
*
Right, so all my translations read "he" who strikes father or mother or the esv "whoever" I am sure the law applied to adults.
It is pretty difficult to get into the "way" of how a small nation like Israel was governed, isolated then as it still is and more so from any other nation in the world.

Israel was a nation from one family all the tribes [12] were children of Jacob, in one sense being British and even more Scottish should be a pointer because we are an island race, Scottish people are from recognisable kinships-tribes if you will, it is not that long ago that the headships of those tribes were very powerful in governance.
In Britain as a whole until very modern times the people have been subvervient to an extreme degree in their obedience to authority.
Whether all that was good or right is a very arguable thing, certainly in Britain someone with left wing tendancies like me would point to considerable abuses by the governing power. But my point is people were in the main governable and a law abiding people.

The point I see is that with all the laws that Israel were governed by there was counter provision, nobody at all had to break the law. My grandad used to tell us how he used to go poaching, deer, fish, rabbits anything not as a hobby but out of dire neccesity, if he had been caught he'd have copped it big time but if he didn't poach they starved. With Israel and the sabbath provision for the day of rest was made on the previous day.
There was no aristocracy in those early bible days, it was the people who demanded a king which no doubt created an element of upper and lower class but during the times when God gave the laws they were a nation of brethren set in tribes with each tribe having it's own inheritance in the land, everyone was provided for.

With the sabbath teaching, and incidently if you are looking for contradictions and foibles whether actual or only seeming in the bible you will find them by the bucket load, I do not know of one that cannot be explained with a proper explanation not just spin. But the lesson of the sabbath, and it took us an agricultural society more than three thousand years to discover the science of crop rotation and the seventh year fallow principle.

But there is a much more important spiritual teaching in the sabbath and the absolute neccesity of not working on the sabbath day as it applies to the present dispensation of God's dealings with man, this period of grace since the coming of Christ is the sabbath where no man can or must not work in order to "earn or merit" salvation.

You can try, you can work your butt off in trying to be good enough or holy enough and all you will earn from God is a frown. You won't get stitch from God except on the basis of Calvary, but if you come to God on the basis of what Jesus has done on your behalf in dying for your sins, I was the sinner, I deserved to die, but Jesus died for me in my place. That's where I can hook up with God and He is the source of every provision and every blessing. It can only be got as a free gift.

That is the lesson foreshadowed in the sabbath law.

#5 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 06 October 2009 - 09:02 AM

As a side note, that's not true by a long shot. I'd need to write a long essay to define what proper biblical interpretation actually comprises ... but suffice to say that there is as much variance in biblical interpretation among creationists as there is among believers in general ... and that's saying a lot.
There's nothing wrong with the questions that you have asked.

First, the short answer is that in order to truly understand the Bible you need to take it as a whole. It is, after all, 66 books, penned by 40 authors, spanning thousands of years.

Also, just as an example, couldn't one quote mine "Origin of the Species" and come up with a solid refutation of evolution?

Second, only those who have received the Holy Spirit following an acceptance of Christ by faith can truly understand all of the nuances and meanings of God's word. It just simply is not possible for a non-believer to intellectually understand God's word.

Third, good for you, reading God's word in your spare time. There are certainly a lot worse things you could have been doing by yourself in a hotel room.

Dave

View Post

*
Hi Dave I haven't looked but this sounds worthy of a thread, I mean bible interpretation.

#6 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2009 - 12:39 PM

*
You sure had better not break any laws in Kabul ho ho
*

View Post


I shouldn't imagine I will break any laws, considering that's what I'm going over there for. We're helping teach the ANP modern Police methodology and investigative proceedures.

I'm just off to bed, as I've got a long day ahead tommorrow, but hopefully I might get a few minutes every now and then to check in and see how this thread is going, and perhaps contribute a few other thoughts.

#7 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:25 PM

I shouldn't imagine I will break any laws, considering that's what I'm going over there for. We're helping teach the ANP modern Police methodology and investigative proceedures.

I'm just off to bed, as I've got a long day ahead tommorrow, but hopefully I might get a few minutes every now and then to check in and see how this thread is going, and perhaps contribute a few other thoughts.

View Post

*
I wish you a safe trip and travelling joys.

#8 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 10 October 2009 - 03:34 AM

I hope you fare well and have time to check in. Let us know how you are doing.

On the matter of your query. Dave already mentioned that the Bble may not be taken in pieces. It is a whole document. However, to be fair to your question, at the time of writing, that was the law. And children were very obedient. It is no longer the law.

A literal interpretation requires the whole to be compatible. Many laws were given in the Old Testament that are no longer valid. Some laws are not correctly portrayed. For instance "an eye for an eye" is a limit not a penalty. No more than an eye could be taken if that was the totality of the loss. (Let's apply that to tort reform).

Here is my summary of the Bible. DO NOT take my word for it. Read the original and form your own opion. This simple version has led many to check out the whole. Hope it offers some semblance of an answer.

In brief God said, through many authors: I made all there is for you. Take care of it and follow these simple rules to live healthy and forever. About 2000 years after Earth and the universe, etc., were created God said OK, I gave you free will and you chose not to follow the rules for eternal life, you failed, let's start over (world wide flood).

Not very long after the flood, God said, because you believe you can "make it on your own" here is what you need to do to reclaim eternal life and get into Heaven, which you will find impossible, but please try it for yourself. Ten Commandments and many more to follow.

About 2000 years after the flood, God said, "I told you so". Now that you have seen it is impossible to get into Heaven on your own, I'll make it easy. My Son, Jesus, will make a way for you. All you have to do is accept His offer. There is no "cost" to you. You are not capable of paying the fee.

It has been about 2000 years since then. Yes I believe that is the entire chronological history of Earth.

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 October 2009 - 07:14 PM

I think it would be fair to say that most, if not all, Creationists are also Biblical literalists.

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, I would like to ask a couple of (rhetorical) questions.

If answered the way I expect (and hope), then that should show that a literal reading (let alone interpretation) of the Bible may be flawed and as such casts a doubt of Creationism.

1. Does Exodus 35:2-3 not state that if one works on the Sabbath they should be put to death.

I'm pretty sure that we're not going to kill someone for trying to earn an extra crust to pay the bills.

2. Exodus 21:15, without any cavaet states that if a child strikes his parents, he shall be put to death.

What if the child has emotional or mental problems. A tad Dracionian methinks even outwith the cavaet I have included.

Now if we are not to take these parts of the Bible literally (and I hope that no-one would advocate killing someone for the 'offences' above), then why does that same logic not follow through.

I'm a bit bored (holed up and waiting for a flight to Kabul tomorrow), and I decided to read through the Bible in my hotel room to try and look at the Bible through a literal reading and interpretation, and I was barely a quarter of the way through the OT when I started jotting down 'contradictions' as to what we know to be right and proper now, and what the Bible actually advocates.

View Post


The biggest mistake (or misunderstanding) skeptics, atheists, agnostics (etc...) make in the "Biblical Literalist" argument is in assuming fundamental Christians take the entirety of the Bible as literal. So they will attempt to use something that is meant to be taken figuratively (i.e. a parable for example) and make a fuss about its not being literal. Fundamentalist Christians fully understand the portions of the Bible that are written literally (i.e. historically) such as Genesis, and those to be taken figuratively such as the Song of Solomon, or the Parables of Jesus. But, bear in mind, even the figurative writings and sayings have literal implications.

Having said that, Alcatraz didn't do this here. But, what he did do was misunderstand the difference between B.C. and A.D. Also, the laws were written for fallen man. Grace was provided a means of redemption. Also, it would do him well to read what Jesus said about the Sabbath, and did on the Sabbath...


As an aside, I do pray you have a safe and productive trip Alcatraz. :lol:

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 October 2009 - 09:58 AM

I'm a bit bored (holed up and waiting for a flight to Kabul tomorrow), and I decided to read through the Bible in my hotel room to try and look at the Bible through a literal reading and interpretation, and I was barely a quarter of the way through the OT when I started jotting down 'contradictions' as to what we know to be right and proper now, and what the Bible actually advocates.

View Post


By the by, 99.9% of supposed Biblical contradictions are not contradictions at all. They are more likely, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.


So, if you have any “contradictions” in particular, I’ll be more than happy to assist you. As, I'm sure, others here will do as well.

#11 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2009 - 12:44 AM

Just got back to Scotland ( I hate airports even when they have Wi-Fi) late last night, and I just wanted to ask a question about the following, Ron. (I can't sleep).

By the by, 99.9% of supposed Biblical contradictions are not contradictions at all. They are more likely, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.


On another thread I claimed that the Bible was potentially flawed because of the possibility of mis-translation and manipulation. I was told that was not possible, and that the English translation (and de-facto all other language versions) of the Bible was Divine, ergo flawless.

Does your quote above not contradict the 'flawless' line of reasoning?

#12 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 04 November 2009 - 12:30 AM

Just got back to Scotland ...

View Post

Bible and accuracy. There are so many (I don't know, thousands, hundreds, millions) known original documents that the Bible cannot be denied as original. It may be false, but that would be a grand consiracy. Histoically, the Bible is 100% flawless. Other . . . none contest on other than faith related subjscts.

Larry

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 03:30 AM

Just got back to Scotland ( I hate airports even when they have Wi-Fi) late last night, and I just wanted to ask a question about the following, Ron. (I can't sleep).

By the by, 99.9% of supposed Biblical contradictions are not contradictions at all. They are more likely, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.


On another thread I claimed that the Bible was potentially flawed because of the possibility of mis-translation and manipulation.
I was told that was not possible, and that the English translation (and de-facto all other language versions) of the Bible was Divine, ergo flawless.

Does your quote above not contradict the 'flawless' line of reasoning?

View Post


No, the other .1% can be chalked up to pure laziness on the readers part. And the contradictions you're positing have nothing to do with the flaws you also attempt to promulgate. As I said, bring up all your supposed contradictions if you wish. And if you have any “contradictions” in particular, I’ll be more than happy to assist you with your misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations, laziness and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 03:35 AM

Bible and accuracy.  There are so many (I don't know, thousands, hundreds, millions) known original documents that the Bible cannot be denied as original.  It may be false, but that would be a grand consiracy.  Histoically, the Bible is 100% flawless.  Other . . .  none contest on other than faith related subjscts.

Larry

View Post


Just to be fair Larry, there are only over five thousand supporting documents for the New Testament. Not a million... I didn't want any confusion here...

#15 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:35 AM

Just to be fair Larry, there are only over five thousand supporting documents for the New Testament. Not a million... I didn't want any confusion here...

View Post

You are correct. I was not paying close attention to what I wrote. The number that is in my head is 785. Yeah, I have no idea where it came from.

This I also recall alongside that number. The number of supporting, original documents is greater than that for any other document(s) of similar age.

To route this back toward the thread topic. A literal Bible requires an accurate Bible. I don't mind admitting that the faith portions of the Bible are just that, faith. "God made this all", is a Biblical claim that requires an element of faith for accepting.

The historicity of the Bible though. I don't know of any historical account that has been found innaccurate. The Bible has been used often to point archeology in the correct direction.

#16 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:33 AM


On another thread I claimed that the Bible was potentially flawed because of the possibility of mis-translation and manipulation.
I was told that was not possible, and that the English translation (and de-facto all other language versions) of the Bible was Divine, ergo flawless.

Does your quote above not contradict the 'flawless' line of reasoning?

View Post



No, the other .1% can be chalked up to pure laziness on the readers part. And the contradictions you're positing have nothing to do with the flaws you also attempt to promulgate. As I said, bring up all your supposed contradictions if you wish. And if you have any “contradictions” in particular, I’ll be more than happy to assist you with your misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations, laziness and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.

View Post


But Ron, YOU in the quote above mentioned mis-translation, and I just seized on what YOU said.

I don't need to translate, as the Bible has already translted into two languages I read fluently (English and French) so if there is a mis-translation then that is the fault of the scribe, not the reader.

Surely, Ron, you must agree that any mis-translation is a flaw.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:05 AM

But Ron, YOU in the quote above mentioned mis-translation, and I just seized on what YOU said.

I don't need to translate, as the Bible has already translted into two languages I read fluently (English and French) so if there is a mis-translation then that is the fault of the scribe, not the reader.

Surely, Ron,  you must agree that any mis-translation is a flaw.

View Post


The Bible is translated into many more than two languages Alcatraz. But, the “contradictions” I am speaking of are those of the out of context (purposefully or not) misinterpretations, misrepresentations of the layperson that cannot understand contextual integrity. You may well be able to speak and read English, but you are misinterpreting the Bible with your lack of historical and literal understanding. And, as I said, I’ll be more than happy to assist you with your misinterpretations, misrepresentations, mistranslations, laziness and/or contextual and historical misunderstandings.

P.S. the only thing you seized on was an attempt to side track the issue.

#18 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:27 AM

How can I mis-translate a language I speak fluently??? :rolleyes:

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:13 AM

How can I mis-translate a language I speak fluently???  :blink:

View Post

Hi Alcatraz. The problem may not be mis-translating. It may be a problem of understanding. My favorite verse to show this is;

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Reading Jesus clearly indicates that to hate your family is the only way to be a disciple. But this is not reasonable in context of the entire teaching of Jesus. Knowing this you might be led to research an answer to the conumdrum. You will find that the original intent of the phrase is that you must love your family less than you love Jesus. This follows a pattern found through the Bible; God, family, neighbors, community, etc.

Why is it not changed to be a more accurate translation? I have never received an answer I am confident repeating.

Hope it helps

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:07 PM

How can I mis-translate a language I speak fluently???  :lol:

View Post


Intentionally for one. But there are other reasons.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users