U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:09 PM
 
476 posts, read 143,080 times
Reputation: 378

Advertisements

I don't know. I'm confused. I have a teacher that got me into his church and it's a very casual church. But then, my relative tells me that women cannot be pastors and you have to take the bible 100 percent literally because God wouldn't want you to be confused.

My teacher says i can come to church and believe whatever I want. He said he doesn't want me to be a blind follower.

I already started reading the Bible a little bit and my thoughts are... How do I know this is true just because it's in the book?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:24 PM
 
5,972 posts, read 1,713,221 times
Reputation: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einhander View Post
I don't know. I'm confused. I have a teacher that got me into his church and it's a very casual church. But then, my relative tells me that women cannot be pastors and you have to take the bible 100 percent literally because God wouldn't want you to be confused.

My teacher says i can come to church and believe whatever I want. He said he doesn't want me to be a blind follower.

I already started reading the Bible a little bit and my thoughts are... How do I know this is true just because it's in the book?
Yes. Scripture is said to be "God-breathed". It's inspired. God doesn't make mistakes, so we can believe it.

Now, the question of "literal". It means that we should read it in the context in which it was written. In our Bible study we're walking through Joshua. One verse says that a monument that they set up is "there to this day as a reminder". That doesn't mean the rock is there now, in 2018. It means it was there when that passage was written.

Another example -- I'm a hunter. Guys love to quote Genesis 27:3 "Now then, get your equipment--your quiver and bow--and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game for me." to suggest we should go hunting. That verse though, is not suggesting that God is telling us to go hunting. That verse was Jacob speaking to his son, Esau, and requesting he hunt some wild game for him.

We should take it in the context it was written.

Now, in 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3 Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him on how to organize the church, and what the qualifications are for a deacon and elder. He specifically says that an elder (Pastors are elders) should be the "husband of one wife"). It's clear that it's simply assumed that a pastor would be male. So, to take this in the context in which it was written, we must conclude that God wishes only men to be pastors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:35 PM
Status: "Watching America made small." (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
25,894 posts, read 13,458,367 times
Reputation: 11704
Is the Bible supposed to be Literal?


Absolutely not. Unless you're a fundie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Florida
63,163 posts, read 34,407,807 times
Reputation: 10507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einhander View Post
I don't know. I'm confused. I have a teacher that got me into his church and it's a very casual church. But then, my relative tells me that women cannot be pastors and you have to take the bible 100 percent literally because God wouldn't want you to be confused.

My teacher says i can come to church and believe whatever I want. He said he doesn't want me to be a blind follower.

I already started reading the Bible a little bit and my thoughts are... How do I know this is true just because it's in the book?
Jesus took it literally, so why shouldn't you? Of course you need to understand when figures of speech, poetry, symbolism is used.

https://www.gotquestions.org/biblical-literalism.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:52 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 2,320,856 times
Reputation: 16536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einhander View Post
I don't know. I'm confused. I have a teacher that got me into his church and it's a very casual church. But then, my relative tells me that women cannot be pastors and you have to take the bible 100 percent literally because God wouldn't want you to be confused.

My teacher says i can come to church and believe whatever I want. He said he doesn't want me to be a blind follower.

I already started reading the Bible a little bit and my thoughts are... How do I know this is true just because it's in the book?

No. Scripture is not literal. In many cases it was inspired by God or it describe the experiences of those touched by God. But if someone says that that every single word of the Bible is the literal utterance of God into the ear of whoever was writing it down, then no. Simply type Biblical Contradictions into Google.

I mean, Adam and Eve had two sons. One son murdered the other son and fled to the land of Nod, where he met his wife and they built a city together. What? If we believe the account of Genesis literally, then where did all those other people come from? Or the fact that the two genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke are utterly different. Or as far as women pastors is concerned, Paul sending Chloe to Rome, citing her past experience as deacon (One of two prescribed clerical roles prescribed in Timothy) and asking the Romans to do what she expected of them. Do we turn our cheeks as Christ taught or do we carry a sword with us on the road. Or do we rejoice as we take the babies of our enemies and rejoice as we bash their brains out on the rocks, as described in Psalms?



Of course, what happens next is an interesting phenomenon. Those who defend a literal reading of the Bible are forced into a theological contradiction themselves, for they must employ highly interpretative explanations to defend that which doesn't work from a literal standpoint. I don't know. In the case of Cain meeting his wife, maybe Eve had other issue not mentioned in the Bible. But it's pretty doubtful. After all, Cain met her, not reacquainted with her.


The problem with literalism is a pretty straightforward one, even outside the abundant textual issues. The problem with literalism is with its defenders. To them, the Bible is a gigantic tapestry. Pull one small thread out of the thing and it falls apart. So every word, every comma, has to be defended tooth and nail lest their theological universe fall to dust.

But that's not faith. Instead, literal belief is the requirement of proof. It doesn't require faith to believe what is written in the encyclopedia. After all, the facts contained therein have been subject to editorial scrutiny. Same this with scriptural literalism. The people need it or else their faith has been dealt a mortal blow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 02:58 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 2,320,856 times
Reputation: 16536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The Bible contains different genres and includes both literal and non-literal material. Keep in mind that non-literal doesn't mean 'not real.' Things such as the Genesis creation account and the global flood are not literal but contain theological truth and messaging. They appear to be polemical attacks on the creation and flood stories of the other ancient near East religions. The point being that it was Yahweh rather than the other gods who created the heavens and the earth. That's not to say that there wasn't a flood, but that the Biblical flood story counters the other flood stories of the ANE that were probably based on a massive but regional flood such as the Black Sea flood.

Yet the literalists use the accounts of the Genesis creation to deny evolution. They believe even an obviously figurative account of the creation of the world happened precisely the way the Bible says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 03:01 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 2,320,856 times
Reputation: 16536
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post

Now, in 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3 Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him on how to organize the church, and what the qualifications are for a deacon and elder. He specifically says that an elder (Pastors are elders) should be the "husband of one wife"). It's clear that it's simply assumed that a pastor would be male. So, to take this in the context in which it was written, we must conclude that God wishes only men to be pastors.

Paul recommends Phoebe to the church of Rome, describe her previous tenure as a deacon at Cenchreae And in the oldest texts found for Romans, the word he uses, diakonos, is the same he uses in Timothy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 03:03 PM
 
21,937 posts, read 16,733,317 times
Reputation: 8747
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
Yes. Scripture is said to be "God-breathed". It's inspired. God doesn't make mistakes, so we can believe it.

Now, the question of "literal". It means that we should read it in the context in which it was written. In our Bible study we're walking through Joshua. One verse says that a monument that they set up is "there to this day as a reminder". That doesn't mean the rock is there now, in 2018. It means it was there when that passage was written.

Another example -- I'm a hunter. Guys love to quote Genesis 27:3 "Now then, get your equipment--your quiver and bow--and go out to the open country to hunt some wild game for me." to suggest we should go hunting. That verse though, is not suggesting that God is telling us to go hunting. That verse was Jacob speaking to his son, Esau, and requesting he hunt some wild game for him.

We should take it in the context it was written.

Now, in 1 Timothy chapters 2 and 3 Paul is writing to Timothy to instruct him on how to organize the church, and what the qualifications are for a deacon and elder. He specifically says that an elder (Pastors are elders) should be the "husband of one wife"). It's clear that it's simply assumed that a pastor would be male. So, to take this in the context in which it was written, we must conclude that God wishes only men to be pastors.
The Bible contains different genres and includes both literal and non-literal material. Keep in mind that non-literal doesn't mean 'not real.' Things such as the Genesis creation account and the global flood are not literal but contain theological truth and messaging. They appear to be polemical attacks on the creation and flood stories of the other ancient near East religions. The point being that it was Yahweh rather than the other gods who created the heavens and the earth. That's not to say that there wasn't a flood, but that the Biblical flood story counters the other flood stories of the ANE that were probably based on a massive but regional flood such as the Black Sea flood.

Israel's history is pretty solid from the 10th century BC onward and is written in the Old Testament, but before that time there is very little archeological evidence to support stories such as the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. But lack of evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

God communicated to the Hebrew writers in terms that they could understand. This means that God didn't give them a 21st century AD knowledge of the cosmos but communicated to them in terms of their understanding of the cosmos and some of the material in the Old Testament reflects the cosmogony of the ancient near East.

On the other hand, the resurrection of Jesus is certainly literal and historical as are the apostles who are spoken of by the church fathers, some of who knew some of the apostles. The apostles didn't suffer and die for something that didn't happen.

If you'd like to get informed on Genesis as it relates to the ancient near East, Old Testament scholar, and Christian, Michael Heiser gives a good lecture on that in this video, which was given over a period of several weeks. The video is five hours long, but you don't have to listen to it all at once.

Michael Heiser - Genesis and the Ancient Near East


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2Ppbrtf-Q
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 03:08 PM
 
5,972 posts, read 1,713,221 times
Reputation: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Paul recommends Phoebe to the church of Rome, describe her previous tenure as a deacon at Cenchreae And in the oldest texts found for Romans, the word he uses, diakonos, is the same he uses in Timothy.
Yes. It is the same word. And if you read 1 Timothy 3, in regards to the qualifications to be a deacon, it also talks about the deacon's wives. Some read that as saying "deaconnesses", so it's not really uncommon for some churches to have women deacons. In any event, a deacon is not a spiritual leader, but is a servant of the church, taking care of the physical needs of the people -- as the first deacons did in Acts 6.

The word simply means servant. It's not clear from reading Romans 16 that Phoebe was someone in the OFFICE of deacon. He called her a servant. Maybe that means she had the functional role of a servant...maybe she was a deaconness. I don't know. But I wouldn't feel comfortable reading into that the idea that women should be elders, which is a different role entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2018, 03:09 PM
 
21,937 posts, read 16,733,317 times
Reputation: 8747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Yet the literalists use the accounts of the Genesis creation to deny evolution. They believe even an obviously figurative account of the creation of the world happened precisely the way the Bible says.
I had to delete my post and resubmit it in order for the video that I added to properly embed, which is why your reply precedes my post to which you are replying.

Yes, many Christians can't conceive of the creation account not being literal, and can't imagine evolution being true. On the other hand, many Christians do understand that the creation account isn't literal, and do accept evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top