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.
anybody that teaches "literal Bible" is misleading people.
Not sure how "literal" got injected into the discussion of "inspired, inerrant and infallible."
While much of the Bible is 'literal' (much more than many think), one cannot ignore the use of metaphors, allegory, parables and any number of other literary devices. Sometimes, I think the "literal" argument is a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the more substantive issue of Biblical inspiration and truth.
Not sure how "literal" got injected into the discussion of "inspired, inerrant and infallible."
While much of the Bible is 'literal' (much more than many think), one cannot ignore the use of metaphors, allegory, parables and any number of other literary devices. Sometimes, I think the "literal" argument is a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the more substantive issue of Biblical inspiration and truth.
They use "literal" as a straw man argument by misrepresenting what is believed
While much of the Bible is 'literal' (much more than many think), one cannot ignore the use of metaphors, allegory, parables and any number of other literary devices. Sometimes, I think the "literal" argument is a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the more substantive issue of Biblical inspiration and truth.
And that is something you and I can agree on, at least in principle, and in fact my thinking on this has never changed.
That said, the exact degree of "metaphoricalness" or "literalness" in any one case is usually a fairly subjective judgment. Coming from where I do, I don't have theologically naive complaints about, say, Jesus saying it's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven. That's clearly a metaphor. I even understand what "the needle's eye" meant to the ancients and how the kingdom of heaven is a distinct concept from heaven.
But even some seemingly cut-and-dried "common sense" interpretations end up being problematic. For example, it's hard to argue that "ask anything in my name and it shall be given you" isn't literal ... yet you must because clearly that basically never happens in the real world to even the most devout and approved believers any more often than it would randomly -- even when things asked for are carefully constrained, like hoarded poker chips, to really important things that are life and death matters.
Not sure how "literal" got injected into the discussion of "inspired, inerrant and infallible."
While much of the Bible is 'literal' (much more than many think), one cannot ignore the use of metaphors, allegory, parables and any number of other literary devices. Sometimes, I think the "literal" argument is a smoke screen to avoid dealing with the more substantive issue of Biblical inspiration and truth.
Literal means we take the words "inspired, inerrant and infallible" and use these words to push the bible off more than it was indented. To push the bible as the final say over observation, reason, love, compassion, and common sense. Even martin Luther said to use the bible and check to see if what I think is good. He didn't mean for the bible to decide for me what I think is good. But we fubar-ed that up too.
for example:
1) simple first. "creation". God wrote the rock record. Why would a human say the bible is more right than god's record.
2) more complex: "Through me" is not a body, it is a set of teachings. You are not a body either, you are a set of events. That whole "in the image of ..." thingie.
I think literal is an attempt to cover up fear and release responsibility. We have to make some tough choices that don't feel so good. What better way than to push them off on a book to make us feel better
Literal means we take the words "inspired, inerrant and infallible" and use these words to push the bible off more than it was indented. To push the bible as the final say over observation, reason, love, compassion, and common sense. Even martin Luther said to use the bible and check to see if what I think is good. He didn't mean for the bible to decide for me what I think is good. But we fubar-ed that up too.
for example:
1) simple first. "creation". God wrote the rock record. Why would a human say the bible is more right than god's record.
2) more complex: "Through me" is not a body, it is a set of teachings. You are not a body either, you are a set of events. That whole "in the image of ..." thingie.
I think literal is an attempt to cover up fear and release responsibility. We have to make some tough choices that don't feel so good. What better way than to push them off on a book to make us feel better
I agree,
However I have never met anyone who actually takes every word as literal.
Do some take words as literal in one way, yes, such as the creative 'day'. The word in Hebrew means 24 hours or an indefinite period of time (Rock record evidence) such as in my father's "day". The words are correct, it is how some interpret them instead of seeing their full meaning as used throughout scripture. The Bible interprests itself if we study it, those who take one word and try to use only one definition have the problem of self interpretation and ................. usually are wrong.
Metaphor, illustration, analogy are all there and several critical things also MUST be included to get a correct understanding.
Immediate context
Historical context
Effect of syntax
Idioms
The full range of meaning, less theological opinion which is in every lexicon, that can apply
Original language use, not English use and meanings which do not always carry the full range of meanings.
However I have never met anyone who actually takes every word as literal.
Do some take words as literal in one way, yes, such as the creative 'day'. The word in Hebrew means 24 hours or an indefinite period of time (Rock record evidence) such as in my father's "day". The words are correct, it is how some interpret them instead of seeing their full meaning as used throughout scripture. The Bible interprests itself if we study it, those who take one word and try to use only one definition have the problem of self interpretation and ................. usually are wrong.
Metaphor, illustration, analogy are all there and several critical things also MUST be included to get a correct understanding.
Immediate context
Historical context
Effect of syntax
Idioms
The full range of meaning, less theological opinion which is in every lexicon, that can apply
Original language use, not English use and meanings which do not always carry the full range of meanings.
And more.
well, over all, I must agree. Although original language is meaningless without knowing the full context. I just said to my 7 yr old : "ouch ... I hurt my calf". She said "what baby cow?" lol. I guy named "bill" at Agnostic Int. said we can't really translate ancient text because we don't have enough info. I agree with that.
example: "that is one set of rad wheels ya got there bro"
I didn't even know the guy, but his bycycle was sweet! I broke a tooth tho.
The great and all perfect me picks and chooses what I need to justify myself.
I am working on that. :
That's why an atheist like me can still use the bible every now an agin.
well, over all, I must agree. Although original language is meaningless without knowing the full context. I just said to my 7 yr old : "ouch ... I hurt my calf". She said "what baby cow?" lol. I guy named "bill" at Agnostic Int. said we can't really translate ancient text because we don't have enough info. I agree with that.
example: "that is one set of rad wheels ya got there bro"
I didn't even know the guy, but his bycycle was sweet! I broke a tooth tho.
The great and all perfect me picks and chooses what I need to justify myself.
I am working on that. :
That's why an atheist like me can still use the bible every now an agin.
Hi,
You will notice that "context" was in the list and the first two items there.
Yes, anyone can use the Bible, and correctly, in many things if they consider that list I gave.
After all even Satan quoted Scripture and got it right, he just tried to get Jesus to miss apply it.
I too am still working on myself and have a long way to go. I tried the non Biblical way once and still regret it and will never go back. It does not work good to anyone.
You will notice that "context" was in the list and the first two items there.
Yes, anyone can use the Bible, and correctly, in many things if they consider that list I gave.
After all even Satan quoted Scripture and got it right, he just tried to get Jesus to miss apply it.
I too am still working on myself and have a long way to go. I tried the non Biblical way once and still regret it and will never go back. It does not work good to anyone.
yeppers, sounds like we are on the same side. I think this battle is unlike any other. We wear the same clothes, use the same words, carry the same books. Even the flags are the same. The difference will be intentions. The narrow road makes us easy targets.
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.
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.
: 
