Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
But you said He wrote the scriptures. How can you know that unless you know something about how He did that?I figure if I'm not God then I don't know how He did things,
No one is questioning that.ust that He did them 100% correct.
For example?If Jesus used literal interpretations, then I figure it was literal.
Ah! But you are ready and willing to declare that you know what He meant.I'm not going to put my pea brain knowledge up against Gods and consider that He meant something other than what He said.
And "literal" could easily be in the eye of the beholder but not in the hand of the inspired writer or on the lips of the speaker.There are no doubt some metaphoric language used, but there is some that is quoted as being literal in the NT.
What do you mean by that?
Certainly God didn't take pen and paper, write them, and then hand them to men.
Of course.
But how did God write them?
What do you mean by "error"?
Are you applying a modern, western, concept of historical reporting to ancient, middle eastern literature? Yes, you are. That's like having Peter talk about airplanes.
You are again inserting you modern, western, understanding of the concept "literal" into a society which would have no idea what you are talking about.
And, aside from His parables, (which the scriptures specifically identify as parables) there is not a single shred of evidence as to what Jesus did or did not consider "literal" and it is ludicrous to imagine that He would have inserted a concept from 2000 years in the future from a culture and language that did not yet exist, into his teaching.
In Mark 10:15 we should learn;Considering where we left things off in the other thread, I think it's worth pointing out that there are any number of different approaches to reading Scripture. We've got various theories of inspiration, different levels of hostility or acceptance of higher criticism, and so forth and so on. There's also the fact that not everyone agrees with Sola Scriptura--I'm pretty via media, so it's Scripture, Tradition, Reason for me.
It would be difficult for me to specify precisely what I view as literal and what I view as allegorical in Genesis; the better distinction would probably be between historical, non-historical, and history mythologized. I can't say that I view any of it as historical in the modern sense because history didn't actually exist yet. That's a 5th century B.C. Greek invention, so doesn't really apply. For me, everything is by default history that has been mythologized to some degree or another. Some of that mythologization, like blaming natural disasters on God, I find indistinguishable from the pagan approach to the gods. Other bits, like pride and knowledge destroying the relationship between God and Man (and then leading to one gender subjugating the other), I think is spot on.
For me, the question isn't whether a story is literal or allegorical, but rather, what is the story actually saying? I don't read Genesis 1 literally, but I look at it and I see an ancient people making a pretty huge departure from other creation myths and coming up with something that looks surprisingly close to what modern science says actually happened. If I insisted on a literal reading, I wouldn't be noticing that. I recently broke ranks with the skeptics, though, so focusing on the literal level makes no sense for my situation--the Bible can say that it's inspired all it wants, but I'm interested in the situations where it actually shows it.
Be careful, Edward, men that were trying to speak logically were shot for it yesterday.Maybe that's why people disagree about it so much. They each want to see either that it's literal, or a story which has meaning to it that we should learn. I think it's actually both. Scripture says that God declares the end from the beginning, and, Genesis was the beginning. So it is a history account, and absolutely accurate...but so it is that it does have meaning and an underlying lesson for us to learn also. God's just that good of an author.
In Mark 10:15 we should learn;
New American Standard Bible
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
The sigh was rude! God requires perfection in His Children and can cause it to be any time He chooses because of His character and three time in scripture God has promised to keep the scriptures true. I can recall Duet 4:2 and Rev 20, the last statement.sigh
The type of documentation which we mean when we say "history" today did not exist some 3500 years ago when the Pentateuch was being written. The modern, western, standards of accuracy in recording historical events were completely foreign to the ancient middle eastern writer.
Trying to apply the concept of absolute accuracy to the ancient middle eastern literature, of which the Bible is an example, would be like handing Abraham a cell phone.
iakov the fool
But you said He wrote the scriptures. How can you know that unless you know something about how He did that?
No one is questioning that.
However, our understanding of those scriptures has no guarantee of being any where near 100% correct.
For example?
Ah! But you are ready and willing to declare that you know what He meant.
I see a bit of a conflict there.
And "literal" could easily be in the eye of the beholder but not in the hand of the inspired writer or on the lips of the speaker.
It still boils down to your personal opinion based on, as you said, your "pea brain knowledge."
iakov the fool
Considering where we left things off in the other thread, I think it's worth pointing out that there are any number of different approaches to reading Scripture. We've got various theories of inspiration, different levels of hostility or acceptance of higher criticism, and so forth and so on. There's also the fact that not everyone agrees with Sola Scriptura--I'm pretty via media, so it's Scripture, Tradition, Reason for me.
It would be difficult for me to specify precisely what I view as literal and what I view as allegorical in Genesis; the better distinction would probably be between historical, non-historical, and history mythologized. I can't say that I view any of it as historical in the modern sense because history didn't actually exist yet. That's a 5th century B.C. Greek invention, so doesn't really apply. For me, everything is by default history that has been mythologized to some degree or another. Some of that mythologization, like blaming natural disasters on God, I find indistinguishable from the pagan approach to the gods. Other bits, like pride and knowledge destroying the relationship between God and Man (and then leading to one gender subjugating the other), I think is spot on.
For me, the question isn't whether a story is literal or allegorical, but rather, what is the story actually saying? I don't read Genesis 1 literally, but I look at it and I see an ancient people making a pretty huge departure from other creation myths and coming up with something that looks surprisingly close to what modern science says actually happened. If I insisted on a literal reading, I wouldn't be noticing that. I recently broke ranks with the skeptics, though, so focusing on the literal level makes no sense for my situation--the Bible can say that it's inspired all it wants, but I'm interested in the situations where it actually shows it.
sigh
The type of documentation which we mean when we say "history" today did not exist some 3500 years ago when the Pentateuch was being written. The modern, western, standards of accuracy in recording historical events were completely foreign to the ancient middle eastern writer.
Trying to apply the concept of absolute accuracy to the ancient middle eastern literature, of which the Bible is an example, would be like handing Abraham a cell phone.
iakov the fool
Did I suggest that I did not believe scripture to be inspired by God?DO you mean that you don't believe that the scriptures were inspired by God?
OK. THAT is an answer.He may not have had pen and paper in his hand, but every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write. I presume that His Holy Spirit came over the authors and guided their mind into the exact transcription that He wanted.
Cool!This was written and saved in the scrolls. That's why it is important for us to go back to the original language in our studies and to study things out. You can even go online and look at pics of the original scrolls themselves if you want, because I've done it.
That doesn't eve make sense.Do you think that Abraham couldn't use a cell phone if you handed it to him? It sounds like you do not have much faith in God's Word.
If either of us were to have an exact perfect copy of the original texts in the original languages, neither of us would be able to read them.That's a bad position, Brother. God's powerful enough to get a good copy in your hand, and then give you revelation as you read.
Yes Jim, all of us have heard this or similar argument before.......but you have to admit the God that could create the universe could surely keep the meaning of His message to us intact over a few brief (to Him) millennia.......Did I suggest that I did not believe scripture to be inspired by God?
Of course I do.
I asked; "What do you mean by that?
Certainly God didn't take pen and paper, write them, and then hand them to men."
The inspiration of the scriptures is an entirely different subject.
Can you answer the question you were asked?
OK. THAT is an answer.
It also reveals that you did not know that there is no punctuation or spacing in the Greek.
So, if I understand you correctly, you see the writing of scripture as the Holy Spirit taking control of the writer's mind to write exactly what God wants written.
Do you have any scripture to support that view?
And are you aware that, unless you are fluent in the original languages and are reading the scriptures in those languages, you are using a translation into English. There is no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. The farther the two languages are separated by time and culture, the more difficult it is to transfer the original content.
So, consider that your favorite English translation reflect the language of a culture that is 2000 to 3500 years removed from the original language and based on the usage in a culture that is also removed by time and space from the origin.
So, what we have in our Modern English translation (or Late Middle English KJV) is very far removed from the original scriptures in which "every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write" in languages that are no longer spoken on this planet.
Cool!
And are you fluent in the ancient Hebrew, Chaldean and Koine Greek of those ancient scrolls and do you also have expert knowledge of the culture in which they were written? If not, then they are just a curiosity but cannot significantly enhance your understanding. (It's a door that most of us cannot open.)
That doesn't eve make sense.
And your judgment of my faith in God's word is based on abject ignorance of me personally and an exaggerated opinion of your ability to judge the faith of others.
If either of us were to have an exact perfect copy of the original texts in the original languages, neither of us would be able to read them.
We do not have "copies."
We have "translations" of copies of copies of copies of copies.........
So the idea that what we have in our hands today is the exact copy of what the Holy Spirit dictated to men some 2000 to 3500 years ago in Ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, and Koine Greek is patently absurd.
We have translations that are somewhere between very good and excellent but, they are still translations.
And what we do have is IMHO the inspired word of God which is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
iakov the fool
Really? It was an expression of exasperation. Sorry if you were offended.The sigh was rude!
The scriptures ARE true. No argument from me on that point.God requires perfection in His Children and can cause it to be any time He chooses because of His character and three time in scripture God has promised to keep the scriptures true.
True.When God says anything, we should pay attention because it matters but if He says it more than once, He is using that to highlight what He is telling us and we should take a post-it note and place it on our forehead and look in the mirror a lot!
Cite itIt is actually prophesied that some will discount the 'actual' event of the flood and what it did - in their discounting of the 'word'(Scriptures).
OF course there is.I have never read a 'rendition' of the flood event, from another culture/time, that stated the whole world was destroyed - and only Noah and 7 others were spared. Therefore, if Jesus speaks of it this way, and Peter speaks of it, and Peter warns of those who speak against it - there seems to be something to be 'listened' to here.
I agree.Peter wanted them to really take note of this. He felt there was something serious about it. I do not think his warning is in vain.
Neither do I.I don't think the bible in any suggests a lesser value to holding onto the truth.
Laws of having a second witness in testimony, and laws and teachings against false witnesses give an account to the importance God gives to an accurate account.
What you do or do not see is irrelevant to the actual facts.I see no reason to apply this idea of modern thinking is different then ancient thinking.
The are in Modern English.Literal might not have been in their vocabulary but truth and accuracy are the same meaning as literal in too many ways.
No one suggested that it did.God's written wird would not start out on lies based around other cultures.
Of course he has done so.Yes Jim, all of us have heard this or similar argument before.......but you have to admit the God that could create the universe could surely keep the meaning of His message to us intact over a few brief (to Him) millennia.......
2Pe 3:1-7Cite it
That depends on the translation you use.Scoffers discount(deliberately overlook) the fact that the world(entire world) was formed out of water and through water -
Thank you JP, that answers a lot of questions. I believe I understand where you are coming from now.....If you want to force a western, Modern English meaning into the ancient, eastern text, enjoy yourself.