Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Is The Bible Literally True?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
    You are mistaken. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus said "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

    Nowhere in Matthew 5:22 in relation to calling one 'fool' "Christian", rather it states "anyone who says, 'You fool'.."

    You are reading into the text.
    Actually no it says and uses plainly the words brothers

    ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ adelphos a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

    So yes this is referring to those in the faith. Here is the verse:

    But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    I notice you left out the word brother in the text and inserted everyone into it. We can even check all translations and see each one clarifies using the word brother to denote that of which it is speaking:

    https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm

    So you have been caught lying and didn't think anyone would check your assertions. Well I did and you been busted.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
      Actually no it says and uses plainly the words brothers

      ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ adelphos a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

      So yes this is referring to those in the faith. Here is the verse:

      But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

      I notice you left out the word brother in the text and inserted everyone into it. We can even check all translations and see each one clarifies using the word brother to denote that of which it is speaking:

      https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-22.htm

      So you have been caught lying and didn't think anyone would check your assertions. Well I did and you been busted.
      According to your quotation of Matthew 5:22, "but whosoever shall say, You fool, ...." The term "whosoever" means anyone.

      Comment


      • Wrong the whosoever is not a stand alone word it is qualified by the context of the verse. So again nice try. In addition there is a contrast between righteous and unrighteous anger which is the context of the chapter.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
          According to your quotation of Matthew 5:22, "but whosoever shall say, You fool, ...." The term "whosoever" means anyone.
          Whosoever refers to the person saying it, not to the person to whom it is said. And since it speaks about "brothers", that is "brothers in faith" (i.e fellow Christians) then "whosoever" is limited in this context to "any Christian".

          Jesus is here saying that any Christian who calls his fellow Christian a "fool" is in danger of hell fire. And "fool" here probably doesn't refer to someone who is dumb or stupid, but to the kind of "fool" described in proverbs, i.e someone who is lazy, hateful, vindictive, someone who exploits others for selfish gains and who desires to have nothing to do with God but would rather live his life putting his own self-interests over a proper relationship with God.

          In other words, any Christian who accuses another person of not only being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            In other words, any Christian who accuses another personChristian of not only not being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.


            Fixed the last sentence.

            Writing replies on forums late at night is not to be recommended.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Whosoever refers to the person saying it, not to the person to whom it is said. And since it speaks about "brothers", that is "brothers in faith" (i.e fellow Christians) then "whosoever" is limited in this context to "any Christian".

              Jesus is here saying that any Christian who calls his fellow Christian a "fool" is in danger of hell fire. And "fool" here probably doesn't refer to someone who is dumb or stupid, but to the kind of "fool" described in proverbs, i.e someone who is lazy, hateful, vindictive, someone who exploits others for selfish gains and who desires to have nothing to do with God but would rather live his life putting his own self-interests over a proper relationship with God.

              In other words, any Christian who accuses another person of not only being a Christian, but being of the most morally bankrupt character imaginable, is in danger of hell fire.
              Wow... ...thinking of someone who's been posting a lot in Civics recently....
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.
                  FIFY, which explains why we respond.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Why are you guys even bothering with Hakeem? His cherry picking, and over-literalizing verses out of context, is so bad that is is almost funny. He is like a parody of a bad muslim apologist.
                    Yeah, but I don't like leaving easy stuff unanswered.


                    Which is why I stay out of here most of the time....
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      I think you need make up your mind, RJ. It's either to be taken literally, ie as historical fact, or it is not.
                      First, thanks for replying It’s always nice to have a reply from an atheist.

                      Second, “Taken literally” =/////= “taken as historical fact”.

                      The literal sense of a text is simply the sense here and now intended by the (human) author. It has, in itself, no necessary connection with being historical. If people are talking specifically about the relation of a text to historicality, it merely confuses things if they say one thing, while meaning something else.




                      Myths are not historical facts, ergo, they are not to be taken literally.
                      I think I have dealt with that above. Texts are to be taken literally - or graphically (since all texts are written in some kind of graphic mark, whether letter or some other) - no matter whether they relate a myth or a history or anything else.



                      The resurrection was not meant to be seen as myth, it was meant to be seen as an historic event, but that doesn't mean that it actually was historic. Casting demons out of a human being and into a herd of swine was meant to be seen as real and historic as well, but we don't equate mental illness with demons any longer, same with long dead people walking out of their tombs fully intact, or feeding thousands with 2 fish. You either have to accept all these things as historic or not, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe is actual and what is not actual.
                      The Resurrection of Christ wasn’t an historical event - there I agree with you. Not, however, because it was less than historical, on the ground of being a made-up fiction, but for the opposite reason: because the Resurrection of Christ is - so to speak - too real to be historical. It is a Divine event, in a world inhabited by men. History is our environment, as creatures “a little lower than the angels”, who are akin to the beasts. Angels have no history - nor do the beasts. But man does.

                      The Resurrection of Christ is a real event - not in history, which belongs to the natural order; but in the strictly supernatural order. It is a theological reality - not a biological one. The Resurrection of Christ is not historical, because history is a mass of analogies, causes, precedents; whereas the Resurrection of Christ is unique, and has no cause in history, no precedent, no analogy. God is its only Cause. History is lived by men among other men; the Resurrection of Christ had results for men, but did not involve them when it happened.

                      I have no objections to accepting as real events the other miracles you refer to. However, whether one accepts them or not, depends in part on what sort of text one believes the authors who mention them were writing. It is (for example) at least conceivable that later miracles were placed in the Ministry of Jesus Himself, in order to emphasise that the miracles of the Apostolic Church were His doing. The accounts would on that theory be theological, in the form of historical narratives. And each passage has in any case to be looked at individually, since these narratives may well have begun their literary lives as isolated episodes. One cannot take into account only the text in its (current) final, canonised, form - for its tradition-history cannot be overlooked either.

                      That something is the content of a text, does not require it to be historical. Not even if it is in the Gospels. The Bible is not primarily a book of histories. It is primarily theological. The Gospels are profoundly theological, and many books have been written about the theology of each Evangelist, of all four together, of the other books associated with them. Historicality is important in the Gospels, but it is a vehicle of God’s Self-disclosure; not the content of that disclosure.

                      The important thing is to understand the text, and to find out what the author meant, and why and how: whether it tells of miracles or not, whether it is regarded as history or not, whether the text in question is in the Bible or not. Trying to vindicate the historicality of the events told in a text is at most a secondary concern. Ascertaining the literal sense of a text is fundamental to an understanding of its meaning, whatever that may be: whether the text in question be a cuneiform inscription from Assyria, a passage in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek NT, a speech in LOTR, or a weather forecast. Whatever the graphic signs used in a text - Egyptian hieroglyphs, Babylonian cuneiform signs, Hebrew letters, Mandarin characters, Mexican glyphs, Norse runes, or whatever - one begins with the various signs and their known values, uses whatever helps are available, and with these various aids seeks to find out what sense the author intended to convey, AKA the literal sense of the text.
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-23-2019, 04:06 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                        First, thanks for replying It’s always nice to have a reply from an atheist.

                        Second, “Taken literally” =/////= “taken as historical fact”.

                        The literal sense of a text is simply the sense here and now intended by the (human) author. It has, in itself, no necessary connection with being historical. If people are talking specifically about the relation of a text to historicality, it merely confuses things if they say one thing, while meaning something else.




                        I think I have dealt with that above. Texts are to be taken literally - or graphically (since all texts are written in some kind of graphic mark, whether letter or some other) - no matter whether they relate a myth or a history or anything else.




                        The Resurrection of Christ wasn’t an historical event - there I agree with you. Not, however, because it was less than historical, on the ground of being a made-up fiction, but for the opposite reason: because the Resurrection of Christ is - so to speak - too real to be historical. It is a Divine event, in a world inhabited by men. History is our environment, as creatures “a little lower than the angels”, who are akin to the beasts. Angels have no history - nor do the beasts. But man does.

                        The Resurrection of Christ is a real event - not in history, which belongs to the natural order; but in the strictly supernatural order. It is a theological reality - not a biological one. The Resurrection of Christ is not historical, because history is a mass of analogies, causes, precedents; whereas the Resurrection of Christ is unique, and has no cause in history, no precedent, no analogy. God is its only Cause. History is lived by men among other men; the Resurrection of Christ had results for men, but did not involve them when it happened.

                        I have no objections to accepting as real events the other miracles you refer to. However, whether one accepts them or not, depends in part on what sort of text one believes the authors who mention them were writing. It is (for example) at least conceivable that later miracles were placed in the Ministry of Jesus Himself, in order to emphasise that the miracles of the Apostolic Church were His doing. The accounts would on that theory be theological, in the form of historical narratives. And each passage has in any case to be looked at individually, since these narratives may well have begun their literary lives as isolated episodes. One cannot take into account only the text in its (current) final, canonised, form - for its tradition-history cannot be overlooked either.

                        That something is the content of a text, does not require it to be historical. Not even if it is in the Gospels. The Bible is not primarily a book of histories. It is primarily theological. The Gospels are profoundly theological, and many books have been written about the theology of each Evangelist, of all four together, of the other books associated with them. Historicality is important in the Gospels, but it is a vehicle of God’s Self-disclosure; not the content of that disclosure.

                        The important thing is to understand the text, and to find out what the author meant, and why and how: whether it tells of miracles or not, whether it is regarded as history or not, whether the text in question is in the Bible or not. Trying to vindicate the historicality of the events told in a text is at most a secondary concern. Ascertaining the literal sense of a text is fundamental to an understanding of its meaning, whatever that may be: whether the text in question be a cuneiform inscription from Assyria, a passage in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek NT, a speech in LOTR, or a weather forecast. Whatever the graphic signs used in a text - Egyptian hieroglyphs, Babylonian cuneiform signs, Hebrew letters, Mandarin characters, Mexican glyphs, Norse runes, or whatever - one begins with the various signs and their known values, uses whatever helps are available, and with these various aids seeks to find out what sense the author intended to convey, AKA the literal sense of the text.
                        Wait. You don't think the resurrection happened in a historical sense (a.k.a. really physically happened?) -- do you believe it was a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Seems like the bible goes to great lengths to prove it was a historical physical resurrection: Thomas touching him, Jesus eating, actually saying he is not a ghost, etc.

                        Basically, if you had a time machine and could go back to the resurrection, would you see Jesus alive physically, be able to touch him, talk to him, etc?
                        Last edited by Sparko; 07-24-2019, 08:23 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Wait. You don't think the resurrection happened in a historical sense (a.k.a. really physically happened?) -- do you believe it was a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Seems like the bible goes to great lengths to prove it was a historical physical resurrection: Thomas touching him, Jesus eating, actually saying he is not a ghost, etc.
                          Sounds like a rehash of Rudolf Bultmann's theories.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
                            Sounds like a rehash of Rudolf Bultmann's theories.
                            Or Jehovah's Witnesses.

                            Comment


                            • Rushing Jaws just posted something heretical!? What's the fancy name for the heresy of denying the Resurrection?
                              Last edited by Christianbookworm; 07-23-2019, 10:43 PM.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment



                              • I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                74 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                3 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X