Page 18 of 30 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 300

Thread: Is The Bible Literally True?

  1. #171
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,418
    Amen (Given)
    1051
    Amen (Received)
    1548
    Quote 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 <<<...

  2. Amen Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  3. #172
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,973
    Amen (Given)
    4870
    Amen (Received)
    21707
    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.

  4. #173
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    50,682
    Amen (Given)
    1077
    Amen (Received)
    18399
    Quote 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)

  5. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  6. #174
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    13,966
    Amen (Given)
    7646
    Amen (Received)
    5185
    Quote 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....

  7. Amen Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  8. #175
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    641
    Amen (Given)
    1861
    Amen (Received)
    125
    Quote 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 at 02:06 AM.

  9. #176
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,973
    Amen (Given)
    4870
    Amen (Received)
    21707
    Quote 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 at 06:23 AM.

  10. Amen Christianbookworm amen'd this post.
  11. #177
    tWebber ReformedApologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Reformed Baptist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    216
    Amen (Given)
    35
    Amen (Received)
    77
    Quote 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.

  12. #178
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,973
    Amen (Given)
    4870
    Amen (Received)
    21707
    Quote Originally Posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    Sounds like a rehash of Rudolf Bultmann's theories.
    Or Jehovah's Witnesses.

  13. #179
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,335
    Amen (Given)
    5533
    Amen (Received)
    1763
    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 at 08:43 PM.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  14. #180
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    50,682
    Amen (Given)
    1077
    Amen (Received)
    18399

    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)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •