Is The Bible Literally True?

[tabibito]

Literal reading of the text versus a literal misreading of the text.

Romans 16:25-26, ". . . Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: . . ."

Fact, what is past tense ". . . made manifest . . ." and ". . . made known . . ." was "by the scriptures of the prophets" and was explicitly "according to the commandment of the everlasting God" into "all nations." Can you prove this is not the case?

Colossians 1:23 - της ελπιδος του ευαγγελιου ου ηκουσατε του κηρυχθεντος εν παση τη κτισει τη υπο τον ουρανον ... the hope of the gospel that you (pl) heard being proclaimed in all creation under heaven.

Col 1:23 states that the Colossians heard the gospel being proclaimed - in all creation.

But as Rogue notes (and as I have noted on a number of occasions) the pas, pasa, pan group (all) and holos (whole) are as likely to be sweeping generalisations as they are to be literally "all" or "the whole" without exception: quite often "all" could be interpreted as "too many," without damage to the intent.
Nice list BTW, Rogue, much more extensive than my own has been. Though you might want to add the one about all the Sanhedrin voting to have Jesus put to death (Luke's account) - it isn't til somewhat later that he lists an exception (Joseph of Arimathea).

[37818]

Colossians 1:23 - της ελπιδος του ευαγγελιου ου ηκουσατε του κηρυχθεντος εν παση τη κτισει τη υπο τον ουρανον ... the hope of the gospel that you (pl) heard being proclaimed in all creation under heaven.

Col 1:23 states that the Colossians heard the gospel being proclaimed - in all creation.

But as Rogue notes (and as I have noted on a number of occasions) the pas, pasa, pan group (all) and holos (whole) are as likely to be sweeping generalisations as they are to be literally "all" or "the whole" without exception: quite often "all" could be interpreted as "too many," without damage to the intent.
Nice list BTW, Rogue, much more extensive than my own has been. Though you might want to add the one about all the Sanhedrin voting to have Jesus put to death (Luke's account) - it isn't til somewhat later that he lists an exception (Joseph of Arimathea).

I already addressed this text.

Colossians 1:6, . . 23, ". . . Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in you, since the day ye heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth: . . . _ . . . If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature [. . . παση τη κτισει . . .] which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; . . ." Echoing obediance to the command in Mark 16:15, ". . . παση τη κτισει . . . ."

The Apostle Paul qualified his doing this, saying, ". . . whereof I Paul am made a minister; . . ."

[Rushing Jaws]

I take the bible as literally true in the sense that the authors were accurately reporting events as they actually happened, as far as they understood them. That doesn't mean that everything they reported on was literal. They reported Jesus speaking figuratively, for example. Or they told stories of visions. Or they reported what the LORD said, but the LORD could be using figurative language too.

The Bible also contains books of poetry and songs and proverbs which are not literal.

[One Bad Pig]

I do wonder why why Irenaeus (mid 2nd century, so not particularly far removed) was so dogmatic about this.

I'm not sure what your question is. He was insistent that Christian teaching had spread throughout the whole world. What we don't know is what Irenaeus precisely meant by "the whole world" (or even the Greek words used, since almost all we have of AH is a rather barbaric Latin translation). However, it seems fairly clear from context that he meant the known world.

[Rushing Jaws]

Colossians 1:23 - της ελπιδος του ευαγγελιου ου ηκουσατε του κηρυχθεντος εν παση τη κτισει τη υπο τον ουρανον ... the hope of the gospel that you (pl) heard being proclaimed in all creation under heaven.

Col 1:23 states that the Colossians heard the gospel being proclaimed - in all creation.

But as Rogue notes (and as I have noted on a number of occasions) the pas, pasa, pan group (all) and holos (whole) are as likely to be sweeping generalisations as they are to be literally "all" or "the whole" without exception: quite often "all" could be interpreted as "too many," without damage to the intent.
Nice list BTW, Rogue, much more extensive than my own has been. Though you might want to add the one about all the Sanhedrin voting to have Jesus put to death (Luke's account) - it isn't til somewhat later that he lists an exception (Joseph of Arimathea).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...4&version=NASBhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage...3&version=NASB ?

[Same Hakeem]

The answer to "Is the Bible Literally True" is yes and no dependent on which parts of Bible you read. For instance, Job said in Job 42:5 "my eyes have seen you" where as 1 Timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see God"

[JonathanL]

The answer to "Is the Bible Literally True" is yes and no dependent on which parts of Bible you read. For instance, Job said in Job 42:5 "my eyes have seen you" where as 1 Timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see God"

I guess you're just going to ignore my reply over at the "Innerancy"-thread and act like no one ever answered this silly objection of yours.

[One Bad Pig]

I guess you're just going to ignore my reply over at the "Innerancy"-thread and act like no one ever answered this silly objection of yours.

Hakeem is really, really good at ignoring contrary explanations - which is why he continually trots out the same, easily-answered objections. A pity he doesn't look at the Quran with the same hyper-critical eye.

[KingsGambit]

As a general rule, I don't talk to people who are obviously using Google Translate.

[JonathanL]

As a general rule, I don't talk to people who are obviously using Google Translate.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's using Google Translate (or any other online translating service). His English is poor, but it doesn't seem machine-translated to me.

[KingsGambit]

I could be wrong, but I don't think he's using Google Translate (or any other online translating service). His English is poor, but it doesn't seem machine-translated to me.

It's not just that; it's his continual inability to even respond to anything anybody types. Of course I've seen native English speakers be the same way.

[Same Hakeem]

I always weigh evidence.

[JonathanL]

I always weigh evidence.

It's too bad you're using rigged scales and deceptive weights. Especially since the only one you're deceiving is yourself.

[tabibito]

And the issue is determining what that is. One Catholic friend of mine just blogged on how he takes John 6:54 literally and that it's a salvation issue.

I take that literally, but I don't take it that he refers to his own biological flesh and blood. Just that the flesh and blood are his - with "his" being in the same sense as "his" as in "his garments:" a simple matter of ownership.

[One Bad Pig]

It's too bad you're using rigged scales and deceptive weights. Especially since the only one you're deceiving is yourself.

Such ham-fisted attempts as this do work on occasion, since there are plenty of woefully under-educated Christians out there.