Any other book

ebia said:

As someone sitting somewhat in the middle here, I can't help think that neither side is managing to really get to grips with the language the other is using and, until that happens, it's difficult to see where any real differences lie and where the differences are just artifices of the different terminology.

Click to expand...

To quote a discussion along these lines several years back "We all agree to take the literal parts literally; we just disagree on which are the literal parts!"

Oz, without nailing down specific things, would you agree that the Bible contains story -- accounts of things that happened, presumably to real people, but not told as precisely accurate narrative? (I think an example might be th4 summaries in I Chronicles of things gone into detail in I and II Samuel, which are clearly told as story. Another might be the short capsule biographies of the Judges, which are more interested in showing the individual judges as effective defenders of Israel than in who precisely said what when.

If this be so in your view, then we may have some common ground to build on.

OzSpen said:

Since we don't know the meaning of all that we are saying, we DO NEED dictionaries.

Click to expand...

Seems we agree about something

Polycarp1 said:

To quote a discussion along these lines several years back "We all agree to take the literal parts literally; we just disagree on which are the literal parts!"

Click to expand...

That's still phrased in your language. I wonder if the conversation can progress without some attempt to use each other's language.

OzSpen uses the word 'literally' not in that way but (as I understand it) the way the reformers used the word. In which case the question moves from "which bits do you take literally" to "what form(s) are there in the text so that our literal readings are the right sort of literal readings"?

Catherineanne said:

As far as I am able to get my head around this question, it seems to be closely connected with an intolerance of uncertainty.

Those whose faith provides certainty in an uncertain world, overdo the certainty bit in relation to the Bible, in order to use it as a kind of buoyancy aid, to prevent them sinking into their own doubts.

It takes a lot of faith to put that buoyancy aid away, and start to swim independently, and believe that, contrary to all our intuitive fears, man can actually float, and not only that but he can swim. As long as we hold onto our rubber ring, or big inflatable dolphin or armbands, we can certainly paddle around, but we are not going to do much more.

In relation to Scripture, I find it very sad that those who hold firmly to a so called literal view actually lose far more than they gain. Once we realise quite how deep those oceans of God's love and presence are, and that we can dive into them very safely, with no danger to our faith, few of us would want to go back.

Click to expand...

I am reminded of Idries Shah's story of The Islanders. There are two types of inhabitants living on the island - the El Ar and the Please just as there are two types of people living on this forum.

ebia said:

That's still phrased in your language. I wonder if the conversation can progress without some attempt to use each other's language.

OzSpen uses the word 'literally' not in that way but (as I understand it) the way the reformers used the word. In which case the question moves from "which bits do you take literally" to "what form(s) are there in the text so that our literal readings are the right sort of literal readings"?

Click to expand...

So literal does not always mean what we think it does? Even if we learn this new meaning, and try to engage with it, what happens with the rest of our frames of reference?

How can communication be possible, if the normal, accepted, standard meaning of words is not what is meant? Surely this is entering the Twilight Zone?

Literal denotes; 'according to the strict meaning of the words, not figurative; actual, true.' (Collins) 'denoting the factual or primary meaning of a word or expression, as opposed to a figurative one. Keeping strictly to the basic and straightforward meaning of a written text. Reproduced word for word; exact or verbatim.' (Penguin) 'According to the verbal meaning; not figurative.' Cassels.

OED: Theol; Pertaining to the 'letter' (of Scripture). The distinctive epithet of that sense or interpretation which is obtained by taking the words in their natural or customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar; opposed to mystical, allegorical etc. Of a commandment, law etc; that is to be interpreted literally.

This meaning in the OED is quoted from Wyclif in 1382, and right through to today. No alternative uses are given from the Reformation, denoting the inclusion of figurative language.

This is consistent with how I use the word literal. It cannot be figurative. It means taking something to mean exactly what it says, without recourse to any other hidden meaning. Which is why I do not take the Bible literally, in every word, because the surface meaning is not all that it contains, and is very often not the most important part of Scripture. I do not think it was intended to be taken literally, in this sense, nor written with that interpretation in mind.

If there is another way of using this word, then perhaps that can also be explained, so that we can at last identify where the problem in communication lies.

Catherineanne said:

So literal does not always mean what we think it does? Even if we learn this new meaning,

Click to expand...

My understanding from stuff I've read elsewhere is that his meaning is the same meaning as that of the reformers - ie the current standard meaning is the new one. Not that's particularly relevant.

and try to engage with it, what happens with the rest of our frames of reference?

Click to expand...

He's defined what he means by the term. Either you engage with it, or you give up on the conversation. Continuing to assume that he means what you are used to once he's defined his terms is absurd.

This meaning in the OED is quoted from Wyclif in 1382, and right through to today.

Click to expand...

I suspect that's because you are reading the Wyclif quote as though it were written post-enlightenment, but I'm not lexicographer.

If there is another way of using this word, then perhaps that can also be explained, so that we can at last identify where the problem in communication lies.

Click to expand...

He has explained it. Repeatedly. Either you engage with what he means by it, or give up. Continuing to assume he means something that he has said is not what he means is farcical.

Herev,

I know that you have been attempting to engage me in conversation and I've been trying to respond in a communicative fashion. However I do think that you engage in hyperbole:

This is the umpteenth time you've taken some comment like this as condescending.

Click to expand...

There is no truth in this statement:

Sorry you have been so hurt by someone at some point that you can't take a compliment as a compliment.

Click to expand...

I've been hurt about nothing, but I do get a little frustrated when you attempt some evasive tactics in stating your hermeneutical principles and giving examples. I'm none the wiser for our exact approach in interpreting Scripture, except that I know that you oppose literal interpretation.

OzSpen said:

Herev,

I know that you have been attempting to engage me in conversation and I've been trying to respond in a communicative fashion. However I do think that you engage in hyperbole:

There is no truth in this statement:

I've been hurt about nothing, but I do get a little frustrated when you attempt some evasive tactics in stating your hermeneutical principles and giving examples. I'm none the wiser for our exact approach in interpreting Scripture, except that I know that you oppose literal interpretation.

Click to expand...

dude, if that's all you got out of my post, I won't be missing our conversation.

ebia said:

My understanding from stuff I've read elsewhere is that his meaning is the same meaning as that of the reformers - ie the current standard meaning is the new one. Not that's particularly relevant.

Click to expand...

It is indeed relevant. As I have said, my dictionary contains references back to 1382, and I cannot find evidence of where the meaning has changed. So where is this new meaning? If I can see a definition, then I can get to grips with it. This may seem over pedantic to you, but language is my thing; I have studied the whole of English history, going back over a thousand years, and if this change can be found, I want to find it.

He's defined what he means by the term. Either you engage with it, or you give up on the conversation. Continuing to assume that he means what you are used to once he's defined his terms is absurd.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Perhaps it is absurd. The definition I saw seemed to say that literal means literal plus whatever parts of non literal we want to include. But where are those other parts actually codified? Why does metaphor sometimes get through, but (I assume) allegory never? Or if allegory does sometimes get included, where is the dividing line?

I suspect that's because you are reading the Wyclif quote as though it were written post-enlightenment, but I'm not lexicographer.

Click to expand...

Neither am I. But I am a linguicist.

Here are the earliest occurences of this word, as found by the compilers of the OED:

Holy Scripture hath iiii onderstondingis; literal; allegorik, moral and anagogik Wycliff Prol 43 1382

Not only with littral teching, but with many mysti exposiciones Capgrave 1460

Unto the lyturall sense, by this commaundement is pryncypally defended manslaughter 1502

If he sayd that the wordes of Chrsyte, beside the lytarall sence be understanden in an allegorye, I would wel agre with him More answ Frith 1530

etc etc

He has explained it. Repeatedly. Either you engage with what he means by it, or give up. Continuing to assume he means something that he has said is not what he means is farcical.

Click to expand...

Most kind. Thanks for that. I think.

"which bits do you take literally" to "what form(s) are there in the text so that our literal readings are the right sort of literal readings"?

Click to expand...

I note this comment of yours, and return to it again, in an attempt to see what it might entail. Given my definition of literal, all I can say is that this involves a kind of double speak, which I honestly cannot get my head around.

Unless all that is actually meant by literal is 'reading letters.' Strip all the broader meaning away, and reduce it to that, and it works. What forms exist in the text so that our reading of the letters of which it is composed are the right sort of reading of those letters. This would be fine as a suggestion, except that, in this case, who are those who do not read the letters of which it is composed? It appears that the literal position is being defended on one definition, and the non literal position attacked on another.

I have checked the OED again. This meaning does exist, but is not related to meaning, but to writing something with one's own hand, or in alphabetic form. I am not sure if that helps, or maybe this is more absurdity?

ebia said:

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Because the theory is an interpretation of the facts and evidence, I am not bound into believing that is how life formed. Many will say that it is the best interpretation we have, again, I don't buy it.

I don't think it's meaningful to say a scientific/historical account and a mythological account (for lack of better labels) contradict each other any more than to say a good recipe for fruit-cake contradicts the Genesis account.

Click to expand...

You probably don't think so, but I see no where in scripture where it is to be taken as a mythological account.

It's meaningful to say an alternative mythologic explanation of creation (Enuma Elish, say) contradicts Genesis, or that an alternative model of the mechanics of creation (if such a model existed) might contradict the ToE. But its not meaningful to say the two contradict each other if they are different sorts of literature talking about different sorts of things.

Click to expand...

Because I don't see in scripture where I am not take it as a myth and therefore I do take it as historical, the two contradicts.

It's an interpretation of part of the evidence we see in nature that attempts to model one aspect of how creation has come about and is coming about. Of course it's not an [entire] explanation of the origin of the universe .... Science can give be an entire explanation of the origin of the universe because it only deals in one aspect of the creation anyway - the so-called naturalistic mechanisms of said creation.

Click to expand...

The "naturalistic mechanism" is the philosophy they hold in Evolution. That it came to be without any supernatural guidance. Whereas in Scripture, the universe came to be by God, who is Spiritual, who created the materialistic, physical, world. And because He created the world, He also created the mechanisms to guide the naturalistic world.

OzSpen said:

daydreamer,

Luther called the Book of James a "right strawy epistle" because he believed its teaching on justification by faith disagreed with Paul's teaching on the justification by faith.

In F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Chapter House, Glasgow, 1988), he states of Luther's New Testament:

F. F. Bruce's book on the canon of Scripture is available at a fairly reasonable price as a second-hand paperback edition. Bruce was formerly professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check the book out, if I can find it.

Catherineanne said:

The Bible does not tell us how. It tells us why.

Click to expand...

In Genesis 1-2, we are not told why God created the world, we are just told that He did. We are also told that it was created by the words from His mouth (this is where it does not go into detail about the mechanisms that He used to created the world) but we are given an outline of what He created and on what days (interestingly time became a play).

There is nothing in the Bible story of creation which contradicts science, because they are different works, with different purposes. I am happy to accept both, and many scientists are able to do the same thing. My faith is not attacked every time I see a science programme on the television, any more than my (admittedly limited) scientific knowledge is threatened when I see Songs of Praise.

Click to expand...

Again, I also believe that science does not contradict the bible. But the theory which is an interpretation on the evidence and facts certainly does not compliment the bible. I too do not think that my faith is attacked when reading science or listening to a program that states the facts.
Psalm 102:25

An apple cannot contradict an orange. They both are what they are. You could say the apple contradicts the concept of fruit as citrus, but that would be meaningless to anyone who understands that some fruit are citrus and some are not.

Similarly, some books are intended to contain factual truth, and some are intended to contain spiritual truth. But there is no such thing on earth as a perfect book. Not even the Bible.

Click to expand...

See here is the interesting thing about Genesis 1 and 2, while I believe that the truth is that God created the world, it is mostly establishing the creation of the world, which is stating it as both a factual and a spiritual truth. Spiritual truth meaning, God did this, "factual truth -and I am assuming you mean earthly physical truth- Genesis is telling us how God did this in a very simplistic way. Science explains how He created the world in scientific terms.
Jump to Genesis 4:1
Are we told in a very scientific way, what happened in the wombs of Eve when she bore Cain? No, it is stating a truth that Adam had sex with Eve, she got pregnant and she gave birth to a son which was named Cain. Now when we go into the scientific facts about the human body and and pregnancy does any of the steps that is described in Genesis 4:1 contradicts scripture? No! And believe me, I understand that this is to simply of an explanation, but I am just saying that science does not contradict scripture. If we are told that Adam was pregnant and bore the child, then when compared to the science behind pregnancy this would raise a problem, even if I tell myself, oh it's a mythical story, it is still a problem. That's one of the reasons why I can't put the Theory of Evolution and the description of Creation in Genesis 1-2 together as if they are complimentary, because when you get down to the theory it contradicts the scriptures. But I also understand the the theory is an interpretation of the facts and evidences, it doesn't mean it's the correct explanation. And because the bible claims and I truly believe it, that is the true word of God, I believe that Genesis is the correct explanation and I fully believe that science will attest to it, given time.

How do we know that God created the world--because Genesis is establishing it as a factual and spiritual truth (and let me say this, I do not believe that truth is divided, I believe if something is truth, it's truth. Whether that truth is of a spiritual or physical nature, it's truth) and it is continuously established as a factual truth throughout the entire bible. Now how do I know the bible is true, because not only does it makes that own statement, it has also been proven correctly in the physical "truth" why then would I not believe it's spiritual truth? And the amazing thing about God is, once He gives you the Holy Spirit, it's amazing the perspective you have into an understanding and a knowledge of Him.

Catherineanne said:

If you regard the Bible as a spiritual guidebook, then it cannot be said to err.

It is only if you impose upon it an anachronistic burden of literalism that the question of error arises. From a literal point of view, there are historical and biological and scientific claims that cannot be substantiated, and which we would call wrong if they appeared in a modern text book.

Click to expand...

If one assumes, that "modern text books" does not contain errors.

Ironic isn't it.

DDG15,

The "naturalistic mechanism" is the philosophy they hold in Evolution. That it came to be without any supernatural guidance. Whereas in Scripture, the universe came to be by God, who is Spiritual, who created the materialistic, physical, world. And because He created the world, He also created the mechanisms to guide the naturalistic world.

Click to expand...

Well said! I found your whole response to CA to be in agreement with my understanding of the Genesis account of creation.

peace4ever said:

Let's engage in fantasy for a moment like Darwinists do and pretend that the bible wasn't written by God but by a fallible human author...

Click to expand...

Well, actually, it wasn't written by God, but by several human authors (the identity of some of whom is unknown to us). As to their fallibility...well, they were only human.

...particularly a fiction novelist since the secular world claims that the bible is fiction.

Click to expand...

Some do. Most, AFAIK, don't.

David.

Hentenza said:

If you want to debunk the conclusion then you have to prove that either God can err or that the bible is not the word of God.

Go for it.

Click to expand...

Well, this ought to be a doddle...

"The Word of God" is a phrase that occurs throughout the various books of the Bible. Also, "The Word of the Lord", which AIUI has the same meaning, given that God is the Lord.

It's pretty clear is that the writers who use those two phrases never use them in any way to suggest that they were referring to the Scriptures themselves, or indeed to anything else written down. Since the writers of Scripture were, indeed, using the phrases long before the Scriptures were completed, it would be anachronistic to suggest that they intended the phrases to refer to the Scriptures. And if they do refer to the Scriptures, then what are we to make of statements like "The Word of the Lord came to Abram" (Genesis 15:1), "The Word of the Lord came to Samuel" (1 Samuel 15:10), "The Word of the Lord came to Solomon" (1 Kings 6:11), "the Word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert" (Luke 3:2), "the Word of God continued to increase and spread" (Acts 12:24), or "the Word of God is living and active" (Hebrews 4:12)? They're just a few of the many uses of the phrases "The Word of God"/"The Word of the Lord" which make no sense if we assume that those phrases are intended to refer to the Scriptures themselves.

Personally since the "The Word of God" = "The Bible" equation is itself such an unBiblical notion, I'd love to know where it originated. Definitely not from within the Bible itself. Does anyone know the earliest writer to make that equation?

David.

David Brider said:

Personally since the "The Word of God" = "The Bible" equation is itself such an unBiblical notion, I'd love to know where it originated. Definitely not from within the Bible itself. Does anyone know the earliest writer to make that equation?

Click to expand...

I would be interest too.

My guesstimate that the Bible is the literal word of God is a latter day thing which arises with response to other issues. Those other issues I suggest probably have some genesis in the move from the more traditional forms of worship and the need to be 'different' - 'the Bible says it, I believe it, no further discussion will be entered into'. It is simplistic, catchy and one does not need to think too hard.

Since the majority of populations have been illiterate it makes sense this idea of the text is preaches as the Word of God but the ontological value is certainly not a new idea.

wayseer said:

I would be interest too.

My guesstimate that the Bible is the literal word of God is a latter day thing which arises with response to other issues. Those other issues I suggest probably have some genesis in the move from the more traditional forms of worship and the need to be 'different' - 'the Bible says it, I believe it, no further discussion will be entered into'. It is simplistic, catchy and one does not need to think too hard.

Click to expand...

David Brider said:

Personally since the "The Word of God" = "The Bible" equation is itself such an unBiblical notion, I'd love to know where it originated. Definitely not from within the Bible itself. Does anyone know the earliest writer to make that equation?

David.

Click to expand...

There are many scriptures that directly imply that the scriptures are authoritative because they are the written word of God recorded by his power. Below are some major ones:

Isaiah 55:11 ESV
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Matthew 22:29 ESV
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Matthew 15:6 ESV
6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Matthew 4:4 ESV
4 But he answered, “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Mark 7:3 ESV
13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Acts 18:11 ESV
11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

John 8:47 ESV
47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

John 10:35 ESV
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

Luke 24:27 ESV
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 17:2 ESV
2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:28 ESV
28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Romans 1:2 ESV
2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures,

1 Timothy 4:13 ESV
13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Ephesians 2:19:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.

Why We Believe the Bible, Part 1 :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Please choose 3 passages believed to be the strongest evidence for the claim and we can go from there.

DD2008 said:

There are many scriptures that directly imply that the scriptures are authoritative because they are the written word of God recorded by his power. Below are some major ones:

Isaiah 55:11 ESV
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Matthew 22:29 ESV
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Matthew 15:6 ESV
6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Matthew 4:4 ESV
4 But he answered, “It is written,
“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Mark 7:3 ESV
13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Acts 18:11 ESV
11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

John 8:47 ESV
47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

John 10:35 ESV
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

Luke 24:27 ESV
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 17:2 ESV
2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:28 ESV
28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Romans 1:2 ESV
2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures,

1 Timothy 4:13 ESV
13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Ephesians 2:19:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of Godmay be competent, equipped for every good work.

Why We Believe the Bible, Part 1 :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Click to expand...