Literal Translation of the Bible, (Where Applicable)?.?.?

[Tree of Life]

So to recap, any scientific discovery, which contradicts Biblical claims, is incorrect or mistaken; regardless of how extensive the peer review measures may be?

If it is a flat contradiction, then yes.

If so, is there anything outside the Bible which validates a young earth claim? Or is it the Bible, and the Bible alone?

I don't get into Creation Science, so I couldn't say.

Does this also apply to the Egyptian pyramids, which are concluded to be over 4.5K years old; which demonstrate how no such population could have existed, (post-flood), to build such dwellings?

No it wouldn't apply to man made structures. I would have to say that the dating of the pyramids is either incorrect or perhaps they were structures that survived the flood or some other idea.

 

[cvanwey]

If it is a flat contradiction, then yes.



I don't get into Creation Science, so I couldn't say.



No it wouldn't apply to man made structures. I would have to say that the dating of the pyramids is either incorrect or perhaps they were structures that survived the flood or some other idea.

This raises a plethora of questions... Are you open to them? Or are you instead a staunch fundamental literalist Christian, unwilling or not open to presented opposing 'evidence'? This is not a loaded question. I'm actually curious?

 

[klutedavid]

And yet there was no corroboration, nor did or do we have any documented response from the Corinthians. Also, the letters were written years later. By then, all such 'witnesses' were scattered all over. Furthermore, since they were not documented, by name, how might the receivers of such a document(s) even know who to ask for verification?

The receivers of the first letter to the Corinthians already knew, one of the witnesses of the resurrection. Paul was the last witness of the resurrected Christ. Paul had baptized some members of the Corinthian church.

Corinth was a port city and a busy port. There is no doubt that the Corinthians could track down. A number of these witnesses to the resurrected Christ. More than five hundred observers is a lot of people to connect with.

I don't think this was an issue for the folk at Corinth.

If you read this first letter to the Corinthians, I don't believe this letter could possibly be a fictional account. This first letter is undisputed by scholars.

Once again, you have the foundation of Christianity which is impossible to dismiss.

 

[Tree of Life]

This raises a plethora of questions... Are you open to them? Or are you instead a staunch fundamental literalist Christian, unwilling or not open to presented opposing 'evidence'? This is not a loaded question. I'm actually curious?

I'm all ears. It's not like I haven't heard it all before. My undergraduate degree is in Philosophy from a secular, humanist institution.

 

[cvanwey]

The receivers of the first letter to the Corinthians already knew, one of the witnesses of the resurrection. Paul was the last witness of the resurrected Christ. Paul had baptized some members of the Corinthian church.

Corinth was a port city and a busy port. There is no doubt that the Corinthians could track down. A number of these witnesses to the resurrected Christ. More than five hundred observers is a lot of people to connect with.

I don't think this was an issue for the folk at Corinth.

If you read this first letter to the Corinthians, I don't believe this letter could possibly be a fictional account. This first letter is undisputed by scholars.

Once again, you have the foundation of Christianity which is impossible to dismiss.

And yet, there is no record of such tracking. You are instead imposing wishful thinking. There exists no corroboration/deposition, because there exists no paper trail; the same very paper trail you claim validates such a claim. Knowing one of the witnesses is still ~499 short of corroboration/deposition to 500 claimed. In fact, without cross-referencing with even a few others, you really have nothing at all.

Again, you have not addressed my points, so I will clarify them again.

- The document was written years later
- The claimed document lists no names to reference later
- Since the documented claim was presented years later, even if all such parties, (i.e.) the 500 were actually known, good luck deposing all of them.

But as it stands, the facts are simple. You have a claim from one person. This is not 'eye-witness' attestation from 500. This is second hand information at best.

We can speculate until the cows come home. But the facts are plain and simple. No deposition of witnesses with corroboration equals no first-hand witnesses, (500 to boot).

If anyone is to claim validity of the above attestation, then the Mormon account for the golden tablets must be well established as fact, as sworn and signed testimony exists for witnessing the golden plates, as Joseph Smith, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith were all signed in real time. By any standard of evidence, this account possesses much more corroborated eyewitness testimony than any competing New Testament claimed eyewitness account. And yet, Christians will reject the claimed eyewitness tenets of Mormonism.

Thanks

 

[cvanwey]

I'm all ears. It's not like I haven't heard it all before. My undergraduate degree is in Philosophy from a secular, humanist institution.

If you've heard it all before, I wish not to bore you with repetitiveness. However, I do find it curious of your admitted philosophy? Meaning, any discovery which contradicts a claim from the Bible MUST be wrong. I'd rather just skip to the end, and instead ask what makes you so sure that the Bible is right, on all accounts, when well-established peer review differs within it's findings, and according to you, has instead apparently failed?

 

[Tree of Life]

If you've heard it all before, I wish not to bore you with repetitiveness. However, I do find it curious of your admitted philosophy? Meaning, any discovery which contradicts a claim from the Bible MUST be wrong. I'd rather just skip to the end, and instead ask what makes you so sure that the Bible is right, on all accounts, when well-established peer review differs within it's findings, and according to you, has instead apparently failed?

Because I believe the Bible is God's Word.

 

[cvanwey]

Because I believe the Bible is God's Word.

If humans are flawed in there assessments, thinking, and discovery, as demonstrated by the fact that peer review also fails, then how do you assess the validity of your own conclusion; that you are actually reading God's word, and not instead man's word? What verification process do (you) use to determine you are actually adhering to God's word, when, at the same time, must also admit, humans are flawed in their thinking?

 

[cvanwey]

Because I believe the Bible is God's Word.

(Second warranted response)

Am I going to see any of the progressives chime in, which tell me not to take the Bible literally? Or is it only permissible, warranted, and acceptable, when it comes from someone whom claims some sect of Christianity?

 

[Tolworth John]

So what do you say about the flood claims and Exodus claims? Literal?

Yes. and the ass that spoke, the axe that floated, the sun stopping, angels surrounding a city, fire falling from feaven, the virgin conception, walking on water etc and the resurrection.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes. and the ass that spoke, the axe that floated, the sun stopping, angels surrounding a city, fire falling from feaven, the virgin conception, walking on water etc and the resurrection.

It would be interesting to actually see the (less-than-literal) Christians chime in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(Second warranted response)

Am I going to see any of the progressives chime in, which tell me not to take the Bible literally? Or is it only permissible, warranted, and acceptable, when it comes from someone whom claims some sect of Christianity?

You "rang"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would be interesting to actually see the (less-than-literal) Christians chime in.

I didn't chime in because you said in the OP that you wanted viewpoints presented without resorting to hermeneutics. And since I personally don't see how it is even possible to handle the Bible without automatically entering into any one of several modes of analysis and hermeneutics, I thought my seemingly "progressive" view wasn't really being called upon.

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't chime in because you said in the OP that you wanted viewpoints presented without resorting to hermeneutics. And since I personally don't see how it is even possible to handle the Bible without automatically entering into any one of several modes of analysis and hermeneutics, I thought my seemingly "progressive" view wasn't really being called upon.

Well, my message was to all viewers, and not just you But to respond... As I stated in my OP, I've spoken to 'hermeneutic experts', whom use the very same lines of scripture to argue opposing positions of a topic. Also, people are reading such claims as literal. So I really do not see how hermeneutics helps here....

I would love to hear what many of the other viewers, whom have yet to chime in provide a response?

 

[Silmarien]

(Second warranted response)

Am I going to see any of the progressives chime in, which tell me not to take the Bible literally? Or is it only permissible, warranted, and acceptable, when it comes from someone whom claims some sect of Christianity?

A non-literal approach to the Old Testament doesn't necessarily make someone theologically liberal. I'm more on the Anglo-Catholic side, so I'm generally going to take my cues from the Catholics and Orthodox. If they say that a particular question must be approached in a specific manner, I will hear them out. I may not always agree, but I often do.

If someone wants to read Genesis literally and adopt Young Earth Creationism, so be it. It doesn't make much sense to me, since my interest in natural theology means that I have a high view of science, but if that is the direction that someone wants to take, then that is their decision. They should just stay out of scientific discussions and not insist that everyone else follow them in their particular interpretation, since the position is actually very weak.

 

[cvanwey]

A non-literal approach to the Old Testament doesn't necessarily make someone theologically liberal. I'm more on the Anglo-Catholic side, so I'm generally going to take my cues from the Catholics and Orthodox. If they say that a particular question must be approached in a specific manner, I will hear them out. I may not always agree, but I often do.

If someone wants to read Genesis literally and adopt Young Earth Creationism, so be it. It doesn't make much sense to me, since my interest in natural theology means that I have a high view of science, but if that is the direction that someone wants to take, then that is their decision. They should just stay out of scientific discussions and not insist that everyone else follow them in their particular interpretation, since the position is actually very weak.

Kool.

So I have a very specific question for you... Probably one you've heard asked many times before.

How do you reconcile science WITH claims of the supernatural, since they appear diametrically opposed?

 

[Silmarien]

Kool.

So I have a very specific question for you... Probably one you've heard asked many times before.

How do you reconcile science WITH claims of the supernatural, since they appear diametrically opposed?

Pretty easily. I just deny there's a conflict at all.

 

[cvanwey]

Pretty easily. I just deny there's a conflict at all.

Nice

 

[hedrick]

I've spoken to many, including here, whom state some of the OT stories are not to be taken literally. So I ask, by what barometer or standard is to be used in determining which stories are literal, verses a metaphor, verses a mere teaching point, verses another?

I think you're confusing two questions:
* Was a section of the Bible intended to be literal
* Is it historically true.

There are books that are obviously poetry, so the answer is pretty clear. Jonah is pretty obviously a satire. But most of the books that look like history were presumably meant literally, i.e. not as symbolism, etc.

But you can have stories that aren't symbolic that still aren't historically accurate, or even meant to be. Most novels are intended as literal accounts, in the sense that they're narratives which aren't symbolic or otherwise non-literal, but they also didn't actually happen. Greek myths fall into this category. So do tribal legends.

How do you decide? Normally you know enough about history to tell what's a legend and what's history. Of course at times mistakes have been made (e.g. Troy). But generally it's clear that certain accounts are legends or perhaps myths.

In the case of the OT, we know from science that the creation stories are legends, and from archaeology that things before about Judges aren't straight history. That's not to say that there was no Abraham or Moses. But archaeologists (except those who are committed because of their religion to say that the Biblical accounts are true) are pretty confident in this.

The Gospels were written too near the time of the events to be legends. On the other hand, a comparison of the Gospels also makes it pretty clear that Jesus' words aren't verbatim recordings, though they may still record the substance of what he said. We also know from other historical records of the time that people tended to be pretty credulous about miracles, so there's reason for some skepticism about those. Note that I'm not saying that Jesus did no miracles, just that writers of the period tended to see miracles where we wouldn't.

These kinds of judgements are made routinely by historians, based on archaeology, internal literary evidence, other accounts from the same and nearby periods, etc. There's no reason other than special pleading not to use the same approach with the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, my message was to all viewers, and not just you But to respond... As I stated in my OP, I've spoken to 'hermeneutic experts', whom use the very same lines of scripture to argue opposing positions of a topic. Also, people are reading such claims as literal. So I really do not see how hermeneutics helps here....

I understand that you've had the opportunity to speak to hermeneutics experts (only two of them???), but quite frankly, that's not really telling me much. What did these guys say?

Moreover, there are different schools of Biblical Hermeneutics and we can't just act surprised that one biblical scholar may say one thing, and then a second one gives some other interpretation.

On top of this already complicated admixture of variety in Christian views on how we might be told how we should best handle and read the Bible, there is also, up and above this, various considerations that can also be applied by Philosophical Hermeneutics which takes things a step or two in even more expansive directions beyond that of Biblical Hermeneutics.

From my own point of view as a student (maybe a well-read student) of Hermeneutics, I'm going to say that one simply can not escape "doing" either Hermeneutics or Philosophy when reading the Bible or when contemplating even the religious idea that accompany religious Jews and Christians, even if they happen to be those who only do so on more common, every day levels when and where any sort of reading, interpretation or evaluating of the Bible takes place. Again, its inescapable, and for me to hear the following words fall from someone's lips, "...you interpret, but I just read" is a fallacy of the grossest sort. To "read" is to "interpret."

So, forgive me if I think your OP, while well intended, falls very far short of actually asking for responses that anyone, of any stripe of thought, can actually answer without resorting in some form or fashion to act of interpreting the biblical text and considering its various networks of contexts. To ignore all of this is for a reader of the Bible to engage not in more officialized or cogent exegesis, but rather in eisegesis, and I know that no one would really like to admit that all they do if flip open the Bible and assume that "it must be as a see it." Yeah...................that's not how it's done.