Reading/Interpreting Scripture Literally?

[Capybara]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth. In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account. The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible. The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world. Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

As another note, I've been reading a Study Bible (Harper Collins if it makes any difference) and it has certainly been helpful in putting things into perspective, and one particular line stood out to me is in its commentary on Exodus. The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." This statement is one that I feel I agree with, since I've always wondered if we could actually be confident in the authorship and complete accuracy of these texts which are so incredibly ancient and which historical origins cannot be traced. In other words, while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

 

[privatepop]

The question becomes, “Do you believe God wrote the Bible or not?”. How could Moses know what happened in the garden of Eden or how creation happened? Are the writings of Paul, John, and Moses the writings of these men or are they writings of God?

We read in Jeremiah 36 how God gave us the Bible.

[1] And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
[2] Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

If it then is God who wrote the Bible. Will he then not protect it. This was shown to be true with the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A copy of Isaiah was found which was a thousand years older than our latest know manuscript. The words matched word for word with the latest that they had. So God was protecting his word from change.

To understand the Bible truly, this comes from God. Though the Bible has historical stories, even of which contains the calendar of time, the Bible is a spiritual book. It speaks of spiritual things, God’s salvation plan for mankind. Christ said he spoke in parables. He did this because he wanted to keep truth from some. So when we read a true historical story like David and Goliath, if we can not see immediately some spiritual truth we must look for the spiritual substance of what God is speaking about that is hidden . Comparing the Bible with the Bible (spiritual with spiritual) for the Bible is its own dictionary. It defines how a word is to be understood.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The question becomes, “Do you believe God wrote the Bible or not?”. How could Moses know what happened in the garden of Eden or how creation happened? Are the writings of Paul, John, and Moses the writings of these men or are they writings of God?

We read in Jeremiah 36 how God gave us the Bible.

[1] And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
[2] Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

If it then is God who wrote the Bible. Will he then not protect it. This was shown to be true with the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A copy of Isaiah was found which was a thousand years older than our latest know manuscript. The words matched word for word with the latest that they had. So God was protecting his word from change.

To understand the Bible truly, this comes from God. Though the Bible has historical stories, even of which contains the calendar of time, the Bible is a spiritual book. It speaks of spiritual things, God’s salvation plan for mankind. Christ said he spoke in parables. He did this because he wanted to keep truth from some. So when we read a true historical story like David and Goliath, if we can not see immediately some spiritual truth we must look for the spiritual substance of what God is speaking about that is hidden . Comparing the Bible with the Bible (spiritual with spiritual) for the Bible is its own dictionary. It defines how a word is to be understood.

You must first believe that God wrote the Bible in order for you to believe the word of Jeremiah in the Bible that it was God who wrote the Bible. If, on the other hand you believe that men wrote the Bible then you can dismiss any of the words of any of the books of the Bible as being written by men. The answer to the question "Did God or man write the Bible?" can't be settled for all by a verse from the Bible. Personally, I think the question is too restrictive as I don't believe that it is an "either. or" type of situation. Isn't it more likely that men were inspired by God to write the Bible books and isn't it possible that God gave those men certain restrictions as well as certain freedoms or latitudes in how those books would be composed? As for Genesis, even stating positively that God is the only Author does not mean that Genesis must inevitably be an historical account as other sections of God's writing are universally accepted as definitely not historical accounts it would seem likely that God can write in any literary genre He chooses.

 

[OzSpen]

Capybara,

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth. In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account. The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible. The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world. Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

As another note, I've been reading a Study Bible (Harper Collins if it makes any difference) and it has certainly been helpful in putting things into perspective, and one particular line stood out to me is in its commentary on Exodus. The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." This statement is one that I feel I agree with, since I've always wondered if we could actually be confident in the authorship and complete accuracy of these texts which are so incredibly ancient and which historical origins cannot be traced. In other words, while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

Welcome to Christian Forums. I hope you enjoy your time with us.

Your post is loaded with your presuppositions. Let's note a few of them:

• You are against a young earth creationism. So, you begin with science (an old earth) and don't seem to want to listen to the biblical evidence. I wouldn't do that with my local newspaper, so I don't consider that your presupposition will allow you to analyse the biblical evidence in an objective way.

• Genesis 1 is not a literal creation of the earth. That's an imposition on the text. What did Jesus consider about the 6 days of creation. You don't seem to want to listen to the evidence but you are imposing your view on the text.

• You don't know what is literal and historical about the Bible because you are not reading it like any other piece of literature and allowing the text to speak for itself. When I pick up my local newspaper, I allow it to tell me if it is reporting narrative and if metaphors, etc. are included, that becomes evident. It's time that you got back to reading the Bible at face value. I don't think you will be able to engage in responsible hermeneutics with the presuppositions you are imposing on the text.

• "many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings". This tells me something of your view of God. He is not omnipotent, omniscient. You are doubting God.

• "while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?" Your humanistic presuppositions are over-riding what God says. I don't expect you to come to conclusions that are satisfactory to the text when your a priori views take precedence.

• " The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." That sounds like a postmodern stuff to me where "legend" is imposed on the text. By the way, that's the common stuff of historical criticism and is imposition on the Bible.

You don't seem to have evangelical convictions. Is theological liberalism dominating your world and life view? Using a HarperCollins study Bible seems to indicate that to me.

Oz

 

[wayseer]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth. In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account. The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible. The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world. Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

As another note, I've been reading a Study Bible (Harper Collins if it makes any difference) and it has certainly been helpful in putting things into perspective, and one particular line stood out to me is in its commentary on Exodus. The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." This statement is one that I feel I agree with, since I've always wondered if we could actually be confident in the authorship and complete accuracy of these texts which are so incredibly ancient and which historical origins cannot be traced. In other words, while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

Hi and welcome.

I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?

If you are reading the Bible as a historical or scientific text book then you are heading over a cliff.

Again, if you are looking for logic in the Bible then you are barking up the wrong tree.

So, why are you reading the Bible?

 

[OzSpen]

Hi and welcome.

I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?

If you are reading the Bible as a historical or scientific text book then you are heading over a cliff.

Again, if you are looking for logic in the Bible then you are barking up the wrong tree.

So, why are you reading the Bible?

This is your postmodernist and/or modernist worldview speaking.

No historical books, whether Captain Cook's journals, Benjamin Franklin's writings, or the Bible can be subjected to the repeatability model of the scientific experimental method.

However, the Bible is a thoroughly reliable historical book. This has been demonstrated over and over by historians.

In fact, one of your own, an Anglican, Dr. Paul Barnett, who is an historian and has taught history at Macquarie University, Sydney, refutes your view about the lack of logic in the Bible and the Bible not being an historical book. In fact, the title of one of his publications from which I here quote is, Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos 1997).

Do you get the title? Jesus, logic and history! He, a historian is convinced of the combination of Jesus, logic and history. He wrote:

Historical reconstructions of Jesus must attribute to him - his person and his resurrection - the pecussive impact which establishes the momentum and the trajectory of early Christianity, its worship and 'the faith' its apostles preached. This trajectory and momentum are evident in the letters of the New Testament and confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles. As M. Bockmuehl puts it, 'It is historically legitimate to see Jesus of Nazareth in organic, causal continuity with the faith of the early church'.
We should go further. Not only is such a 'causal continuity' between Jesus and the faith of the early church 'historically legitimate', but any lesser interpretation would be historically impossible" (p. 102).

A professional historian who is also from your Australian Anglican denomination disagrees with your line, "If you are reading the Bible as a historical or scientific text book then you are heading over a cliff". In fact, Barnett, concludes:

These points of intersection between early Christianity and 'secular' history establish that the history of early Christianity is, indeed, genuinely historical and not 'mythical' in character" (p. 120).

I do wish that you would do your historical homework and not throw unnecessary doubts into the minds of the uninformed that logic and history do not belong with biblical examination. Historians refute your views, but your view is trendy amongst those who want to discredit Scripture.

Regards, Oz

 

[Tim Myers]

"My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible."

Start by using common sense.....

Look at human beings and the world around you today and realize that nothing has really changed all that much in half a dozen millennia, especially where people are concerned.....

 

[wayseer]

 

[Tim Myers]

"I wouldn't do that with my local newspaper....."

There is a considerable difference betwen the Bible and your local newspaper......

"You don't seem to want to listen to the evidence but you are imposing your view on the text."

What evidence??.....

"You are doubting God."

This is a terrible thing to accuse Capybara of doing.....
Just because he questions dubious passages in the Bible or reads the Bible with a rational and logical mind, you say he is "doubting God".....

"Your humanistic presuppositions are over-riding what God says."

And your overly-simplistic, "just-accept-it-no-matter-what" point of view is overriding the intelligence that God gave grapes....

"By the way, that's the common stuff of historical criticism and is imposition on the Bible."

**forehead slap** ROFL.......

 

[Capybara]

Thanks for all the responses. I only have time to respond to a few things at the moment.

"I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?"
I'm reading the Bible to become stronger in my faith and become closer with God.

I suppose I expected the Bible to be completely truthful in its "historical" claims, and the fact that I don't think they are is disturbing me I guess. What prevents us from viewing the Bible as simply a collection of myths with good lessons behind them?

Even when it comes to the Gospels, there are a number of contradictions between them. If we were to take them literally, we realize they cannot each have been completely accurate. Realistically, the Gospels are a collection of Jesus' actions, sayings, and teachings that were either from a written source used by the authors, or transmitted through oral means. The problem is that through oral tradition and the authors' own theological views/composition, they may or may not be the whole truth. Thus, if even these more recent writings in the Bible are not completely free of errors, how can I assume the rest of the Bible, far more ancient and sometimes unknown in origin, is "historical?" My conclusion is that the writings aren't necessarily historical, although that leaves me confused on how to interpret seemingly historical narratives.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Thanks for all the responses. I only have time to respond to a few things at the moment.

"I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?"
I'm reading the Bible to become stronger in my faith and become closer with God.

I suppose I expected the Bible to be completely truthful in its "historical" claims, and the fact that I don't think they are is disturbing me I guess. What prevents us from viewing the Bible as simply a collection of myths with good lessons behind them?

Even when it comes to the Gospels, there are a number of contradictions between them. If we were to take them literally, we realize they cannot each have been completely accurate. Realistically, the Gospels are a collection of Jesus' actions, sayings, and teachings that were either from a written source used by the authors, or transmitted through oral means. The problem is that through oral tradition and the authors' own theological views/composition, they may or may not be the whole truth. Thus, if even these more recent writings in the Bible are not completely free of errors, how can I assume the rest of the Bible, far more ancient and sometimes unknown in origin, is "historical?" My conclusion is that the writings aren't necessarily historical, although that leaves me confused on how to interpret seemingly historical narratives.

You may never be sure what passages are purely historical and which are not but since the Bible is not a History text book I don't see the problem.

 

[ciel_perdu]

Capybara wrote:

Even when it comes to the Gospels, there are a number of contradictions between them. If we were to take them literally, we realize they cannot each have been completely accurate. Realistically, the Gospels are a collection of Jesus' actions, sayings, and teachings that were either from a written source used by the authors, or transmitted through oral means. The problem is that through oral tradition and the authors' own theological views/composition, they may or may not be the whole truth. Thus, if even these more recent writings in the Bible are not completely free of errors, how can I assume the rest of the Bible, far more ancient and sometimes unknown in origin, is "historical?" My conclusion is that the writings aren't necessarily historical, although that leaves me confused on how to interpret seemingly historical narratives.

Personally for me, as Oz would testify, I couldn't really give two hoots whether the bible is historically accurate or not, what matters most is that the teachings of Jesus are in there. Questions like ''well how do we know they are what Jesus said?'', just lead people in a never ending circle of doubt, and further away from actually obeying Jesus. They may not be word for word verbatim what he said, but it's the best darn record we have, so we would be foolish to pass them up.

Jesus said ''If you want to find out whether my teachings come from me, or from God...do them!''. Seems like the perfect way to answer our questions.

I would however advocate VERY strongly, that we should literally obey the commandments that Jesus asked his followers to obey. . Today there seems to be a supernatural resistance to doing so, and sadly this resistance is from those purporting to BE Christian.

 

[Bella Vita]

We will have to disagree then. I believe the Bible is God breathed and is the word of God as it was intended for man to have. I believe in the word literally in every sense. I believe it all happened. God is so big and so mighty we only understand a small portion of what that means. Who am I to say God is all of those things but then turn around and say "well he is mighty but he didn't flood the Earth no way that happened" or "God is loving but there is no way Jesus brought that man back from the dead that didn't happen". I mean really it is hypocritical in a way. Either you believe it all and believe in God's power or you believe in none of it. You can't pick and choose. And as the Bible tells us "do not be luke warm in your faith but be hot or cold" basically you can't be half and half you have to be all the way!

You should really do some more Bible study on this topic. And talk to others who know their theology well, and ask them why they believe the Bible to be the 100% word of God and what facts they have to back that up. =]

 

[OzSpen]

Bella,

We will have to disagree then. I believe the Bible is God breathed and is the word of God as it was intended for man to have. I believe in the word literally in every sense. I believe it all happened. God is so big and so mighty we only understand a small portion of what that means. Who am I to say God is all of those things but then turn around and say "well he is mighty but he didn't flood the Earth no way that happened" or "God is loving but there is no way Jesus brought that man back from the dead that didn't happen". I mean really it is hypocritical in a way. Either you believe it all and believe in God's power or you believe in none of it. You can't pick and choose. And as the Bible tells us "do not be luke warm in your faith but be hot or cold" basically you can't be half and half you have to be all the way!

You should really do some more Bible study on this topic. And talk to others who know their theology well, and ask them why they believe the Bible to be the 100% word of God and what facts they have to back that up. =]

Thank you for your standing up for the integrity and truthfulness of the entire Scripture. For me, I would add, "in the original documents", as they are the documents that are inerrant, infallible, truthful.

Here are some reasons why many people do not accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God.

You may find this article helpful in showing why people don't accept the Scriptures as you and I do. It is by John C. Baumann, "Which Method Of Biblical Exposition Is More Loving? A Comparison Of The Historical-Critical And Historical-Grammatical Methods Of Biblical Exposition With Special Focus On The Presuppositions".

Please note his exposé of the presuppositions of those who accept the historical critical method in their denigration of the Bible. Many of them support these views as assumptions before they examine the biblical text:

1. The Bible must be read like all other books.
2. The Bible cannot be treated as an inspired book.
3. The Bible possibly contains errors.
4. Miracles and Prophecy cannot be accepted.
5. Nothing can be settled by faith.
6. Scripture has no unity.
7. The writers reflect the period in which they wrote.
8. The scholarly critic must decide what is useful.
9. The Bible’s authority today is in its theology not its history.

If people bring these assumptions to the Bible before examining the text of Scripture, what conclusions are they going to reach? They will be doubters, skeptics of the Scriptures.

Also, I recommend a read of the article by Wayne A. Grudem 1983, 1992. Scripture's self-attestation and the problem of formulating a doctrine of Scripture, in D. A. Carson & John D. Woodbridge (eds), Scripture and truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, pp. 15-59. You can find an outline of this article by Jeremy Treat in, "What Does The Bible Say About Itself? An Outline of Grudem's Answer".


Only this morning, I completed writing two sermons that I will be preaching at a Brisbane church at the end of May. I've titled them, "The Bible Stands: The truthfulness of the Bible, Parts 1 & 2". I'm examining what the Bible says about itself regarding its God-given authority. This is not a popular conclusion in these days of doubters, some of whom you are reading in this thread.


In Christ, Oz

 

[dcyates]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

Not that it's "my place" to welcome you here, but for my part at least: Glad to have you.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth. In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account.

Etymologically, reading something "literally" originally (i.e. back in the Middle Ages) meant reading it as it was intended to be read. In other words, if it was poetry, then reading it literally meant reading it as poetry; if prose, then as prose; etc. Whereas now, to read something like Genesis "literally" is often intended to mean that it is read in a wooden, rigid sense where, for example, this is understood as the equivalent of a historic, scientific, and chronological account of how God created the universe.

The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible.

While I understand what you're saying, allow me to stress that this isn't as imposing a problem as it may seem. When determining how to read any item of literature, it's of paramount importance that we first identify the literary genre in which it was written. Genre constitutes a type of contract between the author and the reader. If we're reading, say, William Blake's "Tiger, Tiger burning bright, in the forests of the night," we agree with William Blake that we're not going to read this poem in a wooden, 'literal' sense. In other words, we don't interpret it as saying that this has to do with feral beasts spontaneously combusting into flames during their nocturnal wanderings in deep, dark jungles. To read it that way is, of course, nonsensical and it certainly doesn't help matters to slam your fist down and loudly declare, "William Blake said it! I believe it! And that settles it!"
But nevertheless, it should be noted that this isn't, at the same time, intended to say that what Blake is saying here isn't true. Indeed, tremendously important truths are best communicated using a genre like poetry. I'd personally wager good money that Blake's nine-word couplet gives a far better, more accurate indication of what it's like to be in the menacing presence of a full-grown tiger than would a 52-volume set of nothing but the purely scientific DNA sequencing of the Panthera tigris of the Felidae family.

The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world.

Nor should you take the creation account as rehearsed in Genesis 1&2 as literal. The genre simply doesn't allow it. While, strictly speaking, it is not classical Hebrew poetry, it is definitely poetical in its language. (As I've told my students, Genesis 1&2 may not read like the Psalms, but it certainly doesn't read like 1&2 Samuel, either.)
Moreover, when we look at the creation stories of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) peoples, we find many of the exact same themes and language. This is not to say that the author of Genesis borrowed -- much less plagiarized -- from these other ANE creation accounts, but rather that, with Genesis 1&2, God spoke into the cosmological worldview that would have been readily familiar to the ancient Hebrews. Just as if God spoke today, he would most likely do so using language more in keeping with the findings of science (depending on the subject, of course).

Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

Again, this is entirely dependent on the genre. When reading the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and much of the prophets, we find it written as poetry and therefore should be interpreted as such. However, when we come to the book of Exodus, or the Gospels, these read much more as historical prose, and therefore should be interpreted and understood as such.

As another note, I've been reading a Study Bible (Harper Collins if it makes any difference) and it has certainly been helpful in putting things into perspective, and one particular line stood out to me is in its commentary on Exodus. The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." This statement is one that I feel I agree with, since I've always wondered if we could actually be confident in the authorship and complete accuracy of these texts which are so incredibly ancient and which historical origins cannot be traced. In other words, while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?

Take it for what it's worth, but I would personally advise that you simply keep reading and studying as much as you enjoy doing so, and that you make sure to keep open to further verifying, revising, augmenting, or emending what you think you know and believe. (For instance, I used to read Genesis 1 as a 'Young Earth' Creationist, understanding the creation week as constituting six, 24-hour days. Now, because of my further reading and study on the subject, I don't.)

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

And thank you for any consideration you give this response.

 

[dcyates]

Incidentally, when it comes to the historicity of Israel's exodus event, an excellent study is by James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996). And, just in case it matters, I don't think it can be said that OUP is your standard conservative, evangelical publishing house.

 

[ciel_perdu]

We will have to disagree then. I believe the Bible is God breathed and is the word of God as it was intended for man to have. I believe in the word literally in every sense. I believe it all happened. God is so big and so mighty we only understand a small portion of what that means. Who am I to say God is all of those things but then turn around and say "well he is mighty but he didn't flood the Earth no way that happened" or "God is loving but there is no way Jesus brought that man back from the dead that didn't happen". I mean really it is hypocritical in a way. Either you believe it all and believe in God's power or you believe in none of it. You can't pick and choose. And as the Bible tells us "do not be luke warm in your faith but be hot or cold" basically you can't be half and half you have to be all the way!

You should really do some more Bible study on this topic. And talk to others who know their theology well, and ask them why they believe the Bible to be the 100% word of God and what facts they have to back that up. =]

Not sure if this was in response to me or not?

Just for the record, I DO believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, I will still not go so far as to say that it is ALL the Word of God. Inspired maybe, but the bible itself says Jesus is the word of God. There are even times that Paul says ''what I am about to share is my opinion''.

So he's saying this is my 'opinion'. But according to the bible is the infallible word of God people, that because this 'thought' is included in scripture, it is the word of God. Should we place Paul's opinion on the same level as Jesus' commands? Which would you follow?

Yes, let's be hot or cold. But the problem with the church world today is lukewarmness. Hot and Cold has nothing to do with believe the bible is the infallible word of God, but everything to do with OBEYING the word of God - Jesus.

Oz, I noted you didn't respond to the other thread. Again, and maybe others can answer this question too....if you had to a limited amount of words from the bible which words would they be and why?

So, how do people feel about obeying the TEACHINGS of Jesus literally?

 

[OzSpen]

ciel,

Oz, I noted you didn't respond to the other thread. Again, and maybe others can answer this question too....if you had to a limited amount of words from the bible which words would they be and why?

That's because you are asking an extraneous question to me. You are imposing your own presuppositions on my post.

From what you are saying, you seem to consider Jesus' words (teachings) are more important to you. They are not to me because I consider all of Scripture, OT & NT, is the truth of God. God who always tells the truth and never lies has given the Scripture in totality, so not one word from Jesus' teaching is any more authoritative than words, say, from 1 Chronicles.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[wayseer]

So, how do people feel about obeying the TEACHINGS of Jesus literally?

I feel totally inept. I would love to follow the teaching but even as I start I know I would fail.

Have mercy of me Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, a sinner.

 

[OzSpen]

dc,

Nor should you take the creation account as rehearsed in Genesis 1&2 as literal. The genre simply doesn't allow it. While, strictly speaking, it is not classical Hebrew poetry, it is definitely poetical in its language. (As I've told my students, Genesis 1&2 may not read like the Psalms, but it certainly doesn't read like 1&2 Samuel, either.)
Moreover, when we look at the creation stories of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) peoples, we find many of the exact same themes and language. This is not to say that the author of Genesis borrowed -- much less plagiarized -- from these other ANE creation accounts, but rather that, with Genesis 1&2, God spoke into the cosmological worldview that would have been readily familiar to the ancient Hebrews. Just as if God spoke today, he would most likely do so using language more in keeping with the findings of science (depending on the subject, of course).

You seem to be using some historical critical assumptions here. Could you please share with us what they are?

Oz