The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]The bible is literally historical and accurate everywhere it so intends, which is not everywhere. Not even the most strident dispensational fundamentalist believes that every statement of the bible is to be taken literally. How one determines what is what is far too large a topic for an internet thread. What view of God and scripture one starts with makes a huge difference, but no Christian believes when the bible says the sun “rises”, that it is making a statement about astronomy for instance. I am VERY conservative and I don’t believe that. Pretty much, what it meant to the original hearers is the foundation for everything. However even then, revelation IS progressive throughout the bible. The book of Hebrews and Pauline theology report far more content to pretty much the entire old testament than the old testament saints themselves understood. Like I say. HYOOOJ discussion. Always good to see my ol pal Sparky pop in for a spell.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reply, Tirib. I actually like to pose this question to my believer friends, not as a vehicle for debate, but because I honestly enjoy hearing all of the varied responses. There’s actually a huge variance, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, in the approach to the bible stories. Wish I had more time to post these days, but life be crazy…lol

202

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]

As finding myself to be orthodox in most things the Bible has four senses: literal and spiritual (which breaks into three senses: Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical).

Is it an accurate historical document? In places, not always (such as Genesis). I always believe the stories in the literal sense, but as I said there are four senses to read scripture and it is immensely deep for being written in rough Greek. The four senses explain how to interpret scripture, if you only interpret it literally you’ll come away with a shallow understanding of scripture. However, if by literal you are referring to the literalistic interpretation, that is usually going to find you in heresy like our friend Tirib and the 40,000 denominations.

You’re welcome. And, this is all brought to you, not by my efforts, by the Early Church Fathers.[/quote]

This thread is already kinda sorta addressing this, but what I’m really curious about is whether people believe that the universe was formed in six literal 24 hour days, and then rested on the seventh. Or if the entirety of the planet actually flooded, killing everything not on the arc, while two of all living creatures rode out the wrathful storm.

These biblical stories are were I find a large difference in belief among those whom I’ve asked this of. Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

203

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]

It depends on which book you are talking about, and more specifically which parts of which book. Some switch their reference midway. The Bible is actually a collection of documents. Some are historical, some are allegorical, some are poetic, some are prophetic and many have a mixture of various things.
There are many pieces but it’s one puzzle.[/quote]

The creation story and the flood story are good examples I think. Do you believe that these events happened, as described in the bible?

204

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

He still rose on the third day (each day, Fri, Sat and Sun consisted of 24 hours) just like the Scriptures says. I said it before – neither the Scripture nor Jewish custom insists that 72 hours (3 full days) must have elapsed.[/quote]

So the 7 days of creation stating that their was light and then dark was a full 24 hour period even though it is not stated in scripture? The sun was not created till the 4th day so it is hard to tell time if there was only light and dark.

I am not trying to be an ass just trying to understand your position. [/quote]

It’s simple.

Genesis says: …[/quote]
Except when it isn’t and it doesn’t.

A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.”

And the result is most definitely not “the first day,” but “one day;” the cardinal and not the ordinal form used in the other days of creation.
To those given as I am to splitting hairs, the reasons for this particular distinction has two very compelling explanations, in Rashi and Sforno.

(Now, let’s proceed to the rest of the Old Testament…)

Why? Why strain at the gnat? Because if one chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations.

207

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees?
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.

208

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote: A better, accurate translation of the first 3 verses seems awkward in English: “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was (startling) desolate and empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep…” Note the tense–its like the past progressive; this is descriptive of events left incomplete in the past. The first action of God is not “created” but saying, “(Let there) be light.” [/quote]Now hold on just a second there Spanky. Are you meaning to imply either incompetence or dishonesty or both in EVERY one of these translators and translation committees?
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-2.htm
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
Furthermore, even if your (or probably Alter’s) past progressive deal is accurate, that could mean 30 seconds. I know you’re not gonna try n say that the preponderance of early Jewish thought, though not uniform in detail, featured a large representation of a belief in millions of years in the Genesis narrative. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote: <<< chooses to follow the literal word of the Bible, one should be a literalist in the extreme, >>>[/quote]Nonsense man! Not every single statement of the bible is intended literally. Also, there are lies reported in the bible as well. [quote]DrSkeptix wrote:<<< and question the use of venerable but inaccurate translations. [/quote] Don’t take me wrong, you are an extraordinarily capable fella and yes I do remember that Hebrew is a native language for you. I mean no disrespect. However, just to be clear. You ARE advancing Alter’s as THE only reliable translation in history then? Because his method and results are quite often quite unique.
[/quote]

This really wasn’t my conversation, but even a background in modern Hebrew does not qualify one as an exegete. Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative is an excellent work, but he is not an exegete either. Moreover, for the record, an ostensibly “literal” translation is not a more accurate translation; certain phrases have to be translated idiomatically into English to be accurately represented.

Regarding your attempt to translate verse 1 as a dependent clause, there are two main problems. First, the arguments in favor of taking verse 1 as a dependent clause hold no water, as they are premised on an tenuous comparison with the beginning of the Enuma Elish and a mistaken assumption about the significance of the definite article’s absence on bereshit. Second, a common convention in Genesis is the beginning of a section with a summative statement. This is evident, for example, in the repetition of the phrase, “these are the generations” found throughout Genesis. Further supporting taking Genesis 1:1 as a summative statement is the parallel in 2:1, the closing verse of the section.

And for the record, though my Hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek, I’m not sure why you are taking a qal perfect verb as a past progressive; it is the imperfect that denotes progressive action, and the time designation is determined by context.

210

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]

It depends on which book you are talking about, and more specifically which parts of which book. Some switch their reference midway. The Bible is actually a collection of documents. Some are historical, some are allegorical, some are poetic, some are prophetic and many have a mixture of various things.
There are many pieces but it’s one puzzle.[/quote]

The creation story and the flood story are good examples I think. Do you believe that these events happened, as described in the bible?
[/quote]

As literal accounts? No.

211

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

And if you read carefully, I am not saying anything different. I am not opposing KingKai’s view. I am saying that their is more to consider then just what one group thought about it.

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.

212

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.[/quote]

Or Eastern Orthodox, I love it when Roman Catholics forget that one. I personally believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is more like the 1st Century Church than the current Roman Catholic Church. 1st Century Christians had the works of the New Testament and did not have any Traditions as later added by the Popes, so they were not considered Roman Catholics. Once the New Testament was Cannonized that set what the 1st Century Church Believed. So when the Roman Catholic Catachism contradicts the New Testament that means that the Roman Catholics contradicts the 1st Century Christians.

214

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.

[/quote]

Not hardly.

1st century believers had none of the traditions, rituals, hierarchies and legalisms. They met in each other’s homes for worship.

Not hardly.
[/quote]

The traditions as well as the hierarchy started from there and they met in each others homes for mass, i.e. the breaking of bread of which Paul strenuously reminds the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:17-26, not to understand it as anything other than the Real Presence.

The Apostolic traditions started in the 1st century, Evangelicalism did not start until the 15th century.

216

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.[/quote]

Or Eastern Orthodox, I love it when Roman Catholics forget that one. I personally believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is more like the 1st Century Church than the current Roman Catholic Church. 1st Century Christians had the works of the New Testament and did not have any Traditions as later added by the Popes, so they were not considered Roman Catholics. Once the New Testament was Cannonized that set what the 1st Century Church Believed. So when the Roman Catholic Catachism contradicts the New Testament that means that the Roman Catholics contradicts the 1st Century Christians. [/quote]

The orthodox traditions are nearly identical to ours and they are of apostolic, not evangelical traditions. If you went to an orthodox mass you would hardly tell the difference between their mass and the RCC mass.
Second, the Bible was assembled and canonized as the infallible word of God by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th Century. Scriptures existed, but the New Testament was written by the early church in the first century. And many of these traditions arose side by side with the writing that would become the Bible.
The major break in tradition and belief and in what the Bible said came in the 15th century. That’s were major revision of biblical understanding occurred.
There were no protestants in 1st century. Well their were, but back then they were either Jews or the Roman Empire. They protested greatly.
And if you think RCC contradicts the NT then you are gravely mistaken. Without the RCC, there is no Bible, there is no Christianity. It’s a matter of history.

218

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.

[/quote]

Not hardly.

1st century believers had none of the traditions, rituals, hierarchies and legalisms. They met in each other’s homes for worship.

Not hardly.
[/quote]

The traditions as well as the hierarchy started from there and they met in each others homes for mass, i.e. the breaking of bread of which Paul strenuously reminds the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:17-26, not to understand it as anything other than the Real Presence.

The Apostolic traditions started in the 1st century, Evangelicalism did not start until the 15th century.
[/quote]

Not hardly.

The traditions, hierarchies, ritualism, etc. started in a century other than the first one. Constantine pretty much got the ball rolling in the 4th century.

The Book of Acts describes groups of believers who looked nothing whatsoever like ancient (post 4th century) or modern Catholics.[/quote]

What did they look like, vs. what we look like? They celebrated the breaking of the bread, we celebrate the breaking of bread. They baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They practiced a confession of faith, we practice a confession of faith, etc.

I guarantee if we are openly persecuted and have to hide all the time, the same church would look the same. Funny hats and long vestments do not describe us. In the Soviet Union, masses were practiced in homes, without formal attire or formal traditions, but mass it was.

And you have Constantine to thank for it was his impetus that brought the Bible together as a single book. It was the Roman Church under St. Jerome that assembled it and translated it into the Vulgate.

There’s a darn good reason for tradition and ritual and that’s to formalize the worship so that it is all uniform across regions, across large areas. It minimalizes the danger of heresy and false teaching. When you live in a world of sparse communication, this is even more important.

Martin Luther mistakenly thought that the Bible teachings are self evident and if everybody adheres, they will be on the same page. 36,000 protestant denominations says he was wrong.

219

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides, if you guys both believed as 1st century Christians, you’d both be Catholic.[/quote]

Or Eastern Orthodox, I love it when Roman Catholics forget that one. I personally believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is more like the 1st Century Church than the current Roman Catholic Church. 1st Century Christians had the works of the New Testament and did not have any Traditions as later added by the Popes, so they were not considered Roman Catholics. Once the New Testament was Cannonized that set what the 1st Century Church Believed. So when the Roman Catholic Catachism contradicts the New Testament that means that the Roman Catholics contradicts the 1st Century Christians. [/quote]

The orthodox traditions are nearly identical to ours and they are of apostolic, not evangelical traditions. If you went to an orthodox mass you would hardly tell the difference between their mass and the RCC mass.
Second, the Bible was assembled and canonized as the infallible word of God by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th Century. Scriptures existed, but the New Testament was written by the early church in the first century. And many of these traditions arose side by side with the writing that would become the Bible.
The major break in tradition and belief and in what the Bible said came in the 15th century. That’s were major revision of biblical understanding occurred.
There were no protestants in 1st century. Well their were, but back then they were either Jews or the Roman Empire. They protested greatly.
And if you think RCC contradicts the NT then you are gravely mistaken. Without the RCC, there is no Bible, there is no Christianity. It’s a matter of history.[/quote]

I think he was speaking about the oriental orthodox churches, the ones who rejected the council of Chalcedon in 451.

In any cases, that’s would not really disprove push argument, since they left the NYRCC (not yet roman catholic church) more than a century after Constantine death.

220

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

…Evangelicalism did not start until the 15th century.
[/quote]

Evangelicalism started in the 1st century. Read the Book of Acts.

No pontifs, cardinals, liturgies (save communion), christenings, infant baptism, catechisms, shrines, novenas, litanies, incense, holy water, oils, bells, perfection of Mary, vestments, apparitions, penance, beads, kisses of hands and rings and icons, votive offerings, chants, papal blessings, etc. and etc. [/quote]

There was no evangelicalism in the 1st century. There was evangelizing, but no evangelical tradition. There was incense though… Mary was already the Mother of God. Oils were used. Some these were borrowed from the Judaism. Oils played an important role in the scriptures. There was a Papacy, he name is St. Peter and he even had a seat which is currently in the Vatican.

Cardinals and pontifs are just bishops. And there were bishops in the first century. Timothy was one. And Paul orders to find good men to fill the office of episkopos which can be translated as overseer or bishop. As in Timothy 3:1 how can one aspire to the office of bishop without a hierarchy? Where did this office come from if not the church?